Forum - View topic

NEWS: Producer: Miyazaki's Newest Is Not For Everyone to Relax & Watch

"i do not consult with a state that invades other countries"

Its not simply about technology. Humankind also becomes more loose and free minded as they advance. Conservatism holds back innovative thinking. More often than not, the past is looked at with rose tinted lenses than anything else. It wasn't as peachy as they remember.

Teeechinically it goes both ways too. For example, before the Dolly incident, a milestone of scientific advancement, DNA-related experiments and cloning was a LOT less restricted. After that little bit of miracle? Some dickwads decided to put a leash on the scientific community.

And remove conservatism and replace it with "Religion".

Inutaihanyou123 wrote:

"i do not consult with a state that invades other countries"

Let's be fair...MANY people woulda said this. And Miyazaki is especially pro-peace and environment even compared to many hippies out there. It's what they call a "boycott".


Kinda wished he was around during Japan's war with China.

Teeechinically it goes both ways too. For example, before the Dolly incident, a milestone of scientific advancement, DNA-related experiments and cloning was a LOT less restricted. After that little bit of miracle? Some dickwads decided to put a leash on the scientific community.


There's a LOT of things that are restricted after massive advancements in society. Many of the things that would have greatly improved our society as a whole.

And remove conservatism and replace it with "Religion".

Its the same in every society. People who resist change and in favor of traditionalist approaches that are usually much less effective.. That's what conservatism IS.

Let's be fair...MANY people woulda said this.

And how does that excuse dismissing an entire country and its citizens because of what politicians do? He was protesting in response to the illegal invasion of Iraq, i did so as well, many people in this country did. The fact that he generalized and put everyone into a box when it clearly is not that simple, is what being close minded is all about. That's what i have a problem with, its old people thinking.

[beep]

To believe it to be possible would require artificial wombs. Something I consider damnable and hellish.

I have considered becoming a farmer, and I have not ruled it out entirely. I need only a wife who is willing to keep her promise for me to reproduce.

Quote:

And how does that excuse dismissing an entire country and its citizens because of what politicians do? He was protesting in response to the illegal invasion of Iraq, i did so as well, many people in this country did. The fact that he generalized and put everyone into a box when it clearly is not that simple, is what being close minded is all about. That's what i have a problem with, its old people thinking.

This sentiment of yours is foolish. The American people re-elected Bush after that invasion in a land slide. He was right, and so was his point. The United States is a democracy. The government is chosen by the people. I think you have forgotten that.

Firstly, do you think that you are entitled to the opportunity to become a farmer?

Secondly, must you keep any meaningful obligation or promise to that wife, or is it just a one-sided commitment to her being a good little sperm receptacle?

President Bush did win his second term by a landslide. He won with 50.7% of the votes against Senator Kerry's 48.3%, which is an uncommonly narrow margin of victory for an incumbent President. If Hayao Miyazaki was indicting the whole American population; his stance seems like unfair, self-indulgent indignity to me. If he merely meant to condemn the government, that would be considerably sounder. Simply because the government is popularly elected does not, I think, establish collective unanimity or responsibility. It is impossible to effectively aggregate the preferences of 'the people'; any method of doing so will invariably have some serious defect in how well it reflects popular opinion. It seems absurd to hold that the existence of a majority makes the existence of a minority morally irrelevant.

The sentence, "I do not consult with a state that invades other countries," seems ambiguous as to me. If he were being given an award from the American government, then it would be easily understood protest, but as it was a private entity whose members probably held the invasion of Iraq in worse regard than the general population, the actual merit of his protest seems dubious to me. Besides that, to get a statue in honor of a movie that he made from some actors and give a short speech accepting it is hardly to, "consult with a state." (Provided that there's not some oversight in translation)

I won't say I am entitled of that, no. But the state and society should not be in the business of trying to restrict me or discourage me from doing so. I am by no means a fan of agricultural subsidies either.

Of course I have an obligation to my wife. I am a Christian, and I could never abandon someone to whom I made a promise to.

And how does that excuse dismissing an entire country and its citizens because of what politicians do?

Either one deals with the advancement of society or they are left behind. Humankind's advancement is as natural as the last generation's shift from their parent's and so on.

The fact that the "evils of modernization" are so scary is mind boggling. Its called "adapting to new things".

Well in a democracy, majority rules, but not everyone voted for for him. Had I been of voting age at the time I wouldn't have. I also didn't agree with the invasion of Iraq. A lot of Americans didn't agree with it. And as ironic as it may be probably a lot of the people who voted for Bush didn't agree with that either. So it becomes closed minded for someone to associate politics with an entire society of people who may or may not agree with the popular political movement of the time. It was the academy awards not a political rally, I'm not seeing where the conflict of interest was.