Any word on more Beast and Raven episodes? Last episode was when they kissed. Seeing those two officialy together is the only reason why I watch this.

CN treats the people who work on this show like shit, how else would they be able to rush out 100 episodes in only two years?

It's also cheap as fuck animation wise, and ever notice how no one seems to talk outside the main cast if they already have one guest star?

This show makes up half of CN's schedule and still gets over two million views congratulations this steaming pile of shit is now doing better then anything else on CN.

Good cartoons should never be about morality, the ones that are typically stink. Look at Looney Tunes etc... and all the violence and stupid things they do. Most of the characters are ignorant and even ones that aren't typically like Bugs still play the idiot or get fooled from time to time.

Thinking kids use cartoons as someone would use a pamphlet on behavior or how to be I think is beyond extreme. One could level the same charge at shows like YJ saying that it's ok to be more like Superboy and not be able to cope or get over things easily etc... I feel seeing the world is different than emulating it.

@atarius: The problem with your statement as far as Looney Toons go is that in the original Looney Toons, stupidity was always punished in the most harsh manner possible, it wasn't praised or treated as a point of pride like it usually is in TTG. Bugs Bunny was not an idiot, some times yes, he did dumb things but usually he was the smartest character in the whole cartoon.

I'm not saying TTG needs to be a morality play but to act as if stupidity is anything to be proud of makes them part of the problem.

@joshmightbe: It sounds like you're saying that as an absolute. I disagree.

Looney Toon violence wasn't about punishing stupidity in all circumstances. It was often punishing the other character that wanted something. For instance from Hare to Heir, Yosemite isn't being "stupid" all the time, he's being forced to deny his nature which is a loud angry malcontent. Bugs gets to enjoy his time without punishment despite being a huge annoyance and burden in almost every regard. Yosemite is the one that's seen as "stupid" but he's made to appear that way because bugs is just better at the game.

Another example would be Foghorn and his many interactions with the dog. Much of which is just because they're not meant to get along as representations of their real life animal counterparts. Often time the violence itself was the gag. Elaborate and painful ways to cause harm all for the laugh.

At the end of the day violence is violence. Separating it into moralistic or non moralistic isn't possible if you're looking at it just as violence. What makes violence moral or immoral is the context. Does Foghorn Leghorn paddle the living crap out of the dog because he's racist towards canines? or because the characters are personifications of actual animal behavior?

One could argue that Bugs for instance was just teaching kids to be sarcastic and disrespectful. Foghorn that being right was the most important thing. One could also argue that entertainment isn't inspirational enough to set moral standards. Like when kids were getting in trouble for acting out Power Ranger fight scenes and parents worried they were raising a generation of people fixated on violence or more to the point being violent. Which isn't at all proven, it's just reactionary.