Disney = Evil? by whozit

I don't hate Disney. I don't know enough about it to have an opinion on its evilness.

All I know is that I am creeped out about the amount of dead/absent mothers featured in their movies. Can they do something with mothers actually there and playing an active, positive, important role? That'd be great.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 30, 2008 4:04 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Yes.

Patrick Naughton.

What they pulled to get him off and protect their rep bordered on criminal, and the collateral damage from it was far, far worse, given that the freak front they funnelled the cash into then got it's hooks deep into political folk, thus helping to stonewall Protect.org by virtue of superior financial resources.

You want the full story, ask - and I will get to it when possible, gotta lot on my plate right now, tho we *did* bag up a MUCH better waste removal contract for the city by bidding it out and got more and better service for less money.
Looks like we will be able to cut some of the property millage too, and the locals are right happy about that.

Although I'm kinda stickin it to myself here, since they practically wanna chain me to this damn post forever now.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 1, 2008 3:34 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Looks like sour grapes to me, since the Disney myths are cutting into the Catholic church myth's revenue streams - both of dollars and believers.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 1, 2008 3:50 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by MalBadInLatin:
Inside the Conservative media's pleasure dome there is Disney, The Bass Fishing Channel, The Nascar network, and TBN Christian channel.

You forgot Hallmark which does some pretty good westerns.

What's wrong with these channels catering to a target audience? Next you'll be demanding non-sports shows on ESPN and for white folks to run BET. Its cable...niche programming is what its all about. They can watch NASCAR and Hannah Montana, you can watch reruns of Survivor and porn. Its all good.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 1, 2008 4:38 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"All I know is that I am creeped out about the amount of dead/absent mothers featured in their movies. Can they do something with mothers actually there and playing an active, positive, important role? That'd be great."

IF that were the case, then Disney is flying in the face of modern programming which always pitches the POV that fathers are not needed in a family (other than as sperm donors and fall guys).

We can all see what happens when fathers are out of the picture...just look at ANY poor/crime-ridden/slum/ghetto area in your town/city/state, and the fatherless rate will probably be as high as 90-95%...

But dont want to stop that "progress" do we?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 1, 2008 5:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"All I know is that I am creeped out about the amount of dead/absent mothers featured in their movies. Can they do something with mothers actually there and playing an active, positive, important role? That'd be great."

IF that were the case, then Disney is flying in the face of modern programming which always pitches the POV that fathers are not needed in a family (other than as sperm donors and fall guys).

Like where?

Also: and that makes it okay that there is hardly EVER an important mother figure involved? I can't think of a single example right now.

Quote:

We can all see what happens when fathers are out of the picture...just look at ANY poor/crime-ridden/slum/ghetto area in your town/city/state, and the fatherless rate will probably be as high as 90-95%...

But dont want to stop that "progress" do we?

I'm confused. Is your theory that mothers threw out the fathers in the name of "progress" and then the areas became ghettos and crime-ridden slums? Methinks the causation is a bit different and more complex there...

And I sincerely doubt that most "fatherless" families are that way voluntarily. Children are not automatically fatherless if, for example, a divorce occurs. If contact truly ceases, the father often has some definite choice in the matter. Or has died.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 1, 2008 5:21 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

No, my theory is that many of these "men" don't mind making the kids, they just mind taking care of them. Or, they think they are "gifting" the mother with their seed. Or, the mothers are so god-awful crazy that the guy doesn't/can't stick around.

My point, however, is that children need BOTH parents. Those that grow up without BOTH are usually worse off (in ways too numerous to count).

As to "progrees"... I was making a snarky remark against our society.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 1, 2008 5:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:

My point, however, is that children need BOTH parents.

Naw, they just need good parents & role models- two losers is WAAAY worse than one loving mom or dad.
Your cartoon depiction of the issue manifests your ignorance of the nuances, but whatever.

The detailed Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 1, 2008 5:32 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"Your cartoon depiction of the issue manifests your ignorance of the nuances, but whatever."

Whatever you say Chrissy.

Although I agree with your remark that both parents should be loving...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 1, 2008 5:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:

Whatever you say Chrissy.

It usually is, Wulfie.

Quote:

Although I agree with your remark that both parents should be loving...

All ya need is love....

The 60's Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 1, 2008 6:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
No, my theory is that many of these "men" don't mind making the kids, they just mind taking care of them. Or, they think they are "gifting" the mother with their seed. Or, the mothers are so god-awful crazy that the guy doesn't/can't stick around.

Then I'm confused how you connect such obviously awful situations with your alleged modern media representation of fathers.

Quote:

My point, however, is that children need BOTH parents. Those that grow up without BOTH are usually worse off (in ways too numerous to count).

I agree that ideally a child would have a GOOD parental figure of either sex in its life, just to have good adult-sized, real life examples to shape their view of the world and both men and women. (Note, they need not be married to each other.)

If one is lacking, the remaining parent should do their very best to replace it with another influential role model of the missing sex (uncle/aunt, close family friend, grandpa/grandma, whichever works). I think this matters a lot in how children understand their own future.

The key words here are 'GOOD parent' and 'role model', though. I had both parents around for 12 years of my life and most of those weren't good for me. A bad parent can mess up more than a missing parent, so I am not for keeping family "units" together at all cost, nor do I think that a child of a single-parent is necessarily worse off than a child in a two-parent family.

Quote:

As to "progrees"... I was making a snarky remark against our society.

But wouldn't that only make sense if society was happily defending parental abandonment as a sign of progress? I don't think there is anyone happy about it, really.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 1, 2008 6:44 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"But wouldn't that only make sense if society was happily defending parental abandonment as a sign of progress? I don't think there is anyone happy about it, really."

Some segments of our society ARE defending it, or at least are not doing anything about it....

Yes, a family can be ANY mix of folks...but that is only after a catastrophic failure of the traditional one.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 1, 2008 7:10 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
only after a catastrophic failure of the traditional one.

Bullshit.

Ever seen a hippie commune, Duuuude ?
*toke toke, choke choke*
(just kiddin)

Really though, a lot of communities, particularly Variant Christian and Alt-Religon folk practice communal child-raising and it works pretty damned well to be honest.

Your concept puts an artificial social structure higher than the importance of the childs well being, and that is unacceptable to me.

I think the highest priority should be the love, affection and (general) morality of the folk taking care of the child, whether it be one, or many, irregardless of belief, sexual preference or personal philosophy.

-Frem

PS - Ya got a good heart Wulfie, but I think you really would benefit significantly from an introduction to Mister Quaalude...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 1, 2008 7:23 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Frem,

EVERY SINGLE ONE of the hippie-communes failed. Why? When the hippies went thru their stocks of donated food (and momma and daddis cash) they got the munchies...they then realized that they would have to WORK to eat. Y'know, grow crops or have some marketable skill that could bring in cash.

Since playing guitar badly is NOT a payable skill, they soon ran out of food and money.

Sure, as long as the weed, food and cash lasted...they were "thriving". But as soon as it ran out, so did they.

DON'T get me started on the hippie type. I live with one and he annoys the hell out of me. No personal accountability or responsibility.

And,
he smells.

Its a daily struggle not to clock him upside the head.

But I digress.

Yes, a loving group of people can raise a child. But lacking structure and stability, which a traditional loving family provides, a child will grow strange.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 1, 2008 7:25 AM

I have a lot of respect for Disney. When I look at the Disney Channel kid shows, and Zac Efron's High Scool Musical movies I see something very positive and healthy in this sewer of a world.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 1, 2008 7:56 AM

MALBADINLATIN

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero: You forgot Hallmark which does some pretty good westerns.

Yeah...like Walker Texas Ranger? and other stuff they don't have to censor.

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:What's wrong with these channels catering to a target audience? Next you'll be demanding non-sports shows on ESPN and for white folks to run BET. Its cable...niche programming is what its all about. They can watch NASCAR and Hannah Montana, you can watch reruns of Survivor and porn. Its all good.

I don't watch Survivior or porn, at least not porn on tv, not because I dissapprove, but because I'd rather watch PBS, or IFC to start with. See how you just had a prejudicial moment conselor! What psychic form of bigotry allows you to know what non censorship proponents are watching? Then...I'll be demanding what on ESPN??? Settle Down!

Listen...I understand my poorly phrased post didn't clearly state what will right now, and I apologize...

I watched no need to be censored Brady Bunch, Partridge Family values TV during the 70's. I didn't find my friend's dads Playboys till I was twelve. By the time I was 10, I'd used every bad word in the book, wished to God I'd have sex soon, gotten in fights, etc..

You cannott censor the world from your child. The more you think you have, they blinder you'll be when they go to spend the night at a friend's house, and that ain't where they went.

Furthermore...what I worry about is this church boy, goody goody, see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, being standardized. O'Reilly has talked about it. It's the inevitable pathway of Christian involvement, and overly protective parents who have been seduced by unconditional blinding love for thier kids. I don't want my choices limited and censored because some parent is exhausted from holding one hand while covering thier eyes with the other.

See Hero...Hannah Montana, ESPN, Nascar, and TBN don't have anything to worry about. It's when Conservative hoidy toids aren't getting enough Wood by telling preganant women and gays how to live...and start telling me my swearing and violent shows aren't allowed because junior alter boy might see when the're not looking.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 1, 2008 8:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:

Yes, a loving group of people can raise a child. But lacking structure and stability, which a traditional loving family provides, a child will grow stange.

Stange kids are a danger to society, I grant you. And the stanger they get, the more severe the problem. Stangeness is an anomaly though, and hard to come by. So don't let stangeous thoughts overcome you, Wulf.

The used-to-be-stange Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 1, 2008 8:19 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Yes, yes, Chrissy. I corrected my spelling error.

I meant "strange".

Always good for a chuckle, Chrissy...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 1, 2008 8:26 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by MalBadInLatin:

See Hero...Hannah Montana, ESPN, Nascar, and TBN don't have anything to worry about. It's when Conservative hoidy toids aren't getting enough Wood by telling preganant women and gays how to live...and start telling me my swearing and violent shows aren't allowed because junior alter boy might see when the're not looking.

I see no problem with having channels like Disney and Hallmark for some folks and HBO and Showtime for other folks.

I am perfectly capable of sitting down with a kid and watching Hanna Montana, which is a pretty kid friendly sitcom, and then sending said kid in the other room so I can watch Deadwood on HBO (they really need to bring that show back). If you don't like the shows conservatives watch...change the channel. I note for the record that the channels go in both directions and advise my easily offended conservative friends to do likewise when faced with nudity, bad language, and violence (or all three if your watching a REALLY good show).

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 1, 2008 8:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:

Always good for a chuckle, Chrissy...

Thanks for understanding.

The obsessed Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 1, 2008 8:57 AM

MALBADINLATIN

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero: I see no problem with having channels like Disney and Hallmark for some folks and HBO and Showtime for other folks.

I am perfectly capable of sitting down with a kid and watching Hanna Montana, which is a pretty kid friendly sitcom, and then sending said kid in the other room so I can watch Deadwood on HBO (they really need to bring that show back). If you don't like the shows conservatives watch...change the channel. I note for the record that the channels go in both directions and advise my easily offended conservative friends to do likewise when faced with nudity, bad language, and violence (or all three if your watching a REALLY good show).H

Well it seems we agree. Don't like it, change the channel. How could that not work for everyone!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 1, 2008 12:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"But wouldn't that only make sense if society was happily defending parental abandonment as a sign of progress? I don't think there is anyone happy about it, really."

Some segments of our society ARE defending it, or at least are not doing anything about it....

Who, specifically?

Quote:

Yes, a family can be ANY mix of folks...but that is only after a catastrophic failure of the traditional one.

I think I disagree with that. How do you define catastrophic failure? How do you define traditional family? Does divorce fall into the latter or the former? Is parental death considered a failure? What about families untraditional from the get-go, like lesbian/gay couples with an actively involved father/mother?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 1, 2008 5:02 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Wulf, those ain't hippies, they might say they are, but that's no different than folks hiding behind Christianity neither, what one SAYS means far less than what they DO.

And no, many of those communes didn't fail, they just keep a damned low profile in the aftermath of Waco, Ruby Ridge, and more recently the FLDS incident and it's not hard to imagine why since they're pro-legalisation.

But unlike the fantasy that's been sold to you, Hippies can be damn stringent and generally are, about one single thing - earn your keep or get the hell out.

You'd actually be shocked given what your expectations are, were you to visit one for real and come up against the reality - and then you'd laugh yourself sick once you saw what they bought instead of a tractor to pull field equipment with.

Even *I* thought that was nuts, but they got away with it legally, and cheaper than the John Deere they'd intended to buy, oddly enough.

Oh, and as for "Strange" ?

I AM strange, having grown up so much of a latchkey kid that I'm practically a social feral.

But I get by pretty damn good now, don't I ?

The world needs more weird, you ask me.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 1, 2008 6:43 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

As Hunter Thompson said, "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 2, 2008 3:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Disney = Evil. = Republican Family Values

That's laughable. Let's put a Party face on it.

Disney is no more evil than Santa Claus is evil.

I actually had a point to go along with that, but I just stood back and basked in the glory of that statement.

So.....

Disney is no more evil than Santa Claus is evil....

Discuss

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 2, 2008 3:17 AM

What about the Easter Bunny? A furry rodent, deceiving and frustrating children for decades with promises of hidden treasure, all while bathed in the light of Christianity, how utterly repulsive!@

And don't dismiss the evilness of Big Bird either. A dastardly and clever avian deception designed to attract and entrap kids into demonic brain games including indoctrination into the use of Arabic numerals, pure evil.

The world is a very dangerous place. Evil is everywhere, but no more prevalent than your local Mormon church. Watch out, evil bake sale benefitting African AIDS orphans, and Gay hate speech this weekend.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 2, 2008 3:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

So.....

Disney is no more evil than Santa Claus is evil....

Discuss

For the sake of discussion....

Disney is a real, active company looking to make money, while Santa is a fictional cultural icon based on a saint, that is these days used to entice people into spending money.

Since one is essentially just an object, it can hardly be inherently evil, right? So, a comparison in terms of evilness is not really possible.

Unless you want to discuss whether the qualities of the fictional Santa Claus somehow constitute evil. He commits social manipulation through material bribes. *shrug* Still a little different from Disney.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 2, 2008 3:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

So.....

Disney is no more evil than Santa Claus is evil....

Discuss

For the sake of discussion....

Disney is a real, active company looking to make money, while Santa is a fictional cultural icon based on a saint, that is these days used to entice people into spending money.

Since one is essentially just an object, it can hardly be inherently evil, right? So, a comparison in terms of evilness is not really possible.

Unless you want to discuss whether the qualities of the fictional Santa Claus somehow constitute evil. He commits social manipulation through material bribes. *shrug* Still a little different from Disney.

Hehe.... Nice post.

I do admit that I've seen some scary incarnations of Mr. Claus (will somebody get this guy a Doctorate already?) Santa on Futurama, Bad Santa, Goldburg in Santa's Slay.....

Santa and Disney though..... Sure some similarities, some differences. No two snowflakes are alike.

How about....

Disney is no more evil than Santa Claus is evil.

Disney is no more human than Santa Claus is human.

Discuss....

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 2, 2008 3:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Riverlove:

The world is a very dangerous place. Evil is everywhere, but no more prevalent than your local Mormon church. Watch out, evil bake sale benefitting African AIDS orphans, and Gay hate speech this weekend.

One of these I do consider hateful and misguided, one of these I do not.

I don't believe in the concept of evil, ultimately. 'Hateful, cowardly and misguided' makes a lot more sense than such an absolute, exclusive concept.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 2, 2008 4:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

How about....

Disney is no more evil than Santa Claus is evil.

Disney is no more human than Santa Claus is human.

Discuss....

Correct, but too general. *g*

Santa is a fictional cultural entity perpetuated by society.

Disney is a real commercial entity run by a select group of people.

Neither is essentially evil and in both cases it entirely depends on how the people behind the entity use it for their personal interests.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 2, 2008 4:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Quote:
Originally posted by Riverlove:

The world is a very dangerous place. Evil is everywhere, but no more prevalent than your local Mormon church. Watch out, evil bake sale benefitting African AIDS orphans, and Gay hate speech this weekend.

One of these I do consider hateful and misguided, one of these I do not.

I don't believe in the concept of evil, ultimately. 'Hateful, cowardly and misguided' makes a lot more sense than such an absolute, exclusive concept.

How profound AR...... One is an organization with good things going for it and bad things going for it. The other is... well.... one that has good things going for it and bad things going for it.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 2, 2008 4:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

How about....

Disney is no more evil than Santa Claus is evil.

Disney is no more human than Santa Claus is human.

Discuss....

Correct, but too general. *g*

Santa is a fictional cultural entity perpetuated by society.

Disney is a real commercial entity run by a select group of people.

Neither is essentially evil and in both cases it entirely depends on how the people behind the entity use it for their personal interests.

Good point.

How's this?

Disney is no more evil than Santa Claus is evil.

Disney is no more human than Santa Claus is human.

Walt Disney's legacy has been no less exploited by those who do anything to make their bottom line look good this quarter without thinking about 5 quarters from now when they have 20 million dollar parachutes than Santa Claus has been......

Discuss

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 2, 2008 4:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Originally posted by Riverlove:

The world is a very dangerous place. Evil is everywhere, but no more prevalent than your local Mormon church. Watch out, evil bake sale benefitting African AIDS orphans, and Gay hate speech this weekend.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One of these I do consider hateful and misguided, one of these I do not.

That's really fascinating. Which one is which?

Quote:
I don't believe in the concept of evil, ultimately. 'Hateful, cowardly and misguided' makes a lot more sense than such an absolute, exclusive concept.

I'm sure the families of the 911 attack victims, the Holocaust survivors from WWII, the parents of raped & murdered children, the families of the Manson Family murder spree, and the folks this week in India would agree wholeheartedly that there is no evil in the world, just some poor mis-guided folks. You betcha!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 2, 2008 4:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Riverlove:

Quote:
I don't believe in the concept of evil, ultimately. 'Hateful, cowardly and misguided' makes a lot more sense than such an absolute, exclusive concept.

I'm sure the families of the 911 attack victims, the Holocaust survivors from WWII, the parents of raped & murdered children, and the folks this week in India would agree wholeheartedly that there is no evil, just some mis-guided folks. You betcha!

Now you can do better than that.... Nobody wants to hear about some planes that were remotely flown into buildings or history books re-written about WWII...

Let's see some real world examples of evil.

Throw Greed and Lust into the cowardly and misguided and you hardly have to walk two steps in any direction in New York or Chicago to find a face-full of it.

Sure, I believe evil exists. Just not in the rigid textbook definitions of the status-quo. There is far too much intended sympathy going along with either of those stories.

As for the Indians, I can't say one way or another what those who were murdered thought beforehand. People are scared, but people have to live too. I would hate living in a world where everyone was afraid of everyone and everything all the time. They were just chillin' at the hotel.... granted the Rich Person hotel...

As for those attacking and their reasons, well I just refuse that a bunch of cold hearted murdering maniacs with no regard for human life did something like that. We'll never in a million years know why they committed those acts upon those presumably innocient people and we can hardly speculate as to why anybody would do that to people they didn't even know from blinding darkness in the depths of the well of truth.

I refuse to believe that they are in any way like the Joker. I've never even seen The Dark Knight, but I've read enough about it to know the insanity of which I speak.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 2, 2008 4:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

How about....

Disney is no more evil than Santa Claus is evil.

Disney is no more human than Santa Claus is human.

Discuss....

Correct, but too general. *g*

Santa is a fictional cultural entity perpetuated by society.

Disney is a real commercial entity run by a select group of people.

Neither is essentially evil and in both cases it entirely depends on how the people behind the entity use it for their personal interests.

Good point.

How's this?

Disney is no more evil than Santa Claus is evil.

Disney is no more human than Santa Claus is human.

Walt Disney's legacy has been no less exploited by those who do anything to make their bottom line look good this quarter without thinking about 5 quarters from now when they have 20 million dollar parachutes than Santa Claus has been......

Discuss

Someone could argue nuances, but I'm sure on the face there is little to refute this particular statement. I think.

As for the ethical/moral/cultural/gender-related values currently emphasized through both.. that's one vaaaast subject. I'm not sure I'm up for more than tiny nitpicks.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 2, 2008 4:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't believe in the concept of evil, ultimately. 'Hateful, cowardly and misguided' makes a lot more sense than such an absolute, exclusive concept.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sure the families of the 911 attack victims, the Holocaust survivors from WWII, the parents of raped & murdered children, and the folks this week in India would agree wholeheartedly that there is no evil, just some mis-guided folks. You betcha!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now you can do better than that.... Nobody wants to hear about some planes that were remotely flown into buildings or history books re-written about WWII...

Let's see some real world examples of evil.

Throw Greed and Lust into the cowardly and misguided and you hardly have to walk two steps in any direction in New York or Chicago to find a face-full of it.

Sure, I believe evil exists. Just not in the rigid textbook definitions of the status-quo. There is far too much intended sympathy going along with either of those stories.

As for the Indians, I can't say one way or another what those who were murdered thought beforehand. People are scared, but people have to live too. I would hate living in a world where everyone was afraid of everyone and everything all the time. They were just chillin' at the hotel.... granted the Rich Person hotel...

As for those attacking and their reasons, well I just refuse that a bunch of cold hearted murdering maniacs with no regard for human life did something like that. We'll never in a million years know why they committed those acts upon those which we can hardly speculate as to why somebody would do that from blinding darkness in the depths of the well of truth.

Sure, because if you could only just understand their reason(s), then it wouldn't be evil. Might be a good subject for a CBS mini-series starring Alexander Siddig, but certainly not pure evil. Too bad Dr. Phil can't be everywhere.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 2, 2008 4:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Riverlove:
Sure, because if you could only just understand their reason(s), then it wouldn't be evil. Might be a good subject for a CBS mini-series starring Alexander Siddig, but certainly not pure evil. Too bad Dr. Phil can't be everywhere.

I wish I could live in your black and white world of what is good and evil. Just being born onto the winning side doesn't make you right... and it doesn't always mean you'll be the winner forever. Just ask black people.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 2, 2008 4:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

How about....

Disney is no more evil than Santa Claus is evil.

Disney is no more human than Santa Claus is human.

Discuss....

Correct, but too general. *g*

Santa is a fictional cultural entity perpetuated by society.

Disney is a real commercial entity run by a select group of people.

Neither is essentially evil and in both cases it entirely depends on how the people behind the entity use it for their personal interests.

Good point.

How's this?

Disney is no more evil than Santa Claus is evil.

Disney is no more human than Santa Claus is human.

Walt Disney's legacy has been no less exploited by those who do anything to make their bottom line look good this quarter without thinking about 5 quarters from now when they have 20 million dollar parachutes than Santa Claus has been......

Discuss

Someone could argue nuances, but I'm sure on the face there is little to refute this particular statement. I think.

As for the ethical/moral/cultural/gender-related values currently emphasized through both.. that's one vaaaast subject. I'm not sure I'm up for more than tiny nitpicks.

I agree wholehartedly with that AR.

Santa never forced young women to act like innoceint little kids while wearing half the makeup that a Playboy bunny wears, showing off her belly button and wearing other revealing clothing, all while pretending that they're innocient until they're 18 and married. God knows the side effects that could have on a young woman, living two completely different lives like that and always worrying that you'll be caught.....

Disney never could be accused of being responsible for under-work-age kids doing 4 hours overtime for an extra quarter-per-day working on those Kohl's sweatshirts that are always on sale and that your kid will throw in the corner in disappointment when he/she opens the gift Christmas morning....

Don't be shy of the details AR...... The Devil is IN the details....

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 2, 2008 4:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Riverlove:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Originally posted by Riverlove:

The world is a very dangerous place. Evil is everywhere, but no more prevalent than your local Mormon church. Watch out, evil bake sale benefitting African AIDS orphans, and Gay hate speech this weekend.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One of these I do consider hateful and misguided, one of these I do not.

That's really fascinating. Which one is which?

What do you THINK?

Quote:

Quote:
I don't believe in the concept of evil, ultimately. 'Hateful, cowardly and misguided' makes a lot more sense than such an absolute, exclusive concept.

I'm sure the families of the 911 attack victims, the Holocaust survivors from WWII, the parents of raped & murdered children, the families of the Manson Family murder spree, and the folks this week in India would agree wholeheartedly that there is no evil in the world, just some poor mis-guided folks. You betcha!

No, it is exactly with these sort of things in mind that I use the words hateful, misguided and cowardly. ("Poor" was never mentioned.) Human beings do these things and when we pretend that they are some kind of "other" by calling them such an absolute term as "evil", we fail at what would benefit us most: understanding what makes it happen in order to prevent it from happening again. It's not some abstract absolute, it's merely the darkest of human capability.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 2, 2008 5:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I wish I could live in your black and white world of what is good and evil. Just being born onto the winning side doesn't make you right... and it doesn't always mean you'll be the winner forever. Just ask black people.

Ask them what? BTW Mahatma, you ever step in dog shit? Do you pontificate and explore the finer points of that situation too?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 2, 2008 5:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

Don't be shy of the details AR...... The Devil is IN the details....

Isn't THAT ever a fact... Why can't there be kittens in the details?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 2, 2008 6:57 AM

STORYMARK

Evil is just a matter of POV. Yeah, most of us (myself included)would consider what Hitler did, or what Jihadists do as evil - but they didn't, and they were not alone in their perception. They thought they were doing what was right, or at the least nessesary.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 2, 2008 7:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Evil is just a matter of POV. Yeah, most of us (myself included)would consider what Hitler did, or what Jihadists do as evil - but they didn't, and they were not alone in their perception. They thought they were doing what was right, or at the least nessesary.

Well, yes. Questions like these are rarely about finding a clean "Yes" or "No" consensus, but to check the criteria for "evil" and compare them to the generally assumed POV of value judgments.

Disney is Disney. What we think about Disney defines us more than it. It defines our subgroup of moral/ethical perspective.

Current result: we are not a homogenous subgroup.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 9, 2008 8:56 AM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I can't think of a single example right now.

It's sad that I had to think about it for like a week, but what about the Aristocats? The mother was there and the father was missing, though of course a father figure came along in that one.
It's a bit weak, I know, but it is a single example...

[/sig]

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 9, 2008 12:46 PM