New TIMESURF seamless action figure doll!!!What does it look like?any opinions?

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
how does a dream girl soft rubber doll in a bikini with no working plumbing constitute a moral dilemma??!!!its just a toy for gods sake...not some ritual idol thing.u canjust dump it away if ya sick of it. .n i thought i had issues...lol
 
how does a dream girl soft rubber doll in a bikini with no working plumbing constitute a moral dilemma??!!!its just a toy for gods sake...not some ritual idol thing.u canjust dump it away if ya sick of it. .n i thought i had issues...lol

As someone who actually has issues... I don't know if you're trolling or not. But if you're not, take my advice: Be weird, and apologize to no one. Normal people are cowards who lack imagination. Their inability to create anything gives them an inflated sense of entitlement, as if those who create do so to please them.

They see artists as servants.

You can serve them, but that means you'll have to pay more attention to them in catering to their needs. Or you can create for yourself... but then I wouldn't advise asking other people for their opinion.

If you are trolling, I'd say you could troll even harder by promoting this on a Feminist website, dressed as is. Call her "Entrepreneurial Barbie: With Progressive Body Image!" Either way... have fun.
 
Would it bother you, if this thread kept going?

--

Nope. Just curious. I wonder if it'll go on as long as the CREEPSHOW thread?

The only caveat with this discussion thus far is it should have been posted in the general section area, but I digress.

By all means, please continue the back and forth.

y4m3xhONBcotTdYmYjBJW6G70-O_S7kxMpQKJlTc6_wk_HOLkg12U2ugP4qCcxxVuUjLEamH8ILEuDfEtDVbLLXmocqWexg3cJBaX6ve2UW3cp2uUyp5NqOw_KCRNUNlbsJaRufNXbXomcVdU2K8wLL1AIaD6Y_Rr10sAxZ9gjLuTRE6VaWpnBe_ntUg0n-xYpQNRV44HvyWFb5kPmwhnBVXw
 
The only caveat with this discussion thus far is it should have been posted in the general section area, but I digress.
I argued that exact point. But apparently we are both wrong. And the more I look at it, the more I agree it's definitely horrific. So we both stand corrected. HORROR it is.
 
I argued that exact point. But apparently we are both wrong. And the more I look at it, the more I agree it's definitely horrific. So we both stand corrected. HORROR it is.

The reason this belongs in the Horror section is because of the prudish response it received from easily offended moralists. Horror has a lengthy history of being critically panned by conservative moralists, who "just don't understand what all the gore is about", or complain about the lack of characterization, or subtext, blah blah blah.

Here's a great example of prudish moralist conservatism wreaking havoc on popular culture: Siskel & Ebert reviewing the Evil Dead. Two thumbs down! Guess why? Because they share your aesthetic sensibilities.

 
I found it! Here's an even better example of conservative moralism: Roger Ebert's review of the original I Spit on Your Grave. He was so offended by this movie, that he spends more time complaining about the kids who had fun watching it, than he complains about the movie itself. It's hilarious. You can just imagine this backward, conservative pilgrim sitting in the back of the theater, mortified while surrounded by kids making out, throwing popcorn and cheering as people die. He describes the movie as "inappropriate", "profoundly disturbing", and "an expression of the most diseased and perverted darker human natures". At one point, this idiot says,

" In several scenes, the other three men tried to force the retarded man to attack the girl. This inspired a lot of laughter and encouragement from the audience. I wanted to turn to the man next to me and tell him his remarks were disgusting, but I did not. To hold his opinions at his age, he must already have suffered a fundamental loss of decent human feelings. I would have liked to talk with the woman in the back row, the one with the feminist solidarity for the movie's heroine. I wanted to ask If she'd been appalled by the movie's hour of rape scenes. As it was, at the film's end I walked out of the theater quickly, feeling unclean, ashamed and depressed."

HE FELT UNCLEAN! BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! :rotfl

This is why movies like I Spit On Your Grave are amazing. Because of people like Roger Ebert. Otherwise it really would just be a boring splatterfest with no subtext or character development. But when it makes poor Ebert feel dirty... That's art.

You can read the review in all it's puritan glory, here:

https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/i-spit-on-your-grave-1980
 
Wow. Saving the best for last: Ebert's take on 1986 ALIENS:

Ebert:

"On the one hand, it's very well made... The movie is scary and horrifying and disgusting from one end to the other, and I have nothing but admiration for its craftsmanship. But on the other hand, and this is a 'big but', at the end of the movie you know what? I felt really bad! My stomach was all knotted up and I was jumpy and unhappy, and tense and it took me a while to get back to normal again! ALIENS was so strong it was overkill. It really did upset me! So as a movie critic, I'm giving the movie thumbs up. I think it's a good thriller. But if I were talking to a friend, I think I'd say, "Hey. I'm not sure you want to see this movie."

Siskel:

"I think one of the cheapest shots you can do in a movie, is show a child in peril. When I see a movie do that, I check out of that picture... I was saying, 'Who needs the grief? I don't wanna see the little girl grabbed."

Grown men. Upset stomachs. Conservatism. If you can't handle ALIENS, moralism has made you weak. In the 80's, adults were actually like this! They were petty, hyper-sensitive and constantly airing grievances about how "gratuitous" violence and sex was. Kids wouldn't have cared if adults merely didn't like sex and violence, but it was worse than that; we were supposed to feel ASHAMED if we liked it ourselves. Our feelings were supposed to make us feel guilty.

Of course, it backfired. Forbidden laughter is always funnier. Warnings about how scary a movie was, only added to the appeal of the movie when you're a kid. In fact, I kind of doubt that Ebert was being genuine. There was probably an acknowledgement that anti-slasher campaigns actually raised box office sales the same way Parental Advisory stickers promoted albums in the 90's. Regardless, parents actually fell for this sort of thing. Most of my childhood friends had their rooms raided on a regular basis for "obscene" material, thanks to religion, and people in media like Ebert.

 
He's still goin'.....

Listen, my bullying friend. I'm not an idealist, so you can wield all of the Ad Hominems you want and it won't offend me. It's what moralists do, because their position is indefensible. But why be passive-aggressive? You could just as easily have said, "You're still goin'..." Would have made you sound less weak. You're revealing a lot about yourself.

Meanwhile, I go by the name Spazz. Which one of us seems the least self-aware? :wave
 
Have you ever tried to prove the existence of morality, to yourself or other people? It seems easy and intuitive, until you actually try. Among academics, it's actually very controversial. First of all, you'd have to figure out what epistemology you'll refer to, in proving that morality exists: what are the rules you're appealing to, in demonstrating moral knowledge? Science has nothing to say about morality, and that's the epistemology we use to describe everything that exists in the physical world. Even math, which relies on constants is hinged on our perception of constants in our environment. Empiricism is inescapable.

The only other epistemology you can appeal to is pure logic, or as academics say, "apriori knowledge". There are problems with this. Basically, pure logic paints a cohesive picture of the world, where all the puzzle pieces fit together. However, in the absence of hard evidence, how do you know the picture is accurate? Reflects reality?

Many well-respected idealists, like Noam Chomsky, argue that morality doesn't require a justification: that its existence is a "brute fact". That seems silly to me, though. If Noam says that the existence of morality is a brute fact, and I say the existence of Santa Clause is a brute fact, how can Noam distinguish between what he thinks is his true claim, and my false claim to brute factedness? Either he can't, or if he can... it's not a brute fact anymore.

Anyway, we haven't even started to describe morality yet. All we've done is contemplate the rules for what would constitute knowledge OF morality, and it's a mess.

Then, once you try to describe what morality is, you end up describing the weird, spooky abstract blueprint that demands we behave one way, or another. It would be unlike anything else that exists, and it's precise nature depends on what you, yourself believe to be the nature of the obligation. So, for example, a utilitarian would describe morality in a way that differs from someone who believes in God's Command, or an egalitarian, or someone who believes in moral cultural relativism, or pragmatism. Whatever morality is, it sounds a lot like religion... Your version of the spooky abstract blueprint sounds plausible to you, but all the other ones somehow sound ridiculous...

Sorry, I ramble about this stuff. However, if anyone is interested, I suggest you read about moral error theory. It's an academic version of Moral Nihilism. They don't teach it very well in university, because most profs who teach morality believe in it. Makes sense really. You wouldn't expect to find many atheist priests, either.

Try to prove morality? Nope. Morality is something you just know. I'm no super scholar on the subject but think it's on a cultural level. To deny morality is fine if you want to justify anything you do with no consequence. We are after all social in nature so morality guides us to form laws to protect that society. Morals can and do however change and evolve. This is a lot of the reason Siskel and Ebert being old school film critics couldn't stand the at the time new wave of slashers.

Back to the doll. The face kind of looks like Marilyn Manson.
 

Attachments

  • I-Don-t-Like-The-Drugs-But-The-Drugs-Like-Me-Music-Video-marilyn-manson-39309263-500-281.jpg
    I-Don-t-Like-The-Drugs-But-The-Drugs-Like-Me-Music-Video-marilyn-manson-39309263-500-281.jpg
    11.6 KB
  • tumblr_osh6ulpQny1r2sh4xo1_500.jpg
    tumblr_osh6ulpQny1r2sh4xo1_500.jpg
    13.1 KB
Try to prove morality? Nope. Morality is something you just know. I'm no super scholar on the subject but think it's on a cultural level. To deny morality is fine if you want to justify anything you do with no consequence. We are after all social in nature so morality guides us to form laws to protect that society. Morals can and do however change and evolve. This is a lot of the reason Siskel and Ebert being old school film critics couldn't stand the at the time new wave of slashers.

Back to the doll. The face kind of looks like Marilyn Manson.

Thanks for the response. I like talking about this sort of thing. Honestly, if you were a super scholar it really wouldn't make a difference, as people who are familiar with these issues are no better at proving the existence of morality than anyone else. Honestly, you summed up your position well, and arrived at the same conclusions that I've heard from well educated people. If you wouldn't mind, I have a few questions for you. You don't have to respond of course, but I think they're interesting to contemplate.

1) If morality is something people just know, why is there so much disagreement about what morality is? If morality was intuitive, wouldn't we all be on the same page? People have been arguing over the nature of morality (including justice) for as long as we have written works. Thousands of years!

2) Suppose morality didn't exist. Would that really make a difference in terms of how you treated other people? As someone who believed in morality well into my 30's, in my experience Nihilism didn't really make a difference. I'm still compassionate, and try to be a nice guy. I don't like seeing people get hurt, and I avoid living at the expense of other people as much as I can. I'm pretty sure most people would act that way, even if they didn't feel obligated. I think you actually mentioned the reason for this: we are social in nature. People who would harm others for fun and profit, probably aren't too concerned about morality anyway. There are some Nihilists who agree with you though. They're terrified, and think we should bury our heads in the sand, pretending morality exists so we can function! (They call it "fictionalism"). It's definitely a scary thing to contemplate. It's like living in a theocracy, contemplating atheism! Where would you go from there?

3) It's true, that our society's understanding or claims regarding morality changes over time. However, does than mean we were wrong about morality, or does the nature of obligation change over time? For instance, was chattel slavery actually a moral or ethical thing to do, until it wasn't? Or were people mistakenly behaving unethically the whole time?

4) It's also true that our society's understanding of morality results from culture. However, cultural norms are the product of people getting together, and conforming in how they eat, dress, create music, perceive the universe... The only prerequisite for something to become a cultural norm, is that a lot of people have to agree on it.

Do we really have an obligation to conform? Doesn't that seem arbitrary? My mother used to say, "If everyone jumped off a cliff..."

I think the censorship of Horror movies and comic books can be attributed to a false understanding of moralism, that stems from the exact thing you mentioned in your post. People were afraid that if you allow people to glorify, celebrate, laugh at or treat sex and violence with a lack of solemnity, there'd be a collapse of social institutions. Ebert definitely felt that way, as made explicit in his review of "I Spit On Your Grave". For him, being in that theater was foreshadowing the collapse of Western Civilization! Meanwhile, I think the reason why Slasher flicks were so popular in the 80's, is that embracing the Gore became an act of anti-authoritarianism. Not politically. On a very primal level, kids questioned the rules and demands of their parents, and had fun rebelling as an end in itself. For me, most of the fun in watching horror movies involved going to the theater and cheering at all the death scenes with my friends. It was funny, specifically because we knew our parents would react the way Ebert did. We knew that watching horror movies wouldn't really hurt anyone, nor would listening to Ozzy Osbourne records, or playing Dungeons and Dragons.

I feel the same way about morality. I think the fear of letting go is irrational. We'll be fine, without it.
 
This dude somehow keeps spouting about morality but when you strip away all his B.S., we're still just talking about an ugly ass doll. Dude needs to stop over analyzing everything.
 
This dude somehow keeps spouting about morality but when you strip away all his B.S., we're still just talking about and ugly ass doll. Dude needs to stop over analyzing everything.

Burtial? More like Butt-Hurtial...
 
I'll spell it out for you all. The reason why I'm talking about moral nihilism is because several of you bullied someone who wanted advice regarding his art. Some of you were very insulting, and filled with righteous indignation. I felt sorry for him.

Meanwhile, to me it's hilarious that people who've never really given their beliefs any thought, who've obviously never tried to falsify their own beliefs would still feel passionate enough about their "convictions" to be cruel to someone, regarding their work.

What good is your morality, if it leads to that kind of behavior? I don't see morality as being pro-social. I see it as an irrational sense of entitlement that causes conflict and cruelty.
 
some of you were very insulting.....meanwhile, to me it's hilarious that people.....would still feel passionate enough about their "convictions" to be cruel to someone......what good is your morality, if it leads to that kind of behavior?... I see it as an irrational sense of entitlement that causes conflict and cruelty.

burtial? More like butt-hurtial


lolololololololololololololol
 
Also from him "Burtial? More like Butt-Hurtial..."


LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

As I've said a thousand times, I'm a Nihilist, not a pacifist. If someone resorts to bullying, I have no problem making fun of them. Hypocrisy is a moralist concept. Try and keep up. As a moralist, you have standards to uphold, Butt-Hurtial. I, on the other hand, can do as I please. Your moralism makes you weak.

I'm here because I'm interested in bad ideas, like objectification, and morality in general. You're obviously here for validation. For me, this is practice. I confront irrational moralists when they're cruel, in light of their "compassionate" moralism because their mental gymnastics interests me. Weren't you the one who went on a Feminist rant about objectification, while calling him "Gross"? I don't care that you're bullying someone. I care about logic and reason. He can probably stick up for himself.

So yes, Butt-Hurtial. LOL indeed. Do you have a premise? No. You're not capable of defending your Feminism in a logical way, but you're willing to appeal to it when slinging insults at others. That's funny, to me. Perhaps if you bothered practicing to articulate your thoughts, you'd be more formidable as a bully. Instead, you address the group passive-aggressively instead of addressing me directly, because you need validation. It's a weakness, that most bullies have. You mentioned,

This dude somehow keeps spouting about morality but when you strip away all his B.S., we're still just talking about an ugly ass doll. Dude needs to stop over analyzing everything.

When did you strip away my B.S.? You failed to mount a single, coherent argument. If you falsified my perspective, I'd thank you for teaching me something. Know why? Because I'm not a moralist. I welcome falsification instead of getting offended, and then bullying people I disagree with.

I admit, I don't like bullies. Still, you have no obligation to refrain from being one, weak or otherwise.
 
Back
Top