I've been playing Pokémon games for about 13 years now. (well, sort of... I skipped over the Generation III games and I didn't play any Generation IV games until the release of HeartGold) but I still do this all the time:
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Monday, May 2, 2011
Right vs. Wrong
Just to let you know, there are spoilers for the South Park episode Best Friends Forever (S09E04) contained within the following post. If you'd rather watch that episode than read this entry, I have provided a link to view it legally online at SouthParkStudios.com. Anyway, spoiler alert over.
There is an episode of South Park in which one of the characters, Kenny, is hit by a truck but not killed, thus leaving him in a persistent vegetative state. Two of his buddies, Stan and Kyle, both of whom oft-represent the wise and logical arguments on the show, believe that Kenny is still technically alive and should not be taken off his feeding tube just because another human thinks it is right. Meanwhile, the ever-irritable Eric Cartman, who consistently displays his belief that the ends justify the means, argues that life support is not natural and Kenny should be taken off life support. However, he only wants this because it is in Kenny's Will that should he be pronounced dead, Eric will receive Kenny's prized Sony PSP (at the time of the episode's original airing, the brand new portable gaming system). The story behind Kenny getting hit by that truck takes some silly plot turns involving a war between Heaven and Hell and mocking Keanu Reeves films (specifically the then-recent Constantine), but I'm not going to focus on that half of the episode. Not now anyway.
The plot involving life support results in a Nation-wide, TV-covered story until it is revealed that Kenny's Will specifically states that should he ever end up in a vegetative state, that he not be shown like that on live television. It is at that point when Stan and Kyle realize that they were wrong to turn Kenny's condition into a media-frenzy... but for the right reasons, meanwhile Cartman was completely right about the situation, albeit for the wrong reasons. I guess it really depends on how you view the topic of keeping people in a persistent vegetative state (from which they'll never recover) alive on life support, but if you think about it, it does make sense.
So why am I writing about people being wrong for the right reasons, and right for the wrong reasons? I firmly believe that it can be easily applied to this debate I've been seeing and hearing about the death of Osama bin Laden. I know I just wrote a post earlier today about the very topic, but this is what happens when you drink a can of Monster after going months without an energy drink.
But yes, there seems to be a disagreement about whether or not President Obama's order to assassinate Osama bin Laden was the correct choice, just as well as there being a disagreement about whether or not we, as a country AND as human beings in general, should be celebrating the death of a man, no matter how evil or despised. Both sides make equally valid arguments, so in that case, no one is really "wrong" per se but depending on which side of the debate you stand on, you can easily apply this idea of "right for wrong reasons" and "wrong for right reasons." At least, you can so long as you're open-minded to acknowledging that the opposing side makes some valid points.
I'm not going to say that there is a definitive side that is the "right for the wrong" side and which is the "wrong for the right" because I think that is virtually impossible from a holistic standpoint. As I've already stated, I was glad to hear that he had been killed. Am I right (a major symbol of terror is dead) for the wrong (celebrating a human being's death) reasons? Or am I wrong (celebrating a human being's death) for the right (a major symbol of terror is dead) reasons?
It's all a matter of how you view it. Obviously not everyone thinks this way, so there's going to be a lot of stubborn people on both sides, as is the case with many things in this country. I hope that this doesn't cause a rift between people for much longer because I think it would be a great opportunity for people to show that even disagreeing sides can get along and be respectful toward each other. I think we need that more than anything right now in this country.
Thank you, South Park. Thank you.
There is an episode of South Park in which one of the characters, Kenny, is hit by a truck but not killed, thus leaving him in a persistent vegetative state. Two of his buddies, Stan and Kyle, both of whom oft-represent the wise and logical arguments on the show, believe that Kenny is still technically alive and should not be taken off his feeding tube just because another human thinks it is right. Meanwhile, the ever-irritable Eric Cartman, who consistently displays his belief that the ends justify the means, argues that life support is not natural and Kenny should be taken off life support. However, he only wants this because it is in Kenny's Will that should he be pronounced dead, Eric will receive Kenny's prized Sony PSP (at the time of the episode's original airing, the brand new portable gaming system). The story behind Kenny getting hit by that truck takes some silly plot turns involving a war between Heaven and Hell and mocking Keanu Reeves films (specifically the then-recent Constantine), but I'm not going to focus on that half of the episode. Not now anyway.
The plot involving life support results in a Nation-wide, TV-covered story until it is revealed that Kenny's Will specifically states that should he ever end up in a vegetative state, that he not be shown like that on live television. It is at that point when Stan and Kyle realize that they were wrong to turn Kenny's condition into a media-frenzy... but for the right reasons, meanwhile Cartman was completely right about the situation, albeit for the wrong reasons. I guess it really depends on how you view the topic of keeping people in a persistent vegetative state (from which they'll never recover) alive on life support, but if you think about it, it does make sense.
So why am I writing about people being wrong for the right reasons, and right for the wrong reasons? I firmly believe that it can be easily applied to this debate I've been seeing and hearing about the death of Osama bin Laden. I know I just wrote a post earlier today about the very topic, but this is what happens when you drink a can of Monster after going months without an energy drink.
But yes, there seems to be a disagreement about whether or not President Obama's order to assassinate Osama bin Laden was the correct choice, just as well as there being a disagreement about whether or not we, as a country AND as human beings in general, should be celebrating the death of a man, no matter how evil or despised. Both sides make equally valid arguments, so in that case, no one is really "wrong" per se but depending on which side of the debate you stand on, you can easily apply this idea of "right for wrong reasons" and "wrong for right reasons." At least, you can so long as you're open-minded to acknowledging that the opposing side makes some valid points.
I'm not going to say that there is a definitive side that is the "right for the wrong" side and which is the "wrong for the right" because I think that is virtually impossible from a holistic standpoint. As I've already stated, I was glad to hear that he had been killed. Am I right (a major symbol of terror is dead) for the wrong (celebrating a human being's death) reasons? Or am I wrong (celebrating a human being's death) for the right (a major symbol of terror is dead) reasons?
It's all a matter of how you view it. Obviously not everyone thinks this way, so there's going to be a lot of stubborn people on both sides, as is the case with many things in this country. I hope that this doesn't cause a rift between people for much longer because I think it would be a great opportunity for people to show that even disagreeing sides can get along and be respectful toward each other. I think we need that more than anything right now in this country.
Thank you, South Park. Thank you.
Osama's dead and people aren't happy.
As the entire world learned approximately 13 hours ago, Osama bin Laden has been confirmed dead, having been taken out by a US team under President Obama's orders. While most people are out celebrating and rejoicing, others are wondering killing Osama bin Laden actually means anything almost a full decade after the September 11, 2001 attacks, while other people are questioning why people would celebrate the death of someone. I am basing this completely on my own Facebook news feed, so maybe that's not exactly how things break down, but it's how things appear to me.
Maybe it's because a large number of my Facebook friends are either younger than me or around my age (which would have put them at the ripe dumb age of 13 or younger on 9/11), or because maybe it's because a large number of my Facebook friends believe in conspiracies or don't trust the US government for one reason or another, but I am picking up on a lot of negative vibes about the whole ordeal. More so than I ever would have guessed at least.
I personally do find the news to be good news. I know that his death does not mean terrorism is over, nor does it mean that the entire world is safe from anything bad ever happening again. Of course it doesn't mean something like that, but it does give the world something: hope. There is a lot about the world that I don't understand, and with many things I don't even pretend like I know what's going on, but I do know that the past 10 years have been filled with lots of dread, despair and distrust. So to hear that the [alleged] mastermind of the terrorist attack that brought in this dark era has been removed from this Earth, it is kind of comforting. Even if Osama bin Laden was not behind the 9/11 attacks (which some people are still very insistent about), he was still a well-documented terrorist known for being tied to several terrorist plots around the globe. So his death is not just a big "AMERICA FUCK YEAH"-victory like some people have been putting it (even if it is just as a means to make fun of the über-patriot archetype, such as yours truly). It's a symbolic achievement for the world. Sure, it doesn't mean that his death is an instant means for the eradication of Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, but it is a message to those groups: he was to be feared, but that still won't stop the world from bowing down.
Of course there will be those who see things in a Nationalistic sense and only see this as an American achievement. And that's sad, because it means more than just that. Yes I am an American and I'm proud to be, but I'm not happy because American troops were the ones who got him. I'm happy because one of the major figureheads of Hate has been taken down.
It bothers me a bit to see messages from people who say they don't understand why everyone is celebrating his death. "Life is precious and the loss of one isn't to be a happy occasion, no matter how bad the person" is the general idea behind these thoughts [again, just based on my findings. It is very likely that the most popular dissenting statement is "So the scapegoat is dead, now let's find out who really plotted 9/11"]. I understand that it is morally apprehensive to wish death upon someone, but I find it very hard to believe that people are unable to make exceptions to this. Even in my everyday life I know there is one person whose death I would not be saddened by. And that's just for trying to get me arrested so he wouldn't go down alone! Maybe it's because my moral fiber is woven differently from other's, but to me there are certain people who, when they commit certain deeds, lose a part of their humanity and I no longer view them as being the same as me. It's not just terrorists or people who have done me wrong (and even then, it's only just one person who has wronged me). There are plenty of other hate groups (KKK, Religious or Political Extremists, Nazis, etc) and just general scumbags (Child Molesters, Rapists, Murderers) in the world who I wouldn't bat a tear for if they died. This doesn't mean that I necessarily wish that they would die, but it means that if it were to happen that I do not think that society would lose anything. And I can say for a fact that if I was close to one of the victims, I would be ecstatic to hear of their passing.
Is that a morally correct way of thinking? No, I don't think so at all. But that's not going to stop anyone from celebrating the demise of one of the key players in the War on Terror.
Maybe it's because a large number of my Facebook friends are either younger than me or around my age (which would have put them at the ripe dumb age of 13 or younger on 9/11), or because maybe it's because a large number of my Facebook friends believe in conspiracies or don't trust the US government for one reason or another, but I am picking up on a lot of negative vibes about the whole ordeal. More so than I ever would have guessed at least.
I personally do find the news to be good news. I know that his death does not mean terrorism is over, nor does it mean that the entire world is safe from anything bad ever happening again. Of course it doesn't mean something like that, but it does give the world something: hope. There is a lot about the world that I don't understand, and with many things I don't even pretend like I know what's going on, but I do know that the past 10 years have been filled with lots of dread, despair and distrust. So to hear that the [alleged] mastermind of the terrorist attack that brought in this dark era has been removed from this Earth, it is kind of comforting. Even if Osama bin Laden was not behind the 9/11 attacks (which some people are still very insistent about), he was still a well-documented terrorist known for being tied to several terrorist plots around the globe. So his death is not just a big "AMERICA FUCK YEAH"-victory like some people have been putting it (even if it is just as a means to make fun of the über-patriot archetype, such as yours truly). It's a symbolic achievement for the world. Sure, it doesn't mean that his death is an instant means for the eradication of Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, but it is a message to those groups: he was to be feared, but that still won't stop the world from bowing down.
Of course there will be those who see things in a Nationalistic sense and only see this as an American achievement. And that's sad, because it means more than just that. Yes I am an American and I'm proud to be, but I'm not happy because American troops were the ones who got him. I'm happy because one of the major figureheads of Hate has been taken down.
It bothers me a bit to see messages from people who say they don't understand why everyone is celebrating his death. "Life is precious and the loss of one isn't to be a happy occasion, no matter how bad the person" is the general idea behind these thoughts [again, just based on my findings. It is very likely that the most popular dissenting statement is "So the scapegoat is dead, now let's find out who really plotted 9/11"]. I understand that it is morally apprehensive to wish death upon someone, but I find it very hard to believe that people are unable to make exceptions to this. Even in my everyday life I know there is one person whose death I would not be saddened by. And that's just for trying to get me arrested so he wouldn't go down alone! Maybe it's because my moral fiber is woven differently from other's, but to me there are certain people who, when they commit certain deeds, lose a part of their humanity and I no longer view them as being the same as me. It's not just terrorists or people who have done me wrong (and even then, it's only just one person who has wronged me). There are plenty of other hate groups (KKK, Religious or Political Extremists, Nazis, etc) and just general scumbags (Child Molesters, Rapists, Murderers) in the world who I wouldn't bat a tear for if they died. This doesn't mean that I necessarily wish that they would die, but it means that if it were to happen that I do not think that society would lose anything. And I can say for a fact that if I was close to one of the victims, I would be ecstatic to hear of their passing.
Is that a morally correct way of thinking? No, I don't think so at all. But that's not going to stop anyone from celebrating the demise of one of the key players in the War on Terror.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)