| I enjoy both forms of mediums, I don't prefer one over the other as both have great series imo. But what what I enjoy most about anime is the certain feel and aesthetic it has that western media does not. I can't quite put it into words, it just has *that anime feel* that simply cannot be captured anywhere else. I'm sure you all know what I'm talking about. |
| Because live action or western media is just one big shit show of propaganda and brainwashing..... at least most of the Japanese cultural brainwashing just flys over my head if there is any. |
Grandassassin said: Or comics books?One reason why I prefer anime over western media is pretty obvious, more variety. It’s the same song and dance with live action tv: drama, comedy, reality shows, repetitive everything. Not being a weeb it’s a true fact, same with anime having the same old shit but there’s a catch, more unique premises are being pumped out of anime and manga compared to live action tv. Are there newer tv shows about a doctor trying to undo his mistakes 9 years later after saving a boy from death, no. Do you see any tv shows that have two people getting their bodies back after horribly trying to resurrect their mother, no. Are there tv shows that have a swordman who was born from a dead corpse, was raped as a child, forced to fight survival and have him betrayed by his friend by raping his girlfriend and dismembering his arm and one eye gouged out, no. I could add more but that’s just a waste of time because there aren’t tv shows or comic books like that currently and probably for the next 10 years. Pick up an Image or Vertigo comic, then get back to me. spaceinvaderlum said: Not sure if sarcasm or if you're being honest lol? If it's the latter, it's true though.Cabron said: Yeah, I feel like a lot folks haven't touched a book or comic but circlejerk anime. Lmao no, you have no idea about what you're talking about. Do your homework next time. >most Maybe stop stop watching the news or get off the internet for a bit, maybe then you'll realize that it isn't most it's barely there. What's that saying again? "Vocal minority is the loudest". i gotta say...this thread doesn't deserve you. They're lenient with anime but want to shit on other media without truly exploring it? Nah, not buying it. |
CabronMay 9, 2019 9:57 AM
Please learn about cel animation and its technical process. Learn how special effects and backlighting were done without computers. |
| I prefer anime because.... huh... yes. No I mean actually idk how to say it, but I think that I will go with my usual speech: >Be me, a 12yo kid >Is the summer of 2017 >I started watching a little more anime than the usual during spring >I have to go to a holiday home next to the sea where there is no connection >I decide to fill the shit out of my hard disk with anime (something like 100+ series) >I fucking bring my desktop PC at the holiday home >I watch many many many anime >I become a weeb >Holy shit now I hate basically everything that isn't japanese without realizing it Yeah that's it, pretty strange, some chinese cartoons changed my life but ok. |
 ❅Aoishi❅ ✿My Profile ✿MyAnimeList ✿MyMangaList |
CallMeHoot said: Hades_Gil said: Cause 2D>3D at portraying emotions through media. So looking at real people displaying actual emotions is worse than having a 2D character animate an emotion? Come off it, mate. As a blanket statement, that's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read. EDIT :- I'm not trying to say that animation, 2D or otherwise, isn't capable of portraying emotion effectively or even as effectively as live actors. You can find examples of good and bad in both forms of media. What I am saying, is that one isn't inherently better than the other. Scott McCloud in his book 'Understanding Comics' actually makes a fairly convincing argument about why, at least for many people (including me) it is actually the case. It's pretty extensive so if you're interested I recommend reading up on it on your own, but just to summarize it basically says that projective identification with a character is easier with animation/drawings, or at least with simplistic ones, because they function as a kind of 'blank space' for the viewer to project himself unto. His explanation is that a familiar and minimally detailed character allows for a stronger emotional connection and for viewers to identify more easily than if it had a lot of details that would make them stand out as an individual. The less details, the easier it is to project yourself into that character, to some degree. Real actors just look too much like real people, because they are, so our brain has a more difficult time projecting ourselves into them because we see them as separate individuals rather than a 'blank space' for our projections. We can still feel empathy for them of course, but that'll always be a less direct way of feeling emotions compared to feeling them firsthand via a more literal kind of identification with the character. It's hard for me to explain properly, but it resonated very much with my experiences since for many, many years I would never even come close to crying for anything live action but animation would often turn on the waterworks without even putting in much effort. But also beyond my individual feelings, I've found for example one of the shorts with the most universal emotional resonance with people being Furiko which has a very simplistic art style which I think is essential to it having such widespread resonance. Would the same thing be as emotionally impactful if acted out with real actors or drawn in a more photorealistic artstyle? I highly doubt it. |
AlcoholicideMay 9, 2019 8:51 AM
| I probably regret this post by now. |
Pullman said: His explanation is that a familiar and minimally detailed character allows for a stronger emotional connection and for viewers to identify more easily than if it had a lot of details that would make them stand out as an individual. The less details, the easier it is to project yourself into that character, to some degree. Real actors just look too much like real people, because they are, so our brain has a more difficult time projecting ourselves into them because we see them as separate individuals rather than a 'blank space' for our projections. We can still feel empathy for them of course, but that'll always be a less direct way of feeling emotions compared to feeling them firsthand via a more literal kind of identification with the character. I appreciate and respect your opinion dude, but for me it's, well, if not the complete opposite then certainly the other side of the line. I'm sure the guys book is fascinating if you're interested in that topic but personally I don't need to "self-insert" to empathise with a character or be moved by the emotions that character is going through. Moreover, it's not necessary to do so in order to have a profound depth of feeling. There are plenty of movies I enjoy with strongly defined characters that resonate with me incredibly deeply. As you've said, in your own experience you've been moved by animation more than you have live acted shows. The opposite is true for me. The thing is, there are many factors when it comes to what illicits an emotional response beyond just the animation or the acting. The music (as in that clip you linked, no doubt a massive factor for many people), the scene, the characters, the backstory, your own personal history (for example, if you're a naturally lonely person, stories about lonely people will likely resonate with you more than with someone who has never experienced loneliness), etc, etc. The list goes on. But this is all fairly academic, and while I appreciate the discussion, my actual point in rebuttal to the other person I quoted was that it cannot be categorically stated that "2D is a better medium for portraying emotion than 3D/live action" because that's just a broad, incorrect generalisation, as I'm sure you'd agree, given that you seem to be a fairly level headed kind of guy. |
CallMeHootMay 9, 2019 9:28 AM
   |
| Because animation (and also video games) is mostly limited by imagination, rather than the many limitations of live action stuff, and is generally able to tell way more interesting and memorable stories in a way a medium like this can only achieve. |
| I think the reason a lot of people dedicate their free-time and love to anime is because of it's ability to capture your emotions and take you on a ride. It's like you're being put into a completely different world, and you're able to feel the emotions and things the characters feel...... Meanwhile, shows with actual people being the cast has it's own limitations and problems. That barrier will always be there no matter how hard anyone tries, because we're dealing with real actors and real places..... There's only so many to go around. |
| I don´t. Any kind of media has good things and bad things. I like anime but it has a lot of flaws from time to time. Live Action shows too, just different kind of flaws. I used to watch anime all the time but now I just watch a few andI try to see all different kinds of media as much as I have time for. |
| How I love a game |
nightcrawlercyp said: Ryuk9428 said: Adult bullies do because as children those people they bully did not have to deal with bullies. Is like building immunity by having a less strong version of the disease. About mass shooters they are genrally the result of no strong father figure in their life while growing up. You can verify this yourself. Most of those kids were raised by single moms.I have no sympathy for bullies. They cause people to kill themselves and create mass shooters. petran79 said: nightcrawlercyp said: Adult bullies do because as children those people they bully did not have to deal with bullies. Is like building immunity by having a less strong version of the disease. About mass shooters they are genrally the result of no strong father figure in their life while growing up. You can verify this yourself. Most of those kids were raised by single moms. Back then (40 years ago), family ties were stronger because jobs for women were scarce and they had to rely on their husbands for support. Now that women dont stay at home and joined the workforce, all sort of destabilising issues ensued both for the families and the children. I agree that the breakdown of the nuclear family is a serious problem. But mass shooters are really a powder keg that had multiple factors involved and bullying is often a major and undeniable part of the equation. I think a lot of us don't know what it's really like to be bullied day after day. I also, and I can put the evidence here if you need it, but found out that the frequency of rampage killers since 2000 on a per capita basis adjusting for population has only gone up by 20%. Most of the perceived increase in mass shooters is just because the population has increased. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
Ryuk9428 said: nightcrawlercyp said: Adult bullies do because as children those people they bully did not have to deal with bullies. Is like building immunity by having a less strong version of the disease. About mass shooters they are genrally the result of no strong father figure in their life while growing up. You can verify this yourself. Most of those kids were raised by single moms. petran79 said: Back then (40 years ago), family ties were stronger because jobs for women were scarce and they had to rely on their husbands for support. Now that women dont stay at home and joined the workforce, all sort of destabilising issues ensued both for the families and the children. I agree that the breakdown of the nuclear family is a serious problem. But mass shooters are really a powder keg that had multiple factors involved and bullying is often a major and undeniable part of the equation. I think a lot of us don't know what it's really like to be bullied day after day. I also, and I can put the evidence here if you need it, but found out that the frequency of rampage killers since 2000 on a per capita basis adjusting for population has only gone up by 20%. Most of the perceived increase in mass shooters is just because the population has increased. 1. I know how it is. Back the it was part of growing up. 2. first off the young population has severely decreased. What increased are the number of people over 50. 3. I am not sure why are you comparing with the 2000. The feminism movement to destroy the family started way before that. |
| Anime has better music, story and is shorter. And I can watch most of my favorites for free, legally. |
petran79 said: Ryuk9428 said: I agree that the breakdown of the nuclear family is a serious problem. But mass shooters are really a powder keg that had multiple factors involved and bullying is often a major and undeniable part of the equation. I think a lot of us don't know what it's really like to be bullied day after day. I also, and I can put the evidence here if you need it, but found out that the frequency of rampage killers since 2000 on a per capita basis adjusting for population has only gone up by 20%. Most of the perceived increase in mass shooters is just because the population has increased. A colleague of mine is a psychologist and she made a research about it and how good students bully bad students. Initially I was confused because I thought the image of an actual bully would be someone with poor grades and unrefined social skills. But she told me the opposite. Good students are not the ones that have only good grades. They are the ones who are also very sociable, resourceful and active, both in and outside school. Later on when they leave school and enter society for good, it is them who bully the bad students and marginalize them, both in society and the work environment. This kind of bullying happens also inside school. A bad student can also be someone who gets good grades but has very few social skills and low flexibility. That end up as more important This aspect of bullying is not exposed as much unfortunately. Nothing about that is new information, you're basically saying the socially popular kids at the top of the school's hierarchy are little assholes who enjoy going on power trips towards the people they see as weak. Asshole popular kids with good social skills who bully the nerdy kids are a literal stereotype. I would have more sympathy for a bully who had bad grades and a shitty home life. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
nightcrawlercyp said: Ryuk9428 said: I agree that the breakdown of the nuclear family is a serious problem. But mass shooters are really a powder keg that had multiple factors involved and bullying is often a major and undeniable part of the equation. I think a lot of us don't know what it's really like to be bullied day after day. I also, and I can put the evidence here if you need it, but found out that the frequency of rampage killers since 2000 on a per capita basis adjusting for population has only gone up by 20%. Most of the perceived increase in mass shooters is just because the population has increased. 1. I know how it is. Back the it was part of growing up. 2. first off the young population has severely decreased. What increased are the number of people over 50. 3. I am not sure why are you comparing with the 2000. The feminism movement to destroy the family started way before that. I was making the point that mass shooters have been a problem for decades. Crime in general started becoming a serious problem in the 1970s. I suspect there were a lot less rampage killers per capita in the 50s and 60s though. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
| Ironically, I find it easier to suspense my disbelief when watching anime than live action. Also, I have much more knowledge of anime and what I like and what I don't so it's easier for me to navigate through it and pick something good, while in live action I am much more lost. |
my candies!      |
| The capabilities in animation, and my love for animation and design, and the unique opportunities it affords. I also like western animation and video games for similar reasons. But another big reason is that I have some semi-mild faceblindness, so when I watch live action tv it can sometimes be very hard for me to tell the actors apart to an extent that it can get unenjoyable. With animation, I don't really have to worry on that front so it's more stress free. |
| I don't really have a preference tbh Some of the live action media that I have seen are far better than most anime I have seen (EX: The Dark Knight and the Lord of the Rings trilogy) The type of media doesn't matter, just the quality |
 |
Ryuk9428 said: That is true. But young people going on a rampage for no visible reason was generally caused by the same thing a missing father figure. Maybe in those days he went to war or whatever but it was rare. Then feminism came took all authority from men and those cases multiplied. One contributing factor was also the self esteem movement thay fought against good things like spanking or bullying or losing at games.nightcrawlercyp said: 1. I know how it is. Back the it was part of growing up. 2. first off the young population has severely decreased. What increased are the number of people over 50. 3. I am not sure why are you comparing with the 2000. The feminism movement to destroy the family started way before that. I was making the point that mass shooters have been a problem for decades. Crime in general started becoming a serious problem in the 1970s. I suspect there were a lot less rampage killers per capita in the 50s and 60s though. |
| For drama, I've always and will always prefer anime over live-action because -You know a person is acting in live-action. -There is just so much emotions you can give through art and drawing esp. through eyes which is impossible in live-action For sci-fi though I prefer live action because of the cutting-edge CGI of our time |
| Neither is better. It solely depends on the people who create it, not the medium. Personally, I prefer live-action at the moment. I've never even seen an anime that is on the same level with the movies of Stanley Kubrick. |
| I like all of them if they are good, idc what type it is because every medium deserve a watch except novel, shit's more boring than watching paint wall dry |
 |
nightcrawlercyp said: Ryuk9428 said: That is true. But young people going on a rampage for no visible reason was generally caused by the same thing a missing father figure. Maybe in those days he went to war or whatever but it was rare. Then feminism came took all authority from men and those cases multiplied. One contributing factor was also the self esteem movement thay fought against good things like spanking or bullying or losing at games.I was making the point that mass shooters have been a problem for decades. Crime in general started becoming a serious problem in the 1970s. I suspect there were a lot less rampage killers per capita in the 50s and 60s though. Spanking and other forms of corporal punishment have been proven to create criminals. Bullying does the same thing. I seriously question the judgment of people who think that violence can somehow be solved with violence. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
Ryuk9428 said: Bullshit. How did they prove it? You know what they did? They went in prisons to hardened criminals and asked them if they have been spanked or bullied and then based solely on their answer formulated the theory you see as facts. Their methodology is bad for two reasons: It ignores the majority of people that had been spanked or bullied but did not end up as criminals which formed at the time over 90% of population. Second they believed the criminals will tell the truth when those people would say anything to get a bit of sympathy or a lesser sentence. There are other issues with the study like false memories influencing the subject confirmation bias and so on. My point is your belief is false and that study is bs.nightcrawlercyp said: That is true. But young people going on a rampage for no visible reason was generally caused by the same thing a missing father figure. Maybe in those days he went to war or whatever but it was rare. Then feminism came took all authority from men and those cases multiplied. One contributing factor was also the self esteem movement thay fought against good things like spanking or bullying or losing at games. Spanking and other forms of corporal punishment have been proven to create criminals. Bullying does the same thing. I seriously question the judgment of people who think that violence can somehow be solved with violence. |
| Simple. Thanks to being able to find pretty much all sorts of unique artstyles, from realistic (e.g Satoshi Kon's movies) to totally cartoony or surreal, I never get 100% tired of anime, as I can always find something that stands out in a crowd. Also kudos for Japanese music and language (at least when the music and VA is fine haha). Also, unlike anime, western animation is much more limited in genres, ideas and messages (obviously with exceptions) and is treated way too often as a child or teen-friendly medium. As for live TV, I can appreciate high-budget movies just as much as anime, but series are a different matter. I tend to find most of them either "too RL" or poorly executed (especially as far as that frequently bad CGI plus live-action medium blending is concerned). And manga are far from my cup of tea. There are certain I appreciate, but I'd rather watch them animated than bothering taking a look at colorless pages, no matter how good the artstyle is. |
 |
| The only western-made live action show that is worth a shit is It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. |
 ☆☆☆ "There's a huge difference between one and infinity. However, compared to the difference between existence and non-existence, one and infinite are nearly the same. I am the child destined to become the best witch... no... The greatest Creator in the world...!" -Maria Ushiromiya ☆☆☆ |
| I do not prefer anime over live action, stop-motion, US animation or anything. It is just another medium that I enjoy. What matters is the story that is told and whether it is told well. |
EndlessMaria said: The only western-made live action show that is worth a shit is It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. You forgot "I am of the opinion that..." |
| Most Tv series and live action movies out there have the same plot structure, so after watching a few of thoses, you just can't stand keep watching the same thing. Meanwhile, the Eastern type of storytelling is refreshing, fun to watch and sometimes really bold. |
 |
huntress1013 said: EndlessMaria said: The only western-made live action show that is worth a shit is It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. You forgot "I am of the opinion that..." No. After reviewing the aforementioned post, I have concluded that I didn't forget a damn fucking thing. However, I appreciate your concern. |
| ☆☆☆ "There's a huge difference between one and infinity. However, compared to the difference between existence and non-existence, one and infinite are nearly the same. I am the child destined to become the best witch... no... The greatest Creator in the world...!" -Maria Ushiromiya ☆☆☆ |
Would you mind if I ask about which books specifically? I haven't read many horror novels so I would really appreciate it. |
 |
Orhunaa said: Would you mind if I ask about which books specifically? I haven't read many horror novels so I would really appreciate it. Well, there's H.P. Lovecraft for one, whose books I love and who's very good at creating an eerie atmosphere, although horror is not the main thing in all of his books and short stories, there's definitely a high density of horror elements in how body of work. Also one of my favorite books ever, and also probably the most frightening one, is one I read by a local author from my home country. There seems to be an english translation for the UK available, but I can't vouch for it. Part of it is the great writing of that author and you never know how much of that gets lost in translation. Anyway, that is it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Work_(Glavinic_novel) Not even sure it really counts as a horror novel, but it was pretty frightening to read if you ask me. And similar to Lovecraft what makes it work in my opinion is that the scariest things aren't shown or explained, it's the fear of the unknown and stuff your imagination is coming up with after the authors only hinting at it. This lack of explicitness is what makes horror work for me and in visual media it's much harder to pull off because by definition those leave less to the imagination. |
| I probably regret this post by now. |
| The reason is, because Anime is better than reality, and the expressions. |
 |
| Uhhhhh...sorry fam, but anime loses here. I’m gonna put my all time favorite anime and see how it measures up and this is what I came up with... Breaking Bad > GoT > The Sopranos > The Wire > Monogatari Series Now the good thing with anime is that I got a far bigger selection and better odds at a gem...whereas it feels like a good TV show comes up once in a blue moon! I mean...once GoT ends...I don’t know what I’ll do with the rest of my life! |
nightcrawlercyp said: Ryuk9428 said: Bullshit. How did they prove it? You know what they did? They went in prisons to hardened criminals and asked them if they have been spanked or bullied and then based solely on their answer formulated the theory you see as facts. Their methodology is bad for two reasons: It ignores the majority of people that had been spanked or bullied but did not end up as criminals which formed at the time over 90% of population. Second they believed the criminals will tell the truth when those people would say anything to get a bit of sympathy or a lesser sentence. There are other issues with the study like false memories influencing the subject confirmation bias and so on. My point is your belief is false and that study is bs.Spanking and other forms of corporal punishment have been proven to create criminals. Bullying does the same thing. I seriously question the judgment of people who think that violence can somehow be solved with violence. So you're just going to dismiss the study by saying "but they lied?" They did look at the general population and found that there are much lower rates of corporal punishment in the general population. In-fact, they found that there's much lower rates of corporal punishment between high school drop outs, typical college students, and people with professional careers such as lawyers and doctors. The more successful someone was, the more likely they were to have never been spanked or hit as a kid. Furthermore, every country where corporal punishment of children is common have higher levels of youth violence, higher levels of violent crime, higher levels of war, conflict, and terrorism. You think that the French are hitting their kids more than the Pakistani and Iraqi parents are? Corporal punishment is extremely popular in the Middle East. In the US past during decades when corporal punishment was at its most popular, we had our highest rates of violent crime. Its really quite simple. You hit your kid, you teach them that some kinds of violence are okay. You teach them that some violence is okay, and you open up the possibility that they will consider similar or more harsh forms of violence to be okay as well. At the very least, you make them more tolerant of violence. I can tell just based on the people I've met who were spanked as children that almost all of them, to some degree, have a higher tolerance for violence than people who were not spanked as kids. They don't see fighting as being as big of a deal as kids who weren't spanked, they are more likely to hurt their friends as "a joke," they are more likely to bully people in small ways or not think bullying is a big deal, they often think there's nothing wrong with parents hitting their kids or with people hitting their dogs. Violence begins at small levels, just because most people didn't go on to rape or murder someone doesn't mean that corporal punishment didn't make them a more violent person, it just made them a more violent person in ways that they themselves don't recognize or don't think is a big enough deal to be mentioned but are obvious to people who were not spanked as kids. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
| It's just easier for me to find anime I want to watch than it is live action shows. Even the really popular ones that are supposedly really fuckin good I have very little interest in (pretty sure you know the ones I mean). Only show I've put any real time into following outside of John Oliver is It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. I love comedy shows, but unfortunately not many live action comedies make me laugh and even the animated ones are kinda meh now. |
Ryuk9428 said: nightcrawlercyp said: Bullshit. How did they prove it? You know what they did? They went in prisons to hardened criminals and asked them if they have been spanked or bullied and then based solely on their answer formulated the theory you see as facts. Their methodology is bad for two reasons: It ignores the majority of people that had been spanked or bullied but did not end up as criminals which formed at the time over 90% of population. Second they believed the criminals will tell the truth when those people would say anything to get a bit of sympathy or a lesser sentence. There are other issues with the study like false memories influencing the subject confirmation bias and so on. My point is your belief is false and that study is bs. So you're just going to dismiss the study by saying "but they lied?" They did look at the general population and found that there are much lower rates of corporal punishment in the general population. In-fact, they found that there's much lower rates of corporal punishment between high school drop outs, typical college students, and people with professional careers such as lawyers and doctors. The more successful someone was, the more likely they were to have never been spanked or hit as a kid. Furthermore, every country where corporal punishment of children is common have higher levels of youth violence, higher levels of violent crime, higher levels of war, conflict, and terrorism. You think that the French are hitting their kids more than the Pakistani and Iraqi parents are? Corporal punishment is extremely popular in the Middle East. In the US past during decades when corporal punishment was at its most popular, we had our highest rates of violent crime. Its really quite simple. You hit your kid, you teach them that some kinds of violence are okay. You teach them that some violence is okay, and you open up the possibility that they will consider similar or more harsh forms of violence to be okay as well. At the very least, you make them more tolerant of violence. I can tell just based on the people I've met who were spanked as children that almost all of them, to some degree, have a higher tolerance for violence than people who were not spanked as kids. They don't see fighting as being as big of a deal as kids who weren't spanked, they are more likely to hurt their friends as "a joke," they are more likely to bully people in small ways or not think bullying is a big deal, they often think there's nothing wrong with parents hitting their kids or with people hitting their dogs. Violence begins at small levels, just because most people didn't go on to rape or murder someone doesn't mean that corporal punishment didn't make them a more violent person, it just made them a more violent person in ways that they themselves don't recognize or don't think is a big enough deal to be mentioned but are obvious to people who were not spanked as kids. 1. No, I dismiss the study because it was not conducted based on scientific methodology 2. About lawyers I understand . I mean their job is very similar to criminals, about doctors I kinda doubt it but again correlation does not imply causation 3 . "Furthermore, every country where corporal punishment of children is common have higher levels of youth violence, higher levels of violent crime, higher levels of war, conflict, and terrorism. You think that the French are hitting their kids more than the Pakistani and Iraqi parents are? Corporal punishment is extremely popular in the Middle East. In the US past during decades when corporal punishment was at its most popular, we had our highest rates of violent crime." Ok, so according to you the increase of violence has nothing to do with being piss poor countries or with Pakistan and Iraq being majority muslim countries so having a toxic ideology to start with but with corporal punishment? Your logic is so skewed and your confirmation bias so high.... is over 9000!!! Also you go with countries in middle east but how about countries in east europe and n&EAsia? About US you shot yourself in the foot. The crime in young people has been steadily increasing due to lack of father figures and corporal punishment. You even have students rioting at schools and beating the crap out of teachers and other students... or does this not count? Doesn't french and german car burning matter either? You cherry pick data and ignore factors just to fit your ideology. 4. "You hit your kid, you teach them that some kinds of violence are okay. You teach them that some violence is okay, and you open up the possibility that they will consider similar or more harsh forms of violence to be okay as well. At the very least, you make them more tolerant of violence." If you hit him as punishment for a certain act and you tell him that you teach him there exists limits and if you go beyond them you will get hurt. Also some violence is ok. Think of a tree when you cut his branches you are hurting it and is an act of violence, but thanks to that it is healthy and bears lot of fruits. Similar thing with teaching kids limits with corporal punishment. Also note that corporal punishment should be the last thing when the children just refuse to listen. Time outs and groundings do not work. In some cases kids can only understand by pain. Also if one is not tolerant to violence at some level it will be easily controllable by those that are. 5."They don't see fighting as being as big of a deal as kids who weren't spanked, they are more likely to hurt their friends as "a joke," they are more likely to bully people in small ways or not think bullying is a big deal, they often think there's nothing wrong with parents hitting their kids or with people hitting their dogs." So? fights between kids are generally not a big deal as long as they do not escalate. Also bullying is part of growing up. It strengthens people. 6. You seem to not make a difference between beating the crap out of child for no reason and spanking a kid for something he has done while explaining it to the kid. Also you are in denial about how the anti spanking movement has destroyed generations of kids. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6wOt2iXdc4 |
| I prefer anime over live action, but I don't just prefer anime as it includes animation in general. More possibilities/capabilities in regards to potential creative freedom, animation is harder than filming people so I admire the difficulty in comparison, can do insanity better, I like seeing the variation in character designs rather than the same actors acting out different characters, and I prefer the simplistic facial features of an animation character than seeing humans caked with makeup. There are a few exceptions obviously in which live action shows are better than anime if you're talking specific genres. If talking about peak enjoyment and not on an average scale and sports count as live action, then nothing in anime beats a thrilling NBA game. Can't say I prefer anime over all mediums since I like gaming just as much, if not more (despite consuming more anime but that's because it's more accessible and "free") |
MechKingKillbotMay 11, 2019 12:21 AM
 |
nightcrawlercyp said: Ryuk9428 said: So you're just going to dismiss the study by saying "but they lied?" They did look at the general population and found that there are much lower rates of corporal punishment in the general population. In-fact, they found that there's much lower rates of corporal punishment between high school drop outs, typical college students, and people with professional careers such as lawyers and doctors. The more successful someone was, the more likely they were to have never been spanked or hit as a kid. Furthermore, every country where corporal punishment of children is common have higher levels of youth violence, higher levels of violent crime, higher levels of war, conflict, and terrorism. You think that the French are hitting their kids more than the Pakistani and Iraqi parents are? Corporal punishment is extremely popular in the Middle East. In the US past during decades when corporal punishment was at its most popular, we had our highest rates of violent crime. Its really quite simple. You hit your kid, you teach them that some kinds of violence are okay. You teach them that some violence is okay, and you open up the possibility that they will consider similar or more harsh forms of violence to be okay as well. At the very least, you make them more tolerant of violence. I can tell just based on the people I've met who were spanked as children that almost all of them, to some degree, have a higher tolerance for violence than people who were not spanked as kids. They don't see fighting as being as big of a deal as kids who weren't spanked, they are more likely to hurt their friends as "a joke," they are more likely to bully people in small ways or not think bullying is a big deal, they often think there's nothing wrong with parents hitting their kids or with people hitting their dogs. Violence begins at small levels, just because most people didn't go on to rape or murder someone doesn't mean that corporal punishment didn't make them a more violent person, it just made them a more violent person in ways that they themselves don't recognize or don't think is a big enough deal to be mentioned but are obvious to people who were not spanked as kids. 1. No, I dismiss the study because it was not conducted based on scientific methodology 2. About lawyers I understand . I mean their job is very similar to criminals, about doctors I kinda doubt it but again correlation does not imply causation 3 . "Furthermore, every country where corporal punishment of children is common have higher levels of youth violence, higher levels of violent crime, higher levels of war, conflict, and terrorism. You think that the French are hitting their kids more than the Pakistani and Iraqi parents are? Corporal punishment is extremely popular in the Middle East. In the US past during decades when corporal punishment was at its most popular, we had our highest rates of violent crime." Ok, so according to you the increase of violence has nothing to do with being piss poor countries or with Pakistan and Iraq being majority muslim countries so having a toxic ideology to start with but with corporal punishment? Your logic is so skewed and your confirmation bias so high.... is over 9000!!! Also you go with countries in middle east but how about countries in east europe and n&EAsia? About US you shot yourself in the foot. The crime in young people has been steadily increasing due to lack of father figures and corporal punishment. You even have students rioting at schools and beating the crap out of teachers and other students... or does this not count? Doesn't french and german car burning matter either? You cherry pick data and ignore factors just to fit your ideology. 4. "You hit your kid, you teach them that some kinds of violence are okay. You teach them that some violence is okay, and you open up the possibility that they will consider similar or more harsh forms of violence to be okay as well. At the very least, you make them more tolerant of violence." If you hit him as punishment for a certain act and you tell him that you teach him there exists limits and if you go beyond them you will get hurt. Also some violence is ok. Think of a tree when you cut his branches you are hurting it and is an act of violence, but thanks to that it is healthy and bears lot of fruits. Similar thing with teaching kids limits with corporal punishment. Also note that corporal punishment should be the last thing when the children just refuse to listen. Time outs and groundings do not work. In some cases kids can only understand by pain. Also if one is not tolerant to violence at some level it will be easily controllable by those that are. 5."They don't see fighting as being as big of a deal as kids who weren't spanked, they are more likely to hurt their friends as "a joke," they are more likely to bully people in small ways or not think bullying is a big deal, they often think there's nothing wrong with parents hitting their kids or with people hitting their dogs." So? fights between kids are generally not a big deal as long as they do not escalate. Also bullying is part of growing up. It strengthens people. 6. You seem to not make a difference between beating the crap out of child for no reason and spanking a kid for something he has done while explaining it to the kid. Also you are in denial about how the anti spanking movement has destroyed generations of kids. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6wOt2iXdc4 Crime has not been increasing, crime is much lower now than it was in the 1970s, 80s, and 90s. Its actually slightly lower than it was even in the early-mid 2000s. There's a lot of talk about how much homicide rates dropped, but what isn't talked about is how much the assault rates dropped. The assault rates dropped even more dramatically than homicide did. You wanna talk about cherry picking, choosing ghetto schools where kids beat up their teachers is absolutely cherry picking. As if that never happened at any shitty schools in the 70s and 80s. Also, spanking and corporal punishment is significantly more common in ghetto communities than it is in middle-upper class communities which further invalidates you acting like corporal punishment somehow makes people more peaceful. A lack of corporal punishment is a symptom of not being a shitty country. When a country is less shitty, the disappearance of corporal punishment of children naturally occurs. Eastern Europe does have higher levels of conflict and crime than Western Europe does. And if by NE Asia, you're talking about South Korea and Japan, corporal punishment is not very common there. I'll bet its common in North Korea though. Correlation does pretty much equal causation when the correlation applies in almost every case. You can't just automatically dismiss correlations with that theory. See? You just proved my point, being spanked taught you that certain forms of violence are okay or not a big deal. You don't think that bullying is a problem, you think it strengthens people, and you don't consider kids fighting to be a big deal. Violence starts small and escalates. If you don't curb it in the beginning, then you give it room to grow. Corporal punishment deliberately plants a seed that leads to further acceptance of violence. The problem with spanking is that parents who do it don't think its a big deal so they do it many times throughout a kid's life. Spanking a kid on ten separate occasions is worse than belting the kid once. Small acts add up in terms of psychological damage. Belting the kid once did more in the moment but its not going to be as bad as the cumulative effect of a parent who keeps spanking their kid thinking they're doing nothing wrong. That's why its extremely dangerous to ever normalize any form of violence. People need to know its wrong so that they only occasionally do it, feel guilty, and then try to never do it again. People who think they're doing nothing wrong will commit it over and over again. Kids are literally are so fucking easy these days to discipline because they're all so addicted to their phones, video games, and general electronics. All you have to do is take away their precious video games for a month and they will never want to be a brat again. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
| Because there will never be another Xena: Warrior Princess. |
 |
HotPocketChris said: cuz anime girls make me feel all sqeemy inside and i get anxious over how kawaii they are uwu Lol I can very much relate to this. Anime girls are adorable. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
| Eh over most live action film and shows today sure. I still really enjoy reading books though. My number one interest even over anime always has been and will be history and even ignoring that there is so much variety in fictional literature. Anime and manga has become probably my second biggest hobby at this point though. |
More topics from this board
» If someone has a siscon is it a compliment/confession to be called lil sister?ApfelMyName - 4 hours ago |
8 |
by Rissenicus
»»
38 seconds ago |
|
» Do you assume that people know nothing about anime?thewiru - Yesterday |
27 |
by W3TFT
»»
4 minutes ago |
|
» What video game genre's do anime adaptations do best? (Aside from RPG's and Fighting Game's)TheBlockernator - 11 minutes ago |
1 |
by tchitchouan
»»
4 minutes ago |
|
» Waifu War V5 (Anniversary-Edition!) (Round 1) ( 1 2 3 4 )TheMinkalex - Sep 28 |
189 |
by GrumbleDango
»»
6 minutes ago |
|
» What are the four dreaded tags on an anime?vasipi4946 - Yesterday |
19 |
by W3TFT
»»
9 minutes ago |