LEGO Mindstorms EV3 -
Pretend it's for the kids. We both know better.
|
Monday, 8 May 2017
quote [ May 8, 2017 - "Norm" is a short film about two roommates debating over the morality of rape, in a society where raping women is legal and socially accepted.
Written and Directed by Miguel Endara ]
|
Taxman said @ 1:50pm GMT on 9th May
Yeah, I watched it in its entirety. The argument is disingenuous.
First, the "sides" portrayed are extremes. The 'consensual' is simply minding his own business when he is physically assaulted by 'the other side'. Before even starting the conversation the author has created a perpetrator and victim role. Regardless of what the argument will be, creating a sympathetic situation PRIOR to your argument is manipulation of the viewer's empathy. It is no longer about the topic, but about the mean guy versus the nice guy. I could create the same situation by showing two people approaching each other to discuss farm subsidies, with one of the people knocking a full coffee mug out of the other persons hands, having it crash messily to the floor. Regardless of what side you might be on, that's rude and a viewer will set up mental defenses against the perpetrator of such rudeness.
Second, this isn't even good-cop bad-cop. This is bad cop, worse cop. The situation is set up to include a level headed (but obviously confused) speaker for the other side, and a douchebag. The douchebag represents both real and perceived slights experienced by the vegan side. Rudeness, isolation, exclusion, misunderstanding, accusations, superiority, etc. All the worst traits of any majority embodied into one asshole representation. Convienant that the vegan side didn't have any noticeable character flaws, pushiness, 'you brought this up first', 'I would never make my dietary restriction your problem', 'I'm trying to understand you, which is something you're finding too difficult to do for me', 'I'm just repeating your shitty arguments back to you.'
Which brings me to the arguments made by the 'non-consensual'. They're pathetic. They're stuttered, with no thought put into them. "Thing I do is good because it feel good.". That's 5 year old logic, and done on purpose, because this obviously isn't about having a real discussion or comparison. I don't even know what they were trying to imply/compare with the raping women is ok, but someone raping his sister is not ok because 'family'. In a world where this would be allowed, there would be little to. I empathy for the female plight. I'm assuming it was a reference to pets? We don't eat pets because 'family'? I digress.
What this comes down to is a dietary restriction by privileged people with different ideals than the general public. That's admirable to have ideals. However, ideals require work (on your part), they require sacrifice (on your part), and when they conflict with the general public you don't get a pass to make grandiose disngenuos comparison arguments to shame people that don't share your ideals.
My original comment is that veganism is a one way street. They want the general public to bend to accommodate their ideals, but they refuse to accommodate the general public (because that is part of the ideal! Convienant!). They have self-imposed dietary restrictions based on their feelings. That's fine, more power to them. However, it is contradictory to want people to accept your diet and then flat out reject theirs.
Furthermore, it is insulting and disgusting to set up a straw man comparison, without anything approaching equal argument, and use violent crime against other human beings as if the two topics are exactly the same. It's shock therapy, not an argument.
Life only survives by destroying other life. The vegans destroy/eat plant life using the exact same arguement as meat eaters. It's 'lesser' life so it's not bad. See? Now I'm simplifying their arguement unfairly, but perhaps turnabout is fair play?
Taxman said @ 1:54pm GMT on 9th May
Yeah, I watched it in its entirety. The argument is disingenuous.
First, the "sides" portrayed are extremes. The 'consensual' is simply minding his own business when he is physically assaulted by 'the other side'. Before even starting the conversation the author has created a perpetrator and victim role. Regardless of what the argument will be, creating a sympathetic situation PRIOR to your argument is manipulation of the viewer's empathy. It is no longer about the topic, but about the mean guy versus the nice guy. I could create the same situation by showing two people approaching each other to discuss farm subsidies, with one of the people knocking a full coffee mug out of the other persons hands, having it crash messily to the floor. Regardless of what side you might be on, that's rude and a viewer will set up mental defenses against the perpetrator of such rudeness.
Second, this isn't even good-cop bad-cop. This is bad cop, worse cop. The situation is set up to include a level headed (but obviously confused) speaker for the other side, and a douchebag. The douchebag represents both real and perceived slights experienced by the vegan side. Rudeness, isolation, exclusion, misunderstanding, accusations, superiority, etc. All the worst traits of any majority embodied into one asshole representation. Convienant that the vegan side didn't have any noticeable character flaws, pushiness, 'you brought this up first', 'I would never make my dietary restriction your problem', 'I'm trying to understand you, which is something you're finding too difficult to do for me', 'I'm just repeating your shitty arguments back to you.'
Which brings me to the arguments made by the 'non-consensual'. They're pathetic. They're stuttered, with no thought put into them. "Thing I do is good because it feel good.". That's 5 year old logic, and done on purpose, because this obviously isn't about having a real discussion or comparison. I don't even know what they were trying to imply/compare with the raping women is ok, but someone raping his sister is not ok because 'family'. In a world where this would be allowed, there would be little to no empathy for the female plight. I'm assuming it was a reference to pets? We don't eat pets because 'family'? I digress.
What this comes down to is a dietary restriction by privileged people with different ideals than the general public. That's admirable to have ideals. However, ideals require work (on your part), they require sacrifice (on your part), and when they conflict with the general public you don't get a pass to make grandiose disingenuous comparison arguments to shame people that don't share your ideals.
My original comment is that veganism is a one way street. They want the general public to bend to accommodate their ideals, but they refuse to accommodate the general public (because that is part of the ideal! Convienant!). They have self-imposed dietary restrictions based on their feelings. That's fine, more power to them. However, it is contradictory to want people to accept your diet and then flat out reject theirs.
Furthermore, it is insulting and disgusting to set up a straw man comparison, without anything approaching equal argument, and use violent crime against other human beings as if the two topics are exactly the same. It's shock therapy, not an argument.
Life only survives by destroying other life. The vegans destroy/eat plant life using the exact same arguement as meat eaters. It's 'lesser' life so it's not bad. See? Now I'm simplifying their arguement unfairly, but perhaps turnabout is fair play?
<-- Entry / Current Comment
Taxman said @ 1:50pm GMT on 9th May [Score:2]
Yeah, I watched it in its entirety. The argument is disingenuous.
First, the "sides" portrayed are extremes. The 'consensual' is simply minding his own business when he is physically assaulted by 'the other side'. Before even starting the conversation the author has created a perpetrator and victim role. Regardless of what the argument will be, creating a sympathetic situation PRIOR to your argument is manipulation of the viewer's empathy. It is no longer about the topic, but about the mean guy versus the nice guy. I could create the same situation by showing two people approaching each other to discuss farm subsidies, with one of the people knocking a full coffee mug out of the other persons hands, having it crash messily to the floor. Regardless of what side you might be on, that's rude and a viewer will set up mental defenses against the perpetrator of such rudeness.
Second, this isn't even good-cop bad-cop. This is bad cop, worse cop. The situation is set up to include a level headed (but obviously confused) speaker for the other side, and a douchebag. The douchebag represents both real and perceived slights experienced by the vegan side. Rudeness, isolation, exclusion, misunderstanding, accusations, superiority, etc. All the worst traits of any majority embodied into one asshole representation. Convienant that the vegan side didn't have any noticeable character flaws, pushiness, 'you brought this up first', 'I would never make my dietary restriction your problem', 'I'm trying to understand you, which is something you're finding too difficult to do for me', 'I'm just repeating your shitty arguments back to you.'
Which brings me to the arguments made by the 'non-consensual'. They're pathetic. They're stuttered, with no thought put into them. "Thing I do is good because it feel good.". That's 5 year old logic, and done on purpose, because this obviously isn't about having a real discussion or comparison. I don't even know what they were trying to imply/compare with the raping women is ok, but someone raping his sister is not ok because 'family'. In a world where this would be allowed, there would be little to no empathy for the female plight. I'm assuming it was a reference to pets? We don't eat pets because 'family'? I digress.
What this comes down to is a dietary restriction by privileged people with different ideals than the general public. That's admirable to have ideals. However, ideals require work (on your part), they require sacrifice (on your part), and when they conflict with the general public you don't get a pass to make grandiose disingenuous comparison arguments to shame people that don't share your ideals.
My original comment is that veganism is a one way street. They want the general public to bend to accommodate their ideals, but they refuse to accommodate the general public (because that is part of the ideal! Convienant!). They have self-imposed dietary restrictions based on their feelings. That's fine, more power to them. However, it is contradictory to want people to accept your diet and then flat out reject theirs.
Furthermore, it is insulting and disgusting to set up a straw man comparison, without anything approaching equal argument, and use violent crime against other human beings as if the two topics are exactly the same. It's shock therapy, not an argument.
Life only survives by destroying other life. The vegans destroy/eat plant life using the exact same arguement as meat eaters. It's 'lesser' life so it's not bad. See? Now I'm simplifying their arguement unfairly, but perhaps turnabout is fair play?
https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/comments/69yqqj/i_made_a_film_about_what_it_feels_like_to_be_a/