HarryOru

Favorites:

• Veronica Mars (just the perfect match for the show's vibe and a damn catchy song)
• Fringe (loved how they used it later in the series to match the universe/time period the episode was set in)
• True Blood (a classic, wish the show matched its atmosphere beyond season 1)
• Jessica Jones (so underrated)
• Severance (extremely creative and memorable)
• Stranger things (hate the show, but the intro is undeniably brilliant in its simplicity)

Honorable mentions:

• Yellowjackets (fun!)
• Dexter (love the concept, hate the song)
• The 100 (after a basic title card in season 1 they actually added an intro for the rest of the show, with the content changing to match the theme and setting of each season)

I can't really think if any "worst" ones although in general I don't like when shows only do static or just very low-effort title cards. Some examples that come to mind are Breaking Bad and The Boys.

I think for me it's not so much the amount of episodes but how they are released. Most of my favorite shows have varying amount of episodes per season but they all were released weekly over several years or at least months. And I've come to the realization that the reason why I can't grow attached to modern shows the same way I could with 90s-00s and early 10s television is that binging 6-10 episodes over a couple of days once a year just isn't the same kind of experience and emotional investment as following a group of characters and a plot week by week over several seasons, literally growing up with them and the story.

I'm not saying today's model is all inherently bad but I personally often miss that kind of old-school television where reaching over a 100 episodes was almost the norm for even semi-popular shows. I wish they could coexist.

Not sure Im for invading Russia directly unless they attack a Nato member.

I'm pretty sure that's exactly the attitude Russia is counting on. Personally I think it's time we start treating propaganda and disinformation aimed at destabilizing other countries as literal acts of war on par with physical attacks.

Mostly agree and I wish they'd done more with the meta elements. Still, I find that Grady Hendrix is always a fun, easy read.

You're clearly giving it too much thought. It's just stupid, blatant lies. There is no point in entertaining them or even questioning them.

you know who overwhemlingly didn't vote for Kamala Harris, "progressive" leftists who wanted to protest Jews in support of Islamofacist terrorists.

Thank you for saying this. Tolerance paradox paradoxing hard; I will never understand those people and their naive, stubborn black-and-white thinking.

Yes, and 2+2=5

my question is should your constitution deem a action moral/immoral in some situations, and opposite in others, and if so, where and how can you define such limits, and is it good to define such limits

You are not going to find a clear definitive answer to that question, for the reasons I've explained. If we as a species had a single, universal, correct answer to that question, a solution that somehow fairly handles all the infinite variables of context, cause, effect and emotion, according to a supreme, universally pleasing standard of justice, we would be living in a utopia. Or in Heaven. We wouldn't be here having this conversation, and we wouldn't be constantly teasing ourselves with debates or thought exercises like "would you kill Hitler if you could?"

YOU need to pick that answer for yourself. You have to come up with the best solution that you feel comfortable with after taking in consideration the variables of context, cause, effect and emotion to the best of your ability and knowledge for EACH experience you have. Then you'll have your "morals", and those are the only ones you should follow.

And yes, like I said before, this is complex, and scary, and difficult and absolutely exhausting. Which is exactly the reason why some people turn to religion or anything that promises the illusion of a ready, stable, immutable answer in a world that is constantly changing and constantly requires them to re-evaluate everything they know.

I dont think so. Why would morality inhibit progress. Stale knowledge does prevent, but morals dont really change. By morals being flexible, I mean - "Killing is very bad, except in so and so situations, you have to".

You assume that what's considered "moral" or ethical hasn't changed multiple times throughout history and that it isn't subjective. Sorry to sound pedantic, but once again, it's right in the definition of the word:

a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do.

And nowhere does it say that "morals" imply any degree of immutability. There are countless examples I could make. Just as a personal example, I never particularly paid mind to the suffering of animals until I adopted a pet. I never believed getting involved in political discourse was a duty until I realized how increasingly distorted it's becoming. Many people say similar things about having children, how the experience just changes the way you see the world, your perception of what is tolerable and what is not, and ultimately your perception of "right" and "wrong": your morals.

If we as humans didn't believe that we can actually influence other people's conceptions of what's right or wrong, there would be no point to education, history, politics, philosophy, law, religion, art, literature... culture as a whole. We wouldn't have communication or civilization.

My honest opinion is that what you're truly asking here isn't whether it's okay/possible for morals to be flexible, you're asking whether it's okay to stray from what you've always perceived to be the general consensus of what is "moral" and what isn't. And my answer is still yes.

Since you used media as an example, let me use another common trope to answer. Do you know when in horror or thriller movies a character momentarily gets the upper hand on the killer by knocking them unconscious and then just tries to run away without even making sure that the killer is dead or at least arming themselves? Does that EVER end well?

The reason that trope is so common is that it's very effective at eliciting the sort of instinctive emotional response that makes us as viewers want to yell "WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING?? KILL HIM!!" at the screen.

We have that instinct for a reason.

To answer your question more directly, yes, morals ARE inherently flexible. If they weren't, we would never learn anything or progress as a society or even as individuals. I don't know where the idea that someone's morals are supposed to be immutable even comes from. One of the core steps to psychological well-being is realizing that you have no direct control over your "environment", but you absolutely have direct control over the actions you take to influence it and the way you adapt and react to it, which includes letting go of standards and expectations you've set for yourself if you feel that it's necessary.

Absolutes are not applicable in reality. You've mentioned utopias too, and well, the fun thing about utopias is that they don't exist. They can't exist. It's the literal definition of the word: "an imagined place or state of things in which everything is perfect." Dystopia, on the other hand, is what happens when you try to force a utopia into existence.

Morals can't be absolute. Tolerance can't be absolute. Everything is flexible and eternally changing. It's scary and it's complex but people have to come to terms with it.

I personally think that everyone should be allowed to end their lives if they really deeply want it. But this should never be expected, actively promoted or pushed for. And I think it should involve at least a consultation with a medical professional to avoid hasty decisions due to a temporary crisis.

I mean, yes, but I really don't think anyone is arguing for the opposite when talking about legal euthanasia and I find it disingenuous to even suggest it. Let's not forget that almost anyone can commit suicide regardless of it being legal or medically assisted and this has been the case and will be the case for the entirety of human history. Look at Japan and similar countries/societies where the cultural and societal pressures already have the consequences you described without it being legal.

Arguing for legal euthanasia is really just saying that people should have a safer, more informed and more dignified option if they really intend to make that decision, and guaranteeing that even the people who currently can't end their lives on their own can still exercise that right if they want to. If you want to prevent pointless suicides the right way to do it isn't to take away the possibility entirely, it's making sure that society doesn't give people reasons to want to kill themselves.

EDIT: I've just realized that I initially misread OP's question which specifically asks about "voluntary" euthanasia. The comment I'm replying to is more relevant to the original discussion than my response. Still can't shake off the feeling that speaking about something like this even purely hypothetically can only do more harm than good in current times, as it's very easy to imagine that once the concept of "voluntary euthanasia" begins floating around, people who want to argue in bad faith against legal euthanasia will just conflate the two to make the rational side look like a death cult.

The whole point he's trying to prove is that he can do something like this with no consequences, including having to apologize. He hasn't apologized and he won't.

The reason he can do that with no consequences and you're left here wondering what the fuck just happened and why the response you normally would expect isn't coming, is that the western political environment has been artificially and methodically polarized for years in preparation for a stunt like this. Cognitive dissonance is an effective tool.