Subject:
|
Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 20 Dec 2001 19:25:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1103 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> > In lugnet.mediawatch, David Eaton writes:
> > > 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.
>
> Ah-- I agree in principle. That it IS sometimes unavoidable. But making it
> more commonplace gives it the appearance of not so much of an last-resort,
> and more of a general solution.
Well, (and sorry for straying OT;-) bringing LEGO back into the discussion,
fantasy play IMO is best when the stakes are high (saving the world or even
better, the universe), from the evil Ogel [the *very* antithesis of LEGO and all
that is good] and his HFs (henchfigs:) for instance. That is why there are no
politician playsets-- too boring:-)
As long as the action is taking place in the realm of fantasy, I find no problem
with kids battling evil where ever it is found. Bringing violence one step
closer to home by creating war themes based on actual conflicts can easily
create a tendency to glorify war and this I agree isn't good. As does TLC, as
evidenced by their reluctance to create such themes based on reality.
The major problem I see with kids playing "war" with toys is that they do it
without purpose, because they haven't been taught morality. Right and wrong are
relative and meaningless, and so instead of battling good against evil, they
simply battle for the sake of fighting.
Seems to me that your problem with commonplace violence is being fostered by
attitudes such as yours toward morality.
>
> > > 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.
>
> Disagree. :)
> See: evil [below]
>
> > > 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"?
>
> Evil (ee-vil): 1) [DaveE's dictionary] - that which goes against one's own
> sense of morality. (see: Relative morality)
lol I'll stick with Webster's;-)
>
> Prior to seeing & hearing about the videotape (which was the time at which
> GWB Jr. was speaking) I was under the impression that bin Laden was actually
> still capable of being a good person. However, the comments about his own
> people not knowing they were commiting suicide pushed the limit. I think
> he's most likely evil. Of course by my relativistic theory, I'm not SURE of
> it, but it's my guess.
So his evil status is based upon how much information you have regarding his
culpability? So as long as I do evil without anyone's knowledge, I am not evil?
>
> Better example: Bobo the koala gets ahold of a beretta. Bobo plays with it,
> and shoots his pal in the head. Is Bobo evil? No.
But his action is. Innocents can do evil without realizing it.
Should he be stopped from
> having the gun? Yes. Is violence necessary? Maybe.
>
> > I didn't bother to watch.
>
> You didn't miss much... (But are you more innocent for lack of it? :)
>
> > Innocence, once lost, is gone forever. Experience comes with age. When
> > experience comes before age (childhood), healthy development is almost
> > certainly impossible.
>
> I dunno if I agree with that. It would require a definition of healthy, and
> I'm not sure it breaks my current assumption of the definition.
>
> > 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.
>
> I guess we'll just have to disagree until you accept moral relativity, you
> evil man :)
:-)
-John
>
> DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|
