by FourthBase » Wed Aug 23, 2006 8:55 pm
<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I have nothing but total disrespect and distrust for anyone who is anti horror movies. The very idea that they are evil/etc is so wrongheaded that I don't know where to begin to respond.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Find somewhere to begin, I'm interested.<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>NO, that's empathy, which is GOOD.... good to the point of if you don't have it, you're effectively not human.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <br><br>Why does one need to subject oneself to simulated horror in order to prove that one has empathy? Is there not enough real horror that one can read about, or experience first hand, to test oneself for empathy? Isn't it better to save one's empathy for when something <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>real</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> provokes it? And isn't horrific violence an <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>extreme</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> way to evoke empathy? Am I really wrong in thinking that prolonged exposure to violent horror movies (or simulated violence in any genre) <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>could</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> actually desensitize a good proportion of the audience (obviously not you or the other hardy souls here), and gradually disable one's empathy?<br><br>Anyway, in that phrase I was talking more about "happening to them" as in "happening in the same room as them". i.e., If a movie recreated the Sharon Tate murder, viewing it would be like being there in the room while it happened. That's an inherently good thing, to witness human slaughter? IMO, it's an inherently bad thing. Maybe I'm crazy, though.<br><br>(p.s., I've learned my lesson about using the generic "you" here). <p></p><i></i>