The Shape of Water Dives Into Individualism

[@kreatillion1718]

Bishop Robert Barron commented on this movie in an interesting way: Water has no shape and can fill whatever it is put into. This allegory is supposed to allude to the question of Fluidity or Form. The movie appears to praise absolute fluidity and to throw all form out the window, because fluidity is beautiful and form can only oppress this beauty. However, when something becomes an absolute fluid, logically it no longer has a shape to ascribe to, and thus can lose its purpose. Without the boundaries that make something what it is, it becomes chaos. Take this movie for example: when sex loses its main purpose, to reproduce offspring, then bestiality becomes permissible because love then precedes morality. Form is important because it is necessary for security, unity, and establishing boundaries; but likewise with too much fluidity, too much form can become oppressive and apathetic and unchanging. The point is that we must find a balance between fluidity and form, between chaos and control, lest the extremes prevail.

[@joinapalm4048]

@hednersgame911 Oh please. You're the coward. Because you can't bear something you want to deprive others of it. Libertarians have moral convictions. They just don't impose them on others. It's people like you, who under the guise of "morality" opposed interracial marriages and smoking weed using the government's threat of force. If you're preaching morality, then you're preaching God, and telling other people what to do is making yourself their god. It is a truly horrible mentality like this that led to the rise of all the tyrants mankind has ever seen,

[@air6448]

@hednersgame911 , you've missed the point of libertarianism, the point is to have personal convictions but at the same time avoid using governmental force to impose them on others, if you were arguing on a religious behalf then surely you could understand that only God can act as the supreme moral authority and that no man nor any institution founded by man could ever possibly impose their belief on others and still be moral

[@operleutnant7235]

hednersgame911 1) Libertarianism is really just the rejection of force and since the government is what we use to delegate force, they oppose it. It believes that the free market and consumers are the ones who should decide what is what when it comes to businesses. 2) to me, at least, Libertarianism is defined as “because you don’t step on my rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness I won’t on yours” 3) wow way to stereotype an entire group of people based on an ideology you don’t like by painting all Libertarians as immature, cowardly, sloths who don’t want to set their own morals. How bout I do the same with your belief. I believe that all Anti-Libertarians are authoritarian, self righteous, nobheads who believe that only higher powers should govern what we can and cannot do 4 (the revenge)) I also think you are more talking about Anarchism or a no holds barred “society” where everyone does what they want, which is in no stretch Libertarianism

[@johnjacob3615]

The amount of time this guy spends talking about pans labyrinth just goes to show that the movie you win an oscar for isnt actually the movie they are awarding.

[@Maybeyoudorho]

My mom saw this on the plane and thought it was a great movie so she bought and played it fo her friend and my 15 year old sister to watch. The plane version somehow cut any explicit content in the movie, so when my mom played it at home she was mortified by how explicit the movie really was.

[@shira_yone]

I haven't watched this movie, but A Silent Voice is really good and I think you'll like it very much The only reason I mentioned it is because it have similar "what a person who communicate with sign language feels" theme and how much they feel being less of a human being than other people.

[@gay4vivi294]

yup yup yup

[@jonathannolan9016]

For me, humans have always been monsters. Almost no one ever has tried to push them to be genuine individuals. They all stay in the realm of the collective and under the pretext of the illusion of normality. Most people are just too average to look beyond preconceptions and look forward to the organic experience of individuality. Most do not see the actual reality but see their self-delusion.

[@ХристоМартунковграфЛозенски]

Good video. But then, on the other hand, we may argue that the film promotes bestiality and a "free love" mindset - government and religion (the main antagonist is apparently a Christian) try to restrain the personal freedom of two living beings who love each other and desire to get, erm, "physical". Another point is that the acceptance of the other does not mean wanting to have sex with him. Tolerance =/= love.

[@roberazzi32]

Христо Мартунков, граф Лозенски no it doesn't because beastiality is a one way deal in the real world. In this movie it is used to convey loving someone for who they are and being complete (for example her being mute and people thinking she's incomplete because she lacks a voice but she isn't, she is complete). She literally describes the purpose of the movie in a scene that is in this video.

[@onenceba991]

By far the best content on KZbin

[@Weeki5]

This movie reminds me a bit of Avatar... Love story between differing creatures... Military is ruthless and horrifying...…...

[@evolionbot]

Beastiality

[@quicke5486]

Avatar sucked still though

[@SpicyTexan64]

Miltary bad. So original. But you live in a free country so it's easy.

[@SpicyTexan64]

Love story between different species. You ok with that? Stay away from my dog.

[@96froger]

the quality of the footage does not do the cinematography of this film justice

[@AndyM1928]

Nice choice of background music!

[@AceLM92]

I've only seen a few Guillermo del Toro films (Cronos and Blade 2), but when I saw this flick I gained even more respect for him. I was a little curious on what people would read into it (people on the right might view it as being anti-white and pro-immigration, while the left might view it as anti-fascist and pro-gay rights), but what I got from it was a movie that could connect to whatever kind of outsider. Whether it be as a different nationality, ideology, religion, social class, race, clique, etc. I related to the Gillman because as a kid i was bullied and felt like he did at times. Also being a fan of the classic monsters helps

[@angelobcastro]

This channel is criminally undersubscribed

[@mikehab7453]

Great video! I really enjoyed this movie, and you definitely gave me a new way to appreciate it.

[@knight.99]

Nothing about the Stuhlberg character ? Without him merman 's escape would've been impossible...

[@ludwigvanel9192]

Leaing aside the Hollywood's propensity to sappiness, as an aspiring novelist I found much to be envious of mr. Del Toro.

[@1Maklak]

I think it would make sense for the scientists to use her as a translator.

[@marinerproductions1315]

It would, but the thing is, they didn't really care about that. All they cared about was figuring out what made the merman tick by way of torture, and then dispose of it.

[@JessiD618]

I might have liked this movie if not for the political climate it was birthed into. From what I’ve heard from other critics, (I haven’t watched it myself) this film is a thinly veiled jab at trump, traditionalists and patriotism. A disabled woman, a black woman, a non conforming zer and a kindly communist-cause communists are such wonderful people-ban together to stick it to the white heterosexual man. It may be a great film, but I’m still boycotting it. Having an ani immigration reform message shoe horned into Thor Ragnorock was more than enough Hollywood political commentary for me.

[@Reckless3057]

That is a leftist lens to view the movie and the philosophy of aesthetics, the thing about art is it isn't limited to a single lens. The disturbing thing about that take is that it takes on the leftist view that what is important isn't tyranny of government, but the identity of the people who are tyrannical or victimized. That interpretation just begs the question, why it is wrong for a " disabled woman, a black woman, a non conforming zer and a kindly communist" to stand up to actual, literal, government tyranny? Because a republican is president? That is profoundly shallow.

[@אנונימיתאנונימי]

Reckless3057 Dude, Hollywood is leftist you blind ignorant

[@TurlessTiger]

Right you are, Jessi.

[@paulfu6475]

I am curious as to the stance of FEE. They are very Leftist in social matters but right wing in economic matters.

[@FEEonline]

Lich King we don't really like labels.

[@hannibustoogfyrre6074]

Foundation for Economic Education Too bad, since that's how humans make sense of reality. Things exist in ways that can be defined. Not liking "labels" is just kind of dumb.

[@paulfu6475]

after watching the movie, I am disappointed in FEE. The movie is another Leftist agenda to discriminate against traditional American values. The straight white man with a stable family is criminalized while the victims are the minorities (blacks, Hispanics, etc).

[@paulfu6475]

And I agree with Hannibus 42. Refusing to be part of any of the political spectrum is just a lazy. You’re not only confusing yourself and the audience, it’s also very contradictory.

[@FEEonline]

Lich King we aren't refusing anything. We just find a lot more value in being ecumenical than being partisan. Our mission is to educate people about the economic, legal, and ethical principles of a free society. What we don't do is play partisan or identity politics, so labels that box us in tend not to be very valuable. If you'd really like to use labels, we are what you might call liberals in the classic, enlightenment tradition. Some might call us libertarians, but again, we don't think labels are very helpful because they tend to be alienating to people and we want don't want that to get in the way of the ideas. Our philosophical heroes are people like Frederic Bastiat, Adam Smith, John Locke, Thomas Paine, Frederick Douglass, and many of America's founding fathers. Our economics is rooted in Austrian methodology (Hayek, Mises, Menger), but we also value contributions from people in other schools of thought like Friedman, and find tons of value in reading and discussing ideas from people we even disagree with strongly. You refer to us as both left and right, and in a sense that's true, but it's not particularly useful or accurate because our ideas come from an older philosophical tradition rooted in human liberty, as opposed to being defined by modern political tribes. Both the modern political left and the right value freedom in certain ways, but tend not to see the full picture. We see this as an opportunity to find common ground rather than as one to be divisive. I think the subsequent comment here is a good example of missing the bigger picture. It seems to me that the main objection to referencing The Shape of Water is built around exactly the kind of tribal identity politics that a lot of people on "the right" would complain about as being a feature of "the left". If you're seeing the story as being not about specific individuals but around "white males" and everyone else as if that makes some inherent difference in whether or not people are good or bad, then you're really just engaging in collectivism. But... If you shut your eyes for the moment and think about the story as it is: A government agent, and not a nice man, travels to another country to kidnap and torture a sentient human-like creature who can breathe underwater (and do more than that, though they don't know or yet) in the name of winning wars for his country. Agents from another country are also trying to get this creature for their own purposes and send a spy to infiltrate the research facility. A maid finds out about this torture, connects with the (because of shared physical limitations) and learns that he is sentient and intelligent and not what he appears to be on the surface (which is a great lesson for everyone), and ultimately works with her friends to rescue him before he's killed by the two warring governments. That seems to me to be a pretty clear case where we can talk about the value of human liberty and how it gets expressed in art, and how Individualism should triumph over collectivism, which is the point of this series. I also did say right up front that it is a deeply bizarre film, and to that end its not for everyone. That's ok. The next episode is going to be about a blockbuster, so that may be more interesting to people who don't like this kind of obscure film. Either way, if you do like it, or even if you don't, I'd like you to appreciate that it contains a message of freedom. That's the point of this video. -Sean W. Malone, Director of Media

[@stevenbrown1225]

In Pans Labyrinth, del Toro effectively showed the burtality of the facists, but didn't really explore how the socialist/communists in Spain used terror themselves. And his merman in Water is a mirror image of Abe Sapien from Mignola"s Hellboy comics. Makes sense since del Toro and Mignola worked together before.

[@charlenebaganzmoore]

This film is beautiful. I love it so much, pity I saw it with my ex-husband. Best kind of love story

[@kirsteni.russell5903]

Thank you for your thoughtful review of this movie. I enjoyed it as a most unusual combination of fantasy and realism with themes of what is good and what is evil. The comments reveal that some people just can't take it, but I'm glad to agree with those who can.

[@michaelmayo]

The problem with GDT is that he usually goes for an emotionally effective but very simplistic and biased storyline. "Pan's Labyrinth" makes Franco's forces murderous bad guys without mentioning that the "Republicans" were being controled by Stalin (we found out after the fall of the USSR that they were explicitly aiming to make it a communist state) and slaughtered thousands of nuns and priests aiming to destroy the old social order, and even though he used Hitler's offer of war weaponry, he denied Hitler use of Spain as a staging area during the war. He wanted to keep Spain as it was, not have it radically changed, for better or worse. "Water" does the same thing, making our government a bunch of mindless sadists ready to murder the creature when in reality, they would never kill a one of a kind being like him and would probably have set up an intensive program trying to communicate with him like we were doing with dolphins at this time. It's simply rigging the story to get the outcome he wanted, instead of dealing plausibly with the elements there. I love Del Toro's stuff (I was a fan since a very sparsely attended press screening of "Cronos," his first film) but he's a geek at heart and not a very grown up one at that. He does great kiddy movies, but anytime he has to deal with adult complexities, his stuff falls apart.

[@DavidMacDowellBlue]

That Franco was a horrible and vicious dictator, his followers horrible and vicious fascists does not somehow imply anyone opposing them are on the side of the angels--not to anyone who views the world as an adult.

[@Bailey-e3o]

Freedom is right of all people be they metallic , amphibious , human be they from earth , beyond the stars , beneath the surface and so on .

[@odenpetersen6028]

Sorry, how is this related to economics? lol

[@sblower9410]

freedom

[@hooligaan8489]

This is the Out of Frame section. You're lost.

[@angelobcastro]

Economics is about people and how they behave. Respect, freedom, individuality, ethics... they are all themes under economy's scope.

[@ArcherWarhound]

Sean, I've really liked all your other video essay's I've seen so far but I'm really shaking my head at this one. I think you're fanboy-ing over del Torro so hard you're missing the fact that this movie is an overblown, gender-flipped, scene for scene rip-off of the Tom Hanks movie "Splash" ( kzbin.info/www/bejne/mmGuqWagpqp6npY ). I can't help but wonder if The Shape of Water was really a giant satirical gag wherein del Torro was trolling the heck out of all of Hollywood. And the gave him Best Picture for it. So maybe he is a genius, but this movie is stupid.

[@marinerproductions1315]

I find it hilarious just how many people seem to hate this movie and Del Toro. Is that funny to anyone else?

[@DavidMacDowellBlue]

Funny? No.

[@shubhamshaw9692]

Shape of Water is a masterpiece of Imagination.

[@LaluzdelaLunaEsp]

Even though I disagree with you on libertarianism, you seem kind and a reasonable opposition to me. Make more videos!

[@nosouponhead]

You.. disagree with freedom?

[@LaluzdelaLunaEsp]

@@nosouponhead dont try to go that route. Youre framing your question in such a way where any way I answer i'll look bad. Try again.

[@nosouponhead]

@@LaluzdelaLunaEsp I'm not being hyperbolic. Libertarianism is simply the NAP (non-aggression principle). I'm genuinely confused as to why someone would disagree with that.

[@LaluzdelaLunaEsp]

Señor Poodles lets seek clarity here. On what level of libertarian leaning are you, and how far away are you from anarchism. Where do you feel the public sector is best, and private sector is best. Answer these questions first and I can give a good response

[@nosouponhead]

@@LaluzdelaLunaEsp The only necessary label is that I'm human. All humans have an intrinsic right to property. Aggression - A violation of the right to property. Everything follows from these rules. For example, the concept of Freedom of Association (aka, Freedom) - 2 individuals can exchange property only on mutually agreed upon terms. Another term for this concept is capitalism, but there's no need for another term besides Freedom imo. Since the State attempts to be the monopoly on violence and funds itself on theft, it inherently violates Freedom and thus is an invalid institution.

[@josephclark5414]

It should also be noted this movie was awful!

[@alexsandoval796]

Recent and profound epiphanies in my own life around individualism has drawn me to stories like this. Guess I'm looking up Del Toro next.

[@richteffekt]

To me the film has this gaping hole in the middle. Elisa's friends get out of their way and put their lives or livelihood at risk to help her get what she wants. All the while getting to fight their own battles, including those she brought upon them, alone and with no help from Elisa. The film portraits her disenfrachisement as unjust and bigoted from the start and codes her as nice and good be it a bit quirky and thus entitled to fulfilment in love and self actualization (Is Mr. Fishgod actually ready for sth. long term under water? He doesn't really get a say, does he?). Granted, The Shape Of Water was made to give a view on systemic othering, how it's dehumanising and how there is beauty where there is love and compassion. But to me it remains remarkably in want of that.

[@HeelPower200]

The Shape of Water winning best picture is absolutely extraordinary. This is NOT the kind of movie the academy rewards best pictute..At all. I hope this sets the ground for new kinds of movies. Though I dont particularly like Shape of Water.

[@GodwynDi]

On the contrary, I felt it was a movie specifically tailored to the academy.

[@abadtime3319]

Great video, great movie 👍

[@unknowunknow2272]

The art is beautiful but the meaning is disgusting. Like one says "don't let beauty control who you are." the review that I agree with is this one kzbin.info/www/bejne/fXiZnYmBjrisjJo It completely explains how I see the film and what I feel about it. Del Toro has Shame filmmaking and has sold himself out to majority with blind values that well destroy the freedom of this great country and of the people. I was a fan but now I don't even know what to think of him. Not even my spit thinks its worth its time. This film has chain Del toro free well and imagination and became repetitive story that has been see and heard for ages. I know Del toro could have made it to a true masterpiece like Pan's Labyrinth but he gave up is independence and free will. To a group of insane socialist monsters!

[@roberazzi32]

Unknow Unknow that video you linked is about a white man making the movie be about him and his insecurity in his ideology that wasn't even being attacked. I guess metaphors and symbolism is too much for people to correctly breakdown

[@LupusAries]

You know one issue I have with this is that it seems that in both of del Toro's films, the innocence, the curiosity and the "goodness" for the lack of a better word is represented by a female character, while the evil is represented by a male character. In that respect it's just another representation of the old trope that women are good and men are evil that has been in art for thousands of years...........it's a favourite myth used by third wave feminists and the SJW. Why can't it be the other way around? Why does it need to perpetuate that old lie?

[@JoeMartinez18]

Are u surprised ? Nearly 90% of all works of literature are basically the same base topic, just details vary from time to time.

[@marinerproductions1315]

I'll admit, I do not like the trope of "all women good, all men evil," myself, but just because it's a trope, doesn't mean it's entirely bad. If you don't know, (which is surprising) women back in the day were thought of as innocent thoughtless creatures, who were too pure to do all the rough and dirty work that men would do. (Although, women are sometimes depicted as cunning vixens, but we're talking about the Victorian Era, not the Hellenistic) So, from a certain point of view, it would make sense that women would largely be depicted as these innocent, curious, and gentle beings, compared to dirty, close-minded, and rough men. Because, on average, that was largely the case back in the day. I'm not saying it applied to all people, good God no, and again, I really don't the like trope of "all women good, all men evil," but I can understand why Del Toro's characters are often portrayed this way. Especially when they take place in the pre-1970's world. But that's just my opinion. Feel free to disagree all you want, but I stand by my point.

[@dawntavishflynn8802]

Satyrs and fauns aren't actually the same thing

[@FreddyRodrigues66films]

Your ending is as beautifully said as the movie.

[@ceciliatapia7577]

I am insane in love with this magical movie... I ready love see watching that movie over 8 times.... and love watching again and again cuz make my heart and world like just beautiful moments! thanks a lot for you comment. I hope Guillermo del Toro make a book for that. 💙💙💙💙💙💙

[@viktorromanovskiy2053]

Your feelings seems very familiar for me. I Have seen this movie 5 times in cinema and It was very hard to me dont't cry every time when i saw it - this story is so beautiful!

[@Maludosgatos]

He really did, you know? The Shape Of Water is also a book written by Del Toro himself! ;D

[@freesk8]

I'm a libertarian and I loved this movie. Government is the villain. All consensual love and sex should be legal, and most of it is beautiful.

[@NicholasWongCQ]

freesk8 you're confusing libertarian with libertine.

[@bdslade]

No, no they're not. Libertarians don't care what happens in the bedroom of consenting adults, and even if an individual doesn't like a certain form of relationship, they certainly don't think a government should be able to mandate that.

[@NicholasWongCQ]

Brent Slade I have no problem with making all forms of consensual sex legal, but when you call most forms of sex "beautiful", that's libertine mindset. Especially considering the video under which the comment was made.

[@freesk8]

A libertine says all pleasure is good. A libertarian says all private, consensual sex between adults must be legal. I say that all mutual consensual sex is beautiful, but beauty is in the mind of the beholder, so if you don't agree with me on this last part, then we will just have to part company as friends. But you can't call me a libertine. That's just not accurate.

[@bdslade]

That still doesn't make your comment right. freesk may be a libertarian and a libertine, I can't say, but their comment is, minimally, in check with libertarian values. Nothing they said implies in the least that they're confusing libertarianism with a libertine outlook. The comment is made under a video talking about the libertarian virtues/message featured the The Shape of Water, which could certainly be labelled a love story above almost anything else. Not sure why they're out of place her.

[@alexspies8440]

'Dives' lol

[@vincem4756]

Amazing video I couldn't agree more! Guillermo is truly an amazing director. Dont forget Cuaron as well!

[@ryanmatthews3609]

8:29

[@dantrianon4248]

Honestly I detested this movie 😭 and I don’t like the director

[@Johnlindsey289]

Would you compare him to Terry Gilliam?

[@NeoSoldner]

Terry Gilliam is worse. At least Del Toro's films are cohesive and look beautiful.

[@Angelesoflordgod]

Del toro isn’t for everyone

[@Trustworthy_McLegitimate]

I wonder if there also was a planned love story between a human and a monster in the cancelled Silent Hills...

[@mikethebeast1012]

Pacific Rim was garbage and Hellboy was a mediocre at best comic book adaptation. GDT is hit or miss (read average) to act like he is some kind of visionary or unparalleled artist is silly. I usually like these out of frame videos but this one is way off.

[@vincem4756]

Funny I liked all the Hellboy's, never seen Pacific Rim, loved Pans Labyrinth, Blade II, and the Strain. Im sure ill love The Shape of Water too. I agree with the video

[@jgunner280]

How does not liking some of his (not mentioned here) movies summarize it better than the stated examples here? He is certainly a type of visionary, and at least for modern times, kinda unparalleled in the sort of stuff he chooses to make. He themes around monster movies, and strange clashes of traditionalism with darkness, in a way no other director of our current times is seeking. In a world full of more contemporary dramas, romedies, or already fixed empires (essentially Disney and Marvel), and most of the imagination is lost when you cross over from animation to live-action, I'd say yes he's actually very much a unique guy. HOWEVER that doesn't necessarily make him any good at it by default. His stuff can still be "garbage" or "mediocre", but he's got a style and form to him. Same goes for people like Wes Anderson and Tarantino, they're different, but you don't have to like them, but it doesn't erase the fact they are different and trying some styles that others can pick apart and see, and perhaps *gasp* enjoy. George Lucas was also a visionary, but... we can see not all of his movies landed as good as others.

[@reeldeal3227]

Vince M TSOW is a frame of mind film. It's a brilliant piece that hit me in different ways each of the four viewings.

[@oscardighton8580]

Confession: I actually think this is an average movie that missed out on its potential.

[@VicInNocal]

Horribly overrated movie -that it got all those nominations & awards is just further proof of what a cesspool Hollyweird is. Guillermo Del Toro struck gold with Pan's Labyrinth, but besides that masterpiece he is a very cartoonish director, with standard Hollywood movies like Pacific Rim and Hellboy -nothing special there - and Grinding Nemo is no exception, it has all the subtlety of a jackhammer. The most cartoonish scene might be when the gay guy gets rejected by the "homophobic white man" who works at the diner and right on queue a group of black people enter and "homophobic white man" tells them their kind are not welcome there -of course! "Homophobic white man" is also a racist white man. The most ridiculous scene is when the mute girl has sex with the fish and the next day she and her black coworker are gossiping about it as if she had slept with the boy next door or something... Del Toro's name gets mentioned nowadays alongside Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu but AGI is 10 times the film maker and student of characterization that Del Toro could dream of being.

[@carlosmejido3244]

VicInNocal well, the 60’s were like that

[@samdurfee6093]

Nice video too bad you left out the clear anti-American focus.

[@bdslade]

Sam Durfee did you mean "anti-authoritarian?" Which they clearly mentioned. Let's not pretend the movie was any kinder to the Soviets... the only other nation that was mentioned in the movie.

[@FEEonline]

It's definitely anti-authoritarian and generally anti-government. I don't see it as anti-American at all, however. Government and society are not the same.

[@Strideo1]

Really? The Soviets in the movie were just as ruthless and uncaring. They were content to try and murder and discard their own agent when they believed his task was complete. If anything this movie is pro individualism. It's individual characters who act with according to their own principals and risk everything for their beliefs and their friends.

[@oscardighton8580]

Sam Durfee the soviets are shown as being as bad as the Americans

[@carlosmejido3244]

Sam Durfee even the only good Soviet guy reveals he prefers to ignore he is a Soviet in order to let the creature live

[@jason2327]

Awesome analysis and Narration 👏👏👏 I like Pans Labyrinth 👌 , it was good but The Shape of Water is great 😍😍😍

[@AndreaDavidEdelman]

That movie tempted me 0 out 10 to watch it

[@Van.Wolffen]

You mis spelled amphibian god

[@BuyTheDip627]

This is bunk. Animals don't have rights; and if you think they do, it's because you don't understand what rights are.

[@JoeMartinez18]

So humans don't deserve rights neither as we are animals too, or are we just intelligent enough to transend from the animal kingdom?

[@BuyTheDip627]

Marsupilami The differentiating factor that separates us from animals is that we are rational beings. We have the ability to transform the world around us through the use of our reason. Animals don't possess reason and, therefore, cannot have rights. The purpose of rights are to protect individuals from the force of other individuals. In order to survive, we need to use our reason. Reason does not work under compulsion, and this is why we need rights. Rights are necessary to protect the thinking from the unthinking; to protect those who use their reason to provide for their own sustenance from those who would like to live by looting others. Rights do not pertain to animals.

[@JoeMartinez18]

@@BuyTheDip627 But history has shown that the thinking cause more damage than good. Even now, the same animal that has a higher intelectual activity than any other animal is also the animal that is directly destroying the planet. So does an animal that just happens to poses reason but destroyes the planet selfishly deserve more right than another animal? Anthropocentric thoughts can be dangerous.

[@BuyTheDip627]

Marsupilami The amount of bunk espoused in your comment is truly unbelievable. I factually elucidated why human beings come first, and you're going ro tell me rubbish about "destroying the planet?" How does man destroy the planet? You see, I do not subscribe to the view that man's very existence is antithetical to the natural world. In order for man to survive, he has to change his environment to suit his needs; human beings cannot live in nature as animals do. We will die, and starve. We need to build cities, houses, towns, et cetera. Whenever we're talking about the environment, why don't we speak of man's environment? I couldn't care less about the environment of a snail. My environment is what matters, and my environment has been improved tenfold over the years.

[@ХристоМартунковграфЛозенски]

@@BuyTheDip627 Remember also that people are given rights, but have also duties. What duties can an animal have that a person has? "Rights" and "duties" are human constructs. My dog doesn't care about the right to vote, for instance, because it ignores the mechanisms of *human* society. It doesn't really care about human society either.

[@chuy3162]

You ruin Pan's Labrynth without warning but not this one, ok.

[@GodwynDi]

This was the worst movie I've seen in decades. I left the theatre rather than sit through the rest of it.