Not Another Harry Potter Debate

[fides' Jack]

I made that analogy. The analogy was that the situation could be like any one of two situations.

 

50 Shades: The claim is that it glorifies an evil (explicit sex). Both fans and critics of the series agree that it does this, so it's safe to say that this claim is true without reading it. 

Twilight: The claim is that it glorifies an evil (emotionally abusive relationship). Fans and critics disagree over whether or not the relationship is abusive, so you can't make the claim for yourself that one or the other is true unless you read them and decide for yourself.

 

I was trying to say that the situation with Harry Potter is like the relationship in Twilight, not like the sex in 50 Shades, because while critics say the magic in HP is glorifies evil, fans argue that the "magic" isn't like that.  So that's why I'm saying the most prudent decision is to read the books to find out for yourself, because there's an inherent critical discrepancy in how people are understanding the books. 

 

 

Anywho.  So yeah, that's what I was getting at with that.   :)

 

Yes, I do remember the distinction you made now.

 

I don't agree with the idea, though.  I.e. I don't need anyone to tell me that porn is porn.  I don't need fans or critics to tell me anything about it.  If something is obvious enough to be morally wrong, you don't need sources to know to stay away, without even seeing it.

 

The problem that I see is that "obvious enough" is a very relative term, and people have very different ideas about where to draw the line on certain aspects of morality.

 

That's why I didn't care to have a Harry Potter debate.  If I was smart, I would have used another title, and maybe achieved my purposes.  I think the 2 reasons I chose Harry Potter was because it just about fit the one end of the spectrum to a tee, making it an easy example, and that the article in question was about reasons why parents might object to HP, as distinct from LOTR and Narnia, and not be called hypocrites.  Maybe I should have gone with Bedknobs and Broomsticks.  At least the reaction wouldn't have been quite as severe.

[fides' Jack]

Also, as I've said before, I've seen the first 2 movies.  I'm not coming into this completely without first-hand knowledge.

[GregorMendel]

(swooping in as this thread collapses upon itself like a dying star)

 

Fides' Jack, If you firmly believe in uphold this rule against the seemingly evil, I would like you to ponder the way in which you celebrate Christmas next year, or at the very least Halloween. I cant imagine that the celebration of a fat nordic man breaking into the homes of all the world's children in a single night and flying by the help of Magical reindeer would be allowed by such a strict world view, nor would the Rewarding of children for dressing in ghoulish costumes, both of which I am sure you have experiential knowledge of.

[Basilisa Marie]

Yes, I do remember the distinction you made now.

 

I don't agree with the idea, though.  I.e. I don't need anyone to tell me that porn is porn.  I don't need fans or critics to tell me anything about it.  If something is obvious enough to be morally wrong, you don't need sources to know to stay away, without even seeing it.

 

The problem that I see is that "obvious enough" is a very relative term, and people have very different ideas about where to draw the line on certain aspects of morality.

 

That's why I didn't care to have a Harry Potter debate.  If I was smart, I would have used another title, and maybe achieved my purposes.  I think the 2 reasons I chose Harry Potter was because it just about fit the one end of the spectrum to a tee, making it an easy example, and that the article in question was about reasons why parents might object to HP, as distinct from LOTR and Narnia, and not be called hypocrites.  Maybe I should have gone with Bedknobs and Broomsticks.  At least the reaction wouldn't have been quite as severe.

 

I don't understand.

 

With books, someone has to read them to find out what they're about. You can't just look at it and make the judgement.  What would you do if someone said a book was porn, and another person said it wasn't?  There's no way of making a judgment without figuring it out yourself.  

 

Yeah, Bedknobs and Broomsticks would probably have been safer. 

[fides' Jack]

(swooping in as this thread collapses upon itself like a dying star)

 

Fides' Jack, If you firmly believe in uphold this rule against the seemingly evil, I would like you to ponder the way in which you celebrate Christmas next year, or at the very least Halloween. I cant imagine that the celebration of a fat nordic man breaking into the homes of all the world's children in a single night and flying by the help of Magical reindeer would be allowed by such a strict world view, nor would the Rewarding of children for dressing in ghoulish costumes, both of which I am sure you have experiential knowledge of.

 

Quite true.  We haven't been and won't be celebrating these holidays the normal American style.

 

Thanks for asking!

[T-fish]

And yet, here you are. Wasting your time trying to come up with zingers in response to what you just characterized as a massive waste of time. What does that say?

I've already contemplated wasting my time here. But it's like a human nature thing and rubber necking. I'm fascinated with stupidity.

Zingers? what's that? I'm just telling the truth. I guess i'm stupid. Well I am.