• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4031 Brohoofs

Recent Profile Visitors

16209 profile views

About Justin_Case001

  • Rank
    Crystal Pony
  • Birthday 10/21/1985

My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic

  • Best Pony
    All of them
  • Best Pony Race
    No Preference

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Lakeview Manor, Falkreath
  • Personal Motto
    Get busy livin, or get busy dyin!
  • Interests
    Figure skating, horseback riding, art, video games, fashion.

MLP Forums

  • Opt-in to site ads?
  • Favorite Forum Section
    Sugarcube Corner
  1. Justin_Case001

    Episode 24 - "Manscaping"

    Hey. Y'know what really grinds my gears? "Manscaping". Oh, ho, ho! Hold on, there, chief--it's prolly not what you think! I'm not talking about men shaving body hair; I'm talking about the term. See, I'm male, and I myself shave my body hair, including legs, because I like the way it looks and feels much better. So why's it gotta have this stupid term?! MANscaping. Pffft. Why does it need this "man" prefix, as if to emphasize the fact that it's weird or wrong or something. Why call it something else?! It's just shaving!! Anyone can shave any body part they want! Why do we need to call it this stupid thing if a man does it?! What--is it too fem or something?? Pffft. F*ck that. F*CK THAT. I hate all these stupid terms where they put "man" in front of it like that. "Mansplaining" and "manspreading". I'm not even entirely sure what those are, to be perfectly honest, but they sound asinine. But you know what also grinds my gears? MAN CAVE. I f*cking HATE that term. It's so stupid. Just so stupid. As if we're neanderthals. As if no woman on Earth wants a nice room for electronic entertainment. And no, I don't actually think it's offensive or anything, just annoying and stupid. So stupid. Stop saying it.
  2. Justin_Case001

    S08:E07 - Horse Play

    I just rewatched this episode, and ho-LY ...CRAP, I just noticed something awesome that totally slipped by me the first....uh... 6 times or so... Check...this...out: Right? You see that?! BOOM! Right there! LOL! Luna be pissed that Tia raised the sun like that! She be like: And you just know she also be pissed that her beautiful night got cut short.
  3. Justin_Case001


    Today will be one of my more counter-intuitive and possibly controversial ideas. I want to talk about what it means to be shallow in terms of one's character. What is shallowness, really? But before I dive into the depths, a bit of preface on the subject of free will is in order. In recent years, I have come to accept the fact that free will, insofar as most people think about it, doesn't exist. If you've never heard or read any lectures on this idea, you may find yourself quickly losing the plot, but that's okay--I find it takes awhile for these ideas to make sense. The basic premise is this: although we absolutely have the power of conscious choice and voluntary action, our choices and actions are all directly caused by our thoughts, and you don't author your thoughts. You don't actually bring your thoughts into being. You are not the driver or pilot of yourself that you think you are. You are not the author sitting at the desk in your mind, writing the thoughts of your life. Thoughts simply arise in consciousness. They spring into being. You don't create them; you are merely witness to them. With a little bit of practice at introspection, one can easily prove this to oneself. If you pay close enough attention to what it's like to think a thought, you will see that you don't create them, and don't truly have any control over what thought comes careening into consciousness next, even when it seems to be otherwise. I could go on at length attempting to demonstrate this, but I don't wish to get bogged down and run too far off the rails. The punch line is that because you don't author your thoughts, you don't actually have the freedom over yourself that you think you do. Everything you think and do arises out of a perfect crucible of prior causes stretching back to the beginning of time. Confused yet? It took me some time before I stopped being so. Hopefully you're still with me. To help you understand this idea a bit better, I recommend listening to this short audio clip before continuing: Now then, today I would like to argue that being concerned with physical attractiveness is no more shallow than being concerned with intelligence. This is quite a bold claim, and cuts directly against what most of us tend to believe, but I think I can argue this successfully. If you've followed me much at all, you might already know that I am a highly sexual person, and a great proponent of embracing and celebrating physical and sexual beauty. People who place a high degree of importance on physical beauty often take a lot of flak for being shallow, and I probably would too, if I actually went outside and talked to people... :/ In my country of America, there is an odd double standard at play when it comes to physical attractiveness. We live in a culture of mixed messages, where the media tells us that looking good and staying young is paramount, but we are also admonished to look at inner beauty and judge people only on their characters. Most people typically say that part of what constitutes being a good person is looking past outer beauty, and to pay little to no attention to what people look like. I think that even when people are concerned about physical beauty, they feel societal pressure to say otherwise because it's the "right" thing to do. It seems universally accepted that looking only at "inner" beauty is an inherently good, noble, and virtuous way to be. People who say that they care only about what's inside, even when it comes to their romantic partner, typically get pats on the back. What I am arguing today is that essentially every trait we could conceivably care about is largely out of our control, and thus, it is no more shallow to compliment someone's looks than it is to compliment their smarts. Here comes the part that many people really don't want to hear. Intelligence is pretty much entirely genetic. You either have it or you don't. From there, it comes down to what you do with it. You can use it, or not. Education--filling your brain with knowledge--will help you reach your potential, and early childhood environmental factors certainly play a role in facilitating this and priming the brain for the rest of it's life, but that's not really what intelligence is. Intelligence is your ability to understand and to think. It's not really about what you know, or how much, but about how you think. It's about your potential. This is genetic. You're either born with high intelligence or you're not. You can't really change your intelligence level in any deep sense. This is the uncomfortable truth that people don't want to hear, but it is a truth nonetheless. Your intelligence simply is what it is. What you can do is exercise your brain to help maintain it and reach your potential. You can study to increase your knowledge, you can perform various mental exercises to improve memory, and you can make new neural connections and pathways by learning new things. There's lots you can do to improve the brain, but this is merely sharpening up and honing what you already have. It's taking the brain you have and helping it be the best it can be. It's helping you to reach your potential, but it isn't really changing your intelligence. If you find yourself resisting this idea, let's look at the rest of the body instead. I probably don't need to spend a second convincing anyone of how genetics and exercise work with respect to physical fitness. We all know that genetics plays a major role in how your body will look and function. You're born with whatever build you're going to have--you get what you get. From there, it's again a question of what you do with it. Some people put on weight easily, others stay stick thin regardless of what they eat. But no matter what your genetics, you can always improve by eating a healthy diet and exercising. But this is about improving what you already have and reaching your potential. It doesn't change your genetics. No matter what your build, your genetics are either better or worse, relatively speaking, and that comes down to luck. It is conceptually no different when it comes to intelligence. You get the dealt your hand, and then it comes down to what you make of it. From a certain perspective, there's really no difference between mental and physical health. The tendency to differentiate our beings into the mental and the physical is a tad illogical. The brain is just another organ in the body. The gray matter between your ears is just that--matter. It's just atoms in there. Whatever happens in your brain--whatever you learn, whatever memories you make--it's all just a restructuring of atoms. There's nothing else it can be. It's not as if memories and knowledge are some non-corporeal energy that has no physical basis, some spooky magic floating in the aether. Whatever is in your brain is just atoms, just as whatever data is on a hard drive is just atoms. A hard drive basically stores data by magnetizing and demagnetizing billions of little particles. What happens in your brain is like an analogous process with goo. The point being that it's all physical, in a sense, so mental health is just another part of physical health. You just have to do very different things to exercise the brain versus exercising muscles. We have this tendency to refer to the body and the brain as these distinctly different and separate things, when they're really not. Genetics gives you whatever body you're going to have, including the brain. You either get good genetics for physical health or you don't, and you either get good genetics for intelligence or you don't. The rest comes down to use, maintenance, nourishment, and exercise of the given parts. So, from here we can see that you are no more responsible for your base intelligence than you are for your physical attractiveness. Both are determined by genetics. You can improve your physical health and athletic ability, as well as your brain's health, in the ways I described. You can also do things to improve your attractiveness, though these things are much more subjective. You can shave, trim, and style hair, file nails, sand rough skin, moisturize, etc. Whether it's intelligence, athletic ability, or hygiene, one can always improve oneself, but none of this changes genetics. The only way to actually change what you look like in any deep sense is to have some sort of invasive cosmetic surgery. Likewise, the only way to truly change your mind, to change who you are and how you think, is to physically alter your brain in some way, either by trauma or some type of hypothetical rewiring, such as switching which hemisphere is dominant, for example. Without opening up your head and tinkering with the goo inside, you can't truly change who you are, or your intelligence level. Of course, who you are changes in each moment because that's the character of life, but you're not truly responsible for that, either. It should be clear by now that when we compliment either someone's intelligence or their appearance, we're essentially congratulating them on being lucky. We're saying, "good for you for having good genetics." It's conceptually no different in either case. If someone has made good use of their luck, we can congratulate them on that as well, but that's just more in the way of luck. Noticing intelligence over appearance isn't inherently noble or virtuous, as people have no true responsibility for their intelligence. When asked what they look for in a mate, people will often take care to list "inner beauty" traits in order to appear a deep and better person. However, you're no more responsible for your intelligence, your sense of humor, or anything else about your personality than you are for your appearance. You don't choose or design your personality. You have no control over your likes or dislikes. You're no more responsible for your love of sports than you are for your height. You're no more responsible for your warm and caring nature than you are for your breast size. All of it is genetics, and then the ocean of prior causes that shape who you are. I wrote this piece in part as a self-defense; I resent being thought of as shallow simply because physical beauty is important to me. Any trait that we could conceivably care about is mostly genetic, and it's not wrong or immoral for us to want any given trait in a partner, or a friend for that matter. It's not shallow or immoral to seek a partner that you're attracted to physically. At this point, I want to make it abundantly clear that I care very much about intelligence and personality. In fact, those are far more important than appearance, and this is ridiculously easy to prove. You can be friends with an nice, ugly person, but you can't be friends with a pretty, mean person. It's simple, but really, that's all I need in order to know that "inner beauty" is far more important. To add a bit more, I'll just say that how we behave and how we treat others is far, far more important than how we look. I would never even imply otherwise. I merely submit that it's not shallow to be concerned with physical appearance as well. So, what is shallowness, then, if not paying attention to appearance? Simply put, shallowness is judging someone character based on appearance. Seeking out beauty isn't shallow, but treating people poorly on the basis of appearance is. Concluding that a fat or ugly person is therefore bad or stupid is shallow. Concluding that a pretty person is therefore good and smart is shallow. Determining someone's worth as a human being based on appearance is shallow. Systemically excluding unattractive people, or doling out more wealth to attractive people, is shallow. But choosing certain traits for the people we want in our personal relationships isn't. To desire physical attractiveness is to desire good genetics. To desire intelligence is simply to desire another variety of good genetics, and wanting good genetics for our partner is the prerogative of every human being. To be shallow is to judge someone's character based on appearance, and to then treat them thusly. To notice, compliment, celebrate, or be concerned with any trait we might care about, be it physical appearance, athleticism, or intelligence, is simply to say, "way to go on winning the genetic lottery." Desiring or seeking physical beauty is therefore amoral, and not shallow.
  4. Justin_Case001

    The Santa Mythos

    I am a big proponent of honesty. I believe that honesty is the bedrock foundation for all relationships--the "master virtue", if you will. In fact, I believe that healthy personal relationships cannot exist if dishonesty is involved. I am even opposed to so called "white lies", and believe that they are corrosive to personal relationships in subtle ways. This doesn't mean that I think people should openly broadcast every thought they have to everyone, á la The Invention of Lying. It's perfectly acceptable to choose not to share certain things. Sometimes it's appropriate to do what I call "Vulcan lying", or the selective presenting and/or withholding of information without actually telling any falsehoods. Another way to describe this would be not lying, but not showing all your cards, either. Now, it's still wrong to deceive people in this way, but it's perfectly acceptable to simply decline to answer a question that you don't want to. When it comes to personal relationships, I believe in complete transparency. Essentially, I view lying as being on the same continuum as violence. In other words, lying should only be done in defensive situations that might require violence if all else fails. If you are in danger, you might try lying your way out before resorting to force. If you are suspicious of someone and think they might mean you harm, then you obviously aren't going to give them honest answers that they could use to hurt you. The colorful example I always like to give is if you're sheltering Anne Frank in your basement and the Nazis come a-knockin', you sure as hell aren't gonna tell 'em the truth. Sometimes, lying is clearly the only ethical thing to do. But under normal circumstances with people you trust and care about, I believe that lying should never have a place. Now that you understand where I come down on the subject of lying, I'll get to the point. I believe that we should stop telling our kids that Santa Claus is literally real when they are little. I believe the myth of Santa is unnecessary at best, and downright harmful at worst. It's something that we need to outgrow. When I float this idea by people, the first counter-argument I hear is that by ending this myth, we would be robbing children of the joy and magic of Christmas, sucking the fun out of their lives, and killing their childhood. This is demonstrably false. Children do not need to think that Santa is real in order for Christmas to be fun and magical. Children need no extra incentives beyond reality in order to get excited. Children seem to do a pretty darn good job at getting excited by My Little Pony, Batman, Spider-Man, Transformers, Disney Princesses, Star Wars, Harry Potter, etc, without thinking for a second that any of these things are real. In fact, parents typically take great care to make sure that their children know the difference between reality and what they see on TV and in movies. It's universally agreed upon that to be confused in this regard can be dangerous and harmful to children. We reassure our children that the monsters in movies can't really get them, and that they, our children, cannot fly like they see superheroes doing. Then we turn around and tell them that one jolly fat man can defy the laws of time and physics and do the things they see in movies. Surely I can't be the only one to see a problem here. Circling back, children need no extra help to get excited about these fictional characters. In fact, children tend to get head-over-heels obsessed with fictional characters, and the fun isn't sucked out just because the characters aren't literally real. I can personally attest to the fact that I was far more excited about Batman, Ninja Turtles, and lightsabers as a kid than I was about Santa Claus, but I never thought that those other things were real. Christmas needs no help to be fun. It can stand on its own without supernatural aid. Decorating, yummy treats, and piles of toys are more than enough to make any child excited. More importantly, though, I believe that telling young children falsehoods about Santa can be harmful in a variety of ways. I believe that it can prime young minds to be less skeptical, more gullible, and less apt to think critically. Now, admittedly, this is just a hypothesis, and I have no specific evidence to back it up. What I do have solid evidence for is the following: the Santa myth can actually be frightening to children, as well as cause their trust in their parents to be shaken. When I was very young, and believed in Santa, I used to be scared at the thought of him creeping around our house. It didn't matter to me that he was just supposed to be the jolly gift-giver. To me, he was a stranger, and I didn't like the idea of a stranger in my home. In our house, it was traditional for stockings to be placed on the foot of our beds. My parents would sneak into my room when I was asleep to do this, but what they didn't know is that I was often still awake. They had told me that it was Santa that came into my room, and this idea scared me. I would squeeze my eyes closed and tense with fear until the intruder had gone. Why I never thought to approach them about this, I can't say. Evidently, young children do not have the presence of mind to explain or interpret such things. They simply accept what they're told. Parents can be frightening their children with this myth without even realizing it. When I reached the age of doubt, I asked my mother point blank, and she told me the truth. I remember this conversation very vividly. It was in the car before she dropped me off at school. When I realized that they had lied to me about Santa and where the gifts came from, I was bewildered, confused, and frustrated. I was actually angry with them. And hurt. I trusted them, and I felt like they had betrayed that trust. Most people dismiss the entire Santa issue. They just wave it away, claiming that it's harmless fun. But for some kids, it's not so harmless. I actually felt hurt. I couldn't believe that my parents had lied to me. I felt confused, and began to reevaluate other things they had told me. Could I be absolutely sure that there hadn't been any other lies? My trust in them had been shaken, and it took me a little while to fully get over it. How long, I couldn't say. More than a month, less than a couple of years. I can't be any more accurate than that. I just don't remember. But I do remember feeling very upset for awhile. And let me be clear: I wasn't upset that Santa wasn't real--I was upset that I had been lied to by the people I trusted the most. Now, looking back on it at 33 years old, it seems rather silly, of course. I know my parents are honest and trustworthy, and I have a great relationship with them. I know they weren't being unethical, deceitful people; they were just going along with the cultural tradition because it's what their parents did, and it seemed fun and harmless. But we need to wake up and realize that a child's perspective is different, and some children don't handle it as well as others. It may surprise some readers to hear that every single one of my friends had similarly unpleasant experiences regarding Santa Claus, and their learning of the truth. None of them, not one, remembers it fondly. They all have negative stories to tell, just like me. One friend of mine was a very interesting case--he was actually relieved when he found out that Santa wasn't real. This was because he thought that Santa watched him all year long (as the song goes), and that if he did something wrong, even accidentally, Santa wouldn't bring him any presents. He was scared and paranoid all year because of this. When he learned that it was his parents that bought the gifts, he was relieved because he knew that his parents' love was unconditional, and they would forgive him for mistakes, and still bring him presents. People might not realize that children think this deeply about things. Well, live and learn. I simply see no upside to filling children's heads with this confusing nonsense. It can be harmful, and I guarantee that children will have all the fun in the world without it. I am given to understand that the Santa myth is not commonplace in other parts of the world as it is here in the U.S. I know someone from Europe who said that no one ever thought Santa was real in her home country. Parents just didn't do that where she grew up. But Christmas was still fun and figuratively magical for them. She moved to the U.S. when she was still a child and was completely blindsided when she found that her schoolmates literally believe in this dude with flying reindeer and elves from the north pole. Her parents had to sit her down and explain how some cultures do this nutty stuff. As usual, the United States, while seemingly ahead in certain ways, such as having freedom of speech enshrined in our constitution, is also sorely lacking in reason, rationality, and logic. To be blunt, America is bat crap crazy in some regards. Let's stop telling our children that Santa is real. Just let it be a fun fantasy--a fairly tale, just like any movie they'd watch or book they'd read. The same goes for the Easter bunny, the tooth fairy, or any other made up nonsense we tell kids. If you are a new parent, or plan on becoming one, I highly encourage you to be honest with your children. And telling yourself that it's harmless because you're giving them the gift of fun and magic is just self-delusion; it's still lying, and it's still wrong. Together, let's end the Santa mythos.
  5. Justin_Case001

    Episode 9 - EG vs EQG

    LOL! Oh, wow, that is hilarious! I think he'll get over it. He's almost got as big of an ego as Zaphod Beeblebrox.
  6. I dunno. Buy a big life raft? Seriously, though, just make it good and creative and fresh, not derivative, good complex characters, etc.
  7. Justin_Case001

    Music How do you get your MP3s?

    Mp3?! What is this, the stone ages??
  8. Oh yeah, that was bad. But to be fair, Pinkie finally redeemed herself. It took four seasons, but she redeemed herself in The Mean 6. That was the moment when I finally forgave Pinkie for her sh*t in Filli Vanilli.
  9. Justin_Case001

    How would you react to a Live Action MLP movie?

    Well, awhile back, I took a whack at making some really detailed, high quality 3D models of several of the ponies. I did a really good job on them if I do say so myself, but when I unveiled them, the responses were mostly "uncanny valley" this and "creepy" that, so... don't expect a live action/CGI pony movie to be well-received. Now, if they did it Roger Rabbit style, holy crap I could really get behind that! Why don't they try something like that again?! Just imagine Equestria being connected to the human world, like Equestria Girls, except it's the REAL real world, the live action world, and it'd be just like Toon Town in Roger Rabbit. All these 2-D Flash ponies running around in the real world--that'd be the tops, man. I mean, it would just be StormXF3's youtube channel on the big screen. That would be the greatest thing EVER!!
  10. Justin_Case001

    Will the topic of alt. Sunset ever be addressed?

    Wait, wait... I figured this out once. I forget the math now, but I believe that pony Sunny is several years older than pony Twilight, since she was Tia's student before Twilight. This would mean that human Sunny would be the same amount older than the humane 6, which means that human Sunny probably graduated from high school right around the time that pony Sunny entered the human world. So, the simple answer for why we never saw human Sunny is that she had already graduated and is now just living her life, working some job someplace. But this begs the question of why the faculty never noticed that Sunny graduated, then shortly after, another Sunny started attending CHS again. But who knows, maybe human Sunny never went to CHS or Crystal Prep. Is there some hard and fast rule that all off the human counterparts need to be connected in close proximity? For all we know, human Sunny might not even lived in the same part of the country as the humane 6. I really wish they would address this, though. I think it would be really fun to have the two Sunsets meet. Lol. Yeah, I actually always had a similar headcanon. I always believed that pony Sunny killed human Sunny and assumed her identity upon first entering the human world. It's the only explanation that really makes sense. It would explain why everyone at CHS never blinked an eye or noticed that anything was amiss. Human Sunny goes to school on a Tuesday, pony Sunny goes to school on Wednesday... and human Sunny is never seen again!
  11. Yeah, that guy was a piece of crap, huh? Yeah, those scenes were rough, for sure. But if we're talking absolute worst action ANY character has taken? Then... shouldn't we be looking to the big baddies that actually wanted to conquer and destroy? I think most of Tirek did was the worst. As for the best, that's really tough. That's a pretty good candidate right there. Twilight's efforts to help Moondancer come to mind, as well as the CMC trying to help Diamond in Crusaders of the Lost Mark. Even though Diamond was nothing but a b*tch to them, instead of retaliating, they said, "Seems like she could really use a friend," or something close to that. A lot of the scenes in that episode struck me as some of the most selfless and mature writing on the show. Oh, I figured that was supposed to be the "pondering" reaction. Like, "Hmm." That's what it meant--it made me think.
  12. Justin_Case001

    Who loves paper books?

    I LOVE, real, paper books. There is just something wonderful, irreplaceable, and almost magical about real, paper books. Screens and electronic devices and NEVER replace that. I love the feel of books, I love the smell. I love picking them up, holding them, and of course, reading them. I love displaying them on my shelf. I love resting them in my lap, I love turning the pages. Don't get me wrong, I love my electronics as well, including my tablet. I spend hours playing with that thing, but I would never, ever read an entire novel on it. Eliminating paper books would be like... I think the best analogy would be if we someday had the ability to perfectly replicate the sound of any instrument digitally, and thus, eliminated physical instruments altogether. No more musicians playing instruments. No more plucking of strings or hitting of keys, no more blowing into mouthpieces. Just clicks on a screen. Could you imagine how tragic that would be? To lose live music? To lose that connection of a human actually playing an instrument? That's how I'd feel if paper books were eliminated. I think it would be a tragic loss of something extremely precious. Exactly. Thank your for raising this point. The thing one has to remember about digital books is that the evil corporations giveth, and they can taketh away. Awhile back, in an action of absolutely stunning irony, Amazon remotely wiped all copies of Orwell's 1984 and Animal Farm from all Kindles due to some copyright bs or other such flim flam. Massive lawsuit ensued. They fixed and promised it wouldn't happen again, but the point is that you don't truly own digital books. I'd rather have a book on my shelf, thank you very much. The all seeing-eyes can't waltz into my house, grab my book off the shelf, censor it, change it, take it away, etc. Y'know, I just want to add that one of the reasons I love reading so much is that it's truly the only limitless form of storytelling. No time-slots, no required length, no rules, no censorship. An author can literally write anything. And reading runs on the worlds most powerful graphics chip: imagination.
  13. Baldur's Gate. I got the whole sha-bang on GOG awhile back. 1 and 2, and then I did the patch-a-ma-jig magic to turn it into the Baldur's Gate Trilogy with increased resolution, widescreen compatibility, and updating 1 with the engine from 2. I really, really wanted to get huge into these games. I wanted to lose myself. Like, I wanted to get addicted. Like, I was in the friggin' market for some video game heroine, y'know? (And I'm not talkin' about a female hero...) Not smart or healthy, but.... yeah. Anyway, I love the idea of them, and I know they are still considered by many to be the pinnacle of western rpg, and the standard of greatness by which all others are measured. There's really nothing about them I shouldn't love, buuuut.... I dunno, man. I started 1, and I put about... I wanna say 20 or so hours into it, and I just fizzled out. Some things about it definitely frustrated me. Some clunkiness about the UI, the advanced D&D rules, which, no matter how I tried, I just didn't really get. Some of the unforgiving nature... eh, I could go into great detail, but I'll spare you. I just faded away from it. I can almost guarantee you that if I played these right when they came out, I would have been mega-obsessed, and they would probably to this day remain my all-time favorite games. But playing them for the first time in 2015 was just....difficult. I really want to get back to it and continue, and play through the whole saga, but I just don't know if I ever will. I want to, though. But there's never enough time.
  14. Yeah, the OP was talking about the target audience. Y'know, targeting a wider audience of both boys and girls.... which, if you think about it, they kind of accomplished already, y'know? But I get what the OP meant. But the phrasing was kinda funny. At first, the title made me think it was referring to genderless ponies. The equine J'naii. That gave me a chuckle. But you know, it could be interesting if the ponies encountered an androgynous species like the J'naii, in some far off place beyond Equestria. Y'know, like the Kirin. That'd be cool. Probably a bit too adult, though. Anyway, in my answer to question, I think some subtle changes to appeal to a wider audience might be okay, but I think that, by and large, the show should keep the female-oriented sort of feel. I.e. It should be a female-dominated cast and should continue to sport a general style typically associated with femininity. Now, obviously, the overly stereotypical, saccharine, cloyingly girly nature of G3 was, in my opinion, a train wreck, but it's the feminine sort of feel of FIM that drew me in initially. (And then the dynamic, deep characters is what kept me around.) I'm a male with a strong feminine side, and it's really hard to find a show (or anything for that matter), that scratches that itch. What makes FIM so great for me is that it is a feminine, female dominated show, but it doesn't really try to be, per se. It just is, naturally, while at the same time having really great, proper, interesting stories. I really don't want it to just be more... just, like, gender-neutral Disney or whatever. We have enough of that. I can just watch Disney movies. I want MLP, whatever it's shape or form, to retain that female-centric vibe that makes me feel... like I have a place I can go to... to feel that side of me come out... y'know? Not to mention the fact that it's really difficult to find a female dominated cast in entertainment that dynamic, well-written, interesting, not accessories to males, not put there just for sex appeal, and not just a gender-flipped version for the express purpose of being diverse and p.c., like the new Ghostbusters. FIM effortlessly manages to fit that bill perfectly. It's a dynamic, excellent female cast that just feels natural. I.e. It doesn't feel like the writers just said, "Whelp, we'd better make them all female because diversity." I guess it's a fine line, but it just feels like the FIM cast is female because that's just who they are, and that's just the story the writers wanted to tell. I know it's because they wanted to connect with their typical target demographic, but still, it doesn't feel forced. I really like watching female characters (y'know, good female characters), and I don't want to lose that female dominated cast in a world where it's hard to find.