forum Debate. Debate. Debate.

Started March 14, 2019 by Deleted user

tune

Edit topic

IMO, no matter how painless it is, it's pretty hard going to sleep at night knowing that you wiped someone off the face of the earth

Of course it's hard, I'm not saying it isn't. But sacrifices must be made for the greater good. In my opinion, it could be one of the necessary ones.

In that video they mentioned the Pettit case. That's a circumstance where, sorry not sorry, I'd sleep better if I knew they were dead.

Like I said, cases that go beyond immoral, and are simply terrifying or disgusting or whatever you want to call it.

^^ Yeah, you're not wrong but I still, I don't think it's mans responsibility or right to take the life of another.

Who's else would it be?

Not that unpopular opinion: If your "elders" don't treat you with respect, you don't owe them any respect in return.

I don't know. In a way, I see where they're coming from. They've had more life experience and chances they do know what they're talking about.
But they still should respect us as a group with another type of valuable opinion, and we do know more about some things.

Debate: is live performance (musicals, plays, opera, ballet…) a dying art?

If you follow this judgment, then those who believe that what they are doing is right are to be considered not fully at fault. And yet most terrorists believe that what they're doing is for the good go the world.
When one is judged, one is judged against the norm. As far as I know, the norm understands and obeys the 'classic' definition of sinning.

Not quite. I was talking about those who didn’t understand right and wrong. I don’t think those people ever deserve the death penalty.

Not that unpopular opinion: If your "elders" don't treat you with respect, you don't owe them any respect in return.

I say we owe them first off, the respect and dignity deserved of all mankind, and second, respected for what they have seen and know. Thirdly, and this follows I think in the same line as chivalry, we should help and honor the elderly because we are younger and stronger and (a lot of the time) think and see etc. better.

Debate: is live performance (musicals, plays, opera, ballet…) a dying art?

Idk. I hope not. But not in my town.

If you follow this judgment, then those who believe that what they are doing is right are to be considered not fully at fault. And yet most terrorists believe that what they're doing is for the good go the world.
When one is judged, one is judged against the norm. As far as I know, the norm understands and obeys the 'classic' definition of sinning.

Not quite. I was talking about those who didn’t understand right and wrong. I don’t think those people ever deserve the death penalty.

Okay, yes. That's a different story. They deserve mercy, patience and teaching.

Exactly!

Debate: is live performance (musicals, plays, opera, ballet…) a dying art?

I just spend 3 weeks at a theatre camp and got back from a musical less than an hour ago, so I'd say no.

The opera might be, but musical theater is at a huge peak right now.

DEH and Hamilton lead the charge.

I agree, musical theatre is becoming more and more popular (hehe) with the rise of shows like Hamilton, Dear Evan Hansen, Heathers, Be More Chill, especially with an increase of shows with diverse casts, oppertunities for schools to go see shows, taking on topics like mental health, sex and sexuality, racism, etc.

What did you think about Lin Manuel Miranda’s thing about no white people allowed in Hamilton?

Technically white people are allowed, but not as the main characters, only as ensemble or King George III. Personally I'm fine with it because I know that as a white person I have a plethora of other shows open to me (intentionally or not, a casting director would be more likely to cast a white girl as, say, Elle Woods, than they would a not white girl) and I know that part of Lin's inspiration for writing Hamilton was to give POC a chance to star in a historical show after a lot of their history has been ignored by the textbooks.
So while I'd love to play a character, I understand that there's symbolism in the casting and such.

But wasn’t that still a form of racism?

I don't think so– he's giving white people one limit as opposed to the many that non-White people face. He's giving others a chance.

But wasn’t that still a form of racism?

Since the roles and musical were written with POC in mind, it's not any different than saying that a white girl can't play Kim in Miss Saigon, or Jasmine in Aladdin, etc.

I don't think so– he's giving white people one limit as opposed to the many that non-White people face. He's giving others a chance.

Yep, I agree. I mean, it's not like there aren't any other shows where there are plenty of white people in it and very little or no POC.

But wasn’t that still a form of racism?

Since the roles and musical were written with POC in mind, it's not any different than saying that a white girl can't play Kim in Miss Saigon, or Jasmine in Aladdin, etc.

Except Jasmine is not white. By that argument, it makes sense to say that only white people could be in Hamilton.

I don't think so– he's giving white people one limit as opposed to the many that non-White people face. He's giving others a chance.

By taking away the chance for white people. If he did colorblind auditions I would be 100% on board with that. But he didn’t. He gave one racial group preferential treatment while denying it to another. If that isn’t racism then I don’t know what is.

Okay, I don't mean to sound rude or whatever, but are you hearing yourself? White people have so many chances, and I mean many (im speaking as a POC) I don't understand why when there's something where another racial group gets more attention (despite rarely getting any unless its negative) it's an issue.

Because racism is still racism. Even when it’s against the race that normally has the unfair high ground. Equality is what we want. Not making things unfair the other way.

My point still stands. Especially the last part.