DVDizzy.com

Home | Reviews | Schedule | Cover Art | Search The Site
DVDizzy.com Top Stories:

It is currently Fri May 25, 2018 12:55 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 57 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 30, 2011 12:39 am 
Offline
Collector's Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 7:23 pm
Posts: 773
ajmrowland wrote:
David S. wrote:

Which is why the majority of the public walk around naked all the time, because it's so "natural"! ;)



I'm really going off topic here, but you clearly dont know how easily the mind is conditioned to think the body is sexual and shameful, when in fact, a nudist and their experiences even without growing up with it says how easy it is.

By your logic, we were all born with clothes on our backs, toddlers would *want* their parents to dress them, and artists would really be perverts and pedophiles.


You're putting words in my mouth here. Who said anything about artists being perverts and pedophiles? I think NO SUCH THING. And I said NOTHING about "sexual" or "shameful" either. In fact, all I said was when Goliath implied that people who are shocked or offended by nudity because of their own "preocupations with sex", that this is not necessarily true for all who feel that way. It's certainly not true for me. I am really not sure how you made the leap from that simple statement to me equating artists with pedophiles, but whatever. For another thing, you only quoted my first line, which was more lighthearted in tone, out of the context of the rest of my post.

And you're right - this is getting WAAY off-topic!

(Now I remember why I prefer to keep my participation on this board limited to just DISNEY topics!)

Quote:
But as you say, it doesnt occur in most of human society, but only because we're taught that it's wrong and to never question it and to just follow the herd.


I personally have NEVER been one to blindly "follow the herd". In fact, I march to the beat of my own drummer in more ways than I "conform"

So what you say might be true for some people, but others are simply more comfortable with clothes, ya know? Just like some people are comfortable with being "open" with posting their real name, DOB, address, job, income, phone number, etc., on the internet, and others prefer to keep it PRIVATE. People who likewise consider their bodies and others' to be PRIVATE should not be considered "prudes", or to have "hangups" or "issues" by the pro-nude crowd. They have just as much right to their lifestyle and opinions as the nudists have to theirs!

_________________
"Feed the birds, tuppence a bag"- Mary Poppins
"How high does the sycamore grow? If you cut it down, then you'll never know"- Pocahontas
"I do not make films primarily for children. I make them for the child in all of us, whether he be six or sixty. Call the child innocence." - Walt Disney


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:44 am 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 1:19 am
Posts: 8177
Location: Appleton, WI
David S. wrote:
ajmrowland wrote:
David S. wrote:

Which is why the majority of the public walk around naked all the time, because it's so "natural"! ;)



I'm really going off topic here, but you clearly dont know how easily the mind is conditioned to think the body is sexual and shameful, when in fact, a nudist and their experiences even without growing up with it says how easy it is.

By your logic, we were all born with clothes on our backs, toddlers would *want* their parents to dress them, and artists would really be perverts and pedophiles.


You're putting words in my mouth here.


I know you didnt say that. Actually, I might've worded that wrong, but I was just using those as examples of many people's ideas of what is "natural behavior" towards nudity, except the birth bit which is pretty much just a metaphore.

And I like Chicken Little too. I mean, it does have it's huge flaws but it was watchable and even funny in some bits.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 30, 2011 7:17 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 8:35 pm
Posts: 4749
Location: The Netherlands
David S. wrote:
[...] For Toy Story 3, though, the tearjerker stuff at the end made me extremely sad, (rather than "high"), and this causes me to leave the theatre sad, lowering my opinion and enjoyment of the movie. Hence its place as one of my least favorite Pixar films! In Up, on the other hand, Ellie's death (like Coral's in Finding Nemo) was thankfully at the very beginning of the movie, so you have time to recover from it and you don't leave the theatre on that down note. [...]

I wrote a whole lenghty post as a reaction to yours, which I had been working on for maybe half an hour, but it has inexplicably disappeared when I wanted to add the off-topic part (see below). So now I'm royally pissed, but I'm going to write it again as best as I can:

*Spoilers about the movie Leon (1994) in post below*

I understand that everybody got different tastes in movies and I see the value in optimistic and uplifiting comedies and 'feel good'-movies, which I like myself, too. Besides, people don't always want to see the same kind of movie, so light-hearted fun can be enjoyable as well. But what I -literally- can't understand, is why you are lowering your opinion of a movie when it has a sad ending. Cinema, like all other art-forms, *is* about catharsis. It *is* about experiencing a whole array of different emotions. It *is* about immersing yourself in feelings and situations that you would normally not have to deal with. But films offers you an opportunity to experience them anyway. I simply fail to see how you can claim you "like movies" when you're thinking less of a movie when it offers you something that's not rose-colored. Because that's not what cinema is limited to --nor should it be.

I've seen and enjoyed a lot of movies which dealt with horrible, dark, depressing subject matters. The enjoyment comes from the fact that you can experience these matters and feel for the characters, empathise with them; you can feel glad for yourself for not being in the mess they're in; you can imagine how you would deal with their problems if that were you up there on the screen. The possibilities are endless. Drama simply gives the actors a perfect opportunity to show their skills; to develop their characters; to reach out and touch the public and let them experience that catharsis of which I was writing above. A movie doesn't have to have a happy ending for me to enjoy it. I've walked away from movies with a happy ending, thinking it badly needed an unhappy ending, because it would've been more fitting. Tragic stories can be beautiful, they can be wonderful. Sad stories can be touching and can be memorable.

For example, I was watching the movie Leon again last night. In this movie, a little girl named Mathilda has her entire family murdered by a corrupt DEA officer. She gets saved by her neighbour, who turns out to be a professional hitman. He starts to take care of her, and they develop a strong and deep bond throughout the movie. In the ending, Leon dies a violent death in the final battle with said officer, while Mathilda gets to barely escape. This terrific movie would not be one of my all-time favorites if Leon and Mathila had gotten to walk of into the sunset, living happily ever after. That would have ruined it completely; the movie would have lost all its impact. What's essential, is Leon's ultimate sacrifice to save the little girl's life. Now, was I shocked and sad the first time I saw Leon die, after all he had been through? Of course I was! I was deeply saddened by it. I remember even talking to the screen, going "no, no, no, no" for a while. So I felt really sad when the credits rolled, but I realised that was a good thing. The (nearing) death of Leon made me care about him even more than I already did. It made the saving of Mathila even more important.

So, again, I come back to the question of why you think a film is 'less good' when it ends sad? You don't have to defend your tastes in movies. Like I said: everybody likes different things. But it is kinda weird to base your judgement of a movie based on the 'happiness' of it.


Off-topic:

David S. wrote:
Which is why the majority of the public walk around naked all the time, because it's so "natural"! ;)

One thing has got nothing to do with the other. We wear clothes for two different reasons. The most important reason is to guard ourselves from injuries or illness. We are not accustomed anymore to walking around naked all day and night. We're not living in an invironment anymore where this is comfortable to us. But why do you think 'tribesmen' who live away from 'civilised society' (*cough*) are walking around naked, men and women alike? Because that's our (= men as a species) natural state. We are born naked for crying out loud! It doesn't get any more natural than that.

David S. wrote:
But seriously, it may be "natural" in theory, but since it's something that you will NEVER see in public (unless you grow up in a nudist colony or something), it is not something that actually does occur "naturally" in the reality of human society as it is actually lived. People wear clothes, and therefore, seeing people without them can be quite shocking and quite out of the ordinary.

The other reason is that we, as a society, have decided it's not 'decent' to walk around naked. But that doesn't mean it's 'unnatural' to do so, or that it is inherently 'wrong'. It's just something we have made up, as a rule. And rules are most certainly not 'natural'. I'm not saying they're not good rules, or that we should walk around naked all the time, where-ever we go, but the fact remains it's a made-up, artificial rule.

David S. wrote:
This does NOT mean that ALL people who are shocked by nudity and would prefer not to see it are viewing it in a "sexual" way or have "preocupations" with "sex".

I disagree. We know a nude body is all natural. There is nothing shocking about a nude body. We've all got them, and we all have the same parts. They may differ a bit in shape or size, but they're there. That's not an opinion, but a fact, right? So, why would a nude body be shocking if we just agreed we all have one? Because of sexual connotations. And often, I think the 'shock' comes from sexual repression, especially in repressive religious environments, where people are taught from a young age on that their own body is 'dirty' and something to be ashamed of. Something which has absolutely no logical basis at all!

Oh, and:

David S. wrote:
When I met Lotso at WDW, I gave him a BIG HUG and said "I don't believe you're really evil - the stupid writers just wrote you that way!". He gave me a big hug and nodded in agreement.

You *do* realise it's just a paid employee in a constume, right? :lol:

David S. wrote:
Most Disney films have a message that it's OK to be different and be whatever you want, but in the Lion King, because Simba is born to be a king, he is told that this is who he must be, regardless of if he would rather hang out with Timon and Pumba. [...] But Simba is trapped into having no choice for his life other than what he is born into - or, if he does make another choice, the film indicates that this is going against the "circle of life" and who he is "meant" to be.

Lastly, both films end with the image of a new prince being born, this time to Simba and Bambi, and these scenes look exactly like the scenes of they themselves being born. People with the ambition of starting families find these scenes incredibly moving, but they don't work for me. For one thing, the interchangable nature of the "cycle going on" and playing the roles once played by your parents just doesn't resonate for me, as I have no desire to play those roles. [...]

We're in complete agreement here. In fact, I had never thought about it that way. You've just given me two more reasons to criticize Lion King even more than I already did. I always thought that the *one* redeeming quality of this movie was its message of having to take responsibility for what you've done --or what you have to do. But, first of all, Simba didn't kill Mufasa and second, like you say, Simba is forced to play a role without anybody asking him if he wants to play it. In fact, as long as we're on the subject of 'unpopular opinions', this is exactly why I hate It's A Wonderful Life, because it basically says you should sacrifice everything you ever wanted out of life in order to make other people happy. Well, what about making yourself happy?!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 30, 2011 8:02 pm 
Offline
Collector's Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 7:23 pm
Posts: 773
Goliath wrote:
David S. wrote:
[...] For Toy Story 3, though, the tearjerker stuff at the end made me extremely sad, (rather than "high"), and this causes me to leave the theatre sad, lowering my opinion and enjoyment of the movie. Hence its place as one of my least favorite Pixar films! In Up, on the other hand, Ellie's death (like Coral's in Finding Nemo) was thankfully at the very beginning of the movie, so you have time to recover from it and you don't leave the theatre on that down note. [...]


I understand that everybody got different tastes in movies and I see the value in optimistic and uplifiting comedies and 'feel good'-movies, which I like myself, too. Besides, people don't always want to see the same kind of movie, so light-hearted fun can be enjoyable as well. But what I -literally- can't understand, is why you are lowering your opinion of a movie when it has a sad ending. Cinema, like all other art-forms, *is* about catharsis. It *is* about experiencing a whole array of different emotions. It *is* about immersing yourself in feelings and situations that you would normally not have to deal with. But films offers you an opportunity to experience them anyway. I simply fail to see how you can claim you "like movies" when you're thinking less of a movie when it offers you something that's not rose-colored. Because that's not what cinema is limited to --nor should it be.....

So, again, I come back to the question of why you think a film is 'less good' when it ends sad? You don't have to defend your tastes in movies. Like I said: everybody likes different things. But it is kinda weird to base your judgement of a movie based on the 'happiness' of it.


Because I am not saying it is "less good" in a BLACK AND WHITE, UNIVERSAL sense, as I already explained in my reply to Dr. Frankenollie. It is "less good" only in the sense that it is not offering, SUBJECTIVELY, what I am looking for. I don't claim to be a fan of movies as much as a fan of certain types of movies! I want sunshine, puppies, and rainbows, and any darkness experienced along the journey should ideally be overcome at the end.

Why would I want to PAY to experience unpleasant, painful, emotions that will leave me feeling worse than I did before the movie started, when a Happy Ending is a guarantee of feeling Euphoric after the movie! From my point of view, it makes no sense. It's like paying someone to punch me in the stomach, in the name of "high art". Although in my case, since I feel my emotions VERY INTENSELY, the punch in the stomach would actually be LESS PAINFUL than the sad emotions some unhappy endings have made me feel.

Not that I owe you or anyone else an explanation of my taste!

Quote:
Off-topic:



David S. wrote:
Which is why the majority of the public walk around naked all the time, because it's so "natural"! ;)

One thing has got nothing to do with the other. We wear clothes for two different reasons. The most important reason is to guard ourselves from injuries or illness. We are not accustomed anymore to walking around naked all day and night. We're not living in an invironment anymore where this is comfortable to us. But why do you think 'tribesmen' who live away from 'civilised society' (*cough*) are walking around naked, men and women alike? Because that's our (= men as a species) natural state. We are born naked for crying out loud! It doesn't get any more natural than that.


You took that quote out of context. I already acknowledged it is "natural" in theory. But it is NOT something you see in day to day life, therefore not "natural" in the sense that it's not something you actually naturally experience seeing in life unless you live in a nudist colony or hang out at a nude beach or something. That's all I meant.

Quote:

David S. wrote:
But seriously, it may be "natural" in theory, but since it's something that you will NEVER see in public (unless you grow up in a nudist colony or something), it is not something that actually does occur "naturally" in the reality of human society as it is actually lived. People wear clothes, and therefore, seeing people without them can be quite shocking and quite out of the ordinary.

The other reason is that we, as a society, have decided it's not 'decent' to walk around naked. But that doesn't mean it's 'unnatural' to do so, or that it is inherently 'wrong'. It's just something we have made up, as a rule. And rules are most certainly not 'natural'. I'm not saying they're not good rules, or that we should walk around naked all the time, where-ever we go, but the fact remains it's a made-up, artificial rule.


I NEVER said it was "wrong"! And I don't blindly follow rules or wear clothes because it's a "rule", I wear them because I WANT and CHOOSE to. The same way I choose not to post private personal info on the internent, and others feel more "open" about it. It's a matter pf preference, not rules.

Quote:

David S. wrote:
This does NOT mean that ALL people who are shocked by nudity and would prefer not to see it are viewing it in a "sexual" way or have "preocupations" with "sex".

I disagree. We know a nude body is all natural. There is nothing shocking about a nude body. We've all got them, and we all have the same parts. They may differ a bit in shape or size, but they're there. That's not an opinion, but a fact, right? So, why would a nude body be shocking if we just agreed we all have one? Because of sexual connotations. And often, I think the 'shock' comes from sexual repression, especially in repressive religious environments, where people are taught from a young age on that their own body is 'dirty' and something to be ashamed of. Something which has absolutely no logical basis at all!


So now you're playing the same "mindreader" you accused me and Duster of being. If I tell you I would find public nudity shocking, and that I am NOT preoccupied with sex, not "repressed", and that my opinion has NOTHING to do with the sexual connotations of nudity, you should be able to take me at my word. I do know myself better than you do!

As far as the "no logical basis at all", you have to understand that I am not governed by "logic" and "facts" as much as you seem to be. For fun, I've taken various "personality profile" test tons of times, and I always come up OVERWHELMINGLY as an "INFP" (Introvert/Intuition/Feeling/Percieving). The "N" means I naturally gravitate to my gut intuition over "cold hard sensory facts" and logic, and the "F" means I am more in touch with my feelings than again, logic and thoughts.

But again, I never said, thought, or meant to imply that nudity was "wrong", so there is no nead to further psychoanalize my reasons for why I don't care for it.

Quote:
Oh, and:

David S. wrote:
When I met Lotso at WDW, I gave him a BIG HUG and said "I don't believe you're really evil - the stupid writers just wrote you that way!". He gave me a big hug and nodded in agreement.

You *do* realise it's just a paid employee in a constume, right? :lol:


Well, if I didn't, I certainly wouln't want you saying it and ruining the Magic for me! Perhaps you are not familiar with how Disney parks work. NO ONE at the parks refers to the characters as "people in costumes". Cast members are forbidden to say things like that. It would ruin the illusion, not just for the young, but the YOUNG AT HEART. (which you may have just done for any of our younger readers who believe they are real). But hey, emotions and feelings must always be CRUSHED by cold, hard, rational facts. I get it!

Regardless of what I believe if I allow that pesky annoying coldly "logical" part of my brain to think about these things, when I'm THERE, at the parks, it's all about channeling my INNER CHILD, and feeling these things in my HEART, as if I was still 8 years old. So in those moments, they are REAL to me. That's part of the fantasy, part of the fun, part of the Magic, and really, part of the WHOLE POINT of going to the parks in the first place!

Quote:
We're in complete agreement here. In fact, I had never thought about it that way. You've just given me two more reasons to criticize Lion King even more than I already did. I always thought that the *one* redeeming quality of this movie was its message of having to take responsibility for what you've done --or what you have to do. But, first of all, Simba didn't kill Mufasa and second, like you say, Simba is forced to play a role without anybody asking him if he wants to play it. In fact, as long as we're on the subject of 'unpopular opinions', this is exactly why I hate It's A Wonderful Life, because it basically says you should sacrifice everything you ever wanted out of life in order to make other people happy. Well, what about making yourself happy?!


I didn't get that vibe from It's A Wonderful Life, although I am not saying you are "wrong" for doing so. After his dad dies, I don't recall anyone telling George to sacrifice his dreams to work at the bank, or that this is what he is "meant" to be. In fact, I think some characters encourage George to go to college anyway. It is George's decision, and his alone, to act selflessly. So to me, the difference between the two has to do with the "be who you were born to be" and "destiny" vibe of Lion King, vs the noble acts of selflessness taken by George out of his own free will.

_________________
"Feed the birds, tuppence a bag"- Mary Poppins
"How high does the sycamore grow? If you cut it down, then you'll never know"- Pocahontas
"I do not make films primarily for children. I make them for the child in all of us, whether he be six or sixty. Call the child innocence." - Walt Disney


Last edited by David S. on Sun Jul 31, 2011 4:51 am, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 30, 2011 8:27 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 8:35 pm
Posts: 4749
Location: The Netherlands
David S. wrote:
Not that I owe you or anyone else an explanation of my taste!

That's just what *I* said at least two times in my reply, so there's no need to react so angrily.

David S. wrote:
You took that quote out of context. I already acknowledged it is "natural" in theory. But it is NOT something you see in day to day life, therefore not "natural" in the sense that it's not something you actually naturally experience seeing in life unless you live in a nudist colony or hang out at a nude beach or something. That's all I meant.

I took nothing out of context. I just pointed out that your usage of the word "natural" was incorrect. If you meant what you say in the quoted part above, you should have said: "that's not the standard", instead of: "it's unnatural".

David S. wrote:
I NEVER said it was "wrong"! And I don't blindly follow rules or wear clothes because it's a "rule", I wear them because I WANT and CHOOSE to. The same way I choose not to post private personal info on the internent, and others feel more "open" about it. It's a matter pf preference, not rules.

No, you don't understand me. I'm not saying that you are consciously choosing to wear clothes, or that you have ever giving thought to wearing clothes. I'm not singeling you out, like you seem to think (see also your reply to ajmrowland). What I'm trying to say, is exactly the opposite: you, *like everybody else*, have *not* thought about whether or not you prefer to wear clothes. We, as a society, have been conditioned to think this way; it has become ingrained in our society. This means we don't even think about it anymore and do as we were taught. We are *all* blindly following rules. Again, I'm not saying they're bad rules, but they are rules and we *do* follow them without questioning. That includes you, too. The difference between you and me, is that I'm aware of it and you aren't and you think I'm trying to offend you by pointing this out --which is not the case!

David S. wrote:
So now you're playing the same "mindreader" you accused me and Duster of being. If I tell you I would find public nudity shocking, and that I am NOT preoccupied with sex, not "repressed", and that my opinion has NOTHING to do with the sexual connotations of nudity, you should be able to take me at my word. I do know myself better than you do!

I'm not mindreading at all. You've got to stop making it all so personal. I'm not attacking you. I'm writing in broad lines here. What I'm saying doesn't only go for you, but for most people. You deny any sexual connotations, but they're subconscious. You don't even know you have them --and, again, that goes for lots of people. You deny it, but, like I asked: then what is the reason for being shocked by a nude body? Since we all have one, where is the shocking part? I asked, but you didn't give an explanation. I already gave the answer, but because it's a subconcious thing, you won't admit it.

David S. wrote:
Well, if I didn't, I certainly wouln't want you saying it and ruining the Magic for me! Perhaps you are not familiar with how Disney parks work. NO ONE at the parks refers to the characters as "people in costumes". Cast members are forbidden to say things like that. It would ruin the illusion, not just for the young, but the YOUNG AT HEART. (which you may have just done for any of our younger readers who believe they are real).

I seriously doubt "young readers" would follow a discussion like this. And if they would, they're obviously smart enough to know the 'characters' at Disney World are actors in constumes. Something I already knew when I was FIVE YEARS old. Because I knew ducks didn't really talk and wear sailor suits.

David S. wrote:
But hey, emotions and feelings must always be CRUSHED by cold, hard, rational facts. I get it!

Image

David S. wrote:
Regardless of what I believe if I allow that pesky annoying coldly "logical" part of my brain to think about these things, when I'm THERE, at the parks, it's all about channeling my INNER CHILD, and feeling these things in my HEART, as if I was still 8 years old.

At age 8 you didn't know Disney characters were pieces of drawings that don't exist in the real world? :scratch:

David S. wrote:
I didn't get that vibe from It's A Wonderful Life, although I am not saying you are "wrong" for doing so. After his dad dies, I don't recall anyone telling George to sacrifice his dreams to work at the bank, or that this is what he is "meant" to be. In fact, I think some characters encourage George to go to college anyway. It is George's decision, and his alone, to act selflessly. So to me, the difference between the two has to do with the "be who you were born to be" and "destiny" vibe of Lion King, vs the noble acts of selflessness taken by George out of his own free will.

But no character has to spell this out, nor does George needs to be forced, for the movie to send the exact same message.


Last edited by Goliath on Sat Jul 30, 2011 8:29 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 30, 2011 8:27 pm 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 1:19 am
Posts: 8177
Location: Appleton, WI
David S. wrote:


Quote:
Off-topic:



David S. wrote:
Goliath wrote:
Quote:
Which is why the majority of the public walk around naked all the time, because it's so "natural"! ;)

One thing has got nothing to do with the other. We wear clothes for two different reasons. The most important reason is to guard ourselves from injuries or illness. We are not accustomed anymore to walking around naked all day and night. We're not living in an invironment anymore where this is comfortable to us. But why do you think 'tribesmen' who live away from 'civilised society' (*cough*) are walking around naked, men and women alike? Because that's our (= men as a species) natural state. We are born naked for crying out loud! It doesn't get any more natural than that.


You took that quote out of context. I already acknowledged it is "natural" in theory. But it is NOT something you see in day to day life, therefore not "natural" in the sense that it's not something you actually naturally experience seeing in life unless you live in a nudist colony or hang out at a nude beach or something. That's all I meant.

But he debunked it as being theory. The next paragraph very much said it's natural as a fact, and so far, there's nothing in this world that could logically contradict that.

Quote:
David S. wrote:
But seriously, it may be "natural" in theory, but since it's something that you will NEVER see in public (unless you grow up in a nudist colony or something), it is not something that actually does occur "naturally" in the reality of human society as it is actually lived. People wear clothes, and therefore, seeing people without them can be quite shocking and quite out of the ordinary.

The other reason is that we, as a society, have decided it's not 'decent' to walk around naked. But that doesn't mean it's 'unnatural' to do so, or that it is inherently 'wrong'. It's just something we have made up, as a rule. And rules are most certainly not 'natural'. I'm not saying they're not good rules, or that we should walk around naked all the time, where-ever we go, but the fact remains it's a made-up, artificial rule.


I NEVER said it was "wrong"! And I don't blindly follow rules or wear clothes because it's a "rule", I wear them because I WANT and CHOOSE to. The same way I choose not to post private personal info on the internent, and others feel more "open" about it. It's a matter pf preference, not rules.
You're acting like somebody in a voting booth, who's choices are often dictated by a bias instilled in them. It's not a true choice, unless you really get *all* the facts. I love the internet for that.
I'm not saying that it was actually a conscious choice you made, just heavily influenced from biased teachings you recieved very early in life.

Quote:
David S. wrote:
This does NOT mean that ALL people who are shocked by nudity and would prefer not to see it are viewing it in a "sexual" way or have "preocupations" with "sex".

I disagree. We know a nude body is all natural. There is nothing shocking about a nude body. We've all got them, and we all have the same parts. They may differ a bit in shape or size, but they're there. That's not an opinion, but a fact, right? So, why would a nude body be shocking if we just agreed we all have one? Because of sexual connotations. And often, I think the 'shock' comes from sexual repression, especially in repressive religious environments, where people are taught from a young age on that their own body is 'dirty' and something to be ashamed of. Something which has absolutely no logical basis at all!
][/quote]

So now you're playing the same "mindreader" you accused me and Duster of being. If I tell you I would find public nudity shocking, and that I am NOT preoccupied with sex, not "repressed", and that my opinion has NOTHING to do with the sexual connotations of nudity, you should be able to take me at my word. I do know myself better than you do![/quote]
That's not mind-reading. His assumption is purely based on the behaviors of people who are very vocal about their stance, and others who have suffered from sexual repression. This is clear in the fact that women get more on-screen nudity than men and that there is such a thing as Playboy or Playgirl and most people(men OR women) who appear topless in movies are doing it for a sexualized effect moreso than even fat jokes.

The bottom part of your post: I agree. Goliath has got to lay off sometimes.

EDIT: Just got Ninja'd

_________________
Image


Last edited by ajmrowland on Sat Jul 30, 2011 8:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 30, 2011 8:31 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 8:35 pm
Posts: 4749
Location: The Netherlands
@ ajmrowland: As long as we're telling each other what we've "got to" do: you've "got to" seriously shorten those quotes if you're only gonna react to one sentence. :wink: :P


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 30, 2011 8:44 pm 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 1:19 am
Posts: 8177
Location: Appleton, WI
[quote="Goliath]I seriously doubt "young readers" would follow a discussion like this. And if they would, they're obviously smart enough to know the 'characters' at Disney World are actors in constumes. Something I already knew when I was FIVE YEARS old. Because I knew ducks didn't really talk and wear sailor suits.[/quote] I'm so very, very sorry :(

Quote:
Quote:
it's all about channeling my INNER CHILD, and feeling these things in my HEART, as if I was still 8 years old.

At age 8 you didn't know Disney characters were pieces of drawings that don't exist in the real world? :scratch:
I may have been the same. I guess I sort of knew they were drawings, but I readily believed them real.

As for TLK, I think it was far more about accepting responsibility than being forced to do anything. Nobody forced Simba to go back; he wanted to defend his loved ones. Mufasa was always in his head(though the Rafiki line indicates otherwise)

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 30, 2011 8:48 pm 
Offline
Collector's Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 7:23 pm
Posts: 773
Goliath wrote:
David S. wrote:
Not that I owe you or anyone else an explanation of my taste!

That's just what *I* said at least two times in my reply, so there's no need to react so angrily.


Who said I was angry?

Quote:

David S. wrote:
You took that quote out of context. I already acknowledged it is "natural" in theory. But it is NOT something you see in day to day life, therefore not "natural" in the sense that it's not something you actually naturally experience seeing in life unless you live in a nudist colony or hang out at a nude beach or something. That's all I meant.

I took nothing out of context. I just pointed out that your usage of the word "natural" was incorrect. If you meant what you say in the quoted part above, you should have said: "that's not the standard", instead of: "it's unnatural".


By "out of context", I meant that first sentence was meant in a JOKING way. Hence the ;)

Quote:

David S. wrote:
I NEVER said it was "wrong"! And I don't blindly follow rules or wear clothes because it's a "rule", I wear them because I WANT and CHOOSE to. The same way I choose not to post private personal info on the internent, and others feel more "open" about it. It's a matter pf preference, not rules.

No, you don't understand me. I'm not saying that you are consciously choosing to wear clothes, or that you have ever giving thought to wearing clothes. I'm not singeling you out, like you seem to think (see also your reply to ajmrowland). What I'm trying to say, is exactly the opposite: you, *like everybody else*, have *not* thought about whether or not you prefer to wear clothes. We, as a society, have been conditioned to think this way; it has become ingrained in our society. This means we don't even think about it anymore and do as we were taught. We are *all* blindly following rules. Again, I'm not saying they're bad rules, but they are rules and we *do* follow them without questioning. That includes you, too. The difference between you and me, is that I'm aware of it and you aren't and you think I'm trying to offend you by pointing this out --which is not the case!


No, I am not "blindly" following rules. I HAVE been exposed to nudism and people who are into that stuff. So it's not like I am not familiar with boths points of view. Therefore, choosing to wear clothes is NOT following rules blindly, because if I didn't want to do it, I wouldn't! (Just like I don't follow other "rules" I don't agree with. That's all I meant!

Quote:

David S. wrote:
So now you're playing the same "mindreader" you accused me and Duster of being. If I tell you I would find public nudity shocking, and that I am NOT preoccupied with sex, not "repressed", and that my opinion has NOTHING to do with the sexual connotations of nudity, you should be able to take me at my word. I do know myself better than you do!

I'm not mindreading at all. You've got to stop making it all so personal.


Well, I am a person!

"I am sensitive and quick to take offence, like a hunchback or a dwarf"
-Dostoyevsky, "Notes From Underground
"
Quote:
I'm not attacking you. I'm writing in broad lines here. What I'm saying doesn't only go for you, but for most people. You deny any sexual connotations, but they're subconscious. You don't even know you have them --and, again, that goes for lots of people. You deny it, but, like I asked: then what is the reason for being shocked by a nude body? Since we all have one, where is the shocking part? I asked, but you didn't give an explanation. I already gave the answer, but because it's a subconcious thing, you won't admit it. [/b]


It's NOT a subconscious thing for me. I already gave you the reason. It would be shocking for me because it's something I'm not used to seeing. Just like if someone pulled out a gun next time your in the grocery and shoots the cashier, it should theoretically shock, because it is unexpected. Of course, people used to seeing high levels of violence in movies and video games would likely be less shocked (note that I am not equating nudity with violence, morally).

But to paraphrase Dieter from "Sprockets", "The off-topic part of this conversation has become tiresome!"

Quote:

David S. wrote:
Well, if I didn't, I certainly wouln't want you saying it and ruining the Magic for me! Perhaps you are not familiar with how Disney parks work. NO ONE at the parks refers to the characters as "people in costumes". Cast members are forbidden to say things like that. It would ruin the illusion, not just for the young, but the YOUNG AT HEART. (which you may have just done for any of our younger readers who believe they are real).

I seriously doubt "young readers" would follow a discussion like this. And if they would, they're obviously smart enough to know the 'characters' at Disney World are actors in constumes. Something I already knew when I was FIVE YEARS old. Because I knew ducks didn't really talk and wear sailor suits.

David S. wrote:
But hey, emotions and feelings must always be CRUSHED by cold, hard, rational facts. I get it!

Image

David S. wrote:
Regardless of what I believe if I allow that pesky annoying coldly "logical" part of my brain to think about these things, when I'm THERE, at the parks, it's all about channeling my INNER CHILD, and feeling these things in my HEART, as if I was still 8 years old.

At age 8 you didn't know Disney characters were pieces of drawings that don't exist in the real world? :scratch:


You know what? F**K the "Real World"! It BORES me to tears!

No need for the condescending, snarky tone (ie, the photo). You obviously don't get what I am getting at. Regardless of what logic says, or what YOU felt at 5, it can be fun to escape into those more innocent places of your spirit. Next thing you know, you're going to be a Scrooge and say Santa and the Easter Bunny aren't real!

Quote:

David S. wrote:
I didn't get that vibe from It's A Wonderful Life, although I am not saying you are "wrong" for doing so. After his dad dies, I don't recall anyone telling George to sacrifice his dreams to work at the bank, or that this is what he is "meant" to be. In fact, I think some characters encourage George to go to college anyway. It is George's decision, and his alone, to act selflessly. So to me, the difference between the two has to do with the "be who you were born to be" and "destiny" vibe of Lion King, vs the noble acts of selflessness taken by George out of his own free will.

But no character has to spell this out, nor does George needs to be forced, for the movie to send the exact same message.


Only if you INTERPRET it that way. It is, of course, subjective. The "message" cannot be measured in scientific terms.

_________________
"Feed the birds, tuppence a bag"- Mary Poppins
"How high does the sycamore grow? If you cut it down, then you'll never know"- Pocahontas
"I do not make films primarily for children. I make them for the child in all of us, whether he be six or sixty. Call the child innocence." - Walt Disney


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 30, 2011 8:57 pm 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 1:19 am
Posts: 8177
Location: Appleton, WI
David S. wrote:

You know what? F**K the "Real World"! It BORES me to tears!


Story of my life, right there. :)

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 30, 2011 9:11 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 8:35 pm
Posts: 4749
Location: The Netherlands
ajmrowland wrote:
I'm so very, very sorry :(

Why? Because I was a smart kid? ;)

Well, I may have exaggerated a bit. I believe I was about five years old when I had a crush on Gadget from the Rescue Rangers, so I was not *that* bright. :P


David S. wrote:
No, I am not "blindly" following rules. I HAVE been exposed to nudism and people who are into that stuff. So it's not like I am not familiar with boths points of view. Therefore, choosing to wear clothes is NOT following rules blindly, because if I didn't want to do it, I wouldn't!

But nudists don't walk around the city naked. They have their own sheltered places to do so, where they come together as like-minded people. You're not going out naked, because people would scream and point and be offended... and because you would get arrested. That's the main reason. Note: I believe you prefer to wear clothing. As do I! And I sure as hell wouldn't want to see my neighbours and family members naked. But that's just because it would be unappealing to me. All I'm trying to say, is: even if you *did* prefer to *not* wear clothes, you would *still* wear them when you went outside, because of societal rules.

David S. wrote:
It's NOT a subconscious thing for me. I already gave you the reason. It would be shocking for me because it's something I'm not used to seeing. Just like if someone pulled out a gun next time your in the grocery and shoots the cashier, it should theoretically shock, because it is unexpected.

I think we have a case of miscommunication here. I wasn't talking about seeing fully naked people in real life. I would be shocked too, if I saw someone naked next to me on the grocery store, because I wouldn't expect it! But I was talking about nudity in movies, which started this whole off-topic discussion. And to think that what started it, was princess Leia in a gold bikini, so not even a fully nude person!

David S. wrote:
No need for the condescending, snarky tone (ie, the photo). You obviously don't get what I am getting at. Regardless of what logic says, or what YOU felt at 5, it can be fun to escape into those more innocent places of your spirit. Next thing you know, you're going to be a Scrooge and say Santa and the Easter Bunny aren't real!

But they aren't. They're both your parents hiding either presents or chocolate eggs. I do understand what you're getting at. I'm not condescending, I was just pointing out that you were being a drama queen with your "crushed fantasy by cold hard logic, boohoo" stuff. That's all. I'm just amazed at some of the things you say. I haven't seen anybody taking that much pride in admitting not caring about logic since Ronald Reagan said to the RNC: "Facts are pesky things".

David S. wrote:
Only if you INTERPRET it that way. It is, of course, subjective. The "message" cannot be measured in scientific terms.

Tell me about it. I studied that shit for five years. :lol:


Last edited by Goliath on Sat Jul 30, 2011 9:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 30, 2011 9:16 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:59 am
Posts: 4831
*reads lulzy dramatize debate between Dave S vs everyone*




COOL STORY, BRO!

_________________
<i>Please limit signatures to 100 pixels high and 500 pixels wide</i>
http://i1338.photobucket.com/albums/o68 ... ecf3d2.gif


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 30, 2011 9:24 pm 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 1:19 am
Posts: 8177
Location: Appleton, WI
Goliath wrote:
ajmrowland wrote:
I'm so very, very sorry :(

Why? Because I was a smart kid? ;)

Well, I may have exaggerated a bit. I believe I was about five years old when I had a crush on Gadget from the Rescue Rangers, so I was not *that* bright. :P
Well, it was that you didnt seem to have a childlike sense of wonder, but I'll go with that.


Quote:
David S. wrote:
No, I am not "blindly" following rules. I HAVE been exposed to nudism and people who are into that stuff. So it's not like I am not familiar with boths points of view. Therefore, choosing to wear clothes is NOT following rules blindly, because if I didn't want to do it, I wouldn't!

But nudists don't walk around the city naked. They have their own sheltered places to do so, where they come together as like-minded people. You're not going out naked, because people would scream and point and be offended... and because you would get arrested. That's the main reason. Note: I believe you prefer to wear clothing. As do I! And I sure as hell wouldn't want to see my neighbours and family members naked. But that's just because it would be unappealing to me. All I'm trying to say, is: even if you *did* prefer to *not* wear clothes, you would *still* wear them when you went outside, because of societal rules.[/quote this is something I've found to be true from personal experience. I prefer being nude, but my dad-no matter how many times he sees it(And I've seen him too; he's not particularly secretive)-always acts like it's never happened before and he aint the most sensitive guy in the world. It actually hurts. We're always at each other's necks.

Quote:
David S. wrote:
It's NOT a subconscious thing for me. I already gave you the reason. It would be shocking for me because it's something I'm not used to seeing. Just like if someone pulled out a gun next time your in the grocery and shoots the cashier, it should theoretically shock, because it is unexpected.

I think we have a case of miscommunication here. I wasn't talking about seeing fully naked people in real life. I would be shocked too, if I saw someone naked next to me on the grocery store, because I wouldn't expect it! But I was talking about nudity in movies, which started this whole off-topic discussion. And to think that what started it, was princess Leia in a gold bikini, so not even a fully nude person!
That would be shocking. :lol: Not even just a bikini, but one with drapes. The context of being a sex slave was thrown out the window too.

Quote:
David S. wrote:
No need for the condescending, snarky tone (ie, the photo). You obviously don't get what I am getting at. Regardless of what logic says, or what YOU felt at 5, it can be fun to escape into those more innocent places of your spirit. Next thing you know, you're going to be a Scrooge and say Santa and the Easter Bunny aren't real!

But they aren't. They're both your parents hiding either presents or chocolate eggs. I do understand what you're getting at. I'm not condescending, I was just pointing out that you were being a drama queen with your "crushed fantasy by cold hard logic, boohoo" stuff. That's all. I'm just amazed at some of the things you say. I haven't seen anybody taking that much pride in admitting not caring about logic since Ronald Reagan said to the RNC: "Facts are pesky things".


Fuck reality.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 30, 2011 9:34 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 8:35 pm
Posts: 4749
Location: The Netherlands
ajmrowland wrote:
That would be shocking. :lol:

Though I know some people I wouldn't mind encountering like that. ;) But generally: no, thanks.

ajmrowland wrote:
Fuck reality.

Sounds cool, means nothing.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 30, 2011 9:45 pm 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 1:19 am
Posts: 8177
Location: Appleton, WI
ajmrowland wrote:
Fuck reality.

Sounds cool, means nothing.[/quote]

Actually, means everything. I find fictional characters-no matter who-easier to deal with than actual people.

Then again, I'm kind of a loner.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 30, 2011 10:20 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:59 am
Posts: 4831
ajmrowland wrote:
Then again, I'm kind of a loner.



ajmrowland is........


































































Image

_________________
<i>Please limit signatures to 100 pixels high and 500 pixels wide</i>
http://i1338.photobucket.com/albums/o68 ... ecf3d2.gif


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 30, 2011 11:16 pm 
Offline
Collector's Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 7:23 pm
Posts: 773
Super Aurora wrote:
*reads lulzy dramatize debate between Dave S vs everyone*


Really? I wasn't aware that it was me vs. "everyone". I just thought it was David vs. Goliath!

_________________
"Feed the birds, tuppence a bag"- Mary Poppins
"How high does the sycamore grow? If you cut it down, then you'll never know"- Pocahontas
"I do not make films primarily for children. I make them for the child in all of us, whether he be six or sixty. Call the child innocence." - Walt Disney


Last edited by David S. on Sun Jul 31, 2011 1:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 30, 2011 11:35 pm 
Offline
Collector's Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 7:23 pm
Posts: 773
Goliath wrote:
ajmrowland wrote:
I'm so very, very sorry :(

Why? Because I was a smart kid? ;)


I took it to mean because you had become jaded and lost your childlike sense of wonder about such things at such a young age.

Goliath wrote:
I think we have a case of miscommunication here. I wasn't talking about seeing fully naked people in real life. I would be shocked too, if I saw someone naked next to me on the grocery store, because I wouldn't expect it! But I was talking about nudity in movies, which started this whole off-topic discussion. And to think that what started it, was princess Leia in a gold bikini, so not even a fully nude person!


Well, I thought it had drifted to talking about in real life. But I'd be shocked to see it in movies, too, now that you mention it, since I don't watch R's and am therefore not used to seeing it.

Goliath wrote:
But they aren't. They're both your parents hiding either presents or chocolate eggs.


So says you. Francis Church says otherwise, in The New York Sun, no less: (facts!) Of course, you have every right to believe otherwise, remain on the cynical side of that question, and suck all the Magic and Wonder out of life, if you wish!

Francis Church, New York Sun wrote:
"DEAR EDITOR: I am 8 years old.
"Some of my little friends say there is no Santa Claus.
"Papa says, 'If you see it in THE SUN it's so.'
"Please tell me the truth; is there a Santa Claus?

"VIRGINIA O'HANLON.
"115 WEST NINETY-FIFTH STREET."

VIRGINIA, your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except [what] they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, Virginia, whether they be men's or children's, are little. In this great universe of ours man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect, as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.

Yes, VIRGINIA, there is a Santa Claus. He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no Santa Claus. It would be as dreary as if there were no VIRGINIAS. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The eternal light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished.

Not believe in Santa Claus! You might as well not believe in fairies! You might get your papa to hire men to watch in all the chimneys on Christmas Eve to catch Santa Claus, but even if they did not see Santa Claus coming down, what would that prove? Nobody sees Santa Claus, but that is no sign that there is no Santa Claus. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see. Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that's no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world.

You may tear apart the baby's rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest men that ever lived, could tear apart. Only faith, fancy, poetry, love, romance, can push aside that curtain and view and picture the supernal beauty and glory beyond. Is it all real? Ah, VIRGINIA, in all this world there is nothing else as real and abiding.

No Santa Claus! Thank God he lives, and he lives forever. A thousand years from now, Virginia, nay, ten times ten thousand years from now, he will continue to make glad the heart of childhood.




Goliath wrote:
I do understand what you're getting at. I'm not condescending, I was just pointing out that you were being a drama queen with your "crushed fantasy by cold hard logic, boohoo" stuff.


But that is exactly what you were doing. And that makes me a "drama queen" because I feel that way, and want to stay in touch with my Inner Child, and childlike sense of wonder and beliefs? Whatever! :lol:

Goliath wrote:
That's all. I'm just amazed at some of the things you say. I haven't seen anybody taking that much pride in admitting not caring about logic since Ronald Reagan said to the RNC: "Facts are pesky things".


And I'm likewise amazed at how cold, insensitive, and unfeeling you can sometimes come off as (even if you don't mean it that way).

I never "admited" not "caring" about logic, and I never stated I was "proud" of the fact that I inherently value, and am more in touch with, my feelings, emotions, and intuition more than cerebral thought and logic. I just stated that's how I'm "wired" (to use a scientific term you would be fond of). And the Reagan comparison is a bit unfair, because as a world leader, he had a responsibility to be factual*. Whereas I am hurting NO ONE by ignoring the "facts" about the Disney Characters when I'm in the parks, or about Santa and the Easter Bunny, if it makes me feel Shinier, Happier, more Magical, younger, and more in touch with my Inner Child to lose myself in the fantasy of believing they are real.

*But to be fair to Reagan, he may have been joking. Since politics BORE me immensely, I have no idea of the original context of that quote.

_________________
"Feed the birds, tuppence a bag"- Mary Poppins
"How high does the sycamore grow? If you cut it down, then you'll never know"- Pocahontas
"I do not make films primarily for children. I make them for the child in all of us, whether he be six or sixty. Call the child innocence." - Walt Disney


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 31, 2011 8:07 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 8:35 pm
Posts: 4749
Location: The Netherlands
David S. wrote:
Really? I wasn't aware that it was me vs. "everyone". I just thought it was David vs. Goliath!

Ha! Now that you mention it! That's a good one! :lol:

As you may remember, it didn't end that well for Goliath, now did it? :wink:

David S. wrote:
So says you. Francis Church says otherwise, in The New York Sun, no less: (facts!) Of course, you have every right to believe otherwise, remain on the cynical side of that question, and suck all the Magic and Wonder out of life, if you wish!

How is it "cynical" to state the obvious truth? Surely you're not being serious, right? You don't actually believe Santa is real, do you? Because if you do, I've got to stop replying to you, because that would be a waste of time. I'm seriously confused by your post. I can't get over it that you would call something which is simply the truth "cynical". Or are you just saying this to comfort any potential children who may read along (who aren't here, because this would bore the fuck out of them).

David S. wrote:
But that is exactly what you were doing. And that makes me a "drama queen" because I feel that way, and want to stay in touch with my Inner Child, and childlike sense of wonder and beliefs? Whatever! :lol:

No, that just makes you naive and out-of-touch with the real world. What made you a drama queen, was your tirade about "cold hard facts CRUSHING fantasy and innocence". I'm paraphrasing here, but... being condescending toward people who actually have a realistic view of the world, instead of a Disneyfied fairy tale imagery? Really?

David S. wrote:
And I'm likewise amazed at how cold, insensitive, and unfeeling you can sometimes come off as (even if you don't mean it that way).

Why? Because I stated the truth, that 'characters' at Disney World are paid actors in costumes and parents play the part of the Easter Bunny? When will I be "warm, sensitive and caring" in your eyes? When I admit to believing a little bunny with a basket of eggs comes visiting my home every Easter? Would that pass for "sensitive"?

David S. wrote:
I never "admited" not "caring" about logic, and I never stated I was "proud" of the fact that I inherently value, and am more in touch with, my feelings, emotions, and intuition more than cerebral thought and logic. I just stated that's how I'm "wired" (to use a scientific term you would be fond of).

But then why are you constantly stomping on people who state facts? And why do you think people who are in touch with their emotions can't be rational? You treat them like seperate qualities.

David S. wrote:
And the Reagan comparison is a bit unfair, because as a world leader, he had a responsibility to be factual*.

But the point I was trying to make, was that he wasn't, and he was proud of it too. That's why he said "facts are pesky things".

David S. wrote:
*But to be fair to Reagan, he may have been joking.

If only. The only joke was he, himself. But I do have to say: by not caring about politics because they "bore" you and by constantly shutting out reality in order to be a "child" again, you ARE harming others. Whenever people are not informed about politics, they either make the wrong choices in the voting booth, or they remain apathetic to what's being done to them, and this ultimately hurts the entire population. The people in power, who abuse that power, are counting on the fact that a large part of the population is too preoccupied with their entertainment to care about what's happening to their country and the world --which is why they always get away with their crimes.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 31, 2011 10:28 pm 
Offline
Collector's Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 7:23 pm
Posts: 773
Goliath wrote:
David S. wrote:
So says you. Francis Church says otherwise, in The New York Sun, no less: (facts!) Of course, you have every right to believe otherwise, remain on the cynical side of that question, and suck all the Magic and Wonder out of life, if you wish!


How is it "cynical" to state the obvious truth? Surely you're not being serious, right? You don't actually believe Santa is real, do you? Because if you do, I've got to stop replying to you, because that would be a waste of time. I'm seriously confused by your post. I can't get over it that you would call something which is simply the truth "cynical". Or are you just saying this to comfort any potential children who may read along (who aren't here, because this would bore the f*** out of them).


I really wish you would, because replying to YOU is no picnic for me, either! And I really don't have much time for this right now.

Did you even bother to read that editorial (often cited by ADULTS as very inspiring)?

If so, and if you can't understand, and FEEL, the SPIRIT of that editorial (one of the most beautiful things I've ever read), then yes, I would feel you are cynical, and truly feel sad for you. It sings beautifully to my HEART and SOUL in a way that will always trump mere "logic" in my world. It isn't as much about whether Santa is literally an old man with a white beard who lives at the North Pole, as much as it is about the SPIRIT of what he represents. And yes, I believe that spirit is real, and therefore, I believe in Santa Claus.

If you don't agree with a word of that editorial, it really seems odd to me that you are into Disney. SO many of the iconic Disney movies, and the theme parks, have a recurring theme of innocence, magic, wonder - getting in touch with your inner child, and of believing in things that can't be seen or proven. The ability "to see past the end of your nose" as it was put in Mary Poppins.

I HIGHLY recommend this sublime essay, written by Merlin Jones in 2004:

The Spirit Of Youth

Goliath wrote:

David S. wrote:
But that is exactly what you were doing. And that makes me a "drama queen" because I feel that way, and want to stay in touch with my Inner Child, and childlike sense of wonder and beliefs? Whatever! :lol:


No, that just makes you naive and out-of-touch with the real world.


And the way you are makes you cynical and a slave to it. But it is ridiculous to say that anyone who wants to stay in touch with their Inner Child and sense of wonder is "naive" and "out of touch". And I'm not as "naive" as you think. Believe me, I've been exposed to all that "realistic' stuff, and it bores me to no end, and brings me down. In fact, the things "adults" consider "realistic" is a *distortion* of reality, heavily biased towards the negative. Just watch the evening news. All it is, is an endless litany of negativity. Murders, shooting, robberies.... if an alien came down from another planet and watched the news, they would get the false impression that this was all human life consisted of. You can warp your mind and spirit if you live on a steady diet of that stuff! To truly be "realistic", the news would have to dwell on the positive as much as (or more) than the negative. Because not everyone's life is actually as negative as the news would have you believe.

I am more existential in my philosophy. Existentialism essentially states that "life has no meaning other than the meaning given to it by the individual". Some people look at the first half of that sentence as a nihilistic philosophy, but the second half is what empowers it and makes it VERY positive.

Meaning, "Reality" is RELATIVE to the eyes of the individual. You choose to live in a world where you are constantly aware of the grime in the world, and I choose to live in a world that TRANSCENDS it.

"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars"
-Oscar Wilde

Goliath wrote:

David S. wrote:
And I'm likewise amazed at how cold, insensitive, and unfeeling you can sometimes come off as (even if you don't mean it that way).

Why? Because I stated the truth... When will I be "warm, sensitive and caring" in your eyes? When I admit to believing a little bunny with a basket of eggs comes visiting my home every Easter? Would that pass for "sensitive"?


"Truth" is relative to how you look at things (see above). And I wasn't just talking about THIS thread, or only things you said to me.

Goliath wrote:

David S. wrote:
I never "admited" not "caring" about logic, and I never stated I was "proud" of the fact that I inherently value, and am more in touch with, my feelings, emotions, and intuition more than cerebral thought and logic. I just stated that's how I'm "wired" (to use a scientific term you would be fond of).

But then why are you constantly stomping on people who state facts?


Now who's being a melodramatic "drama queen". I didn't "stomp" on you!

Goliath wrote:

And why do you think people who are in touch with their emotions can't be rational? You treat them like seperate qualities.


I didn't mean that people couldn't be in touch with both. I was referring to an earlier post (which you may not have seen, because I added this part in later) where I referred to the Myers/Briggs personality test, which I enjoy taking for fun, from time to time. I always score OVERWHELMINGLY as an INFP (Introversion/Intuition/Feeling/Perceiving) The "N" stands for "Intuition", which is put in a dichotomy with "Sensing". This means that I have a natural inclination to trust my gut intuition over the more "factual", more tangible knowledge processed through the senses. Likewise, "Feeling" is pitted against "Thinking", and my scores for "Feeling" always trample "Thinking", even though I myself am quite cerebral and was tested with a high IQ and was reading at a 9th grade reading level in the first grade. But by scoring significantly higher on "Feeling" than "Thinking", this indicates that I am much more likely to follow my heart than head, and gravitate more towards my emotions and feelings than "cold hard rational facts". These results for me are uncannily accurate. There is a thread somewhere in "off topic" where other members posted their results. I don't think I ever got around to posting mine.

So that's all I meant by pitting one against the other. I was just trying to give you some perspective on how I am naturally inclined to look at things. And that might explain why we see things very differently.

(Detailed descriptions of the 4 dichotomies can be found here, and the site has descriptions for all 16 personality types):

Extraverted vs Introverted
Sensing vs Intuition
Thinking vs Feeling
Judging vs Perceiving

Goliath wrote:

David S. wrote:
And the Reagan comparison is a bit unfair, because as a world leader, he had a responsibility to be factual*.

But the point I was trying to make, was that he wasn't, and he was proud of it too. That's why he said "facts are pesky things".

David S. wrote:
*But to be fair to Reagan, he may have been joking.


If only. The only joke was he, himself.


Actually, I looked it up. Apparently he was referencing John Adams' quote " Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence", which is actually in DEFENSE of facts, and he simply got confused and misplaced "stubborn" with "pesky". Although if this is the case and IF you were aware of it, I'm not surprised you left this part out, given your politics. I'm not a conservative or Republican by any means, but if you are going to praise "facts" so much, please at least get them straight!

(source: the third answer at http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 652AARLlSB )


Goliath wrote:
But I do have to say: by not caring about politics because they "bore" you and by constantly shutting out reality in order to be a "child" again, you ARE harming others. Whenever people are not informed about politics, they either make the wrong choices in the voting booth, or they remain apathetic to what's being done to them, and this ultimately hurts the entire population. The people in power, who abuse that power, are counting on the fact that a large part of the population is too preoccupied with their entertainment to care about what's happening to their country and the world --which is why they always get away with their crimes.


Ah, EVERYTHING is political for you, isn't it. I am not harming ANYONE by not regularly following political topics I don't enjoy. I have NO obligation to ANYONE other than to treat them the way I would want to be treated when interacting with others, and to respect their rights. I don't believe in any utilitarian "collectivist duty" philosophy. To believe that leads down a dangerous slippery slope which can lead to travesties like forced military conscription. And I am NOT "harming" others simply by inaction, and mirroring the natural state of an object at rest to remain at rest, and exercising my own natural right to do so. I could turn that around on you and say that if you buy a DVD tomorrow, or simply do nothing with your leisure money, you are "harming" the poor by not giving them that money instead, since it would have helped them and you didn't need it for a "neccessity". Of course, I don't believe that, but it's the same kind of logic you are using.

I certainly feel like I contribute more good to the world than "harm", through voluntary charitable donations and such. And who says I'm not "informed"? I am in many ways apolitical, but I do pick up enough here and there to know that I don't care for either major party, except perhaps the third party Libertarians, which you dislike because they aren't socialist. So you probably wouldn't want me getting involved in politics!

And again, the political scene BORES me and brings me down. It's a drag, man. Too much negative energy. It's not that I don't care, because I do care about certain issues. I just prefer to not DWELL on them in a day-in, day-out basis like you do. And you are more "thick-skinned" than I am. So instead of criticizing people who are different than you and preaching how they should care about your beloved politics, why not accept that not all people have the same interests and temperaments. In broad terms, you are a tough politico, and I'm a delicate aesthete, so our levels of tolerance for, and interest in, spending time swimming in that political world is going to be vastly different.

One thing I can say for certain is that I am ecstatically HAPPY with my life, and being the way I am - and what I choose to surround myself with, what I choose to ignore, and what I choose to believe - is certainly a big factor why. Frankly, I know a lot of "adults" who are pretty miserable, so I must be doing something right!

In closing, I leave you with a song (audio below lyric excerpt), and the heartfelt wish to not discuss these things publically with you ever again. (But if you keep replying, I will keep defending/clarifying, and unfortunately, I suspect you'll be back. But if you wish to reply further, I am requesting that you take this to PMs, as it will be more private, and this is also derailing the topic.)

Quick quote:

It's a perfect day for getting wild
Forgetting all your worries
Life, and everything that makes you cry
Let's get happy!
It's a perfect day for dreams come true
For thinking big
And doing anything you want to do
Let's get happy!

"But it's much to late" you say
"For doing this now
You should have done it then"
Well it just goes to show
How wrong you can be
And how you really should know
That it's never too late
To get up and go!

Kick out the gloom!
Kick out the blues!
Tear out the pages with all the bad news!...

- From "Doing the Unstuck" by the Cure; lyrics by Robert Smith

<iframe width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/-7HtSZ6TamA" frameborder="0"></iframe>

PS. If you really want deeper insight into the ideals that make me "tick", philosophically, emotionally, and spiritually, I highly recommend reading this, the most beautiful book I've ever read:

The Little Prince

_________________
"Feed the birds, tuppence a bag"- Mary Poppins
"How high does the sycamore grow? If you cut it down, then you'll never know"- Pocahontas
"I do not make films primarily for children. I make them for the child in all of us, whether he be six or sixty. Call the child innocence." - Walt Disney


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 57 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group