Why do you prefer anime over live action television or other available media?

May 11, 2019 2:44 AM

Offline

Mar 2016

85

Hunter-Chan said:
Do not get me wrong I love a good sitcom or drama but when I watch anime I go to a different zone I feel more invested in characters over other medias. I figured I would ask you all what you thought as I am curious of other peoples motivations. ( Sorry for the long post have a lovely day/evening) ^.^

To me anime is just another way of telling a story. It doesn't really matter if it's a book, a comic book, anime, a movie or a TV show, as long as it's good I enjoy it.

To me it's more important to find a story I'm interested in and excited about, rather than how the story is told.

May 11, 2019 2:49 AM

#152

Veronica44h

Offline

Sep 2015

82

I prefer some stories as anime and some stories as regular shows and movies. Some stories just fit animation better. There are things that live action cannot make work because of realism.

May 11, 2019 2:56 AM

#153

Optigisa

Offline

Jul 2016

7489

Music will always be at the top for me, always, especially Classic Rock such as Led Zeppelin/Pink Floyd/ACDC/etc.

Live action and Anime are both good, no need for one to be better than the other. My top ten favorite movies are live action, with only two being Anime, but I like both mediums so no need to compare.

May 11, 2019 9:29 AM

#154

nightcrawlercyp

Offline

Aug 2012

1875

Ryuk9428 said:

nightcrawlercyp said:

Ryuk9428 said:

nightcrawlercyp said:

Ryuk9428 said:

nightcrawlercyp said:

Ryuk9428 said:

nightcrawlercyp said:

Ryuk9428 said:

nightcrawlercyp said:

Ryuk9428 said:

nightcrawlercyp said:

Mucosa said:

nightcrawlercyp said:
Some anime actually try to tell a good story. Most other media either recycles ad nauseam old stuff creates mindless entertainment or try to indoctrinate the viewer. People in Hollywood seem not to be interested in telling stories anymore. Just to indoctrinate the viewer and if possible to make money.

I agree with you soooo much,but you must also metion that people doesn't want anymore something deep and thoughful.If most of the people actually start care about interesting things ,then Hollywood would change their way to make movies,so they still could get money

I do not think this is true. Rather most are sheep that have been conditioned to accept what is given to them as masterpieces out of fear to be ridiculed or insulted by so called experts. It has to do with the self esteem movement that produces weak willed humans under the disguise of protecting them. Programs like those against bullying are cancer and the main reason so many teenagers commit suicide these days. If you cannot handle a few insults how will you handle things once you become an adult?!

I have no sympathy for bullies. They cause people to kill themselves and create mass shooters.

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:

nightcrawlercyp said:

Ryuk9428 said:

nightcrawlercyp said:

Mucosa said:

nightcrawlercyp said:
Some anime actually try to tell a good story. Most other media either recycles ad nauseam old stuff creates mindless entertainment or try to indoctrinate the viewer. People in Hollywood seem not to be interested in telling stories anymore. Just to indoctrinate the viewer and if possible to make money.

I agree with you soooo much,but you must also metion that people doesn't want anymore something deep and thoughful.If most of the people actually start care about interesting things ,then Hollywood would change their way to make movies,so they still could get money

I do not think this is true. Rather most are sheep that have been conditioned to accept what is given to them as masterpieces out of fear to be ridiculed or insulted by so called experts. It has to do with the self esteem movement that produces weak willed humans under the disguise of protecting them. Programs like those against bullying are cancer and the main reason so many teenagers commit suicide these days. If you cannot handle a few insults how will you handle things once you become an adult?!

I have no sympathy for bullies. They cause people to kill themselves and create mass shooters.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.