Lala Peachifruit laalaa
Guest
|
Post by Lala Peachifruit laalaa on Dec 23, 2002 16:56:20 GMT -5
Do you think they may have been old enough to read? There should have at least been a "WARNING: Not for the squeamish!" or something to that effect. I doubt anyone was that squeamish, but it was still disgusting. |
|
|
|
Post by poy222 on Dec 23, 2002 17:17:20 GMT -5
I totally agree. I noticed many of the advent calendar pictures are filled with hate or violence, such as today when two angry buzzes nock heads and fall down with the tree. Isn't this supposed to be the season of happy and good? I think they're messing something up. I thought the buzz one was funny. |
|
|
|
Post by Princess Ember Mononoke on Dec 23, 2002 17:18:47 GMT -5
I thought the buzz one was funny. Funny, maybe. But not exactly in the "Christmas Spirit."  |
|
|
|
Post by peachifruit on Dec 23, 2002 17:37:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Princess Ember Mononoke on Dec 23, 2002 17:48:24 GMT -5
Out of the ones that we have had so far, (1-23), in animations 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 10, 13, 15, 22, and 23 (23=worst case scenerio), something bad happens. The most minor case is a lupe getting hit (hard) with a snowball (I think that was day three, but I'm not sure) and the worst case was day 23 when the little kau got eaten. I don't think that's very Christmassy. . .
|
|
|
|
Post by Princess Ember Mononoke on Dec 23, 2002 17:55:06 GMT -5
Hmm. . . numbers 26, 27, and 29 are also slightly negative (number 26 is actually very negative). I find number 29 rather interesting: images.neopets.com/winter/advent/29.swf?Observe how the fundus fruit tea doesn't spill even when it turns upside down. It must be hard as a rock. |
|
|
|
Post by sara on Dec 23, 2002 18:20:00 GMT -5
This is the kind of thing where I see both sides of the argument, and I can't decide on a side. On this topic, three things come to mind.
A) I know someone at my school who would go "Yay, violence!" - they are very anti-conventional, and they try to go against every "sappy" thing in the world, and will give an opposite answer to a retorical question. If you go up to him and say "Do I look ugly" he'll just say "Yes"
B) Back in the 6th grade we saw a video where they did experiments where they damaged chimpanzee brains in the name of science. The class was divided into the "No, they are so cruel" camp and the "Wohoo - torture" camp (I was in the former camp). However the teacher was saying "Scietists need to do these sorts of things to living creatures so they can discover the causes and cures to diseases and trama. Besides, before they used animals, they used real humans in these experiments"
C) Our former Stage Combat teacher asked the question "What movies are out there which are aimed for people older than 5 years old without any violence, physical, emotional, or someone hurt emotionally" We only came up with about three movies.
On this paticular issue, it wasn't necessary for the Neopets team to incorporate violence, so they probably shouldn't have done it. ,However I am not utterly shocked by a baby having a skating accident - there are worse things which happen to children in the world.
|
|
|
|
Post by Patjade on Dec 23, 2002 18:32:37 GMT -5
I agree with Sara. It's hard for me to take a side on this. If one thinks these are TOO violent for a children's site, then the TV show "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer" would fall into that category, when Rudolph gets knocked out by the monster. Even holiday events suitable for family viewing have things that are not all happy and good. One has to use judgement when viewing these things.
So, what is the solution? Ban ANYTHING that MIGHT be termed bad for young viewers? I guess we might as well ban the Battledome, Sloth, and most of the storylines.
**SIGH**
|
|
|
|
Post by sara on Dec 23, 2002 18:36:41 GMT -5
Exaclty, Patjade! Personally, I think a lot of things like the PG13 iimit are out-dated, as most of the stuff in PG 13 I was exposed to when I was 8. It's not necessarily a good thing, but young kids do get to see violence whether anyone likes it or not...
|
|
|
|
Post by Princess Ember Mononoke on Dec 23, 2002 18:47:45 GMT -5
Some facts on animal experimentation:
Most great advances in medicine to date have been gotten by observing humans with illnesses. The money that goes into animal experimentation for the purpose of finding a cure could have been better used to help with other projects.
Many experiments with animals today are not for medical purposes but instead give us a lot of mostly useless knowledge and scientists a job to earn a living with. Many experiments today are just repeats of ones that have been done before and serve no greater purpose than to earn a living for vivisectors.
Even experiments on animals that really are for the good of humans are more cruel than necessesary. If the actual procedure is painful, the least scientists could do would be to give the animals comfortable living quarters and toys to make their lives more interesting. In most cases they don't, for the simple reason that it is inconveniant to have to clean out bigger cages and decontaminate toys. In some cases chimpanzees are kept in little black boxes with ventilation arranged so they can't see out of the slits and no room to move at all. Can you imagine, just BEGIN to imagine, spending 30-50 years (a chimpanzee's average lifetime) in a little black box, with no way to see out, no experience of the outside world except for occasionally being taken out and performed painful experiments on, and not even any memories or anything to keep you occupied. That is my idea of hell. I don't know about you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Princess Ember Mononoke on Dec 23, 2002 18:55:51 GMT -5
Personally, I believe that many experiments for medicine that NEED to be done can be done, humanely, on humans who volunteer because they are already sick and will die anyway if the experiment doesn't work. They wouldn't treat humans as cruelly as they treat chimps. And I have done some soul searching about the topic of animal experimentation. I don't think non-human animals are ANY less deserving than humans, not even an eency, weency bit. Not at all. I am an extremist in these veiws because it means that I think that cruel experiments are in no way justifiable. But I am willing to bend on that part, as I doon't want to alienate people and because I know that most people aren't willing to go that far. People who are pro-experimentation would ask you "Would you hurt an animal to save your mother/father/son/daughter's life." The answer, of course, is yes. But I ask you this: "If you were able to, would you hurt a human you don't know in order to save your mother/father/son/daughter's life?" if you searched your soul, I'm sure that the answer to this question would also be yes. But there are laws against it. There are no laws against experimentation on animals.
|
|
|
|
Post by Princess Ember Mononoke on Dec 23, 2002 18:58:08 GMT -5
I apologize for changing the subject so drasticly, but you can't expect to bring up my greatest passion (animal rights) even off handedly without hearing a mouthful from me. I am finished now.
|
|
|
|
Post by sara on Dec 23, 2002 18:58:47 GMT -5
Ember, you're preaching to a choir. I think there are far better alternatives to a lot of animal testing - especially considering that a laboratory animal dies every three seconds.
However, I know, you just gotta get it out of system, which is OK.
|
|
|
|
Post by Patjade on Dec 23, 2002 19:02:50 GMT -5
Ember, I agree with you on the animal rights subject. But how we feel will not change the fact that people will continue to use animals for experimentation.
On top of that, look at human cloning. It IS banned in most places and STILL is being done.
Humans are the only creatures that willfully extend violence upon themselves and the other living species for purposes other than survival. Look at the news an ANY given day. So, what is the solution? Actually, this particular discussion should probably be taken elsewhere, as it has left the realm of Neopets and associated topics.
|
|
|
|
Post by Killix on Dec 23, 2002 21:37:18 GMT -5
Do you think they may have been old enough to read? remember, "Baby Neopets aren't actually babies, they just look that way" |
|
