Oxigen_Waste Posted December 22, 2010 Author Posted December 22, 2010 You're doing it again How is "Dragon Ball is not good" a fact? It's a light hearted action series, and does a pretty good job at being what it is. What, exactly, makes something "factually shit"? Sorry for the off-topic. First of all, since it's OT, I'll spoiler it so as to not take up space. Okay, 2 things, first, I personally absolutely and unconditionally 100% LOVE Dragon Ball! Me, the person, my personal opinion think's it's a masterpiece. Second, I'm not saying it's terrible, it just isn't very good. I'll give you the why. The first series doesn't apply here, it did what it was supposed to do, and did it brilliantly, however, starting with a point, the whole franchise became the archetype for the modern shonen and suddenly became huge, and because of this new found love, Toriyama screwed up big time. The story just went out the window, it's pretty much the same linear saga x3. And that's an undeniable fact. The narrative completely disappears, the evolution of plot is streamlined and stretched out to a ridiculous extent (even more so in the anime). And that's an undeniable fact. The action becomes repetitive and predictable. Speed of light invisible limbs fight in air fades into energy ball showdown. And that's an undeniable fact. Also terrible is the fact that (again) it created the template for all shonens to come. Which is a very good thing in some cases (Naruto, One Piece, Yu Yu, HunterXHunter and above all FMA, and the list goes on), but a terrible, terrible thing in most cases, in that 75% of modern shonens are bland ininspired copies of DB like BeyBlade and Medabots. But this one is a very very arguable point I'm making here, this one isn't a fact at all. The soundtrack and the animation remain awesome, though (although visually it eventually becomes repetitive, design-wise)! And after all this, most people would pull out the "well, you have to remember, it was made in 1984, it was very good for it's time" card. But that card is wrong, because you already had stuff like Lone Wolf And Cub (1970), Phoenix (1956), Buddha (1972), which were hanging around long before it came out, and it's not the era's fault, beacuse it had contemporaries like Akira (1982) and Nausicäa (1982), which ran alongside it for quite a time. And that's an undeniable fact. Now, if you're asking me personally what I think of Dragon Ball? I love it, every dragging second of it. Without a doubt. Dragon Ball forever! But that's just not the truth, is it?
Guy Posted December 22, 2010 Posted December 22, 2010 (edited) Anyone who reads the above spoiler and knows dick all about Dragon Ball and it's construction in the later years will know how saturated with bullshit it is. Also... success is a personal thing. One man's success could be another man's failure. Happiness is way more important, anyway. Edited December 22, 2010 by Guy
Guy Posted December 22, 2010 Posted December 22, 2010 Figure that out for yourself. What makes me happy is very unlikely to make you feel the same.
Oxigen_Waste Posted December 22, 2010 Author Posted December 22, 2010 Anyone who reads the above spoiler and knows dick all about Dragon Ball and it's construction in the later years will know how saturated with bullshit it is. I wish it were. The truth is, I'm not aware what you mean by later years. If you mean GT, I agree, but that one was universally crap anyway. If you don't, you're blinded by your love. I mean, I just checked around and now it's even lost public opinion's support. I remember when it was one of the top rated shows on both Anime News Network and Myanimelist. Going from top 25 to #1878 is quite a blow. Also, I miss your balls avatar.
Oxigen_Waste Posted December 22, 2010 Author Posted December 22, 2010 So what amounts to happiness? A warm gun? Brilliant. (yes, I ran out of thanks)
tapedeck Posted December 22, 2010 Posted December 22, 2010 (edited) Figure that out for yourself. [...] The conversation police would like a word... OK let me try to figure it out: 1). Happiness is an emotion. 2). Emotions are just signposts that tell us when we are doing things right or wrong in relation to our internal conscious/sub-conscious needs/wants. 3). Whatever our needs are would then dictate our emotions and ultimately our happiness. 4). Sussed it! NOTE: 5). Hand-washing anal beads for a living would make me very, very happy. I therefore agree with your statement saying what makes you happy probably differs from my needs. Edited December 22, 2010 by tapedeck
Guy Posted December 22, 2010 Posted December 22, 2010 You just completely threw me off here. I don't actually know how we've arrived at this point. Can you break it down for me?
tapedeck Posted December 22, 2010 Posted December 22, 2010 You just completely threw me off here. I don't actually know how we've arrived at this point. Can you break it down for me? Well you hold the beads in your hand and... Oh. I just broke it down. Read it again? If you're lost you can work it out. Try to see it my way, do I have to keep on going 'till I can't go on We can work it out. Life is very short and there's no time, for fussing and fighting my friend.
Guy Posted December 22, 2010 Posted December 22, 2010 (edited) Well you hold the beads in your hand and... Oh. I just broke it down. Read it again? If you're lost you can work it out. Try to see it my way, do I have to keep on going 'till I can't go on We can work it out. Life is very short and there's no time, for fussing and fighting my friend. Can somebody put this through a condescending to non-condescending forum post translator? Thanks. Also, why hasn't this thread been locked yet? What started out with good conversational intentions has turned into a witch hunt. Edited December 22, 2010 by Guy
Captain Falcon Posted December 22, 2010 Posted December 22, 2010 Can somebody put this through a condescending to non-condescending forum post translator? Thanks. Also, why hasn't this thread been locked yet? What started out with good conversational intentions has turned into a witch hunt. You asked about happiness and TD said about it being an emotional reaction based upon how the things we do reflect our subconscious wants/needs/beliefs. And then you asked him to break it down. But how can he break that down further - that's as basic as it gets. That's what he meant by having already done it. The anal beads things was a joke... unless that really is how he gets his kicks. And as for the rest, that was a bunch of song lyrics from We Can Work It Out by The Beatles. On the grand list of condescending posts this forum has seen, it barely even registers... if it even does at all.
jayseven Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 1). Happiness is an emotion. 2). Emotions are just signposts that tell us when we are doing things right or wrong in relation to our internal conscious/sub-conscious needs/wants. This is wrong. 3). Whatever our needs are would then dictate our emotions and ultimately our happiness. Not accurate 4). Sussed it! The way I see it. Emotions are uncontrollable primal urges. They are a display of the nature rather than the nurture. Also, we are talking about behavioural psychology. I do this. I feel that. Therefore, I shall do this more in order to feel that more. In relation to need/want; I think it gets ridiculous fast. Success in relative terms to emotions is different because success is typically measured against other people, against society. Emotions stem from the self. While they pretty much share a negative-opposite thing, they are not directly related. Even just acknowledging that this is 'true' bears no relevance to the thread. Understanding that happiness is just an emotion will not stop you from nor aid you with attaining it. Your methods of attaining it are not simply reactive pavlovian responses though. There is an amount of sentience, of imagination, that is required in defining what you think a successful you would be. or so I think. I would probably argue the exact opposite if the opportunity arose. I don't even really know what I'm on about. GIMME THE SCOOP, SCOOP.
Paj! Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 Yor too deep, when the water is so shallow... I'm wading...
The Bard Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 Jay, we have "primal," evolutionary emotions, but this is true of any biological organism. Part of what differentiates us is that we have a more developed frontal cortex, which allows us to consciously objectivise the things we see around us, speculate as to their interplay and internalise our evaluations, it is ostensibly our "rational" aspect. The magical thing (which entirely defeats the "rationality" "emotion" dichotomy as being just two arbitrary names for behavioral patterns) is that our frontal cortex is intricately linked to our limbic system and hippocampus (which are two parts of the brain associated with emotional response and storage of experiental data amongst other things) by way of the orbitrofrontal cortex. When our frontal lobe picks up external stimuli, it automatically correlates it to emotional information that we've stored in our mid and hind brain. The interesting thing is, when the orbitofrontal cortex is damaged on the side of the "emotional" brain, we turn into Hamlet, unable to decide, forever weighing decisions and speculating, unable to correlate them with anything we've experienced in the past. We are literally paralysed. Conversely, when it is damaged on the side of the Frontal lobe, we become impulsive to the extreme, completely unable to moderate our behaviour. The consonance of the two is indivisible. Our emotions are nuanced and informed by our experiences and the events in our lives. When we go to McDonalds and choose a Big Mac over a Chicken Mayo, it is informed by the heirarchy of rewards and emotions that our brain has come to associate over time with each of the stimuli it percieves, in this case, a whole host of considerations to do with the taste of the burger, the caloric content, the price etc. A person who has the ability to consider and heirarchise a greater variety of stimuli is somehow categorised as more "rational" even though his decicions are just as predicated on emotionality as ours are. Our nurture is our nature, because our nature as human beings is to be able to internalise experience very efficiently and allow it to define us. I know you weren't really speaking with a scientific discourse in mind, but it was kinda the only way I had to say what I mean. The way people traditionally think about emotion does it no justice : peace:
tapedeck Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 Interesting read Bard. (I particularly enjoyed your medical perspective).
Recommended Posts