|
|
Post by Nimras on Jul 17, 2011 9:54:35 GMT -5
This seems to be suggesting that fan fic writers do not have the right to think of their stories as canon even if it is perfectly reasonable for them to do so. That singers do not have the right to feel that their music brings joy to the world. That people in general do not have the right to stick to their opinions. That writers do not have the right to believe that their books are the best. These are all, to put it bluntly, likes. And you're saying because they like it they shouldn't believe in it. Now, if you look at religion, many people like the religion they're following. Does that mean they should lose faith? I don't think so. Fanfic writer's stories are -- by definition-- not canon. The right of canon goes to the creator of the world in which that story takes place. For example, even though my Chronicles of the Court Rogue stories have the events and actions of site characters, they are not site canon. Jeran, Danner, Skarl, ect. are free for use for anyone who wants to write a story about them, and those stories are all equally not canon. Only a story that Neopets itself has released onto the site is canon. Now, equally, if someone wanted to borrow my Chronicles of the Court Rogue story characters of Mareian and Mourvan, they could. But their stories would not be considered canon Chronicles of the Court Rogue stories. Even if they use only my characters, and in a setting I would used it is still not canon unless I say it is. Because they're mine, and I alone as their creator have right of canon. A composer may believe that their musical creation may bring life, inspiration, and joy to the world; but I could find that song to be inherently depressing. And we would both be right, because those are both opinions. Now, I think that what is actually coming into confusion here is the definition and usages of the terms fact, opinion, and belief. Facts are universal truths, opinions and beliefs are personal -- not universal truths. Now, you can debate opinions and beliefs and possibly sway someone into agreement with your opinions and beliefs, but someone is entirely justified in having opinions and beliefs entirely different than yours and that doesn't make them wrong unless you have universal facts to back up why they are wrong. For example it may be my opinion that all Toyota Prius drivers are egotistical, law-breaking, self-centered jerks. I could even have some facts to support this: Now those are all facts. But they do not make my opinion that Toyota Prius drivers are egotistical, law-breaking, self-centered jerks a fact. It's still an opinion -- one that I have supported with facts. But that doesn't make my opinion itself any more factual. To make it a fact, I would need data -- how many people who drive a Toyota Prius cut people off on the road, and how often. Do they cut people off because of visibility issues out of their control? What population proportion of Toyota Prius drivers talk on the cellphone? Were they talking on the phone because it was an emergency? Is their Toyota Prius one of the few that has a Lithium Ion battery that is better for the environment? It would take a lot of data, and a lot of facts, to prove my opinion that all Toyota Prius drivers are egotistical, law-breaking, self-centered jerks, to make it a fact in and of itself. (Note: I picked this example as a humorous one -- I know that there are a lot of Toyota Prius drivers who are not egotistical, law-breaking, self-centered jerks. *grin*) Religion falls under the same banner. I can have a lot of facts to support why I hold my religion, but that doesn't mean that my religion is a fact. It may be true to me -- but it isn't true to the world. That's why is called a belief. That's why it's called a faith. Someone else would have just as many facts to support why they believe something entirely different. Now if someone believed that the sky is red, to steal Bettyming's example, they would be wrong. It could be that they have a rare form of color-blindness, which makes blue look like red. And to them the fact that the sky is red would be evident -- but that doesn't change the fact that the sky is blue, and they view it as red only because of either a physical problem with the rods in their eyes, or a physiological error in the way their brain works. Art is also not a fact. for example, just look at some of the debates that have happened over the years on this forum alone as to what exactly constitutes art. Art is entirely opinion, and this includes music too. A fact in music would be what scale it is in and how many notes are in it. It could be a fact that the composer had intended for it to be an uplifting song to bring joy. But that does not make it a fact that the song is joyful. The emotional impact of a song to a listener is their own opinion -- not the opinion of the one who wrote it, or the one who played it, or the one who sang it. |
|
|
|
Post by Gav on Jul 17, 2011 10:17:23 GMT -5
You know, I don't think there's been a debate that has switched topics so many times. xD
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2011 10:32:28 GMT -5
Um...this is getting pretty heated. I kind of don't want it to turn into us slamming each other. Can you mods lock it and move it, please?
Besides, I feel like this is the reason no one's posting an opinion on my GIMP picture of Xandra in Sketch Dump. I want to get rid of this, pretend it never happened, and get on with a happy life. Let's all hug each other, apologize, forgive, and forget.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dju on Jul 17, 2011 10:36:21 GMT -5
Sae, don't worry! XD No one is fighting here, it's just a debate, lots of different opinions, it's not something bad! ^-^ Don't worry, ok? But mods can lock it if they want, no rpoblem on that!
|
|
|
|
Post by Terra on Jul 17, 2011 11:00:00 GMT -5
Besides, I feel like this is the reason no one's posting an opinion on my GIMP picture of Xandra in Sketch Dump. I want to get rid of this, pretend it never happened, and get on with a happy life. Let's all hug each other, apologize, forgive, and forget. I don't know about everything else, but I strongly doubt that this is why nobody had posted anything about your picture in Sketch Dump. Keep in mind that you had posted this only an hour after you posted the picture, and it often takes longer for people even to get around to looking at the thread. (And someone did, indeed, respond about it later. ^^) |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2011 11:04:52 GMT -5
Nevertheless, I don't want to debate any more. I've felt attacked so many times, even though I'm not blaming you at all, my feelings come from me, not you. It's also kind of exhausting, because I don't know how to word things or how to make anything sound convincing because I can't find the right words. And I'd prefer I forgot that any of you thought some of the stuff you expressed here, because I'd just like to return to being friends and not caring about what everyone else thinks of the world.
That's why I think the thread should go.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nimras on Jul 18, 2011 12:05:57 GMT -5
This thread was put up for administrative review, and was found to have not violated any terms or rules of the NTWF; and as such, it was put back up onto the board for further discussion. Please continue to remember to stick to debating the topic on point, and to discuss and debate the point, not the person (you guys have been doing a great job so far! Just keep up with it.) Also please remember that this forum has people from very different parts of the world, from different cultures and walks of life, and that means they are going to have different base assumptions as to what is "normal" and that it's all good you guys. If you were all clones of each other who always agreed with each other and believed the exact same things, there wouldn't be much point in talking with each other.  So with all that said, this thread is re-open for business. The NTWF mods |
|
|
|
Post by Komori on Jul 18, 2011 14:16:42 GMT -5
Please continue to remember to stick to debating the topic on point, and to discuss and debate the point, not the person (you guys have been doing a great job so far! Just keep up with it.) We probably would, if anyone had any earthly idea what the point is. XDDD |
|
|
|
Post by Dju on Jul 18, 2011 14:25:10 GMT -5
Nobody panic! Topic Murderers are on the case!
...*shots topic* There. Murdered.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nimras on Jul 18, 2011 14:35:46 GMT -5
Please continue to remember to stick to debating the topic on point, and to discuss and debate the point, not the person (you guys have been doing a great job so far! Just keep up with it.) We probably would, if anyone had any earthly idea what the point is. XDDD I believe the last topic was something along the lines of "how much of a right does a child have to be exactly how they want to be, and how much should a parent try to change them." ...Or it might have moved on from that, but I do know that it was a point at some point not too long ago.  |
|
|
|
Post by Stephanie (swordlilly) on Jul 18, 2011 14:43:31 GMT -5
This thread was mainly about whether parents should shape their children's personalities, right? it was about how our world view (which is GREAT as a child) is often pulled out of us. Well, I think that Nimras hit the nail right on the head: From what I understand, the current psychological knowledge for humans is that ones personality is around 50% genetics (what you're born with) and 50% life experiences (with the exception of cases of extreme abuse). About every 7 years the personality of a person gained via experience is changed enough to count as a new personality, until the person is around 25 or so, at which point it slows down. So, even if there is no influence from a parent, a person has a new personality (or at least a half of a new personality) every 7 years. For your whole life. The idea that someone has a "set" personality from birth for the whole of their life, simply isn't possible. A good parent helps their child develop their personality. This means encouraging good traits, and discouraging bad traits. Discouraging doesn't mean punishment -- usually simply not providing a positive reinforcement to a bad trait, and giving positive reinforcement to a trait that is healthier. A person's personality is a constantly changing thing as they discover more about the world, are exposed to new ideas, and develop a more complex and nuanced view of the world and how it works. Young people have a very simple personality. The world is viewed in terms of black and white, and is usually totally self-centered (even the kids who seem to be really into helping others are often doing it for the good feelings it gives them or because of the attention it gets them -- compulsive helping disorder is a good example of this; where one is actually addicted to helping others, in order to fuel their addiction of feeling needed. It's inherently selfish, but appears selfless).
One hopes that as they grow older, they grow a more nuanced view of how people and the world actually work, and are able to use this knowledge to grow themselves and develop a personality that reflects the world that they live in and will help them thrive as an individual.
Even if one doesn't agree that personality can change, a parent's role (or a parental influence by a non-biological parent) are necessary; humans who don't have exposure to the world, thoughts, ideas, and influences of other humans are feral -- and feral humans are very different. Their lives are short. They are malnourished because they do not eat healthy food. Their bodies are scarred, crippled, and disabled, because in their innocence and naivety, cause themselves permanent physical damage. To a lesser extent, similar problems are found in children who have suffered extreme neglect. For an example, take the story of Danielle: "She was 8, but functioned as a 2-year-old. She had been left alone in a dank room, ignored for most of her life... She wore diapers, couldn't feed herself, couldn't talk. After more than a year in school, she still wouldn't make eye contact or play with other kids... They gave her a doll; she bit off its hands. They took her to the beach; she screamed and wouldn't put her feet in the sand... She couldn't peel the wrapper from a chocolate egg, so she ate the shiny paper too. She couldn't sit still to watch TV or look at a book. She couldn't hold a crayon." That is a what happens when I child is left to be itself, with no "programming" from a parent. I strongly suggest reading the whole article, as I only quoted bits and pieces of it, as it's a very good article. TL;DR: People aren't born with a fully realized personality -- but only half of one or so. The other half is created out of their life experiences, which grows and changes as they experience new things and ideas. To not have this other half of a personality and aid in developing it leaves the person stunted as an individual, and is truly lamentable. For the early formative years, it is a parent's job to help nurture and grow their child's personality, and to do any less is a grievous harm. In later years, it becomes up to the person to do this for themselves, but that doesn't mean that it's happening any less -- or that it's any less important. Some the points that Nimras is making can be hard to process, such as what happens to a child who isn't given any kind of human guidance. The stories of the feral humans and the neglected children are extreme examples, certainly, but they show that parents not only have the right, but also the duty to teach their children the knowledge and skills they need to thrive in human society. This knowledge includes the fact that a toy isn't alive in the same way a human is, as Komori said earlier, because if a person truly believes that a toy has a life worth defending, then that person might engage in dangerous behaviors such as: - run out in front of a car to save the toy - hurt or kill another person whom she thinks is threatening her toy To put it lightly, most human societies expect their adults to not engage in any of these behaviors. The process of growing up, of letting go of potentially harmful beliefs, can be painful. But it's necessary, and parents and other mentors are there to facilitate the process. To end on a more positive note, I'd just like to (re?)quote something Teow said: I think a lot of people lose their credulity as a safety mechanism of sorts. When you believe in things without any evidence, you open yourself up to all sorts of scammers and charlatans. It is important for children to learn not to blindly believe in something just because it sounds nice. It would be nice if all strangers were kind and really had candy for you, but putting your faith in that would be dangerous. Does believing in faeries and magical doors really make the world a better place? I mean, it makes you feel better which is valuable, but does it do any more than that? Did you consider that maybe people put away happy dreams so they can make a better reality? I'm not saying you have to ever give up your wonder. Keep looking for mermaids all you want, it's not hurting anyone. However, I don't believe in faeries, magic doors, Santa, or any of those things. That doesn't make me bored or bitter. My world is still beautiful! I walk down the street and I see people holding hands and children's drawings displayed in windows. People loving each other, loving their kids... isn't that a wonder? I feel that if you have to depend on mythical creatures to make the world a mysterious and wonderful place, that you are missing the real wonders that are going on every day! Couldn't have said it better myself. |
|
|
|
Post by Huntress on Jul 18, 2011 15:07:29 GMT -5
*raises hand* So, can I ask a related question from the masses that won't turn into a battleground because it's one of those can-of-wormy topics? :3
Basically, how much should parents impose their own beliefs on their children? Basic things like morals and socially accepted norms go without saying, because that's what a kid needs to function in a society, but I'm thinking questions like religion, vegetarianism, political views, this sort of deal. Most developed countries have freedom of religion written into their constitutions but as a rule, Christian families produce Christian kids, atheist families produce atheist kids, Muslim families produce Muslim kids and deviations, while definitely existent, are most likely rarer than that rule. So wouldn't raising a kid after one's own set of beliefs curb their freedom quite a bit? After all, a kid who's been raised according to certain beliefs would need to go through a pretty radical rebel phase and inner turmoil of self-discovery to end up in some different set of beliefs and maybe defy their entire upbringing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nova on Jul 18, 2011 15:21:23 GMT -5
*raises hand* So, can I ask a related question from the masses that won't turn into a battleground because it's one of those can-of-wormy topics? :3 Basically, how much should parents impose their own beliefs on their children? Basic things like morals and socially accepted norms go without saying, because that's what a kid needs to function in a society, but I'm thinking questions like religion, vegetarianism, political views, this sort of deal. Most developed countries have freedom of religion written into their constitutions but as a rule, Christian families produce Christian kids, atheist families produce atheist kids, Muslim families produce Muslim kids and deviations, while definitely existent, are most likely rarer than that rule. So wouldn't raising a kid after one's own set of beliefs curb their freedom quite a bit? After all, a kid who's been raised according to certain beliefs would need to go through a pretty radical rebel phase and inner turmoil of self-discovery to end up in some different set of beliefs and maybe defy their entire upbringing. I think it's fine for parents to instill their 'religious beliefs' or 'vegetarianism' etc. on their child. I have no objection with them taking them to church when their young or not feeding them meat. But it's when the kid is old enough to make their own informed decision that's when the parents should know to let go of the matter, realize that they taught their kids what they see fit, and let the child go on their own way. Sometimes they will follow the parent - like how I did with my parents - or sometimes they'll go separately which I have seen many people go. If the parents freak out and go "it's my way or ELSE", which I've also heard stories of, then the parents are definitely overstepping their bounds (presuming the child can make their own decision). Parents can guide, but if the child refuses their guidance, the parents should let go. But if the child wants guidance, then the parents can give it. hope that makes sense xD; |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2011 15:21:38 GMT -5
Just so you know, I'm out of this debate, because I felt like crying again. I will not change my beliefs. End of.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gelquie on Jul 18, 2011 15:31:58 GMT -5
Mainly responding to Hunty's because that question is fresh in my mind right now. A child should be receptive of other beliefs, so it should acknowledge the fact that other religions/political philosophies/etc exist. On the other hand, children (especially younger ones) are more prone to want to "copy" their parents. Monkey see, monkey do. The children are looking at them as an example. If I were a parent, I'd raise my kid to decide their beliefs for themselves; I'd tell them the general story and then let them believe what they want to believe (within reason). Of course, the kid would probably still end up trying to imitate me, and the kid's beliefs would be biased towards mine. So parental bias is something that always seems to be prevalent. Forcing beliefs onto others (like forcing them to belief in this political philosophy, for instance) is something I don't like as much. Because like you were saying, they may change their minds later and then have to go through self-discovery while they've become adults and are busy with other things. And believe me; that's not fun. On the other hand, there are examples of extreme beliefs leading to a child going in the opposite direction. For instance, there are atheists that have come out of extreme Christian families. If you press your kids too hard, they're going to start seeing you as a bad example when they get older. And then they may work to try to make themselves the least like you as possible. Mostly happens in the teenage phase, but some of these things continue into adulthood. So yeah, basically, I'm all for freedom of beliefs. There's always going to be some molding (especially for safety but also societal molding), but beyond that, I prefer to end up having the kid develop on their own. The parent is there to (along with basic needs) help the kid grow up and maybe help them deal with their struggles, like how a parent helps a kid learn math when they're struggling. (Of course, the parent would also have to teach them to learn to learn on their own; the parent is not going to be around forever.) Of course, I still have some of my preferences. Like if I were to have a kid, I would try to raise them to be unbiased, so as to help them make decisions. So yes, maybe there is some molding involved in the process of raising a child, even if you give them freedom of beliefs. EDIT: I typed all that before I saw the other posts. Just so you know, I'm out of this debate, because I felt like crying again. I will not change my beliefs. End of. It didn't seem like anyone was forcing you to change your beliefs. They seem to instead be providing alternate views. Though if you feel it's too much emotionally to debate for now and you want to step back, that's fine. |
|
Furgo 
Michael. 
