This could go in circles forever.

To reuse my "quote of the day": MY BRAIN HURTS!

@Allamorph:

Oh come on! Who's to say I said that just for the sake of saying so?

Hahahaha...hey! Where's everyone going?

*sniff*
I'm all alone now...

@Kastom:

I'm a firm believer in arguing for the sake of arguing. Just think about this conversation we're having right now. Who's to say that everything I'm saying is just stuff I've learned, but don't actually believe in the slightest?

Thank you, man, for completely obliterating any interest I had in this discussion.

See ya around. (^_^)

@bellpickle:

The fact of the matter is that I could rant and rant on and on about beliefs and being fair in judgment of everyone, but truly, who can seriously do that? I believe that by setting such high expectations for myself, I am merely forcing myself to ATTEMPT to reach that, making it so that I AM more understanding towards others, but not nearly at the point where I won't be mad at someone for thinking that anime was a primary catalyst for coaxing a person into violent acts. I'll try to understand where they're coming from, look into more about that person's life, and I'll fight extremely adamantly, but I would attempt to refrain myself from calling them ignorant and such. Although in some cases, that's the only word that is truly appropriate. lol.

@Kastom:

Okay, I think that's fair. It was mainly what I assumed to be an expectation for people not to argue that I disagreed with, since as you said, that's too human of a reaction to suppress.

@TimeChaser:

If you say everything is subjective, does that mean someone has the right to say "I believe in raping, killing, and causing misery, and since there's no moral truth, I have the right to do what I believe"?

Like Allamorph said, yes, someone can say and truly believe that. What others would do about it is what will stop them. Personally I believe that is wrong, therefore I would argue that they are wrong, as in my head/world (everyone has their own world) they indeed are.

And by argue, I mean that hypothetically I attempt to prove them wrong, or convince them otherwise. Realistically, I have to admit that I would do something very extreme, as in my morals, someone like that is true evil. Therefore, I would do whatever I could to stop them, going to whatever extremes I would have to. Why? Because I believe in my morals that strongly. Therefore that gives me the right to do what I want. What judgment others will bestow upon me has nothing to do with my worlds and it's morals, it's completely to do with others. The "evil" person that I stop would probably believe that I am just as evil. But to me, that means nothing as that is their world and their morals.

@bellpickle:

I completely understand with what you're saying, and I have to admit, that I was ranting quite a bit, and therefore said some things I didn't completely think through.

But I do believe that it's very hard to get at someone for simply believing something that you believe is wrong. It's like getting mad at someone for being who they are (although many people do this anyways). I agree with you that A person can understand or even partly sympathize with their opposer's beliefs and still vehemently disagree with them, and I never really meant for it to mean that Just because no belief can be proven true doesn't mean that no one has the right to defend and argue their beliefs with everything they've got.

tolerate other people's opinions and not argue against contradicting opinions
Getting mad at someone and arguing with them are two completely different things. I'm arguing with you, but I'm not mad at you. In fact, I think you are extremely intelligent and a "good" person (by my views of what "good" is of course, lol). I believe that you should really ever get mad at someone for thinking what they think. Instead you should argue with them.

I believe you should tolerate, but you SHOULD argue. I'm a firm believer in arguing for the sake of arguing. Just think about this conversation we're having right now. Who's to say that everything I'm saying is just stuff I've learned, but don't actually believe in the slightest? For instance, I just said that I don't think you should get mad at people for believing what they believe. But do I actually do that? Of course not! I too am human, and therefore on ideas that I feel very strongly about (for instance the incident that was mentioned on the podcast about the environmentalist throwing acid at the whaler. I completely agree with the environmentalist! If I was there, I would be doing everything I could to attack those whalers myself) I can't help myself but get mad.
But whatever the case, I believe we're all learning and perceiving new things by this arguing.

Basically I believe in tolerance, but that does not mean you cannot argue. Fight as much as you can; always be fighting everything around you, just for the sake of it. This way you will see what you truly believe in. If someone believes something opposite of you, tolerate them for that. Don't be hostile, don't simply scoff at them; instead argue your point to whatever degree you possibly can.

@Kastom:

If I understand this correctly, it seems that you're primarily concerned with the validity of other people's beliefs. (That is, whether certain beliefs are right or wrong.) Which was something that I mentioned in my comment, but it wasn't what I was primarily arguing.

I don't personally care much whether everyone agrees with my beliefs or not, and I acknowledge that there is no way of proving that one belief is "more right" than others. (More fair or humane, perhaps, but not right.) But what you seemed to be implying in that other comment of yours (where you said how can you get mad at someone that is simply doing that?) is that everyone should tolerate other people's opinions and not argue against contradicting opinions, which I disagree with.

A person can understand or even partly sympathize with their opposer's beliefs and still vehemently disagree with them. Just because no belief can be proven true doesn't mean that no one has the right to defend and argue their beliefs with everything they've got.

@TimeChaser:

If you say everything is subjective, does that mean someone has the right to say "I believe in raping, killing, and causing misery, and since there's no moral truth, I have the right to do what I believe"?

Yes. It does. (Assuming that Nihilism is true.)

See, the problem with that approach lies in attempting to bring subjectivity into question by allowing more room for subjectivity. Think logically about the other side's response: it is far too easy to combine subjective human views on ethics with majority rule and the desire to maintain order. In that situation, it doesn't matter that morals are subjective. If the Powers That Be collectively decide that a certain action is wrong, and an individual believes otherwise and takes that action, he will still be held accountable for it because the PTB have the ability to enforce their belief, and the individual does not. The individual could even be in the right, and he'd still be punished.

Case in point: the Salem Witchcraft Trials. I need say nothing else.

---

The great thing about thinking from the other side's viewpoint is that not only does it allow you to better understand your opponent's position, but it also lets you start to see flaws in your own beliefs, and you can then determine whether you simply need more information or better reasoning to strengthen your position, or even that you might need to completely change your stance.

Additionally, it allows you to then begin to understand the flaws in your opponent's position, whereas before you only knew what they were. That will allow you to develop actual effective arguments against them, and prevent you from falling into recursive traps like ..... the one you just fell in.

(^_^)

@Kastom:

There have to be some laws created to apply to everyone, because the human race as a whole is not yet mature enough for every individual to govern themselves.

If you say everything is subjective, does that mean someone has the right to say "I believe in raping, killing, and causing misery, and since there's no moral truth, I have the right to do what I believe"?

Hm... this debate has really spun off into deeper waters than where it started.

@Allamorph:

but if all perceptions of right and wrong are subjective, then all our laws become subjective, questionable, and ultimately worthless.

That's more or less the point of what many philosophers say. You have to throw out your old values, as who is to say they are correct? You must make your own as that is the only way that you can be sure that you are doing what is right, because that is what you believe. EVERYTHING is a point of view.

As for your cat/hippo comment, Pleiades Rising already covered very well.

If nothing is right and nothing is wrong, then we have anarchy.

Not necessarily, as most humans don't like anarchy, so we make it so that there are "absolutes", e.g. laws. But since they are not truly absolutes, there will always be people that break them. Most people strive for order, will therefore ignore their own values in exchange for the security of having a base they can build off of, i.e. governments, religion, etc.

I was led here by various sources, and I see that a very interesting debate is going on. What I like about these types of responses and "open questions" is that we can see what the limits of the debate are. However, there is always something inherently dangerous when engaging in this sort of loose inquiring.

I think the scope of this quote captures the usual feeling:

Crimes are not committed by games, or films, or music. They are committed by people. Atrocious crimes, such as the Columbine incident, are committed by unhinged people. The killers were a danger to society, even before they played Doom. Did Doom play a part in triggering their behavior? Could Manhunt 2 do the same? Nobody can say for certain. Should we ban violent content to ensure it doesn’t happen? Certainly not.

Dan Kempster Video Game Violence - Influence or Innocence? "News and Comment"

I quite understand that guns do not kill people; games do not kill people; films do not kill people; and music does not kill people. People do in fact kill people. The reasoning is solid so far, right? However, Mr. Kempster seem to not notice the fallacious aspect of this line of argument, for the confusion is manifold.

First of all, how is it that he confuses causes with influences? If I merely hold a gun in my hand, it causes nothing at all. It just is. I can apply the usual gun-cause reasoning to other things such as this: "Shoes don't kill people. People kill people." The line of reasoning and content are exactly the same: They explain nothing. Returning to the gun, I hold it in my hand, and it is up to me to pull that trigger. In this context, he would be right to attribute the cause to me. However, we are still stuck in the old "what is the cause?" argument. Those types of reasoning always seem to hastily combine cause with influence, thus polluting an otherwise worthy debate. I want to know what influenced the person to do that? The question should be: "To what degree are we influenced by media-violence?".

Regarding Kastom's argument, there is something substantial to it, but to flesh it out would require an essay. Here is a short thought.

I have yet to find one moral "fact" in this world. In fact, I'm not alone: no philosopher, or -- even less so -- scientist has found a moral "fact". Second, (thus accepting the terms of this argument) language does odd things to people. I can point to a bird in the sky and call it a fish, and someone will believe me. I know, because I was playing with my little nephew and told him that those are called "fish". He believed me, thus establishing a "truth" between us. (Yes, he now knows what they are!) If this sounds too ridiculous, perhaps this will sound more appropriate. If I call my cat a "cat", that does not make it a cat. If I happen to call it a "neko", does that make it a neko, and not a cat? I would have to call the Japanese "wrong" because they choose to call a cat something else.

However, when I'm looking at an object which exists in spacetime (not some intangible moral "fact") that animal is indeed the usual "animal" that all cultures familiar with them perceive -- viz. a cat. There is nothing inherently "right", "correct, or "truthful" about that animal. No matter how intently I stare at the cat, "truth" does not arise from it, until I assert something of it. Thus, "truth" is dependent on my assertions; meanwhile, the cat just is, in the same way a gun is not "wrong". It's interesting to see the language of philosophy unintentionally blur with the language of science.

@Kastom:

Actually it's more of an influence of my existential philosophy course. lol.

Oh dear Lord, that's even worse. =P

Anyway, lemme just run a few things by you.

there are no absolutes.

Shot yourself in the foot with that one there. But if that ain't facetious retort enough, here's a few more that counter it.

My all encompassing response here is this: everyone, and everyone's opinion IS ignorant. Not one of you could ever convince me that you are right about something.

....yeah. Moving on.

This is a statement I believe is completely false. I'm sorry, but I REALLY don't agree with you. Of course my disagreeance means nothing, as in your mind you are right.

Eh, if I point at a kitten and call it a hippo, I'm wrong. Ain't got nothin' to do with morals, or philosophy, or the nature of mankind. It's got to do with it not being a hippo.

Though, if you want to pull "misunderstanding of arbitrary labels", then suppose I say 2+2=5. I'm still wrong. I can't get five apples from a pair of pairs. And pears will just screw everything up.

And I don't want to cast aspersions on Sartre, but if all perceptions of right and wrong are subjective, then all our laws become subjective, questionable, and ultimately worthless.

It's just that the more someone is adamant about something, the more I believe they are ignorant about that issue. Why? Because if you were less ignorant, you would better understand the other side, and any others if there are more, and therefore would never be able to say that one side is right and one side is wrong.

Not necessarily. One's understanding of a situation has no affect on the truth.

----

My final remarks, since I feel like being facetious again (=P):

If nothing is right and nothing is wrong, then we have anarchy.

And, there is no box. (^_^)

I think there was too much Psychology vocabulary in that post there, bud. =P - Allamorph

Actually it's more of an influence of my existential philosophy course. lol.

Burning books has always been an act of ignorance born of fear - timechaser

Just because a person thinks their beliefs are right doesn't automatically make those beliefs tolerable. - bellpickle

Yes, people are entitled to their opinions, but that's far from proving that those opinions are valid. - bellpickle

There's definitely a point where certain beliefs are ignorant - bellpickle

My all encompassing response here is this: everyone, and everyone's opinion IS ignorant. Not one of you could ever convince me that you are right about something. I may agree with you, but that doesn't mean that I think you're right for sure. As contradictory as this statement may be, think about it, and eventually you may see my meaning.

bellpickle, I don't believe there is that certain point, I believe that all beliefs are always ignorant. No matter what you say about anything, anything at all, I know that I could come up with something that will oppose it. You may call me ignorant then for this view of mine that opposes yours, as from your point of view it IS ignorant, and that is something that I'm not arguing. However, from MY point of view, YOU are ignorant. Sure, there will be those that will agree with you, and there may be some that agree with me. But no matter what you ever say, nothing can ever convince me that your opinion is more valid than my own. True, on some issues I may learn new things, and come to understand your view on it better. Then you would be like, "See! I was right!" However, I won't agree with you, as YOU haven't tried to look at it from my view.

I believe that everyone is entitled to their opinions, but that no one's opinion is EVER valid. Yours, or anyone else's opinions will NEVER be valid, simply because it can't be.

It all comes down to this simple idea: there are no universal morals, there are no absolutes. As much as we as humans may want there to be, there ARE NOT. There is no one that can ever say, "THIS is what is the right thing to do. THIS is what is right." And in the same light, no one can ever say, "THIS is the proper thing to believe on this issue at hand. THIS is what you should argue for."

I mean, if you're wrong, you're wrong, and there ain't no two ways about it. Don't mean you're a bad person, just that you probably don't got yer things completely straight. - Allamorph

This is a statement I believe is completely false. I'm sorry, but I REALLY don't agree with you. Of course my disagreeance means nothing, as in your mind you are right.

By having your own morals, you are, as I take from Sartre, taking responsibility for not only your own life and the rights and wrongs of what you do, but also for the rest of mankind. By having your own ideas and principles about life, by having your own opinions, you are making the principles and ideas for the rest of mankind as well. Why? Because everything that happens is in your mind. When you see something, you decide if it is right or wrong, therefore taking responsibility for what others do. You have decided that what that person has done is wrong, therefore they are wrong. There is no two ways about it. At least from your view.

I would finally like to say that I'm not actually disagreeing with anyone that says that those who gets mad at anime and video games for spreading violence are ignorant. I really do completely agree with many of your comments. Yet at the same time I disagree with some of your more obscure comments. I actually also believe that they are ignorant. Although I am also ignorant, as I don't know enough about the people that wish for censorship to better understand their position. I'm sure in their minds I am just as ignorant.
I just wish for all of you to think even more outside the box than you already are, as I know for a fact that you are all extremely intelligent considering what some of your comments have been. It's just that the more someone is adamant about something, the more I believe they are ignorant about that issue. Why? Because if you were less ignorant, you would better understand the other side, and any others if there are more, and therefore would never be able to say that one side is right and one side is wrong. And maybe a few are partial.

My final statement: nothing is right, nothing is wrong, nothing is definite, and nothing is the truth. What is left? Humanity. Humans are never anything, they are simply human.

@Kastom:

I think there was too much Psychology vocabulary in that post there, bud. =P

I don't think they're ignorant, and I don't hate them. I find the act pointless; I understand why they're doing it, because I can reorient to their perspective. They honestly believe what they do has purpose and meaning, which is a completely legitimate attitude.

Whether or not they are wrong is a separate issue. I mean, if you're wrong, you're wrong, and there ain't no two ways about it. Don't mean you're a bad person, just that you probably don't got yer things completely straight.

(^_^)

@Kastom:

I'm sorry, but I don't agree. Just because a person thinks their beliefs are right doesn't automatically make those beliefs tolerable. That's like saying that "it's okay for a government to tell their people that another country/a group of people/a religion/etc. is the root of all evil because that's what they believe is right and everything is subjective anyway." Beliefs regarding the causes of societal problems can gain tremendous influence, which sometimes leads to consequences such as unjustified censorship. And tolerance of those beliefs are what help such consequences eventually come to effect.

Yes, people are entitled to their opinions, but that's far from proving that those opinions are valid. There's definitely a point where certain beliefs are ignorant, or worse, harmful and I think people have every right to call people out on those occasions. Obviously, thinking anime is evil is not that big of a deal, but I think it is simply foolish to make such a generalized blanket statement about an issue so big and complex. (That is, the issue of whether or not all beliefs should be accepted.)

So many good point made so far. I don't think I'm able to top any of them.

Along with the HP book burning, has anyone seen the list of "banned books" before? It's this giant list of books that, of course, are books that have been challenged and are "controversial". And yes, The Adventures of Tom Sawyer (and possibly even Huckleberry Finn) are on that list. It's rather sad some of the books that are on there.

We're doing some reading on the Holocaust and the Nazis in my English class, and my teacher brought up the point that most people are just so gullible and stupid. We read the story called 'The Children's' Story' (or something close to that) which was about how a opposing power took over the U.S. and a teacher comes to teach the children. In less than twenty-five minutes she has them completely wrapped around her finger. People are just so easily manipulated. I mean, yeah, they were 2nd graders, and we all know the younger you are, usually the easier it is to manipulate someone. But just one person decides something is wrong, and a whole bunch of people decide that the original person must be right, so they follow.

People just don't use their common sense.

As my 7th grade science teacher put it very simply: "People are just plain stupid."

@Kastom:

Burning books has always been an act of ignorance born of fear. The Inquisition, Nazi Germany... when people stop rational debate and start burning books, then it's stepping over a line.

People need to get thier heads out of their asses and realize that people are to blame, not the anime and manga. Like the post says, it's common sense. Start using it more and you'll know that people are what is really to blame.

People are simply doing what they believe is right, and really, how can you get mad at someone that is simply doing that? I think people should be able to read whatever they want, but at the same time I understand and respect what some people are doing by protesting these things. They believe they are doing what they can to make the world a better place, so in their mind, what they are doing is good. But in other's minds, they are being ignorant. It's impossible to say that one side is being ignorant. They aren't. People are individuals, and therefore WILL have their own unique ideas on life, and what it means to be good, and what it means to be bad. In some people's minds, video games and violence in media is evil. And those that disagree with them can't say they're ignorant or say they are stupid, etc., otherwise you are being just as ignorant as you believe they are. It all comes down to perception, and therefore there is no answer.
Thus an eternal debate of one side saying the other is ignorant, and the other saying they are spreading hate and evil is made, and forever shall it be. Why? Because we are human.

@Allamorph:

To sane, raitonal people like us, there's no point to it.

To fanatical people... who knows. They probably think that if they do it, others will follow their example. What's amusing is the article also says most of the rest of the community showed up and protested the book burning.

@TimeChaser:

What I find pointless about that incident is .... how'd they get all the books?

Presumably, they bought them, right?

Since printing is far easier than it used to be, all I can see that doing is being symbolic. But the publisher can simply order an new line of books printed, so what else is the point?

@Nehszriah:

I still have newspapers articles saved from back in 2000 when people were claiming that Harry Potter was evil and it taught kids how to perform witchcraft.

There was one article in particular about a church group in New Mexico that actually had a public book burning *sigh*

I wonder how many of the people up in arms and ready to ban pieces of literature actually realize what they're doing is technically illegal to do (provided it is in the US of A)? We have freedoms of the press and of speech under our belt, unless it directly threatens another's safety and well-being. Is a manga or other piece of literature going to fly up and papercut someone to death? Uh, Hells no. It is my opinion that you either ban all literature or nothing at all. Words are powerful and control how we think, act and exist. Even singular words take on different meanings over the years. Who are we to deny the curious? Ignorance may be bliss, but too much ignorance is a dangerous thing. Ignorance leads to things like wrongful killings inspired by fantasy stories and sci-fi films.

It is not desensitization: it is simply what the world has to offer. Parents have the right to censor their own children's entertainment, not all children's entertainment.

I believe it all comes down to the simple human want of not accepting innate human violence. Everyone has the capacity to harm others, and everyone does it. But we want to not have to accept that. We want something that we can blame; something we can point to and say, "That's the reason they did this."

It also is in part due to people once again not wanting to accept the harder truth. They don't want to have to accept that something greater may be wrong with themselves/society/the world, and instead will once again blame something else that is easier to attack. How does one go about getting mad at the society that made a kid angry because he was picked on and ridiculed? It's not impossible, but extremely difficult and time-consuming. So instead, point at something slightly related and blame that.

People blame video games for causing teen violence. Is it a part? Undoubtedly. However, when there are wars going on around the world, people being murdered and raped in cities, one has to ask themselves, which truly is the bigger influence?

@SunfallE:

"It may give them an idea on how to go about it, but in the end, the person committing the violence still makes the choice to do it."

Yes. All popular media provides is the inspiration and the excuse. There is no guarantee that the person who commits murder in the style of a certain character from an anime, a movie, or a book would not have found some other way to commit the murder(s).

I do feel that censoring/banning of material is a very hot issue, especially with an excuse, such as the ones mentioned, that uninformed, well intentioned people will readily flock behind. I've read Ray Bradbury, and I tend to take indicators of stuff like Fahrenheit 451, "There Will Come Soft Rains", and "Usher II" very seriously.

What makes me laugh at the concept of violence is promoted by television or video games is… why did violence exist before tv and video games? :p It’s like… DUH… As you said, “guns don’t kill people. People kill people.” It may give them an idea on how to go about it, but in the end, the person committing the violence still makes the choice to do it.

@TimeChaser:

Right on both counts. People might kill people, but the guns help. You cant walk up on a person and go "BANG" and they die, if they did, they were really dodgy on the heart.

Yes, I quoted Eddie Izzard. The idea isnt my own, but its a little funny, and pertinent(sp?) to the conversation.

And to everyone else
CHEER UP!

@TimeChaser:

Lack possession of, I do believe.

Oh I think we're all in agreement that the fault doesn't lie in the shows at all. It lies in the screwed up excuse for brains some people unfortunately posess. Or is that screwed up excuse for brains they lack posession of?