Mic quality dropping half way through unnoticed is such a Simpsons thing that it actually fits. Like your vids and commentary, hope your channel will grow soon. As for Lisa’s morals during first 10 seasons, I think it’s important to remember that while being very smart and bookish she’s still a child so sometimes she acts and thinks immaturely because she is learning. Later seasons imo forgot that childish aspect of the youngest Simpsons.
You make good points. Regarding your question about "forensics", the original meaning of the word was debate (or technically persuasive speech) before the term "forensic medicine" was coined. I remember in school hearing about forensics club and getting excited thinking we were going to be solving murders until I found out it was just a debate team.
You think the cable episode was bad? Man oh man, wait til you get to Homer The Heretic - where Marge threatens to turn her children against Homer if he doesn't go to Church, and it's depicted as a GOOD thing.
I think "And Maggie Makes Three" goes a long way to showing why Marge stayed with Homer and why he does ultimately deserve her. For all his faults, he is EXTREMELY dedicated to his family.
So marge married to spite and engage in disapproved actions. And everyone who watched the title fight on stolen cable did the same, engaged in (poorly argued) disapproved actions. The moralism is not really the problem, it's the difficulty in determining the difference between Lisa's political views (and actions) and the morals themselves (and therefore the correct moral action). So too with marge's political move to homer, in spite of familial disapproval and the failures of the nerdy guy. The omnipotence of politics and feelings in The Simpsons is super tragic. I always thought it was "That's an American thing". The attitude has seeped in to me, further than I'd like. Conscious morals are harder won than it would be comfortable to want.
It's pretty much inarguable that Homer is a huge anchor on Marge, and you don't have to be a crazy feminist to reach that conclusion. The whole family is a trainwreck...but that's part of why we (or at least I) watched.
You searching for reasons for why stealing is bad, even from "bad people", is kind of strange to me. Stealing is bad, because stealing is bad. Together with murder being bad, that is probably the one rule all humans can agree on regardless of culture. Some moral rules are not universal. Slavery is bad? Ok, we think that, but the Romans, Aztecs or Americans from 200 years ago did not. But stealing is universal to all cultures (that I know of) You can not reduce morality to "makes people happy" or consequentialism. Yes, it is also about that, but not just. Consider Haidts example of Julie and Mark: "Julie and Mark, who are sister and brother, are traveling together in France. They are both on summer vacation from college. One night they are staying alone in a cabin near the beach. They decide that it would be interesting and fun if they tried making love. At the very least it would be a new experience for each of them. Julie is already taking birth control pills, but Mark uses a c*ndom too, just to be safe. They both enjoy it, but they decide not to do it again. They keep that night as a special secret between them, which makes them feel even closer to each other. So what do you think about this? Was it wrong for them to have s*x?" What exactly is bad about this? And if you do not think it is bad, would you condone it if Julie and Mark were your children? Morality is ultimately something felt. All rules are just approximations. The only reason Kant formulated the categorical imperative his way, and not with a "not" in front of it, is because he tested it, in his mind, against real world situations. I think stealing is bad -> the KI also says stealing is bad -> they always give the same result -> the KI is a valid representation of human morality. This is also why you get silly edge cases noone would actually take serious. Lying is wrong, even if the N*zi officers if you are hyding anyone in your addic? Or things are only bad, if someone was harm/ there was no consent, so Armin Meiwes is a perfectly normal man who should not be in prison? It is the same problem definitions always have. What is a human? A featherless biped? What is a woman? What is a soup, and is muesli a soup? You do not think in definitions, because you are not a robot. You think in examples. You do not learn "a crow is a bird from the family of corvids and...", your mom points at a bird, says crow, you point at a chicken, say crow, your mom says no and so you limit the definition down. Morality is the same, it is instinctive, it is felt, it is not rational, but largely about aesthetics, and it is not something you can capture by simple rules, or with a single concept like consent or harm.
If you want to look at the question from a more consequentialist perspective, you might draw the conclusion to stealing from Wallmart today. Certainly Wallmart has enough money. But they are not in your neighbourhood for fun. They are there to do buissiness. If too many people steal (like in some leftist cities of the US, currently), these companies do not make a profit in poorer ares, will leave, and create the same food deserts progressives then complain about. These companies also are not a faceless entity, but are made up by people. These smaller, low quality jobs, are exactly the ones teens can have, to make some money and offer a different way to achieve status by going there, saving some money, going to college, ... instead of being either bound to criminality or poverty. These low level jobs you can do without much education are what you need to offer people in generational poverty a way out. But these jobs are driven away by theft. Because Wallmart will not keep their store in your neighbourhood, just to be nice. That is not how they got so rich in the first place. Napster and similar services are a bit different here, since the product is digital. It does not really increase the cost to sell 2 songs instead of 1, only the production costs money. And most people stealing listen to, and might buy, a lot more music as a result, than people who only could buy CDs would. As such, Napster still hurt the music industry, but not in the same way that stealing from Wallmart etc does.
The quality drop beginning with a voice crack “MArGe” was incredible
Mic quality dropping half way through unnoticed is such a Simpsons thing that it actually fits. Like your vids and commentary, hope your channel will grow soon.
As for Lisa’s morals during first 10 seasons, I think it’s important to remember that while being very smart and bookish she’s still a child so sometimes she acts and thinks immaturely because she is learning. Later seasons imo forgot that childish aspect of the youngest Simpsons.
Good insight. I like your commentary and the manner that you present them. The EMPEROR video is great. Take care.
You make good points. Regarding your question about "forensics", the original meaning of the word was debate (or technically persuasive speech) before the term "forensic medicine" was coined. I remember in school hearing about forensics club and getting excited thinking we were going to be solving murders until I found out it was just a debate team.
Oh my god, I am older then you. The nearest simpsons episode to airing to when I was born was Selma's Choice from season 4.
I know The Simpsons constantly retcon, but not seeing the male flight attendant version of Marge’s dad is so jarring.
Please keep commenting on Simpsons episodes!! (And I did enjoy the lower audio quality. Thank you.)
You think the cable episode was bad? Man oh man, wait til you get to Homer The Heretic - where Marge threatens to turn her children against Homer if he doesn't go to Church, and it's depicted as a GOOD thing.
I very well might do a video on that episode when I get to it.
This video written by Patty and Selma Bouvier
Patty and Selma would have a decent point about Homer if they weren't objectively bigger losers than he is.
I think "And Maggie Makes Three" goes a long way to showing why Marge stayed with Homer and why he does ultimately deserve her. For all his faults, he is EXTREMELY dedicated to his family.
So marge married to spite and engage in disapproved actions. And everyone who watched the title fight on stolen cable did the same, engaged in (poorly argued) disapproved actions.
The moralism is not really the problem, it's the difficulty in determining the difference between Lisa's political views (and actions) and the morals themselves (and therefore the correct moral action).
So too with marge's political move to homer, in spite of familial disapproval and the failures of the nerdy guy. The omnipotence of politics and feelings in The Simpsons is super tragic. I always thought it was "That's an American thing". The attitude has seeped in to me, further than I'd like.
Conscious morals are harder won than it would be comfortable to want.
It's pretty much inarguable that Homer is a huge anchor on Marge, and you don't have to be a crazy feminist to reach that conclusion. The whole family is a trainwreck...but that's part of why we (or at least I) watched.
i am honst you shuld startet with the " not good eray so after season 10" to see if the orignal season are only good thank to nostalga or realy good?
Lisa Simpson takes a stand episodes has not aged well.
Whacking Day and Lisa the Vegetarian are still bangers.
@@MooVeeMan Not funny ones. Lisa the Vegetarian is more of an infamous episode that started this trend of people disliking her.
You searching for reasons for why stealing is bad, even from "bad people", is kind of strange to me.
Stealing is bad, because stealing is bad. Together with murder being bad, that is probably the one rule all humans can agree on regardless of culture. Some moral rules are not universal. Slavery is bad? Ok, we think that, but the Romans, Aztecs or Americans from 200 years ago did not. But stealing is universal to all cultures (that I know of)
You can not reduce morality to "makes people happy" or consequentialism. Yes, it is also about that, but not just.
Consider Haidts example of Julie and Mark:
"Julie and Mark, who are sister and brother, are traveling together in France. They are both on summer vacation from college. One night they are staying alone in a cabin near the beach. They decide that it would be interesting and fun if they tried making love. At the very least it would be a new experience for each of them. Julie is already taking birth control pills, but Mark uses a c*ndom too, just to be safe. They both enjoy it, but they decide not to do it again. They keep that night as a special secret between them, which makes them feel even closer to each other. So what do you think about this? Was it wrong for them to have s*x?"
What exactly is bad about this? And if you do not think it is bad, would you condone it if Julie and Mark were your children?
Morality is ultimately something felt. All rules are just approximations. The only reason Kant formulated the categorical imperative his way, and not with a "not" in front of it, is because he tested it, in his mind, against real world situations. I think stealing is bad -> the KI also says stealing is bad -> they always give the same result -> the KI is a valid representation of human morality.
This is also why you get silly edge cases noone would actually take serious. Lying is wrong, even if the N*zi officers if you are hyding anyone in your addic? Or things are only bad, if someone was harm/ there was no consent, so Armin Meiwes is a perfectly normal man who should not be in prison?
It is the same problem definitions always have. What is a human? A featherless biped? What is a woman? What is a soup, and is muesli a soup?
You do not think in definitions, because you are not a robot. You think in examples. You do not learn "a crow is a bird from the family of corvids and...", your mom points at a bird, says crow, you point at a chicken, say crow, your mom says no and so you limit the definition down. Morality is the same, it is instinctive, it is felt, it is not rational, but largely about aesthetics, and it is not something you can capture by simple rules, or with a single concept like consent or harm.
If you want to look at the question from a more consequentialist perspective, you might draw the conclusion to stealing from Wallmart today. Certainly Wallmart has enough money. But they are not in your neighbourhood for fun. They are there to do buissiness. If too many people steal (like in some leftist cities of the US, currently), these companies do not make a profit in poorer ares, will leave, and create the same food deserts progressives then complain about.
These companies also are not a faceless entity, but are made up by people. These smaller, low quality jobs, are exactly the ones teens can have, to make some money and offer a different way to achieve status by going there, saving some money, going to college, ... instead of being either bound to criminality or poverty. These low level jobs you can do without much education are what you need to offer people in generational poverty a way out. But these jobs are driven away by theft. Because Wallmart will not keep their store in your neighbourhood, just to be nice. That is not how they got so rich in the first place.
Napster and similar services are a bit different here, since the product is digital. It does not really increase the cost to sell 2 songs instead of 1, only the production costs money. And most people stealing listen to, and might buy, a lot more music as a result, than people who only could buy CDs would. As such, Napster still hurt the music industry, but not in the same way that stealing from Wallmart etc does.