No but seriously, I'm watching the second part of that documentary right now, and it's really not a well presented argument. Their logic is completely flawed and supported with almost nothing, except some show and videos excerpts, supposedly compiled by an (an, one, singular) ex rock star I've never heard of. If I handed in an essay like that in an University writing class, the prof would have failed me.
Their argument against "music can solve violence and doesn't cause it" is "well, the Columbine killers listened to that kind of music, it must mean that music causes violence". Based on that fallacy: I enjoy the Carter Family, voice, so I must be a 70 something lady from Arkansas who goes to church twice a week? Or I'm from Quebec, hence I must love Celine Dion?
First of all, these guys were sociopath: that was the problem. I used to listen to Rammsteinn, I never shot anyone because of that. And bringing Marilyn Manson's into the argument is just pointless because the guy was always just a really smart guy trying to sell an act he knew would grab attention. He's Hard-Core Madonna. The Columbine shooters were not musicians, so you can't use them as an argument either. They did not want to have faith, listened to heavy metal, hence heavy metal is un-Christian because of 2 people?
If they'd had a hobby... such as, I don't know, playing music, they would have been too busy to plan a mass murder.
I don't want to watch the rest of it, it's a waste of time...
|