Bampot
Randall's Friend (800-1999)
<3
Posts: 1,204
|
Post by Bampot on Jun 21, 2010 12:33:10 GMT -5
You know, I was thinking about this video some more and I can't believe the guy didn't bring up the one Disney film that would have actually helped his case: The Hunchback of Notre Dame. As everyone remembers, Quasimodo is overlooked for by Esmeralda for the hunky Captain Phoebus. Even though Quasimodo went out of his way to save her live, even risking his own at some points, and obviously loved her. Disney changes tons of stuff from the original stories, so why not let poor Quasi, who is so kind in the movie, get the girl. Not only that, but the movie have very, very mature themes. To the point where I'm started it's even a Disney movie. Frollo's sexual lust and want that was so strong to the point he was going to kill Esmeralda if she turned him down...and the guy spend the whole video ranting about how Gaston treats women?! I mean that would have been way more valid point in his video and I can't believe he didn't use it. Which makes me wonder how many Disney film's he has really watch or how well he knows about them. Still, so sad
|
|
|
Post by mistica0christina on Jun 21, 2010 22:30:06 GMT -5
Okay, I have got to say that if I thought that what I said debunked this guy's vid, your first post totally buried it! Either way, you're right, using the pretty boy and greek god as his two main examples aren't much of a source. In fact, I do agree with you, as much as I love The Hunchback of Notre Dame (man, I nearly cried during that scene too), when I was older, wow, it didn't take me long to notice all the mature themes within it! For certain that film would have helped his arguement...of course, it's not like Disney don't know about their own stereotypes. In fact, that's part of what inspired the film Enchanted, that movie was nearly a parody that poked fun at all the stereotypical things that Disney has done within their movies for years! What I also wonder is that if he did this as a school assignment, makes me wonder what grade he got! Also, I'm sure we're not the only ones, there are plenty of comments that argue with his vid as well.
|
|
Bampot
Randall's Friend (800-1999)
<3
Posts: 1,204
|
Post by Bampot on Jun 22, 2010 13:15:40 GMT -5
Thank you And I didn't notice all those things in Hunchback until I watched it a couple summers ago. I think it was the first time I saw it since I was 10 and I was stunned by all the graphic subject matter. I was never fond of the movie when I was little because it bored me, but I love it now. Still, it's such a sad movie. Yes, I believe that Disney is aware of it's more ridiculous themes and I'm glad that they can laugh and poke fun at themselves about it, but I highly doubt that Disney ever intended to promote young boys to become dominating chauvinist. There are a lot of stereotypes you can find in Disney films, but that one has so very little support. To the point where the guy who made a project about it could only pick out a couple films out of 300 to support his thesis. I bet he probably got a passing grade just because it seems like one of those projects you pass if you complete it. Of course, I'm sure he got points knocked off for not having a very strong subject case and reusing films for different points.
|
|
|
Post by mistica0christina on Jun 22, 2010 20:48:08 GMT -5
Thank you And I didn't notice all those things in Hunchback until I watched it a couple summers ago. I think it was the first time I saw it since I was 10 and I was stunned by all the graphic subject matter. I was never fond of the movie when I was little because it bored me, but I love it now. Still, it's such a sad movie. Yes, I believe that Disney is aware of it's more ridiculous themes and I'm glad that they can laugh and poke fun at themselves about it, but I highly doubt that Disney ever intended to promote young boys to become dominating chauvinist. There are a lot of stereotypes you can find in Disney films, but that one has so very little support. To the point where the guy who made a project about it could only pick out a couple films out of 300 to support his thesis. I bet he probably got a passing grade just because it seems like one of those projects you pass if you complete it. Of course, I'm sure he got points knocked off for not having a very strong subject case and reusing films for different points. You're welcome ;D It's funny, I talked about this with my mother last night, she only agreed with the guy on a few points, one of them being Hercules, she had first agreed on Gaston but then she remembered my reasons and then she took it back, saying that I was right on him, he was designed to be a bully to begin with so he really didn't count. On The Lion King, my mother was in total disagreement with the guy, reason being was that she stated that in a pride, those sort of things such as dominance and fighting over that are normal, that's what she liked about The Lion King, she felt that Disney stayed pretty true to how the animals are like more or less. She even used another example of the hyenas, despite how goofy she thought they were, it was clear that Shenzi was leader and in a hyena pack, females do dominate over the males easily. She, like us, just wasn't sure what direction this guy was going in with his points but she also felt that he really didn't prove his case too well either.
|
|
Bampot
Randall's Friend (800-1999)
<3
Posts: 1,204
|
Post by Bampot on Jun 23, 2010 0:41:58 GMT -5
Yeah, I think I would have actually found his video interesting if he did make a strong case. I like Disney, but I'll be the first to point out that they have some very flawed concepts of things, but that happens in movies, especially romantic ones. I've just never seen a whole case point that Disney worships masculinity. Even with Hercules, he finds out that his body is not what makes him a true hero, but his character and heart.
Lol, I love hyenas. They're one of my favorite animals and Disney actually did them pretty well. Shenzi is a perfect example of a female hyena, of course hyenas usually run in female only packs and only associate themselves with male in mating times. It would have made more sense if there had been three female hyenas, but perhaps Shenzi wanted to be even more superior than she would have been in just a group of females.
|
|
|
Post by mistica0christina on Aug 8, 2010 0:20:25 GMT -5
Okay, this is going to be a weird "what do you think" but I figured that it should be brought up. Now, I'm sure we all know of the little image we have of Randall at the top of the board with that quote and all that, right? Well, one of the times that I was on here, my four year old brother walked into my room, saw the picture and the first thing that pops out of his mouth is the following question:
Why is he dead?
As you can tell, that's not the kind of thing I want my brother thinking when seeing this particular picture so I try explaining that is not the case but him insisting has led me to decide that it's best that he doesn't see me on here if he's in the room cause that's the first thing out of his mouth....so what do you think? Is this normal for him to think that or what?
|
|
|
Post by mistica0christina on Aug 18, 2010 10:55:44 GMT -5
Normally I don't use this for personal stuff but I need an opinion. I run three websites.... misticashaven.i8.com thegraveyard.i8.com misticaslibrary.i8.com All of these sites serve the following purposes, the first one is my main website and what I try to remember updating as much as possible. My second site is designed to show my unapproved DA art upon it. My third site is strictly a place for my fics and also could be used as a way for those to be able to read my fics if I have to put up restrictions due to DA's rules on censorship. It's occured to me receantly that I have a little problem....I happen to have one site too many! Running three sites along with my other stuff is crazy enough but also, I don't feel a need to keep up a site that I may never use or rarely use ever! I've been thinking that maybe I could terminate my site The Graveyard since all of my art on there is on my DA page anyway or I could terminate my site for fics and instead transfer them to The Graveyard which would essentially change the purpose for it....so for once, I'm asking on opinions on this...what do you guys think as far as my sites are concerned?
|
|
|
Post by sgtyayap on Aug 18, 2010 16:40:55 GMT -5
My personal opinion would be that you maintain only ONE site with ALL the material you have, in which you divide the material to different sections of the site.
|
|
|
Post by mistica0christina on Aug 18, 2010 17:01:14 GMT -5
I was doing that in the beginning but I can't have my page for fics on my site be cluttered with multiple fics, that's just too confusing for people to read which is why I had made a seperate site for that, also misticaslibrary.i8.com serves the purpose to have fics on there that are not being presently shown on my main site....it's basically an archive site for my fics. Another reason for it is because I know how screwed up DA's censorship rules are. Before, DA allowed you to see mature content WITHOUT having an account but when they changed that, I seriously thought that was stupid, the way I see it, if you are of age then you have that right and a website shouldn't tell you something along the line of "well, we'll let you see whatever BUT you have to sign up an account with us first." That is why I created other sites, to be archives for my stuff, I don't have a ff.net account and considering how screwed up their policies are, I really don't want one.
|
|
|
Post by mistica0christina on Sept 9, 2010 21:42:01 GMT -5
Okay....it's been on my mind since the craziness of Pixar Planet but since I figure that it's law related...nothing wrong with asking. According to US laws, self defense is when you defend yourself after or while being attacked, correct? So tell me, does this constitute as a self defense?
In the state of Texas, we have one of the oldest laws of self defense ever....our law states that if someone comes onto your property and if you feel threatened, you have the right to bear arms....now, the right to bear arms is in the amendments if I'm correct so here's the kicker...basically in english, what this Texas law means is that somebody walks onto your yard, you don't feel safe so by our law, if you want to pull out the pistol, shoot, and ask questions later, you can because this law in my state relates to self defense. So here's the thing, is this law really something that applies to self defense? What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by mentalguru on Sept 10, 2010 2:55:12 GMT -5
Interesting. I've also heard of other areas in which if you beat the guy but not to death you're charged with assault. It's one of those things where legal issues are really morally screwed. You get into -trouble- because the guy is ALIVE.
It probably depends on the situation. I'd say if you had a gun and you told the guy to stay the hell away and it was clear he was going to hurt and kill you at the time despite what you say then that qualifys. However if you don't do this, it doesn't qualify as self defense.
That's more or less the law here actually if I understand correctly. You ARE allowed to 'hurt' someone if they break in your home but only it you warn them, which is pretty weird. I feel you should at least be allowed to knock someone out without warning. I wouldn't morally speaking begrudge people of THAT. But for it to qualify as self defense it has to be clear that person is not going to stop no matter what you say when it comes to using guns.
Plus they probably should shoot someone in a non vital area (like no aiming for the brain/head or the heart). When people panic and do that automatically that should be taken into consideration I guess. It's still possible for people to die even if you aim for a non-vital area though circumstances should be considered: when is it okay? Each case is different.
Basically I personally take the stance that reasonable force without warning is allowable without giving said person any warning. They broke into your house so they've revoked THAT right to not possiblky have a quick hit on the head, or a body slam and a good tie up to a chair before the police come to pick them up in my opinion.
If however you beat up said person while tied up in chair or your ultimate and primary aim to kill rather than simply disarm or simply stop the threat then you are in the wrong. Deaths of course sometimes happen in these situations however even when you're careful sometimes, but I disagree that as soon as someone enters your property you are allowed to kill them automatically. If all other options are exhausted or in extenuating circumstances though it should be considered if they are charged. However just because a thief say gets shot on property people shouldn't hand wave it as nothing. It depends. For instance if the property owner shot them in the face AFTER they tied them up that person is clearly a very possible danger to society if left unchecked.
|
|
|
Post by pitbulllady on Sept 10, 2010 5:28:10 GMT -5
Okay....it's been on my mind since the craziness of Pixar Planet but since I figure that it's law related...nothing wrong with asking. According to US laws, self defense is when you defend yourself after or while being attacked, correct? So tell me, does this constitute as a self defense? In the state of Texas, we have one of the oldest laws of self defense ever....our law states that if someone comes onto your property and if you feel threatened, you have the right to bear arms....now, the right to bear arms is in the amendments if I'm correct so here's the kicker...basically in english, what this Texas law means is that somebody walks onto your yard, you don't feel safe so by our law, if you want to pull out the pistol, shoot, and ask questions later, you can because this law in my state relates to self defense. So here's the thing, is this law really something that applies to self defense? What do you think? "Self-Defense", in the case of a personal assault, MUST, as in ABSOLUTELY, can only be applied as the amount of force necessary to STOP an attack in progress long enough to permit the person being attacked to escape. If someone attacks their assailant AFTER the assailant has stopped, then THEY, too, become guilty of assault and can and will be charged along with the original attacker. SC also has laws which permit property owners to shoot property invaders if t hey believe that their lives and/or property are under immediate threat. HOWEVER, in SC, the property owner who uses deadly force against a property invader must be able to to justify their "belief that the were under an immediate and potentially lethal threat". In other words, if they shoot an unarmed person and they admit that they knew the person was unarmed, they can still be prosecuted. If they said they saw a gun or other weapon in the hand of the invader, and such a weapon or something which would make anyone believe the invader had a weapon, then charges will not usually be levied against them. There was a case several years ago where a homeowner caught a NAKED burgler in his home and shot and killed him, and that homeowner was convicted of 2nd Degree murder, because the jury ruled that any reasonable person would know that a totally nude burgler was not carrying a gun if no gun(no puns intended)could be seen. A few weeks prior to that, another homeowner shot and killed a burgler who WAS pointing a gun at him, and that homeowner was released, freed of charges. pitbulllady
|
|
|
Post by mistica0christina on Sept 10, 2010 20:30:52 GMT -5
Well...as far as I know, you don't need to know for certain if someone is hurting you, just that you do know that if you feel threatened and if you shoot, police won't do anything about it cause it was on your property. There are some people in the state who really don't like that law and I think it could be the fact that we have had times where people got away with murder but used this as their defense and got off scott free....yep, it's official, Texas does have screwed up laws but you can thank our governer for that.
|
|