Escapism > Good Morals

Chikombo

Active member
Elite
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
7,420
Kin
9,371💸
Kumi
1,003💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
Before i continue . . .

@minamoto
What's wrong brother? Talk to us

1. Accident vs Influence
You see the diference? One thing happens out of our control and against our will, the other thing shapes our will towards harmfulness.

Again, one thing is necessary, the other is a choice, a very frivolous one at that.

Then you switch targets again. There is a difference between banning an existential factor and banning a man-made format forthat particular factor.

And before we even get to switching targets, i didn't argue to ban them in the first place. I just pointed out that its not necessarily positive overall.

I only came across this in the past few months myself, but duckduckgo "non-sequitir". It'll help with many of your points.


2. Wrong to expect? Why?
Power => responsibility

In a world where kids are GETTING SHOT UP, morality says any tool that can help with guidance MUST be used if we value our kids.
Now if you wanna talk a perfect world, that's another story
Otherwise, when did basic moral messages become " with political agendas"? Again, youre switching targets.


3. Your point?
Of course it is not assimple, that is why we have this discussion in the first place.
So what if if is not a lie, i never claimed it was.
Your point was that it is a good thing, not that it is simply a true fact. Switching targets again.


4. Reliability issues?
Same can be said for parents orfriends or teachers, doesnt meant they should not help when they can.
And actually, since we decide what is on tv, we can choose to use it to teach positivity. It is as reliable as we are.
So you switched targets, then you were imprecise and finally even the basus of your point is not good.


5. D9rks and Reality?
This one is disconnect from the whole topic

"Dorks" dont matter when we artalking out kids shooting each other.
"More real" does not happen when you are arguing for "escapism"
So here you just went away from your own foundations. This keans that even if you are correct with these points, they do not add to your initial arguement at all. You keep switching targets man, yougotta stick to them. Otherwise we make no progress because we keep jumping around instead of focussing on any point.


6,7,8,9,X Sorry, thats enough for now
Mate, yourpoints are all over the place.
Furst you keep switching targets. Then you dontunderstand basic meaning of these targets and finally you ejd up moving around so much you end up arguing against your own points.
Thus makes it really difficult to address your points.e

You talk about something, but defend it using points that dont apply to it. Like, if movies do not have universal answers, why does it matter? Who said they should?

You talk about politics in the colloquial sense of all the squabbling and pettyness, then you connect it using the technical definition, of due process.

You talk about universal fact, then use that to say weshould encourage our limits.

This makes it diffuclt to address your points because i am preoared to deal with what you present. But if you keep changing what you present, or defend it with disconnected facts - if at all - then i cant cleanly address that.
The worst thing about this is that it undermines both of us. See, if i disprove your point, i achieve nothing because i will only disprove a defence that technically does not even aoply to the true topic. If you prove something, it means nothing because you will have used proof that does apply to the topic.
So basically, neither of us can achieve what we set out for (i wilk quote in next post) in this discussion. Im not sure if it is a misunderstanding or what, but please clear up your points.
Post automatically merged:
Kids are not gonna get help from being shot by having 1950s Batman talk about how it's naughty to do bad things.
 

Infant

Active member
Regular
Joined
Jan 9, 2020
Messages
1,949
Kin
5,794💸
Kumi
1,695💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Kids are not gonna get help from being shot by having 1950s Batman talk about how it's naughty to do bad things.
Maybe. So?

They will defintely get helo if the one shooting them suddenly stops because he doesn't have propaganda that's telling him its cool to be a shooter or if he has lessons that say its never too late to turn back.

So your strawman is meaningless and the real point is a factual. Good day
 

Chikombo

Active member
Elite
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
7,420
Kin
9,371💸
Kumi
1,003💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
Maybe. So?

They will defintely get helo if the one shooting them suddenly stops because he doesn't have propaganda that's telling him its cool to be a shooter or if he has lessons that say its never too late to turn back.

So your strawman is meaningless and the real point is a factual. Good day
What am I stawmanning?
What is the real point here?

If people are not just following some blind ideology they they need to start taking responsibility for the things they produce, that hopefully leads to creators who can explain and stand for the things they produce, I wouldn't want to do propaganda for kids telling them it's ok to be a bad person, but I don't want to force my own beliefs as propaganda either, trust me, kids don't need art to tell them how to be murderers, if they are that stupid there is no hope for them anyway, you can't stop bad influence in a world with freedom of speech.
The point is not to twist kids minds, the point is to enable free thinking.
 

Infant

Active member
Regular
Joined
Jan 9, 2020
Messages
1,949
Kin
5,794💸
Kumi
1,695💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
What am I stawmanning?
What is the real point here?

If people are not just following some blind ideology they they need to start taking responsibility for the things they produce, that hopefully leads to creators who can explain and stand for the things they produce, I wouldn't want to do propaganda for kids telling them it's ok to be a bad person, but I don't want to force my own beliefs as propaganda either, trust me, kids don't need art to tell them how to be murderers, if they are that stupid there is no hope for them anyway, you can't stop bad influence in a world with freedom of speech.
The point is not to twist kids minds, the point is to enable free thinking.
You said that a morally righteous movie wont help kids getting shot up, using aspecific scenario to misrepresent the idea tha positive messages have an effect. Thats the strawman.
The real point is that positive messages do have a positive effect, but you took that and applied it to a very specific scenrio whic itself is based on that message not existing i.e. kids shooting each other.
Who said anything about blind ideology? See the strawman?
Isnt morality all about being responsible in the first place? See the switching of targets to the point where you even take my own points?

Who said anything about forcing beliefs? Unless you're speaking against parenting itself now? We were talking about basic guidance and basic morality. See the switching of targets and a strawman of them?

Who said they "need" art to become killers? We're talking about influence to make a situation worse, not saying it creates the original of all killing. See the strawman?

If they are stupid there is no hope? Based on? Are you speaking against all guidance now? What is "stupid" anyway? Is it a concept we can challenge and work with here? See the use of insinuations? And finally, so what? We're talking about influence, which itseld is based on cognitive capability, which suggests some degree of intelligence. See the strawman?

You cant stop bad influences? Who said anything about stopping all of them? And in the practucal sense, why cant you control YOUR OWN INDUSTRY? See the strawmans?

Who said anything about twisting minds? Were literally talking about morality, about helping and guiding people!

My man, there seems to be a chasm of understanding in terms of definitions and how things literally work, of the points we're addressing and of what they mean. Either that ori might have some accusations to make,since all but 3-4 sentences you've made have either been disconnected to your initial point, a misrepresentation of my own points, sometimes not even addressing points that i made or misconnecting existential fact withg moral imperative. Either way, let's stop here
 

Chikombo

Active member
Elite
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
7,420
Kin
9,371💸
Kumi
1,003💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
You said that a morally righteous movie wont help kids getting shot up, using aspecific scenario to misrepresent the idea tha positive messages have an effect. Thats the strawman.
The real point is that positive messages do have a positive effect, but you took that and applied it to a very specific scenrio whic itself is based on that message not existing i.e. kids shooting each other.
Who said anything about blind ideology? See the strawman?
Isnt morality all about being responsible in the first place? See the switching of targets to the point where you even take my own points?

Who said anything about forcing beliefs? Unless you're speaking against parenting itself now? We were talking about basic guidance and basic morality. See the switching of targets and a strawman of them?

Who said they "need" art to become killers? We're talking about influence to make a situation worse, not saying it creates the original of all killing. See the strawman?

If they are stupid there is no hope? Based on? Are you speaking against all guidance now? What is "stupid" anyway? Is it a concept we can challenge and work with here? See the use of insinuations? And finally, so what? We're talking about influence, which itseld is based on cognitive capability, which suggests some degree of intelligence. See the strawman?

You cant stop bad influences? Who said anything about stopping all of them? And in the practucal sense, why cant you control YOUR OWN INDUSTRY? See the strawmans?

Who said anything about twisting minds? Were literally talking about morality, about helping and guiding people!

My man, there seems to be a chasm of understanding in terms of definitions and how things literally work, of the points we're addressing and of what they mean. Either that ori might have some accusations to make,since all but 3-4 sentences you've made have either been disconnected to your initial point, a misrepresentation of my own points, sometimes not even addressing points that i made or misconnecting existential fact withg moral imperative. Either way, let's stop here
No I want to continue.


Here is what I mean is bad:

You must be registered for see medias


Here is what I mean is good:

You must be registered for see medias


The difference in these scenes, is that the first one is bad storytelling cus it's cheesy but filled with good morals that nobody listens to anyway.

The second scene is good story telling, it's violent but beautiful, it's not a happy ending, it's not preachy, it's not telling people what's right, it's just characters acting out their arcs on screen.



"You said that a morally righteous movie wont help kids getting shot up, using aspecific scenario to misrepresent the idea tha positive messages have an effect. Thats the strawman."

You can't seriously expect entertainment to tell people what to think.
Or to prevent mass murder.
It's not strawman to say people with twisted minds are not getting help from captain Justice movies.
Give me 5 examples of where entertainment has made people better?

The truth is if people really want to delve into moral complex issues and be better people, then popculture is not where they should read books from.

Whenver people exact social justice they get yelled at like "get woke go broke".

That's not strawman that happens all the time.

"The real point is that positive messages do have a positive effect, but you took that and applied it to a very specific scenrio whic itself is based on that message not existing i.e. kids shooting each other."

Do you have a scientific study of that? Or is it just wishful thinking?

If popculture is all but happy endings and with good christian values then that will not stop people from making bad decisions in life, that's not strawmanning anything. Thats' the truth.
IT doesn't have to be kids not shooting each other it can be anyhthing.

If something is educational, or propaganda on how people should live their lives then that's one thing but you can't expect the real industry of popcutlure and art to follow those beliefs.

write a childrens book with allegories yourself, there was a person who didn't like the messages in children books because she thought they were too the left so she wrote one herself about business people that were good moral figures.
See how people disagree on whats is right and wrong and how people have their own interpretations?


Isnt morality all about being responsible in the first place? See the switching of targets to the point where you even take my own points?

I don't see the stawmans or the switch.
Post automatically merged:

@everyone Could someone judge this please? Like what side are you on?
 

Infant

Active member
Regular
Joined
Jan 9, 2020
Messages
1,949
Kin
5,794💸
Kumi
1,695💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
No I want to continue.


Here is what I mean is bad:

You must be registered for see medias


Here is what I mean is good:

You must be registered for see medias


The difference in these scenes, is that the first one is bad storytelling cus it's cheesy but filled with good morals that nobody listens to anyway.

The second scene is good story telling, it's violent but beautiful, it's not a happy ending, it's not preachy, it's not telling people what's right, it's just characters acting out their arcs on screen.



"You said that a morally righteous movie wont help kids getting shot up, using aspecific scenario to misrepresent the idea tha positive messages have an effect. Thats the strawman."

You can't seriously expect entertainment to tell people what to think.
Or to prevent mass murder.
It's not strawman to say people with twisted minds are not getting help from captain Justice movies.
Give me 5 examples of where entertainment has made people better?

The truth is if people really want to delve into moral complex issues and be better people, then popculture is not where they should read books from.

Whenver people exact social justice they get yelled at like "get woke go broke".

That's not strawman that happens all the time.

"The real point is that positive messages do have a positive effect, but you took that and applied it to a very specific scenrio whic itself is based on that message not existing i.e. kids shooting each other."

Do you have a scientific study of that? Or is it just wishful thinking?

If popculture is all but happy endings and with good christian values then that will not stop people from making bad decisions in life, that's not strawmanning anything. Thats' the truth.
IT doesn't have to be kids not shooting each other it can be anyhthing.

If something is educational, or propaganda on how people should live their lives then that's one thing but you can't expect the real industry of popcutlure and art to follow those beliefs.

write a childrens book with allegories yourself, there was a person who didn't like the messages in children books because she thought they were too the left so she wrote one herself about business people that were good moral figures.
See how people disagree on whats is right and wrong and how people have their own interpretations?


Isnt morality all about being responsible in the first place? See the switching of targets to the point where you even take my own points?

I don't see the stawmans or the switch.
Post automatically merged:

@everyone Could someone judge this please? Like what side are you on?
You've shown too much of an inability to understand the basic meanings of the terms you use.
Unless you are being dishonest with me, we literally can't continue because we lack the capabilities.
 
Top