Animation Source Forums

I should've figured you'd show up sooner or later. And let's be honest, Hrry, how can you say there is no such thing as universal morality? For example, if I hacked your account, that would be wrong no matter how right it seemed to me. Regardless, I'm not going to bother talking to you because if I do, we'll just get into a flame war that will ultimately result in the closure of a topic intended for rational discussion. Goodbye.

To catwhohas14tails --> Sorry I missed your post before. To answer your question, my conclusion is that to take characters that are essentailly human at heart and have them act like animals (at least without a good explanation, such as head trauma) is basically ludicrous. The people who say, "They're just dogs" are, as I've said before, totally missing the whole point of anthropomorphic characters.

Stone Paw--->I grant that sometimes the characters act differently than they would have had the authors of the fanfics been part of Universal. However, that doesn't make the stories in and of themselves bad, or the writers bad writers. I think that people who write these stories and put more than five minutes worth of thought into them oftentimes *do* set up reasonable arguments for why their characters behave the way they do. That's why these stories are entertaining. However, I will tend to agree that many authors don't set things up properly or give an adequate explanation for what's happening. In that case, I think the fault lies more with inexperienced authorship that with the concept of the story itself.

Well, that's your opinion, and no offense, but it means little to most people on this site. And the feeling must be mutual since you keep insisting. Now, we can all have opinions, but just leave at that, huh? That's all I'm feeding in to this.

Yeah, but some people write these stories really late in their "careers" on Balto Source. I guess some people just never learn.

I think this is banning material right here, But I would like to address the real heart of the issue before I leave this topic. We are not speaking of religious things here, nor are we speaking of racists (Who ARE crazy), we are speaking of characters in fanfiction and what should be acceptable in our writting about them.

How is that banning material? I can't believe that everyone who's read it so far has completely missed the point of what I was saying. I was discussing moral relativism, because morality is the subject at hand. I wasn't discussing racism or religion or Nazism, even though those things appeared in my post. The point was that what is acceptable for one group of people may not be acceptable for another and thus, one cannot speak of things in black and white terms.

I think what Kelev is trying to explain is that in your statement, you have lumped Christians (who are numerically proven to be the most charitable and helpful "class" of people on the planet) in with racist groups like the KKK or the Nazis. People say Hitler was a Christian, but it's a little-known fact that one man who tried to present Hitler with the Gospel was, as a direct result of that attempt, very fortunate to escape Germany with his life. Please note that I am not trying to delve into religious matters here, only trying to clear things up before this turns into a brawl. Thank you for listening. Or not.

Wow, this is quite an active and interesting debate! I have to admit, I'm enjoying reading everyone's opinions on this topic. I'd like to add my thoughts on the subject, but before I do, I'd like to applaud you, Dragon Tamer, for raising a topic that is quite debatable on both sides of the subject. Anyhoo, I digress...

I am actually, for once and no offense intended, agreeing with you, Dragon Tamer, on some common ground. I agree that to dramatically change a character's personality in a complete opposite way. For example, having Balto become a mass-murderer or something along those lines. But other than the dramatic alterations, nothing seems to be in violation of the liberal right to alter a character's disposition or personality. First off and most importantly, as stated by CatWhoHas14Tails, these stories are fictional stories, more accurately fanfiction, meaning they are written by fans of the specific genre and/or subject. But there is one key word in this that reinforces the basis of the arguments of liable alterations: fiction. Fiction is defined as "the class of literature comprising works of imaginative narration", meaning that these aren't meant to stick to truth. Fiction is meant to stray from the truth, and being it fiction on a semi-fictional movie, the possibilities of altering the characters is quite high, as you've no doubtedly seen. The point of these writings is to explore the variation of plains that the story could take, not just sticking to what we know to be truth 100%. If we did that, the vastness of creativity would be compromised and depleated greatly. To do that to a field of creativity would not only be a fallacy, but a complete assault on the very foundings of fictional literature.

To prove my point here, I would like to state a few examples, one of them being drawn from my real life experiences with personality changes. First off, perhaps you've read Franz Kafka's The Metamorphosis? Gregor, the protagonist, is dramatically changed, not only physically, but also personality-wise as you'll notice throughout the story. He begins to change from his normal self, as described at the beginning, to scaring and driving away his own family. My second defense lies within a well-known document called The US Constitution. I understand it may not apply to everyone on Balto Source, but to most members, the Constitution specifically allows Freedom of Press, the free right to print whatever we want to print. Even members from other countries have their own forms of this document which also entitle free writing. So to accuse these pieces of literature as being ludacrous is to say that you are placing your beliefs against a legal motion, quite honestly fighting a losing battle. My third and final defense is where I draw my life experience from. I once had a friend, I shall name no names for the right to his privacy, who changed dramatically. His personality altered incredibly within roughly a month, shifting from his usual happy self to one of near-depression, and then eventually depression. The reason for this was a cause; cause-and-effect. Often times character's personalities change when a cause is thrown into their lives. A normally happy man will most likely become dead-serious if a war threatens his country and home. Even those fictions without cause are still defended by their right to be fiction, aside from the truth and on their own seperate level of perspective thought.

And to conclude, I'd like to look at your comment on moral standards. Deriving from Hrry, everyone has different moral standards. A heavily-religious Christian will have a different moral standard to an Atheist. I have different moral standards than my friends and most of my schoolmates do. I'm sure you and I don't have our similar ethics or morals. So to say something is morally wrong is saying that in your eyes it is wrong and you are looking for others to back you up. I'd agree to saying that cheating on someone is morally wrong, and yet I know someone who would say it isn't. Utah's state law permits a man to have more than one wife. So who can honestly say what is right and wrong in this world when never at one moment will everyone agree to the same perspective. However, if you are refering to joos naturale, or the natural law of all human beings, then I would have to agree with you on some aspects. I would agree it is wrong to commit crimes such as adultery, murder, or any other thing that naturally I know and everyone knows from just being human is wrong. The Greeks posed this idea, and it is fundamental throughout their culture as one can plainly see. Yet still, these are the people who wrote Antigone and Medea, which if you've read include adultery, murder, and betrayal. Once again, they would argue it is fiction, it isn't real. It's to investigate what would happen if this situation really did happen. When the battle ends, it will still end the same way: fiction being fiction, and in being fiction supports the ideal to alter nearly anything to the writer's discretion.

But to finish with one line, I agree with you when you say "They're just dogs" is a ridiculous comeback.

I may have missed your point, and if I did, please feel free to correct me and I will alter my statements to better fit the scenario. Thank you.

[ Definition(s) of 'fiction': http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fiction ]

-- Balto5670

Thank you, although the main reason I posted this topic is that I consider the bulk of the arguments I have seen to be, in all fairness, pretty lame.


I regret to inform you that your first point is not very well-directed, since I have never read the book of which you speak. However, you mention that Gregor's mind was affected by the metamorphasis. That is why I mentioned, right at the start of my human-to-animal argument, that the person's mind was not significantly altered. The characters in Balto do not, as far as I can tell, act any different from humans except in ways that are tied to their canine anatomy. As for the Constitution, I agree that freedom of the press is important up to a point (I have had mine utterly denied in the real world too often to argue otherwise). However, I think it only fair to regard the characters as, in a sense, borrowed property. For example, I believe it was you whom I asked some time ago if I might use the stories you had written as basis for some more kid-friendly versions. You said no, on the grounds that you did not want your stories altered, and I respected that. Now, let's say that someone took my characters and made some story about Toby (my starring character) turning into a stark-raving lunatic. You'd better believe I'd be royally ticked off. I try to consider the animators' point of view when I write, and I endeavor to remain faithful to the original characters. On your third point, you and I agree. If a character's personality or behavior does radically change, there should be some reason behind it (I have had such a case happen, with the cause of change being head trauma and subsequent amnesia). The majority of the stories that have Balto or Jenna acting vastly out of character, however, offer no such explanation.


Logically speaking, HrryNrmn's point is a good one. However, it falls into the notion that morality can be altered to fit one's particular tastes. This line of thinking, when you get right down to it, is in conflict with your earlier point about the Constitution, since the Constitution was founded on the fundamental rule of moral absolutes. Morality is no more flexible than mathematics. People may get it wrong, just as they make mistakes on their math (I should know). But that doesn't change right and wrong.

Forgive me for the slight misunderstanding, I should have been clearer in my reply. You may have a valid point, but perhaps you shouldn't have used those things as examples, since it opened yourself to misunderstandings and therefore could have gotten us in trouble.

I hope I didn't offend, and if I did, I'm sorry. It was my intention was to remind you (and everyone who was reading the post) of the issue at hand, so we wouldn't get caught up in a fight.

Darn, my english wasn't working when I wrote my first posts; DT, although indirectly, this was what I was trying to tell you earlier. *hits self with a stick* My fault for not being able to express myself more directly.

Anyway, yes. Great to see a mature and relaxed debate for once.

*cough* Sorry, off-topic, but can't really find anything more to write *un-cough*



What he was trying to tell you, is that there are no definitions of right and wrong. All people have subjective opinions about it, however; the majority of the world's population (the so-called "good" people) have the same opinion. But this is still just a subjective view on a very much known matter. I know I am contradicting myself, but this is the world we live in.

Ah, subjective morality again. Just a nice window dressing for anarchy, when you get right down to it. If there is no right or wrong, there can be no society. THat's all there is to it.