Forum

Zac wrote:

TheGotank wrote:

Using a strawman isn't exactly an effective way to win an argument. If you can't substantiate why you think morality policing works of fiction is justified, then there's probably nothing left to discuss.

You yourself made this comparison: someone taking issue with a show that uses situations involving sexual abuse to arouse the audience is the same as someone taking issue with a show that doesn't have enough spatulas.

As though those two are even remotely comparable in any rational sense. So let's not throw stones about "strawman positions" here.

This.

Plus, he was also claiming that people simply expressing their negative opinion about the substance of this show is "moral policing." That is another strawman. As others have noted, moral policing would be if someone was attempting to stop you from watching or otherwise censoring the show. No one here has that power or professes to be able to stop you from enjoying the show. They are simply stating their own displeasure about it. That is not "moral policing."

Zac wrote:

You yourself made this comparison: someone taking issue with a show that uses situations involving sexual abuse to arouse the audience is the same as someone taking issue with a show that doesn't have enough spatulas.

As though those two are even remotely comparable in any rational sense. So let's not throw stones about "strawman positions" here.

I'm not sure how this analogy is flawed. If I judge a show based on how moral the events depicted are and claim the show is bad because its morality doesn't live up to my standards, then my review is irrelevant, because there's no commonly accepted standard that says good literature must denounce bad morality.

If I accept a morality based criticism in this case, then I can't rebuke someone who, for example, finds Death Note to be a bad series because it glorified murder. There is actually no principle difference between both objections. Heck, even quantitatively, the two objections are not that different.

There's a difference between declaring dislike for a series and claiming a series is poor. The first is a preferential statement which anyone can make with or without justification, while the second (the type of claims being posted in this thread) does require the one making the claim to maintain some degree of objectivity, because it's a claim about the series, not yourself. A morality-based criticism does not satisfy that objectivity, not because of moral relativism, but because the notion that good literature requires good morality is a subjective one.

ChibiKangaroo wrote:

Plus, he was also claiming that people simply expressing their negative opinion about the substance of this show is "moral policing." That is another strawman. As others have noted, moral policing would be if someone was attempting to stop you from watching or otherwise censoring the show. No one here has that power or professes to be able to stop you from enjoying the show. They are simply stating their own displeasure about it. That is not "moral policing."

I think you're equivocating a legal definition of 'moral policing' with a colloquial one. Again, no one is arguing about right to dislike a series, but what rationalization is required to make claims regarding the quality of the series.

In case anyone is misunderstanding. I'm not condoning the behavior in this series. I've voiced my own criticism earlier already about how the fan service in this series is largely unnecessary. But I think it's important not to establish taboos about what is and isn't acceptable in literature.

Adaminator1 wrote:

Frankly, go die in a fire.

I don't think I've witnessed anyone destroy his own credibility this spectacularly in a while now.

TheGotank wrote:

Adaminator1 wrote:

Frankly, go die in a fire.

I don't think I've witnessed anyone destroy his own credibility this spectacularly in a while now.

I think you're falsely assuming that I should show respect to someone who is asking the question "Why should we care about the treatment of rape in media? Any complaints are invalid because rape being bad is only a moral and you can't be offended or condemn anything that is horrible towards the subject.". I think now that I've made my point clear, I'm going to abandon this thread before I am no longer able to show restraint towards you.

Adaminator1 wrote:

...I'm going to abandon this thread before I am no longer able to show restraint towards you.

The fact that you told him to go die in a fire means that you have already lost what little restraint you had.

Last edited by Kitsunelaine on Wed May 21, 2014 9:46 pm; edited 2 times in total

dtm42 wrote:

Adaminator1 wrote:

...I'm going to abandon this thread before I am no longer able to show restraint towards you.

The fact that you told him to go die in a fire means that you have already lost what little restraint you had.

Actually, believe it or not: I had a lot of harsher things I wanted to say instead. That was me showing restraint.