Hey everbody - first time poster here. Do you think a webcomic dealing with the same topics as FDR would be good for getting the ideas out in a different format and possibly reaching a whole new audience? I'm fairly decent at drawing and I'm interested in working on a webcomic, but I'd like to hear your thoughts before proceeding any further. I have created some pages sort of as a feasability study. Here's a link to my experimentation to give you an idea of what the web comic could be like: http://imgur.com/a/KpWLg#0 It took about 8 hours to complete one page, but I'd expect this number to go down over time with increased experience. I work as a software developer and need to give my eyes a chance to recover in the evenings, so at the moment I can only do one page per weeked. I'd like the comic to be published several times per week though, so besides spreading philosophy the webcomic should also eventually generate enough money to enable working on it full time. While waiting for the revenue streams to become excessive, I think finihsing a story arch first and then publishing new pages several times per week could work well. There'd be enough activitity initially to keep readers coming back, followed by a pause between stories - but I guess that's fine now with the ability to "like on facebook" and build up an audience in that way. I'd prefer not doing it all alone. The way I see it, the project is most in need of a writer, as I have no experience with writing fiction. So if somebody well versed in the FDR topics is also interested in writing a comic and would like to collaborate with me on this project, that'd be awesome!
Welcome to the Freedomain Radio Message Board
If you have supported Freedomain Radio financially and would like immediate access to the message board - or - your donation status is incorrect, please contact Michael at email@example.com with your Paypal email/Bitcoin address/etc as well as your board account name and the situation will be addressed ASAP.
Any interest in a FDRish webcomic?
Posted 20 October 2013 - 07:37 PM
Posted 20 October 2013 - 09:58 PM
I think this sounds like a great idea.
I'd be glad to submit a couple idea for comics if it gets going
Posted 20 October 2013 - 10:08 PM
I think this is a pretty great idea. But only if it features a hyper-exaggerated version of Stefan Molyneux.
Posted 20 October 2013 - 11:58 PM
Posted 21 October 2013 - 01:47 AM
Here is an adaptation of a conversation I've been having that could maybe be adapted for this, it's a bit convoluted in its present form, but it's a good demonstration of socratic reasoning and teaching people not to philosophise midstream - let me know if it's worth my time and I'll get on dramatising it.
A - I'm actually an anarchist J - Don't we need some sort of organisation that protects the interests of the whole? A - I'm not sure there is such a thing as the interests of the whole, only individual interests. Jonanna - What do you mean? A - Well, lots of people are interested in ending war, but other people benefit from war, so war continues. J - But you do share a concern for humanity in general? A - Of course J - That is interest in the whole A - But if people who profit from harming others are harmed by not being allowed to do, then so be it. J - Those people are acting in their self interests not the interests of the whole A - I brushed my teeth earlier in my self interest J - You didn't do that at the expense of others. A - That's my point really, that acting in your own self interest isn't a problem. Doing things at the expense of others is. J - Disarming the war makers to act in the interests of others is acting for the whole, do you only act in the interests of those you know A - Well you say the interests of the whole I'm not sure there are interests of the whole. I would say we disarm the warmakers because the initiate the use of force. not because they are acting against an abstract concept called "the interests of the whole. J - Do you deny that others care about humanity in general? A - No, but what point are you trying to make? J - If you and others care about humanity in general then there is interest in the whole. A - I see what you're saying, but I just say I care about humanity or I care about people. J - As do others? Therefore, the point stands the interests of the whole exists A - I'm sure some warmakers say they care about the whole as well, that's why they're waging war. But it can just be broken down to some peoples interests, and not in other peoples interest. Not the whole. A - I'm not sure that's a bonafide case, because I say it's a bunch of individuals, and what is good for most people or whatever, isn't good for some people as we have discussed but you don't do something cos it's good for a majority, I mean, slavery might be good "for the whole" just not for the slaves J - There are some things that all people require: food, water, air, safety etc. war makers can't acting in the interests of the whole otherwise they wouldn't endanger these things A - ok but that is, if "the interests of the whole" exists which I'm still not sure it does J - why not? A - for the reasons I've said, do you just mean in the interests of humanity? or people? J - can you yes, but what's the difference? A - it might be good for me if I'm an insurance company or employed as a policeman if people don't feel safe, my job is secure. the difference is "the interests of the whole" is an abstract concept often applied in collectivist political philosophy and humanity or people means "all people" J Samson - lets not think about interests of the whole in terms of discrepancies. Lets focus on the idea that there are shared, universal human needs that need to be protected A - ok, I agree, go on J - So instead of thinking about: what a policeman wants. Think about warmth, food, shelter etc A - ok go on J - I would argue that protecting shared universal needs is protecting the needs of the whole rather than protecting the divergent desires of a collection of individuals A - ok, I am following you so far J - So, it is our duty to protect those needs. Even if it encroaches upon individual desires A - how, I mean, on what basis does it become a duty? J - Lets consider the relationship between rights and responsibilities. You agreed we all had a right to food, safety, warmth, love etc. therefore, to maintain those rights we have a responsibility to uphold those rights for the whole A - no, I didn't agree we had a right to any of those things, I agreed that those are universal needs. J - So, you don't think we have a right to them? A - I'm not saying I don't think we have a right to them. Im saying that if you are going to say those are rights then you've missed a few steps in making your case. There are some missing arguments between them being universal needs and them being rights. what I'm saying is, if you say those are rights you have to make a case for them. I haven't said whether I think they are rights or not. J - Right I get you, hm A - I don't even know what a right is defined as. Usually a right is wht people won't attack you for doing. J S Mill said... J - Ok, lets drop the rights and responsibilities terminology. You agree everyone has a need for them and a desire for them? But, you disagree that we have a duty to protect those needs? Or, are you arguing that individuals are solely responsible for ensuring those needs are met? A - No I'm not disagreing with anything, I'm just making sure we are not "philosophising midstream" A - If you want to say people have rights or duties you have to establish those premises based on arguments before you can accept them as given. A - So are you going to take the case from pople having
Posted 21 October 2013 - 02:42 AM
Terrific idea! I like it a lot! I am interested in a web comic. If it is made, it may get people to investigate FDR some more, thanks to a web comic. There's a lot of people who don't know FDR out there and they like web comics. Go for it!
Posted 21 October 2013 - 05:50 AM
Great Idea, Mr. Moo. I definitely find this very worthwhile. Really like the example you posted. Great to get a healthy parenting message out in a different format than the usual.
Posted 21 October 2013 - 11:07 AM
Your samples are great! I am in so much awe of people who can draw.
Posted 21 October 2013 - 05:38 PM
Thanks for the very positive and encouraging feedback, everybody - I appreciate it a lot and it's quite motivating also.
The format I've mostly been thinking about would be like a never ending soap opera, with a core set of characters whose lives and personal development the comic would follow. It's a formula that seems to work for other webcomics. (Questionable Content is my main inspiration in that regard.) So to incorporate e.g. the discussion LovePrevails posted above, we'd need to know who the characters are and their backgrounds, maybe how they ended up in this situation where they are having the conversation and how the conversation takes the story forwards. I'd like to have a "big picture" story that enables story archs which focus on more detailed topics. I think that kind of continuation is quite essential for keeping readers coming back (although I can not claim any sort of expertise on this subject).
Posted 23 October 2013 - 02:28 PM
sounds good, I like writing around characters because if I know their traits I can use their voices
Posted 22 November 2013 - 11:49 PM
any progress on this project?
Posted 25 November 2013 - 02:42 AM
dude great comic, excellent use of perspective on that church scene, too!
Posted 26 November 2013 - 09:06 AM
I like it, but don't think it's comical (comedy)
Posted 26 November 2013 - 02:34 PM
agreed, I think more humour is a key ingredient
Posted 09 December 2013 - 07:17 AM
MrMoo, I enjoyed the comic. Both of those characters are quite brave but there is alcohol involved. Nothing like a little liquid courage to get the debate on child abuse fired up!
I'll keep an eye out if you do any more. Thanks!
Posted 09 December 2013 - 04:12 PM
Posted 09 December 2013 - 04:31 PM
It kind of brings up the idea of philosophical charades.
With great cards to act out! Some of the amazing topics include:
- The is/ought dichotomy
- Free Will
- Universally Preferable Behavior
.... and many more!
What could be more fun and enjoyable than trying to explain infinite regression to your philosophy classmates using only gestures? I can't think of anything!
This is the next challenge for philosophers in debate as explaining UPB is so easy in speech, but now you are limited to only gestures!
Now, for a limited time, our infinite regression payment plan is half price for each turtle! Yes, it is turtles all the way down, but when the price is cut from $9.99 per turtle to $4.98 per turtle it will only cost you half as much!
There is a slim chance that this game does not exist and is somewhat proportional to the likelihood that the world does not exist and the odds that you are reading this advertisement currently. Legally, we are required to say this by our legal team which certainly does not exist.
Get your copy of Philosophy Charades today!
Posted 09 December 2013 - 05:03 PM
Oh my, I am laughing so hard Wesley.
Posted 10 December 2013 - 07:35 PM
That is such a good idea and I really love the ending of that comic. I look forward to more!
Edit: ending of the first PANEL, but then I realized there were more pages!
As much as I appreciate the content provided, I do feel like it's a little blunt and dry in its delivery. There could be a few ways to spice it up and make it sound more clever, and since you're not a writer, I can at least once again give you some props for this attempt. You got the principles and facts down right, but comic strips usually require some wit and comedy.
Posted 10 December 2013 - 08:32 PM
I think it's a great idea. I'm pretty good at drawing people and whatnot. So if you want my help, I'm game.