Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
by orz » Fri Dec 28, 2007 1:47 pm
"A sociopath is a person, as a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience"
And that fails to describe, say, Homer Simpson...HOW?
by theeKultleeder » Fri Dec 28, 2007 1:48 pm
by elfismiles » Fri Dec 28, 2007 3:10 pm
theeKultleeder wrote:FourthBase wrote:
I guess this is like the contention/simple observation that Seinfeld's characters were consistently doing antisocial things. Do you people not watch these shows? Do you not have even a rudimentary moral compass?
Are you really that uptight? Do you ever leave the house? Does the magnification of human foibles for comedy/commentary escape you?
Have you ever seen a Shakespeare play, live onstage?FourthBase wrote: "A sociopath is a person, as a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience"
And that fails to describe, say, Homer Simpson...HOW?
In every possible way.
Now POP QUIZ!!!!! Class, who is the one character on the Simpsons that could accurately be described as sociopathic?
by FourthBase » Fri Dec 28, 2007 3:17 pm
orz wrote:Correct."A sociopath is a person, as a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience"
And that fails to describe, say, Homer Simpson...HOW?
Even if you weren't wrong, it's really dumb nonsense to claim that if a piece of fiction is about a sociopathic character then the work itself is sociopathic.
Hah Hah (voice of snake).
I'm not going to argue about whether or not Homer Simpson is sociopathic.
Maybe you can find some Amish who may agree with you or something; I mean c'mon "moral compass"? Who uses that phrase? (hint: Bill Bennett) Maybe you can find some secular-world hating religious reactionaries who will glorify the Lord in demonizing poor old Homer Simpson.
And, really, who is being nihilistic here?
by FourthBase » Fri Dec 28, 2007 3:22 pm
by orz » Fri Dec 28, 2007 3:23 pm
If the show is ostensibly a humorous cartoon, and what it banks on for many of its laughes is the sociopathic/antisocial/whatever-you-want-to-call-it behavior of its characters, then yeah I think calling the show itself sociopathic is justified.
And so is Homer Simpson a sociopath or not?
by orz » Fri Dec 28, 2007 3:25 pm
The Lone Gunmen pilot is still the only pop culture reference to my knowledge that features the scenario of an airplane being hijacked and flown into the WTC.
by FourthBase » Fri Dec 28, 2007 3:35 pm
by FourthBase » Fri Dec 28, 2007 3:38 pm
orz wrote:If the show is ostensibly a humorous cartoon, and what it banks on for many of its laughes is the sociopathic/antisocial/whatever-you-want-to-call-it behavior of its characters, then yeah I think calling the show itself sociopathic is justified.
Well you are incorrect to think this. It makes no sense.
And so is Homer Simpson a sociopath or not?
Not really, no. He has some insane and anti-social character traits but so what?
Family Guy has far worse faults than being "nihilistic" - it's unfunny, badly directed and atrociously badly drawn.
by FourthBase » Fri Dec 28, 2007 3:40 pm
orz wrote:The Lone Gunmen pilot is still the only pop culture reference to my knowledge that features the scenario of an airplane being hijacked and flown into the WTC.
You may well be right but so what?
by FourthBase » Fri Dec 28, 2007 5:08 pm
Hadn't seen that GE fridge ad before, though. Bizarre.
The big question is still: Are the instances of foreshadowing 1. purely coincidental with no ESP or leak involved, 2. the mere consequence of the WTC having been a target in the past combined with it being tall and "in the sky" nearer to planes and people using their imagination logically, 3. pre-cognitive glimpses of the future or contemporaneous glimpses into the anxious/plotting mind field of humanity at the time, 4. leaks from the perps as either calling cards to each other or pre-emptive discrediting in case their real conspiracy is exposed to any degree, either using media outlets directly in their control and complicit or surreptiously planting the ideas somewhere in the creative/vetting process. Depending on the instance and whether there's any particular reason to believe any of the above possibilities vs. another...The basic order of probability to me is: 2, 4, 3, 1. I guess I'm an athiest when it comes to the religion of coincidence.
by FourthBase » Fri Dec 28, 2007 6:28 pm
This is just ridiculous.
WE HAVE JUMPED THE SHARK HERE AT RIGINT.
by 8bitagent » Fri Dec 28, 2007 6:36 pm
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests
