Subject:
|
Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 20 Dec 2001 16:50:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1065 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.mediawatch, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.mediawatch, John Neal writes:
> > In lugnet.mediawatch, Brendan Powell Smith writes:
> > > ...but arming minifigs with pistols, rifles, crossbows, bows and arrows,
> > > swords, knives, spears, lances, dynamite, and other implements of
> > > destructions which in real life cause horrible pain and misery is apparently
> > > in-line with their value system. Glad they have their priorities straight.
> >
> > I think they do, and I think your analogy is unfair. One could argue that
> > tyranny, evil, and oppression are unavoidable in this world-- to defend >against such is both honorable and necessary. To me, *that* is where TLC
> > focuses their attention in their "conflict" themes-- to *defending good
> > against evil*. There is nothing wrong with that.
>
> Disagree. <!-- heading off-topic... -->
>
> Problem #1 - It teaches violent solutions as acceptable solutions (perhaps
> even encouraged?) to moral dilemmas.
Of course. Sometimew it is *unavoidable* Please provide an acceptable solution
to stopping the moral dilemma of the Nazi tyranny in WWII without violence.
>
> Problem #2 - It further solidifies a distinction between good and evil which
> doesn't exist in Real Life(tm).
Disagree. I think good and evil can be distinguished IRL. Sometimes it's
harder than other times, I'll admit.
>
> Recent example: I was appauled when GB Jr. said in one of his speeches that
> moral relativism was bad,
It is:-)
and that the only acceptable moral valuation of
> bin Laden was that he is evil. I don't think one needs to recognize him as
> evil in order to justify stopping him.
Semantics? What would be your definition of "evil"?
>
> > There is something very wrong with portraying MF in the above manner in
> > question (and something *very* wrong with whomever did it). I am all for
> > freedom, but with freedom comes *responsibility*. What has been done is
> > irresponsible and I understand TLC desire to disassociate itself from it
>
> <!-- now back on topic? hmmm, where to post this?... -->
> Agree. It should be as clear as possible that it doesn't represent TLC in
> any way.
>
> > (whether they will be successful or just add fuel to these sicko's fire is
> > debatable).
>
> Judging from the content, I don't think it'd fuel the fire-- unless TLC
> really DOES happen to pull legal strings. The animations in question were (I
> think) purely intended to be funny, despite whatever reaction they knew
> they'd get from certain groups. IE I don't think they did it to get a
> vehement response from anyone... they just have a warped sense of humor.
>
> > Society has a vested interest in protecting its youth from such destructive
> > elements (and people).
>
> I dunno if I agree with "society" so much as "parents". Hmm... I'll have to
> think on that one. However, I don't think the animations were actually
> destructive. And FWIW, I don't think they were targeting children.
Well, that is my whole point. As adults, you and I can dismiss this kind of
behavior as stupidity, warped, or even art (;-)). But children aren't able to
process this kind of information and the destructiveness about which I spoke was
having kids exposed to it.
> Personally, I just found it rather unamusing. I had a hard time watching it
> all the way through-- I was bored. I kind of expected a South-Park-ish brand
> humor (which I actually find funny), but this was the same brand without
> nearly the humor.
I didn't bother to watch.
>
> > Violence much be eshewed as well, but there is a fine
> > line WRT teaching children about good and evil. There is no such line when it
> > comes to the topic of sex and children. The very definition of a child is one
> > who hasn't knowledge of such things, and presenting it to them forces their
> > childhood from them, which is, in my mind, evil.
>
> Interesting definition of childhood-- I think I agree with the definition...
> However, I'm not sure I see it as evil if one attempted to 'force' adult
> information on them.
Innocence, once lost, is gone forever. Experience comes with age. When
experience comes before age (childhood), healthy development is almost certainly
impossible. Anyone who would rob a child of the chance to develop normally into
a mature, healthy adult... yeah, I'd call them (or their acts) evil.
-John
For whatever reason, humans tend to value innocence,
> but not naivity, despite the fact that the former causes the latter :) I've
> always been a proponent of being experienced over being unexperienced, though...
>
> DaveE
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
101 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
