Pigeon Army
Posts: 14611
Joined: 29/1/2006
From: Pixar HQ, George Lucas' Office.
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gazpop
PA. Oh captain my captain. I feel a little bit owned after that systematic dressing-down.
It's what I do. Nothing personal. 
quote:
I dont want to sound like my Grandad (thump thump) but a lot of the problems we're having today are because each generation is going further and further across that line.
Is that necessarily the case, though? While I wouldn't hold up The Human Centipede 2 as some paragon of social rights, through the crossing of lines we break down social prejudices and take action against backward ways of thinking. Hence why a more rigorous ratings system without banning stuff unless it actually presents real criminal activity would be more effective than just straight out banning what we don't like, because straight out banning what we don't like is mired in moral politics - politics that bog down political and social discourse in every country and stop people from progressing because God mandated this is wrong or whatever.
quote:
I don't have children but if I ever do (god help them) I think I might want someone to be doing something to prevent them watching this stuff. No-one can be around them 24/7 so good parenting can only go so far. I told my mum and dad I wouldn't smoke. I meant it as well. Til I was 14. Does that make them bad parents?
No it doesn't make them bad parents. But those smokes had to come from somewhere - shops won't sell to minors, so somewhere down the line there's a bad, or at least dubiously effective, parent responsible (if you actually bought the smokes, well, then, that's another thing entirely). Ratings standards are put in place to inform parents and vendors what they should and should not be providing children - it relies entirely on the responsibility of the adult, and just because a parent or a vendor is irresponsible, does that mean we should ban everything that they could potentially be irresponsible with? Why, I don't know why we don't just ban anything not suitable for kids if this remote possibility of irresponsibility is too much.
Also, why were you driven to smokes? I would bet in part because it was a forbidden fruit - and much like the Video Nasties of the 1980s, part of what would entice kids to HC2 is that it is banned, it's sooooo extreme that mum and dad can't even watch it. Which of course just means kids go onto Pirate Bay and download a DVD rip unless the parents stop them. Banning the film doesn't actually solve any potential issue of consumption by children.
quote:
As to penny arcades and Victorian rudey pics, I doubt you had easy access to the stuff we are talking about here PA. A couple of saucy ladies with a nipple showing Vs barbed wire masturbation and child rape? Bit different methinks.
The content is perhaps different, but the reaction to the content was largely the same. They were having this debate eighty years ago about Lady Chatterley's Lover, and that just had sex.
quote:
As to personal choice, I'm with you. Mostly. If I could be sure that the only people watching this are people who wouldn't allow it to influence their lives negatively, well, let's just say I can't. If there's even a 000000000000000.1% chance that this might make some wacko go out and do something like this, well, I don't think it should be allowed out there. I dont think it's right that it should. I know I am opening an even bigger can of worms here and I can hear and see the flaws in my arguemnt myself, I just can't think of any other way of putting it. I respect you PA (you're my captain) but can you see it from my way? I really dont want to blanket ban things but this stuff is just wrong. If he wants to form a society (and of course they are out there already) and meet up with his mates and watch stuff like this, then there's nothing to be done. Its their life. I merely feel that it shouldn't be so freely available. Pah. I can never win this argument cos another side of me agrees with you. So so tricky.
I can see it from your way, but the problem with your way is that you're approaching this like everything that could even potentially be remotely harmful should just be banned. You're basically saying "x could potentially cause y though I have nothing to back up this suggestion, so let's ban x" - the same arguments were being made about rock 'n' roll in the 1960s and 1970s and the same arguments are being made about video games now. Let's look at it this way - who is going to watch The Human Centipede 2 and become 'corrupted' by it? The only people likely to consume it will be consenting adults who know what they're getting into - perhaps the occasional nutcase who gets off on these things, but people have been 'corrupted' (allegedly) by stuff that's far less macabre and far more socially acceptable - Catcher in the Rye, for instance, or The Bible (yes I went there). So should we just ban stuff that incites fervour in someone? Should we ban political texts that inspire dissent and revolution because people may die in the process of that revolution? Should we ban religious texts because some people read them violently? I don't think the minimal potential for harm to be caused by someone misinterpreting the work due to their own issues justifies banning it, just as I don't think said potential for harm should cause the banning of any other piece of work, because the chance of harm is minimal and remote.
quote:
I think a fair few people might be a little ashamed and embarassed to admit to watching something like that and that in itself speaks volumes about this argument.
In this day and age, people are ashamed to watch porn. People are ashamed to be gay. I'm not saying that we should legalise barb-wire rape and human centipeding, but I am saying that the only reason people feel ashamed about watching this sort of thing is because of the societal pressures in place in the first place that make it unacceptable in the eyes of greater society. People shouldn't be shamed because they watched a movie someone else thinks is objectionable - likewise, we shouldn't be suggesting that people should only be allowed to view stuff they would willingly admit to viewing in a public sphere. There's a reason we place such a primacy on the separation of the private and public spheres - what people do with their own time is their own business unless they're infringing on another's rights, and watching a movie that someone else thinks is depraved is not infringing on another's rights.
quote:
Feel free to tear me a new one though. Again.......And I'm sorry I let you down boss.....
You didn't let me down, I just get a bit fired up in these things.
_____________________________
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rinc
She's supposed to be 13! I'd want her to be very attractive though
quote:
ORIGINAL: MonsterCat
quote:
ORIGINAL: Pigeon Army
Stop being mean to Deviation
No.
|
Printable Version
RE: Serbia versus Centipede. - 
Maybe because the guy who creates the human centipede is a mad scientist and its another warning about the dangers of sciencific research a moral that can justify the films existence whereas apparently this version is just about some sick bloke getting sexually off on watching a movie of it? I don`t know if he gets he`s punishement for watchng it but I suppose a film like that is harder to justify?
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread