Down in the dumps

[bobby_hamill]

If you ever get down in the dumps with the Covid and other present day problems
Tex Avery will always bring a smile or grin to your face

Thank you Mr Avery !!!

 

[Funkworks]

Personally, I don't think being down in the dumps is a requirement. Considering how many computer programmers it takes to make CGI movies and video games. I mean the techniques they are a wee bit beyond 2nd-grader math. And if they can stick to it for years, they have to enjoy the characters. I have crazy respect for them math and programming wiz-es. As for the classic animations, there's a whole lot of serious adult stuff behind the kid-level jokes. Looking up their history is very interesting, like how "Merry Melodies" came out as a directed competitor to Disney's "Silly Symphonies". That's almost a slap in the face! (or maybe a pie). And both started out as mere visual accompaniments for the huge music libraries the producers owned (WB had many classical music recordings and thought they'd be more attractive by matching them with short cartoons).

Those old Fred Flinstone and Barney commercials where they smoked cigarettes weren't directed at kids!

 

[BABAR]

If you ever get down in the dumps with the Covid and other present day problems
Tex Avery will always bring a smile or grin to your face

Thank you Mr Avery !!!

Thanks for that. I don’t remember seeing this one as a kid.

I don’t think I would have appreciated the line, “Don’t ask how we got the television back,” then as much as I do now! My anatomical knowledge has definitely progressed.

it was interesting how very frequently there were jokes and even cartoonizations of real existing actors and actresses that the kids would never have gotten, but that were quite funny to ADULTS. The writers were excellent not just at entertaining kids, but I think they threw in stuff to keep themselves amused

 

[neil_w]

it was interesting how very frequently there were jokes and even cartoonizations of real existing actors and actresses that the kids would never have gotten, but that were quite funny to ADULTS. The writers were excellent not just at entertaining kids, but I think they threw in stuff to keep themselves amused

At least with the old classic Looney Tunes stuff, they always said they wrote it all to amuse themselves, never specifically wrote or aimed at kids.

 

[Funkworks]

Seth MacFarlane may be the most successful voice person around these days. Trained in the business by Hanna-Barbara.

 

[ewomack]

Many of the early cartoons were for adults. Betty Boop even had to dress less slinky after the 1934 Hays Code.

And, speaking of that, here is one of my favorite toons:

 

[Funkworks]

As far as I remember, there was something for everyone in this show.

 

[DaHabes]

If you ever get down in the dumps with the Covid and other present day problems
Tex Avery will always bring a smile or grin to your face

Thank you Mr Avery !!!

When I get down in the dumps I build more rockets...

 

[Hobie1dog]

How terrible of us, thinking human life is something valuable that ought to be protected.

Spoken by someone who obviously is not terminally ill and/or suffering with severe crippling chronic pain. If your dog is laying there crying out with pain from a terminal disease that your vet has identified, are you going to make it lay there and suffer? likely not, as you will do the "HUMANE" thing and let the vet perform euthanasia because you love the animal as much as a family member. Family members are made to suffer till their end with drugs made to prolong their agony, for our own vanity.

Many terminally ill patients who are in the final stages of their lives have requested doctors to aid them in exercising active euthanasia. It is sad to realize that these people are in great agony and that to them the only hope of bringing that agony to a halt is through assisted suicide.. Euthanasia is the act of putting someone to death painlessly, or allowing a person suffering from an incurable and painful disease or condition to die by withholding extreme medical measures. A compassionate individual must conclude that competent terminal patients should be given the right to assisted suicide in order to end their suffering, reduce the damaging financial effects of hospital care on their families, and preserve the individual right of people to determine their own fate.

Medical technology is science’s greatest gift to mankind. For the terminally ill, however, it is just a means of prolonging suffering. Medicine is supposed to alleviate the suffering that a patient undergoes.Yet the only thing that medical technology does for a dying patient is give that patient more pain and agony day after day.
Terminally ill patients should have the right to assisted suicide because it is the best means for them to end the pain caused by an illness which no drug can cure. A competent terminal patient must have the option of assisted suicide because it is in the best interest of that person.

Don't bother quoting with another reply. It's simply not worth it.

 

[Antares JS]

Spoken by someone who obviously is not terminally ill and/or suffering with severe crippling chronic pain. If your dog is laying there crying out with pain from a terminal disease that your vet has identified, are you going to make it lay there and suffer? likely not, as you will do the "HUMANE" thing and let the vet perform euthanasia because you love the animal as much as a family member. Family members are made to suffer till their end with drugs made to prolong their agony, for our own vanity.

Many terminally ill patients who are in the final stages of their lives have requested doctors to aid them in exercising active euthanasia. It is sad to realize that these people are in great agony and that to them the only hope of bringing that agony to a halt is through assisted suicide.. Euthanasia is the act of putting someone to death painlessly, or allowing a person suffering from an incurable and painful disease or condition to die by withholding extreme medical measures. A compassionate individual must conclude that competent terminal patients should be given the right to assisted suicide in order to end their suffering, reduce the damaging financial effects of hospital care on their families, and preserve the individual right of people to determine their own fate.

Medical technology is science’s greatest gift to mankind. For the terminally ill, however, it is just a means of prolonging suffering. Medicine is supposed to alleviate the suffering that a patient undergoes.Yet the only thing that medical technology does for a dying patient is give that patient more pain and agony day after day.
Terminally ill patients should have the right to assisted suicide because it is the best means for them to end the pain caused by an illness which no drug can cure. A competent terminal patient must have the option of assisted suicide because it is in the best interest of that person.

Don't bother quoting with another reply. It's simply not worth it.

You know nothing about me or my life. Don't assume I somehow don't know what I'm talking about. I'll leave it at that, if you want to continue discussing you can PM me.

 

[prfesser]

How terrible of us, thinking human life is something valuable that ought to be protected.

That seems a strawman type of statement. I may be wrong but It's highly unlikely that hobie1dog is suggesting that human life is not valuable and should not be protected. It sounds instead as though he is differentiating between life and mere existence. (I hope he'll correct me if I'm wrong.)

Life should bring joy to the individual. When life changes to simple existence and the joy is gone, it is that individual's choice as to whether that existence should continue. The act of forcing continued existence on a person who has decided that existence is simply not enough---someone for whom continued existence is extraordinarily unpleasant or painful, and with no real prospect of change---is as unethical as almost anything I can think of.

"I am going to force you to continue your existence because in my opinion it would be wrong for you to end it."
"I am going to force you to end your existence because in my opinion it would be wrong for you to continue it."

These two statements are opposite sides of the same coin. IMHO both are unethical.

 

[lakeroadster]

Many of the early cartoons were for adults. Betty Boop even had to dress less slinky after the 1934 Hays Code.

And, speaking of that, here is one of my favorite toons:

We're huge Betty Boop fans. But looking at the still shot of the video... What was the animator thinking here? And what's up with the crab claw hands?

 

[dr wogz]

2 things I fear:
Growing old
Getting sick

I fear growing old, and being put in a home /hospital geriatric ward. I have a plan for when I can't live on my own, lose all my toys, and must depend on others.. (I have no kids, so no one to 'help'. I fear when I need to deal with my dad. Mum was easy: Lymphoma & pulled the plug 6 months later)

I fear getting sick (long term sickness / disability / constant pain / etc..) , and then dealing with the 'crap' society shoves at you, their "opinion". again, I have a plan. And this, despite our "socialist" healthcare: I don't have to worry about being bankrupt from a medical procedure..

My body, my choice. I fully support Quebec / Canada's assisted dying law. I have know a few adults who have taken their own life to rid themselves of the constant nagging pain & endless stream of 'treatments'...

Laws & people's attitudes that 'life is sacred, and must be protected at any cost' have no idea of what 'that' person is going thru / what lead to this / how their life is / will be forever changed (and not in a good way) [insert many overly religious & conservative initiatives here..]

 

[Antares JS]

That seems a strawman type of statement. I may be wrong but It's highly unlikely that hobie1dog is suggesting that human life is not valuable and should not be protected. It sounds instead as though he is differentiating between life and mere existence. (I hope he'll correct me if I'm wrong.)

Life should bring joy to the individual. When life changes to simple existence and the joy is gone, it is that individual's choice as to whether that existence should continue. The act of forcing continued existence on a person who has decided that existence is simply not enough---someone for whom continued existence is extraordinarily unpleasant or painful, and with no real prospect of change---is as unethical as almost anything I can think of.

"I am going to force you to continue your existence because in my opinion it would be wrong for you to end it."
"I am going to force you to end your existence because in my opinion it would be wrong for you to continue it."

These two statements are opposite sides of the same coin. IMHO both are unethical.

prfesser makes a fair point that my initial response was strawmannish and oversimplified the issue, and I apologize for that. However, based on my beliefs and experiences (Yes, I do have experiences), it is always unethical to kill a person, even a terminally ill one. What my experiences have shown me is that if you think there is no joy in being alive, you're either looking at the wrong things to bring you joy, or need psychiatric help.

Going much farther into this will probably violate forum rules, but anyone is free to PM me to discuss further.

 

[dr wogz]

I remember once while fishing, a friend made a good point: fishing is the only type of hunting where we don't actually kill the animal.. unless we want to..

Having said that, that got the subject going to where we draw the line.. We are very selective on where we would stop at killing something, and for what reason..

Cows make tasty burgers, but cows are sacred in India.. We love our dogs, but they are tasty in Korea.. We will happily kill certain bugs (flies, mosquitos) but want to save the butterflies..

I'll fish till the cows come home, but would never hunt deer or..


We all have a line..
Pushing your beliefs & ideals on others just causes grief & anger to that individual

 

[heada]

Each person, if they are of sound mind, should be in control of their own life and destiny. They should be free to do with their life as they choose. If they choose to become a doctor, then that is their choice. If they choose to give up worldly possessions and live on the streets, then that is their choice. If they want to build and fly model rockets, then that is their choice. If they no longer want to live, for whatever reason they decide, then that is their choice. Imposing my will on them to force them to remain alive is no different than slavery.

I think all life is worthy of support and encouragement and I would never recommend anyone to end their life. If someone is considering it, I will do everything in my power to prevent it short of forcing them to not do it. In the end, it is their life and not mine. It is their choice and not mine. It would sadden me if anyone decided to end their life but I am not their master and I don't control them and I am not going to say they should not be allowed to make that choice for themselves. 2 months ago, my father passed away. He had made it clear that if he was ever incapacitated, that his choice was that we do not prolong his life and to let him go if he so chose. He lasted 4 hours off of the life support equipment. It was the hardest thing I and my family have had to do and I hope I never have to do it again but it was the right thing to do. It was his choice.

Hobie, I don't know all the details of your situation but I know you're in pain and there is no good outcome in your future. I also know that you do find joy in some things. You have posted about enjoying listening to your music and smoking cigars. I would encourage you to fight for those good times because there are more to come. There is still purpose to your being here, even if you don't see it or know of it.

 

[DaHabes]

Assisted dying is just one option on a spectrum of options. If a person is terminally ill, in chronic pain and is facing weeks or months or years of misery, then, for that person, if they are otherwise of sound mind, it may be a good answer. We're all going to die. Most of us don't have a choice as to when. Having a choice can be liberating.

One option on a spectrum. It isn't all that far from a person that is brain dead, essentially terminal, and the plug gets pulled because it is "merciful". It not far from my sister's choice of not going through more chemo and living her last few weeks saying goodbye before the cancer took her. It was liberating. Hospice held the pain at bay at the end, but she was not communicative. In essence, she decided to commit suicide, but just slowly and with assistance; on her terms. Not everyone has that type of choice. There are certain diseases that are horrific for years. Before the medications for MS were available, my Aunt led an excruciating life for over 30 years, at the end bedridden and in chronic pain. It was awful.

Morals and ethics are not universal. The morals and ethics of terrorists are not my morals or ethics. They are willing to kill and die for reasons that make no sense to billions of other people on this planet. To us they are immoral and unethical and a fanatic minority. Anti-human and inhuman. Yet they believe they are right. Most humans believe they are right. The universe we live is wonderous. It works very hard at trying to kill us everyday. Entropy is entropy, after all. In the end while we humans have made significant progress in the sciences, we know far less than what we don't know. We still don't know jack ****, really.

So, the concern with assisted dying isn't about it being a moral nor ethical issue, it's a matter of choice specific to a set of circumstances that is irrevocable for an individual - certain death. A death on their terms, not someone else's. An option that needs crystal clear parameters such that it is the individual's choice and no one else's. That is the issue and the challenge. It's better than someone attempting to OD on their own and botching it, because they may not fit the parameters and could be persuaded otherwise. if they had this choice to pursue. It's a much better option than blowing your brains out with a gun.

A lot of people in this world think in black and white terms because that's what they were taught and they don't go beyond their teachings. If a person thinks broadly and listens to alternatives, they will find we live in a world of endless shades of color between black and white. Thinking in black and white terms is easy. Understanding the world and universe we live in is hard. Do the hard work before you get all high and mighty with your moral judgements. Occam's razor says you're probably wrong.

 

[ewomack]

We're huge Betty Boop fans. But looking at the still shot of the video... What was the animator thinking here? And what's up with the crab claw hands?

View attachment 465006

I completely understand your confusion, I had the same questions when I first saw this toon years ago, so I did some reading. This particular toon contains a proto-Betty, who first served as the dog Bimbo's girlfriend, so those are dog ears. Betty ended up beating out poor Bimbo in the popularity department and soon became a woman. So it goes. The crab claw hands I believe result from a still from a sequence where proto-Betty is waving her arms seductively. The still catches a slightly awkward transition. Her hands don't look claw-like in the actual animated scene.

 

[BABAR]

Gee whiz, guys, I just thought this thread was just someone posting an old cartoon trying to cheer people up!