Anyone interested in discussing the social issues of DB?

[gogeta97]

Speaking of racism, this is kind of minor to bring up, but does anyone else feel that the recent situation with Frost sort of unintentionally promotes the idea of racism? Not only has every member of Freeza's race been portrayed as an evil scumbag, but Vegeta seemed to imply that every member of Freeza's race is probably like that, and no one else in the show even bothers to call him out for that.

Maybe I'm just overthinking it, but that seems to be imply that it's okay to judge people by other members of their race. Not the best message for kids. I'm guessing that's more on Toei than Toriyama, since they also portrayed General Blue as a pedophile.

You're absolutely overthinking it. Remember Freeza was incredibly racist towards the Saiyans("dirty Saiyan monkey", etc)and was defeated and humiliated by two of them. Making Frost evil was really just a lazy plot twist.

[WittyUsername]

It's not so much the twist about Frost that I thought unintentionally promoted racism, it was more so the comment that Vegeta made after the former's true nature was revealed.

[gogeta97]

And what makes homosexuality a form of perversion, let alone one somehow distinct from what Dragon Ball typically does? Heterosexuality isn't considered perversion, why should a different sexual preference? Is it because it is less common? What difference should that make? Now uncommon sexual interests are unworthy of dignified regard? It certainly can't be because homosexuality is unnatural, because it's 100% natural. Maybe you just believe that sexual conduct in general is just absolutely perverse, no matter what. Which would also be a really odd view to hold. Really not seeing anything worth condemning homosexuality over. Every attempt at justifying this view involves either false premises or huge leaps in logic.

But if we normalize homosexuality then we'll have to normalize pedophillia and beastiality too!

I know that you're being facetious with that, but the response has always puzzled me when used sincerely. Those two are always treated as inherently wrong, with no real logic behind the condemnation (pedophilia =/= child molestation/abuse). Normalizing an attraction to something (refraining from condemning someone simply because of their own un-chosen sexual inclinations) doesn't necessarily lead to an individual with such inclinations performing harmful actions as a result. In the same way that a heterosexual male is not condemned to harming women by being attracted to them, a homosexual man is not condemned to harming men by virtue of being attracted to them. The same, I believe, would necessarily apply to pedophiles and people who are into animals.

I mean, I could understand if there was just disgust there. Fundamental, reasonless, inherent disgust. Everyone has it for one thing or another. A lot of people have it for homosexuality. A lot of people have it for pedophilia. A lot of people have it for being-into-animals. It wouldn't surprise me if some had it for heterosexuality. Hell, a lot of people just straight up don't like the way Masako Nozawa's Goku voice sounds! Disgust is a natural thing to have, and I'm not going to judge anyone for being disgusted by something that I'm not. On the same token, I'm not going to judge someone for not being disgusted by something that I find repulsive.

However, being disgusted by something isn't sufficient to call it "bad" or "wrong". One's own individual personal taste is ultimately arbitrary (it's not chosen by us, and it can be infinitely varied), and it doesn't reflect how unnatural or harmful something actually is. I honestly wish people would stop pretending that it is, or adamantly insisting that they have valid reasons for a condemnation when it's simply raw, fundamental disgust. Conflating disgust with justified moral condemnation is a very dangerous road to go down. This, again, is why we need these sorts of discussions to happen more frequently, in society in general. The more people are encouraged to speak their minds and formulate arguments to justify their beliefs and sentiments, the better they can see which beliefs and sentiments are fundamental and reasonless, and which ones possess logical rigor that can be used persuasively. Subsequently, we can see which fundamental sentiments can be augmented by reasoning and argumentation, and which ones cannot.

That is a good point. I have always felt bad for people with these fetishes, particularly pedophiles because the majority of the time it's because they were the victim of sexual abuse as a child. Any sympathy for either goes flying out the window as soon as the act on these feelings in a harmful way though. Regarding your point about being disgusted by something vs it actually being wrong I think that's where a lot of these "SJW" types start to blur the line between actual social justice and hatefulness or overreactions. They get too emotional and start to conflate things they don't like with these negative social issues they're so passionate about and that's how something like "manspreading" comes to exist. This man is taking up more than one subway seat? Must be sexism! However I don't think that this kind of thinking is exclusive to those sort of people, they are just an example of what it does to people.

Also I gotta say I don't blame people for disliking Masako Nozawa playing adult Goku, it is a bit jarring at first(not to mention the fact that like half of the adult males are played by women)and the only reason I like her is because she is a great enough actress to pull it off.

[gogeta97]

It's not so much the twist about Frost that I thought unintentionally promoted racism, it was more so the comment that Vegeta made after the former's true nature was revealed.

It was probably just Vegeta's pride being expressed in kind of an awkward way. Still though, it's not exactly like racism is really a huge taboo in Japan like it is in America.

[Zenkai]

In terms of homosexuality, I'm glad it's not in Dragon Ball much; only Blue and Otokosuki come to mind, and they weren't around much.

I really dislike how the homosexual agenda is being pushed into all types of modern media so much.

Please leave sexual perversions out of DB.

Aaaaand here we go again. There's no mention in your post about the old man who shrinks himself down to spy on an underage girl going to the bathroom,

I don't think I've seen that scene. Is it in the original DB? I haven't seen DB in its entirety. I have all the "blue bricks", so I'll get caught up eventually.

Spying on girls is also perverted and sinful, anyways. There are many more sexual sins than just homosexual acts: rape, sex outside marriage, masturbation, pornography, adultery, lust, etc.

The day that such attitudes are looked back on with the same derision and embarrassment as making people of different races use different water fountains is a day that cannot come soon enough.

There's a huge difference between race and sexual acts. Having dark skin is not a sin. People don't choose their race.

It's also true that people don't purposefully and consciously choose who they're attracted to. It's not a sin to be attracted to someone of the same sex, as a person does not choose what sex they're attracted to. However, sexual acts are sinful, as they are a behavior that a person could either choose to do or choose not to do. There are many people who are attracted to the same sex that try to live chaste lives and follow the Lord instead of giving in to sinful temptations.

And for full disclosure of my beliefs: I'm a devout Catholic.

I do not hate anyone. In fact, hatred is against my religion! I love everyone and want everyone to find new life, to turn from their sins and find salvation in Jesus and His Church.

[Gyt Kaliba]

It's also true that people don't purposefully and consciously choose who they're attracted to. It's not a sin to be attracted to someone of the same sex, as a person does not choose what sex they're attracted to. However, sexual acts are sinful, as they are a behavior that a person could either choose to do or choose not to do. There are many people who are attracted to the same sex that try to live chaste lives and follow the Lord instead of giving in to sinful temptations.

I've been mostly staying out of this thread (albeit reading it occasionally), and no offense, but...that's just plain ridiculous. And rather arrogant IMO.

For one thing, you can't assume that everyone has the same religious standards as you. Or for that matter, that they even believe the same as you do. To expect others who have those different standards or beliefs to live in the same manner that you yourself do, is the height of religious bigotry and arrogance, and it's a big part of why I haven't counted myself among the religious for a long while now.

Furthermore, it's all the more ridiculous to expect someone who has feelings for the same sex to not want to reciprocate on those feelings. So long as it's both people in love or at least understanding of what they both want, and they are both of age (or at least at the same age group), then why shouldn't they be allowed to act out on it? I mean, don't get me wrong, if two men or two women who were attracted to each other decided to have a sex-less relationship, then that's entirely up to them. But there absolutely should not be a social stigma to them acting out of love, no more than there should be for heterosexual couples. Ever.

And for full disclosure of my beliefs: I'm a devout Catholic.

I do not hate anyone. In fact, hatred is against my religion! I love everyone and want everyone to find new life, to turn from their sins and find salvation in Jesus and His Church.

You can say that as much as you want, and far be it from me to question how true your devotion is - but if you were to harass people for who they themselves love, then that's not loving them. It's certainly not respecting them.

The day that such attitudes are looked back on with the same derision and embarrassment as making people of different races use different water fountains is a day that cannot come soon enough.

Could not agree more if I tried.

[gogeta97]

Spying on girls is also perverted and sinful, anyways. There are many more sexual sins than just homosexual acts: rape, sex outside marriage, masturbation, pornography, adultery, lust, etc.

I obviously understand rape, adultery and to some extent pornography. But masturbation? Sex outside marriage? Lust? As in feeling sexually attracted to another person? If that's how you feel then that's fine but there is nothing wrong with those three. They are biologically normal and healthy forms of sexual expression(I guess I can understand someone going too far with their lust, but if kept in check like it is with most people, there is nothing wrong with it) Also I call bullshit on someone actually managing to go their whole life without masturbating.

It's also true that people don't purposefully and consciously choose who they're attracted to. It's not a sin to be attracted to someone of the same sex, as a person does not choose what sex they're attracted to. However, sexual acts are sinful, as they are a behavior that a person could either choose to do or choose not to do. There are many people who are attracted to the same sex that try to live chaste lives and follow the Lord instead of giving in to sinful temptations.

If a homosexual wants to "dedicate themselves to God" and not act upon their urges that's fine, but I guarentee you that all of them are absolutely miserable. And if homosexuality is a sin, yet not a choice like you said, then why would God make people gay?

You're making your arguments based on the idea that everyone in this thread is religious to some extent and while some people are, a lot of people also aren't. Even then it's totally possible for another Christian to completely disagree with everything you've said, especially considering some of it was condemning normal human biology. I think that the "hate the sin, not the sinner" aspect of many religions is noble, but you how can you say you love someone if you're constantly trying to make them change who they are to make you happy? I'm not trying to bash religion at all with this statement though and I respect people's right to their beliefs.

[Zenkai]

It's also true that people don't purposefully and consciously choose who they're attracted to. It's not a sin to be attracted to someone of the same sex, as a person does not choose what sex they're attracted to. However, sexual acts are sinful, as they are a behavior that a person could either choose to do or choose not to do. There are many people who are attracted to the same sex that try to live chaste lives and follow the Lord instead of giving in to sinful temptations.

I've been mostly staying out of this thread (albeit reading it occasionally), and no offense, but...that's just plain ridiculous. And rather arrogant IMO.

For one thing, you can't assume that everyone has the same religious standards as you. Or for that matter, that they even believe the same as you do. To expect others who have those different standards or beliefs to live in the same manner that you yourself do, is the height of religious bigotry and arrogance, and it's a big part of why I haven't counted myself among the religious for a long while now.

Furthermore, it's all the more ridiculous to expect someone who has feelings for the same sex to not want to reciprocate on those feelings. So long as it's both people in love or at least understanding of what they both want, and they are both of age (or at least at the same age group), then why shouldn't they be allowed to act out on it? I mean, don't get me wrong, if two men or two women who were attracted to each other decided to have a sex-less relationship, then that's entirely up to them. But there absolutely should not be a social stigma to them acting out of love, no more than there should be for heterosexual couples. Ever.

I'm aware that not everyone is Catholic. I'm not forcing anyone to become Catholic.

People have free will. I can't control what anyone wants to do. People can choose to either act on sinful temptations or they can choose to follow God.

It's a responsibility for me, as a Catholic, to share the Gospel with non-Catholics. Which of these scenarios below do you think is more loving?

1.) Seeing someone indulge in grave sin (while myself knowing that unrepentant grave sin can lead the person to eternal damnation) and just walk on by, thinking "Well, he's not a believer in my religion, so whatever makes him happy is fine by me!"

2.) Seeing someone indulge in grave sin (while myself knowing that unrepentant grave sin can lead the person to eternal damnation) and deciding to share the Gospel with him, telling him about how to find forgiveness of sin and how to find eternal life in Jesus Christ and His Catholic Church.


I hope you see where I'm coming from and that I want the best for all people.

[Kamiccolo9]

"If only everyone else was as enlightened as me, the world would be a much better place. Unfortunately, those unwashed unbelievers, intentionally or not, just cannot see the light and follow my lead. Woe is me!"

[RedRibbonSoldier#42]

It's also true that people don't purposefully and consciously choose who they're attracted to. It's not a sin to be attracted to someone of the same sex, as a person does not choose what sex they're attracted to. However, sexual acts are sinful, as they are a behavior that a person could either choose to do or choose not to do. There are many people who are attracted to the same sex that try to live chaste lives and follow the Lord instead of giving in to sinful temptations.

I've been mostly staying out of this thread (albeit reading it occasionally), and no offense, but...that's just plain ridiculous. And rather arrogant IMO.

For one thing, you can't assume that everyone has the same religious standards as you. Or for that matter, that they even believe the same as you do. To expect others who have those different standards or beliefs to live in the same manner that you yourself do, is the height of religious bigotry and arrogance, and it's a big part of why I haven't counted myself among the religious for a long while now.

Furthermore, it's all the more ridiculous to expect someone who has feelings for the same sex to not want to reciprocate on those feelings. So long as it's both people in love or at least understanding of what they both want, and they are both of age (or at least at the same age group), then why shouldn't they be allowed to act out on it? I mean, don't get me wrong, if two men or two women who were attracted to each other decided to have a sex-less relationship, then that's entirely up to them. But there absolutely should not be a social stigma to them acting out of love, no more than there should be for heterosexual couples. Ever.

I'm aware that not everyone is Catholic. I'm not forcing anyone to become Catholic.

People have free will. I can't control what anyone wants to do. People can choose to either act on sinful temptations or they can choose to follow God.

It's a responsibility for me, as a Catholic, to share the Gospel with non-Catholics. Which of these scenarios below do you think is more loving?

1.) Seeing someone indulge in grave sin (while myself knowing that unrepentant grave sin can lead the person to eternal damnation) and just walk on by, thinking "Well, he's not a believer in my religion, so whatever makes him happy is fine by me!"

2.) Seeing someone indulge in grave sin (while myself knowing that unrepentant grave sin can lead the person to eternal damnation) and deciding to share the Gospel with him, telling him about how to find forgiveness of sin and eternal life in Jesus Christ and His Catholic Church.


I hope you see where I'm coming from and that I want the best for all people.

Option 2 is better. But sex being a grave sin worth eternal damnation is just too extreme.

[gogeta97]

Which of these scenarios below do you think is more loving?

1.) Seeing someone indulge in grave sin (while myself knowing that unrepentant grave sin can lead the person to eternal damnation) and just walk on by, thinking "Well, he's not a believer in my religion, so whatever makes him happy is fine by me!"

2.) Seeing someone indulge in grave sin (while myself knowing that unrepentant grave sin can lead the person to eternal damnation) and deciding to share the Gospel with him, telling him about how to find forgiveness of sin and eternal life in Jesus Christ and His Catholic Church.


I hope you see where I'm coming from and that I want the best for all people.

1.)"I'm going to mind my own business and as long as they're not harming themselves or others, let people do what makes them happy even if I disagree with it!"

2.)"I'm going to force my beliefs onto others!"


First option sounds better to me.

[Gyt Kaliba]

It's a responsibility for me, as a Catholic, to share the Gospel with non-Catholics. Which of these scenarios below do you think is more loving?

1.) Seeing someone indulge in grave sin (while myself knowing that unrepentant grave sin can lead the person to eternal damnation) and just walk on by, thinking "Well, he's not a believer in my religion, so whatever makes him happy is fine by me!"

2.) Seeing someone indulge in grave sin (while myself knowing that unrepentant grave sin can lead the person to eternal damnation) and deciding to share the Gospel with him, telling him about how to find forgiveness of sin and eternal life in Jesus Christ and His Catholic Church.

I hope you see where I'm coming from and that I want the best for all people.

I see where you think you're coming from, but I still disagree entirely. Believe what you want to, but the minute you start trying to tell others how to live, even out of the 'kindness of your own heart', you have stopped loving them. You have stopped respecting them. You can hope they eventually come around to your point of view all you want, but to continue and try to shame them for how they feel - I just fail to see how that's 'loving' at all.

I have grown up around religion my entire life due to where I live (mostly Baptist though, with a few scattered Jehovah's Witness encounters), as well as once having to deal with a stepfather who is easily the worst example of what a "religious" person is supposed to be I've ever personally encountered, so I admit I can be a bit hot under the collar about these issues. A lot of good can come from religion, especially when it truly does come from a place of love, of wanting to help them. But again, absolutely no part of telling someone they're going to hell simply for living their life in a way that makes them happy, is love. People have the right to live life however they want, so long as their lifestyle does not infringe upon another person's equal right to do the same with their own life. Gay people having happy marriages and homes does not negatively affect anyone or anything; people coming through and screaming from their pulpits how 'wrong' they are for it and shaming them for it, are.

[Zenkai]

Which of these scenarios below do you think is more loving?

1.) Seeing someone indulge in grave sin (while myself knowing that unrepentant grave sin can lead the person to eternal damnation) and just walk on by, thinking "Well, he's not a believer in my religion, so whatever makes him happy is fine by me!"

2.) Seeing someone indulge in grave sin (while myself knowing that unrepentant grave sin can lead the person to eternal damnation) and deciding to share the Gospel with him, telling him about how to find forgiveness of sin and eternal life in Jesus Christ and His Catholic Church.


I hope you see where I'm coming from and that I want the best for all people.

1.)"I'm going to mind my own business and as long as they're not harming themselves or others, let people do what makes them happy even if I disagree with it!"

2.)"I'm going to force my beliefs onto others!"


First option sounds better to me.

But, as a Catholic, I know that sinful behavior is harmful and can lead a person to eternal damnation.

It's not loving to say "Well, he can do whatever makes him happy, even though I know it might lead to his eternal damnation."

It's much more loving to say "I love this person so much that I want to share the Gospel with him and teach him how he can make it to Heaven."

Even after sharing the Gospel, the man may still choose to live in sin instead of choosing to follow Jesus. After all, the man has free will, and I cannot make him believe the Gospel.

[Kid Buu]

I dunno, I think Tien, Roshi, and Yamcha still have their personalities at least. They may not matter much anymore, but they're still the same characters.

Roshi yes, but Tenshinhan and Yamcha? To be honest, they are quite bland and underdeveloped after their introductions arc, and only really serve as a tool to show how much better Goku is in comparison.

Not that this justifies Toriyama's handling of female characters per se, but more so that Toriyama isn't really the type of guy who keeps side characters relevant for long, both male and female.

[Ajay]

Anyone with a shred of intelligence doesn't have any interest in listening to the archaic horseshit shat out onto the pages of an ancient manuscript. Keep your fucked up fairy tales to yourself and let people live.

[gogeta97]

Which of these scenarios below do you think is more loving?

1.) Seeing someone indulge in grave sin (while myself knowing that unrepentant grave sin can lead the person to eternal damnation) and just walk on by, thinking "Well, he's not a believer in my religion, so whatever makes him happy is fine by me!"

2.) Seeing someone indulge in grave sin (while myself knowing that unrepentant grave sin can lead the person to eternal damnation) and deciding to share the Gospel with him, telling him about how to find forgiveness of sin and eternal life in Jesus Christ and His Catholic Church.


I hope you see where I'm coming from and that I want the best for all people.

1.)"I'm going to mind my own business and as long as they're not harming themselves or others, let people do what makes them happy even if I disagree with it!"

2.)"I'm going to force my beliefs onto others!"


First option sounds better to me.

But, as a Catholic, I know that sinful behavior is harmful and can lead a person to eternal damnation.

It's not loving to say "Well, he can do whatever makes him happy, even though I know it might lead to his eternal damnation."

It's much more loving to say "I love this person so much that I want to share the Gospel with him and teach him how he can make it to Heaven."

Again, you're acting like everyone believes this and thinks this way. You can go up to gay people and try to "teach them the error of their ways" if you want but don't be surprised when they tell you to fuck off. Like myself, and other users have mentioned, trying to change who someone is because they don't conform to your beliefs is not "love" by any means. I'm still curious as to why you say that homosexuality is not a choice and yet is still a sin. I thought God doesn't make mistakes?

[Gyt Kaliba]

It's much more loving to say "I love this person so much that I want to share the Gospel with him and teach him how he can make it to Heaven."

Myself, and I'm sure many others, would much rather take our chances and be nice to people in the here and now. I'll take my chances that I'll be viewed more favorably by whatever 'other side' there might be out there simply by being a good person, rather than adhering to old writings that may or may not even be accurate to what was originally written in the original tongue of the day way back when and thinking it allows me to mistreat others.

That and I can think of like ten people that are totally 'going to hell' that I'd much rather hang out with for eternity than some of the 'morally righteous according to religion'.

[Zenkai]

But, as a Catholic, I know that sinful behavior is harmful and can lead a person to eternal damnation.

It's not loving to say "Well, he can do whatever makes him happy, even though I know it might lead to his eternal damnation."

It's much more loving to say "I love this person so much that I want to share the Gospel with him and teach him how he can make it to Heaven."

Again, you're acting like everyone believes this and thinks this way. You can go up to gay people and try to "teach them the error of their ways" if you want but don't be surprised when they tell you to fuck off. Like myself, and other users have mentioned, trying to change who someone is because they don't conform to your beliefs is not "love" by any means. I'm still curious as to why you say that homosexuality is not a choice and yet is still a sin. I thought God doesn't make mistakes?

I know that not everyone believes the Gospel, that's why it's important to share it with people. I'm aware that people may choose to disregard it and continue to live in sin. Again, I can't force anyone to follow God.

Being attracted to the same sex is not a choice or a sin. Homosexual acts are a choice and a sin. There are many disorders and illnesses in this world: OCD, schizophrenia, same-sex attraction, cancer, down syndrome, etc. God does not give people these things.

[MrWalnut4]

But, as a Catholic, I know that sinful behavior is harmful and can lead a person to eternal damnation.

It's not loving to say "Well, he can do whatever makes him happy, even though I know it might lead to his eternal damnation."

It's much more loving to say "I love this person so much that I want to share the Gospel with him and teach him how he can make it to Heaven."

Even after sharing the Gospel, the man may still choose to live in sin instead of choosing to follow Jesus. After all, the man has free will, and I cannot make him believe the Gospel.

This is why people have a problem with religion. It's designed to be propagated through social pressure and guilt. You aren't going to convince me that I'm going to experience eternal damnation for not living up to the arbitrary moral standards of a book written by uneducated shepherds 2000 years ago. So if you would be so kind as to not proselytize to us unwashed masses, that would be appreciated.

[RedRibbonSoldier#42]

. You aren't going to convince me that I'm going to experience eternal damnation for not living up to the arbitrary moral standards of a book written by uneducated shepherds 2000 years ago. So if you would be so kind as to not proselytize to us unwashed masses, that would be appreciated.

Minor note, but the Bible wasn't written by uneducated shepherds. After all, uneducated shepards wouldn't be able to read.