This is just stupid...

[etoven]

So there is this new cartoon on cartoon network, all the people in this cartoon are in their underwear, for no apparent reason. Was this premise thought up by a three year old? I mean really, I understand the need for zaniness in a cartoon, I mean I grew up with loonytoons. But even loonytoons had a plausible explanation for its wild and crazy moments. But this show has everyone in their underwear and for why? If your going to have a entire civilization walking around without pants on, there needs to be a reason! Other wise your premise is as about as sophisticated as a toddler laughing at fart sounds.. I mean seriously who wrote this? Give me a cartoon that takes a creative writing for crists sake. Take sponge bob for example, every episode is about as stupid as you can get, but at the same time the writing is fresh and original every time.. It draws you in... Like when they had David Hassolholf in the movie for example, that's fresh idea that the kids and the parents can enjoy. And theirs other examples, the boondocks, ben10, Avitar.. All have compelling stories that draw you in. Not just a stupid premise from a guy with a maturity problem.

Lets enrich our children with creative storylines and compelling stories so no one has to laugh at "poopy pants head" again.

Thats how we create a bright tomorrow..

[Great Rumbler]

So...what is this called?

[Dark Jaguar]

Got... anything else to give us there? All I know is there's underwear involved.

Seen that new Thundercats? The thundercats are jerks in this one.

[EdenMaster]

No offense, Toven, but I don't think you're really the demographic they're targeting with that show

[etoven]

No offense, Toven, but I don't think you're really the demographic they're targeting with that show

The shows called almost naked animals. And I realize I'm a bit old, but my point is even shows for toddlers can enrich the mind and not be stupid dribble.. Take avatar or sponge bob for example. It least every episode of sponge bob is fresh and original.

[Weltall]

Let's have kids read instead of mushing their brains on TV.

Reading makes kids smart and articulate. TV only accidentally doesn't make kids stupid.

[Dark Jaguar]

It depends on the content. Not every show is stupid (Cosmos), and not every book is smart (The truth behind 9/11).

[Weltall]

For kids, sir. Kids should read early and often, and have as little TV exposure as possible. Reading, arts, crafts, even video games, are all better than movies or TV because they require active participation. You can't stare blankly for 30 minutes at these things.

When it is my turn to spawn and rear my offspring, I hope to instill in them a love for literature. I would not expressly prohibit TV, but hopefully, they'll understand it's worthless, as I have.

Except during football season.

[Great Rumbler]

TV is awesome. Y'all's some losers in this thread.

[etoven]

For kids, sir. Kids should read early and often, and have as little TV exposure as possible. Reading, arts, crafts, even video games, are all better than movies or TV because they require active participation. You can't stare blankly for 30 minutes at these things.

When it is my turn to spawn and rear my offspring, I hope to instill in them a love for literature. I would not expressly prohibit TV, but hopefully, they'll understand it's worthless, as I have.

Except during football season.

I would want my little Toven's to have love for all the arts including including books, music, and in some rare cases things you see on TV (intelligent TV... I'm taking about shows not conceived by a three year old)

Yo can't tell me you don't catch your favorite series on Hulu at least Usher. I think some shows are just as engaging as a good book, take full metal alchemists for example that was a awesome series. You yourself told me you where crazy about cowboy rebob, which had great story lines and some kicking jazz to boot.

[Fittisize]

I would want my little Toven's to have love for all the arts including including books, music, and in some rare cases things you see on TV (intelligent TV... I'm taking about shows not conceived by a three year old)

Yo can't tell me you don't catch your favorite series on Hulu at least Usher. I think some shows are just as engaging as a good book, take full metal alchemists for example that was a awesome series. You yourself told me you where crazy about cowboy rebob, which had great story lines and some kicking jazz to boot.

Bam, supplement good books with good TV and foster a well-rounded appreciation for all forms of entertainment. Watching football is what makes kids stupid.

[Weltall]

I don't watch my favorite series on Hulu because I don't watch TV and thus have no favorite series.

It's not because I find TV inherently mindless, I just can't enjoy a form of entertainment which does not allow me to interact with it in any way, even if only to change the pace of delivery. All I can do is passively observe. Bores the shit out of me for the most part. A few rare, excellent examples are exceptions to that rule.

[Great Rumbler]

You're so weird.

[etoven]

Bam, supplement good books with good TV and foster a well-rounded appreciation for all forms of entertainment. Watching football is what makes kids stupid.

Oww. Shit! You've done it now.. Ryan?

[Weltall]

He might be right. I didn't start watching until I was a teenager.

But, i'm still right about TV. It's The Truest Shit I Ever Said

[Great Rumbler]

Your reasons for disliking TV are weird though. Like...I can't believe that's what someone would bring up in an argument against it. We're not even talking about "it rots your brains" or something here, your beef with TV is that you have no control over what's going on.

That's, like, WOAH, man. Blew my mind to back of the room. TWICE.

By the way, TV can be entertaining AND informative. Much of my youth was spent engulfed in the edutainment of PBS: Arthur, The Magic School Bus, Bill Nye the Science Guy, Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego?, and the like.

[Dark Jaguar]

You can in fact stare blankly at every single one of those things Welty. You can't do that and appreciate it, but you can. The same goes for TV. Cosmos IS in fact a good introduction to science for kids, though I think I'm talking 12 year olds. For younger, try something like Bill Nye.

I've met plenty of kids who have to read something for school, do in fact "read" it, but comprehension goes out the window. Books are not an inherently superior medium. They each have their own strengths and weaknesses. 90% of everything sucks, such as made up statistics.

Simply put, I'd rather a kid watch an episode of Cosmos than read one chapter of "The Secret". By the same token, I'd rather a kid read one chapter of "The Selfish Gene" than watch an episode of Dr. Oz.

[Fittisize]

Simply put, I'd rather a kid watch an episode of Cosmos than read one chapter of "The Secret". By the same token, I'd rather a kid read one chapter of "The Selfish Gene" than watch an episode of Dr. Oz.

On that note, I'd hope that any kid who reads Richard Dawkins doesn't read much of his other stuff and subsequently turn into a flamingly annoying, smug, pompous atheist. I read The God Delusion! It's the goddamn atheist bible. What's all the fuss about? Who cares? Why do atheists involve themselves so much in the private affairs of others? Atheists like to say that religion is a poison that numbs society and makes us stupid. But I've met a lot of atheists who are downright idiotic. They're worse than environmentalists with their pugnacity. Once I hung out with a group of people for a night who turned out to be atheists. Do you know what the only subject of conversation was? Atheism. What a dull night that turned out to be.

[Dark Jaguar]

I don't think that's entirely fair. I've known a few atheists, and to defend them a little, most of them never bring up their faith or lack of it to others unless they bring up their's first. Most of them also aren't interested in interfering in other's lives. It's not like writing a book counts as interfering, when compared to the more radical of those of faith who wish to write their personal faith into law.

I've actually read some of Richard Dawkin's atheist stuff. I understand where he's coming from and found him to be entirely polite about it, even if I may not agree. Oh sure he doesn't mince words, but if he doesn't believe, why should he? Christopher Hitchens could be considered antagonistic, but Dawkins is just matter of fact about it. I don't see why he's considered "rude".

Sorry you were left out in a room full of people with an interest you didn't have in common. That's life. I've felt left out in a room full of football fans, and I've had to talk to people who felt left out in a room full of gamers (in that case, it's a little annoying because those sorts of people tend to lash out at the gamers calling them all "boring losers" just because they don't care about the topic at hand). Rooms full of Christians tend to talk about Christianity a lot. Again, that's just life.

[Fittisize]

I never said I was a Christian! And also, thanks for the life lesson. I'm merely talking about the unpleasant experience of witnessing and trying to reason with narrow-minded pseudo-intellectual folk who launch on to an ideal such as atheism and fight for it as if it's the most important, pressing issue anybody will ever have to deal with. As in, the type that read The God Delusion and not bother to read or seriously consider anything to the contrary. Do you know how Dawkins introduces that book? "If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down." That's what he says. How is that anything other than interfering and aggressively trying to change somebody's beliefs? His followers tend to latch on to that agenda. Okay fine, maybe I'm not talking about all atheists in general, just the really annoying scoffing atheists. The Randian types you were talking about in an earlier thread exhibit the same type of voraciousness.

[Fittisize]

.

[Dark Jaguar]

I never said you were a christian either. I didn't mean to imply that.

I guess there's a difference of opinion. Lots of people try to change other's mind on issues. I don't consider that "interfering". After all, no one's making anyone read these books. No one is forcing anyone to change their minds. It's entirely through making arguments. In and of itself, wanting to convince someone of your opinion is not wrong. The opinion itself might be wrong, but debating to change another's mind is the point of debate. It's not interfering or aggressive at all.

I mean, I don't understand your point. You are trying to convince me that trying to convince people of something is aggressive and interfering. To me, it takes more than that. Threatening someone to change their mind, or forcing them against their will to hold your opinion, or even something a little lesser like constantly hassling someone about it, that I would agree is aggressive or "interfering", but writing a book with the intention of changing minds? Why exactly do you think people write books if not to change minds?

[etoven]

90% of everything sucks

I'm going to make a 20x40 poster of that, frame it, and hang it in my study.

[Weltall]

Your reasons for disliking TV are weird though. Like...I can't believe that's what someone would bring up in an argument against it. We're not even talking about "it rots your brains" or something here, your beef with TV is that you have no control over what's going on.

That's, like, WOAH, man. Blew my mind to back of the room. TWICE.

By the way, TV can be entertaining AND informative. Much of my youth was spent engulfed in the edutainment of PBS: Arthur, The Magic School Bus, Bill Nye the Science Guy, Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego?, and the like.

It can be, mostly for kids. I watched TV a lot as a kid. I got over it.

And, at least, I don't imply that anybody else should dislike TV for the same reasons I do, though it would be kind of nice.

Also, Richard Dawkins is an asshole in a nice old man costume. His method of changing a person's mind is by making them feel stupid for involving themselves in religion. That much is obvious just by reading some of his book titles, but he has that same shit-eating, condescending attitude in some videos he's made.

[etoven]

It can be, mostly for kids. I watched TV a lot as a kid. I got over it.

And, at least, I don't imply that anybody else should dislike TV for the same reasons I do, though it would be kind of nice.

Also, Richard Dawkins is an asshole in a nice old man costume. His method of changing a person's mind is by making them feel stupid for involving themselves in religion. That much is obvious just by reading some of his book titles, but he has that same shit-eating, condescending attitude in some videos he's made.

I just baught my first E-Book for my android tablet using the google book service, to anyone who swears by a IPad or Kindle, I would say that google books is the best reading experience I have ever tried, and if for some reason you don't like it, your android device can be converted into a kindle, and about 5 other poplar ebook devices. It was real easy, similar to a IPad, my book was bought, downloaded, and opened with a single tap and charged to my google checkout account.

[Great Rumbler]

Remember when this used to be what kid's cartoons were like:

<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/OIPaMLsu0T0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJ8g8GQAAlI

[Dark Jaguar]

I remember when SOME kid's cartoons were like that. Others were Monster Max. SOME of today's cartoons are like that. That particular animation studio is still around in fact, still making stuff like Young Justice (though that show really cranked up the angstyness).

Welty, publishers get to pick book titles, not writers. You are literally judging a book by it's cover. Read The Selfish Gene. His arguments aren't just "I'm smart", he actually goes through the evidence and makes it from there. Even if we might disagree with him on faith or whatever, he's not an unreasonable pompous ass. He makes his arguments and leaves them at that. What he doesn't do is what he views as "coddling" someone else's belief. He sees adding caveats like "but that's just my opinion" or "but let us not forget the comfort these beliefs can bring" as mealy mouthed. I'm really playing devil's advocate here aren't I? Anyway, having actually read some of his books and noting his style, he never came across as rude or condescending, just as a matter of fact person. People who think HE of all people is being rude just for making an argument come across as people who've never REALLY had their religious views challenged by someone, always having it coddled as though their views were fragile as glass. Honestly I find that more insulting. Consider just how much vitriol people exchange on politics or sporting events, and yet in that arena it's considered perfectly appropriate. This very forum is home to much more scathing attacks on someone's politics than Dawkins has ever done to someone's religion.

Read Christopher Hitchens, THEN you'll have something to drop a monocle over. THAT'S a rude arsehole.

[Dark Jaguar]

So here's a series of stuff that happened.... ON THE INTERNET!



See? This somehow justifies television...