| |
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.
Problem #2 - It further solidifies a distinction between good and evil which
doesn't exist in Real Life(tm).
Recent example: I was appauled when GB Jr. said in one of his speeches that
moral relativism was bad, 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.
> 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.
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.
> 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. 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 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
|
|
|
|
