NationStates Jolt Archive

Hello Everyone!

I watched the film Oceans Twelve the other day and a few things have been bothering me about it.
The film(if you have seen it) features 11 thieves who last year stoled $80Million from Las Vegas Casinos. They get located through help of a jealous theif and Terry Benedict(the man they stole from) finds them and gives them a certain amount of time to get the money back or else!
The whole film is following the Thieves and following their plan to get the money back. Now I dont like these type of films. I dont like it when we are supposed to sit there and 'like' thieves and think there 'cool' but even I couldnt help it. I like every one else in the cinema was made to like them through their 'cool' and 'slick' attitudes that were supposed to make them the 'goodguys' of the film.
It's times like this after the film when I realise the true intent of the film. It wasnt to just make a 'cool' film but rather to 'liberate our attitudes' toward thieves. It makes me sick when Hollywood realiseas nothing but anti-state anti-authority, anti-goodness crap like this. These sort of films are all we get these days. We very rarely get films that show good winning over evil anymore or films that show tell people that their is a difference between right or wrong. Instead we get these 'oh im such a baddass motherf****** who can do whatever the hell I like and not suffer any consequences of my wrongdoing'

Does anyone agree with me that most films need strict media censorship in order to be realised and viewed by the general public? Do you not think we are at risk by the media changing our value system every day from one where there is good and evil to one where it just doesnt matter?
I certainly do!

if a movie can change your values then you have very little character.

Actually, the only thing Hollywood needs is to stop making crappy films.

if a movie can change your values then you have very little character.

*applause*

I agree with Bottle. Also, that's not the only kind of movie made these days. Plus, if you don't agree with it, then why'd you see it in the first place?
And talk about censorship. Your language could use some.

Your joking right? I mean Hollywood is full of leftist and such. But to censor them is un-American. Dont get me wrong they are mostly a bunch of self centered egocentrics. If you dont like a movie. Then dont spend your money on it. Eventually those that make crap go broke and go away. But really check the constitution and bill of rights before you think we should do this.

A: it's entertainment, which doesn't always reflect reality. disney's 'the little mermaid?'

B: most people can make their mind up between what is right and what is not right, regardless of how many films they see.

C: censorship takes away the individual's opportunity to make a choice.

D: If i have to only watch films where the good guys win i'll stop watching films. that doesn't reflect reality either.

Exactly. I've never seen "Oceans Eleven" or "Oceans Twelve", but I knew what they were about. If you disagree with the "thieves" being the main characters, then don't see it. It's your choice. Speaking of bad movies- The Grudge was so bad it made me want to kill myself because of how bad today's movies are getting.

Hello Everyone!

I watched the film Oceans Twelve the other day and a few things have been bothering me about it.

The whole film is following the Thieves and following their plan to get the money back. Now I dont like these type of films.

Wait a minute .... you went to see Ocean's Twelve, which is the sequal to the remake of Ocean's Eleven .... which, unless you live under a rock or in a cave in Saudi Arabia, you had to know was a film about Thieves and you don't like films about Thieves ...

WHY DID YOU GO SEE IT?!?!?!

Did someone put a gun to your head and force you to watch it? If you rented it on DVD, did you become paralyzed and could not click the "stop" button on the remote control?

Clue: Find out what a movie is about *before* you go see it. Crying for people to censor something is you telling me, a grown man, what I can and cannot see on TV or in the movie theater.

Yeesh. :rolleyes:

That's what I've been tryin to say!

Cheez, you should see 'Saw'. I'd *love* to see what sort of posts you'd make after that experience. If you think some pissy little thieves are bad, I'd love to read your opinion on twisted murderers who devise torture-devices for people to teach them to value their lives.

Although you aren't really meant to see Jigsaw as the good guy in Saw... so maybe it wouldn't piss you off to such an amusing degree. Ah well.

(mmmmSaw)

yeah, first censorship, then more civil rights, like oh I dunno, freedom of press. Yep we should take out the press next, Im tired of hearing about criminals that get away, they change peoples values... *sarcasam*

yeah, first censorship, then more civil rights, like oh I dunno, freedom of press. Yep we should take out the press next, Im tired of hearing about criminals that get away, they change peoples values... *sarcasam*

People like this (not Ru-Xin, I am referring to the original poster) believe that all amendments to the Constitution can (and probably should) be curbed, curtailed, or just gotten rid of .... except the 2nd ... don't touch the 2nd ... the 2nd is a God given right, carved in stone by His divine finger at Mt. Sinai and delivered to the Founding Fathers by Moses, Jesus, and three virgins.

EDIT: Actually, on second (less sleep-deprived) thoughts

a) that made no sense
and
b) flamebait is bad, mmmk?

I agree with you a lilte bit but for the most part I don't.
You need to go to the next video rental place and ask the people there to show you a good film and there are plenty. Open your eyes!

I'll tell you what. When I saw that film, all I was thinking throughout was, "Man, I so did not see that coming", "This movie is great fun to watch" and "This is way better than the original." It did not, in any way, make me consider perhaps shaking the hand of anybody who steals from me. It's a movie. It's a whole heap of BS put together in an attempt to entertain. How about you take the movie for what it is, huh? Don't try and attach underlying meanings. You'll just become bitter, resentful and develop a profound distrust for everything and everyone. Now that's no way to live...

Movies where the good guys win are just lame and stupid. There is far more movies where the good guy wins over the bad guy. Every one knows the bad guy is so much cooler cause he is... well bad.

I agree Shaed SAW is a brilliant movie, its one of my top 5 movies =)

Who chose to watch it? You

You can form any opinion you want on it, its just a movie.

*sigh* Ok, let's get rid of all the films that have protagonists that don't have a completely legal mindset, then we can get rid of the films where people swear in ANY way.

If we can get away with that let's then get rid off all the films with any kind of violence and then ditch the films that have any anti-authority message. Now let's go only with films that promote "goodness" and only allow that. Let's forget that in this real world "Good" is a subjective term and nobody can agree on what's exactly good or bad and the only way to get THAT is to go on one person's moral system (I really hate the word "Moral")

What do we have? All art's destroyed and we're stuck with propaganda movies that tell us all to obey the law, question nothing, obey the government and fight against evil...and here's a list of evil things for ya: Gays, blacks (Well, any none-whites, let's be honest) terroists, none-christian religions, loud music and of course anyone that does illegal (un-taxed) drugs...because if you so much as smoke pot, you're just gonna be a serial killing, heroine addicted rapist by the end of the day!

SHHEESH!

Do NOT assume that you have the only and correct "value system". If the media challanges your values that's a good thing, it allows you to think for yourself. Censorship is AGAINST freedom and nobody needs protection from themselves from the government. You slap an age rating on art, that's fine, you want to censor art? Kiss your civil liberties goodbye.

I'm angry now......

Who chose to watch it? You

You can form any opinion you want on it, its just a movie.
*gasp* are you actually suggesting that adults take responsibility for their own actions?!

people should base all their morals on what the media tells them! and people cannot possibly decide NOT to go see a movie, so all movies must display only the values that our in-group decides are okay.

The only people who would leave Ocean's 12 thinking thieves should be admired are those who already believe that going in. Most other people wouldn't. I saw Once Upon a Time in Mexico and they made Johnny Depp's character Agent Sands so funny that even though he walks around killing people, you can't help but like him. In reality, i don't like people who murder others. It was a movie. It was entertainment and it was art, that's it. I love movies with happy endings, where the good guys win, but i also like fully developed, three dimensional characters, good or bad. If you think there are no feel good movies out now, you obviously aren't paying attention, or you are going to see the wrong ones. Try seeing Ray, or Finding Neverland, or A Home at the End of the World and come back and tell me they don't exist. I don't believe in government censorship, or anyone censoring anything for someone else. People have the right to choose what it is they want to see.

Some people fail to grasp the consept of 'Fiction'.

It's times like this after the film when I realise the true intent of the film. It wasnt to just make a 'cool' film but rather to 'liberate our attitudes' toward thieves. It makes me sick when Hollywood realiseas nothing but anti-state anti-authority, anti-goodness crap like this.

These sort of films are all we get these days. We very rarely get films that show good winning over evil anymore or films that show tell people that their is a difference between right or wrong. Instead we get these 'oh im such a baddass motherf****** who can do whatever the hell I like and not suffer any consequences of my wrongdoing'

Does anyone agree with me that most films need strict media censorship in order to be realised and viewed by the general public? Do you not think we are at risk by the media changing our value system every day from one where there is good and evil to one where it just doesnt matter?
I certainly do!
You're paranoid. Hollywood films don't have a political agenda. Their agenda is mostly to make money and lots of it. Some may also have artistic merit.

I think that there are plenty of films about good winning over evil. Check out the most popular films of the part few years: The Passion and The Lord of the Rings Trilogy. You've got it there.

It is not the duty of filmmakers to tell us what is right and what is wrong.
I do not believe that they should be restricted nor do I believe that they are changing our values.

You want to set up a large-scale propaganda campaign. You want to ban artistic productions that you think are "degenerate" to society.

You should meet this guy:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d7/320px-Adolf-Hitler-7.jpg

Hollywood is righteous and pure--Fox(hate)news should be censored

*sigh* Ok, let's get rid of all the films that have protagonists that don't have a completely legal mindset, then we can get rid of the films where people swear in ANY way.I never said anything about banning films that involve swearing. And whats wrong with banning films that dont have a completely legal mindset?

If we can get away with that let's then get rid off all the films with any kind of violence and then ditch the films that have any anti-authority message.Again I never anything about bannging films with violence. Violence if shown for a reason can be healthy. and also whats is so wrong about censoring certain films with an anti-authority message?

Now let's go only with films that promote "goodness" and only allow that. Let's forget that in this real world "Good" is a subjective term and nobody can agree on what's exactly good or bad and the only way to get THAT is to go on one person's moral system (I really hate the word "Moral")All decent people can agree with what is good or bad. I think 90per cent of people in the world would agree that stealing, murder rape etc.. are wrong. Of course people cant agree on exactly what is good or bad. But whats wrong with promoting films that show goodness?

What do we have? All art's destroyed and we're stuck with propaganda movies that tell us all to obey the law, question nothing, obey the government and fight against evil...and here's a list of evil things for ya: Gays, blacks (Well, any none-whites, let's be honest) terroists, none-christian religions, loud music and of course anyone that does illegal (un-taxed) drugs...because if you so much as smoke pot, you're just gonna be a serial killing, heroine addicted rapist by the end of the day! Did I say that I wanted art burned, to question nothing or persecuter against gays, blacks or non-christian religions? NO!



QUOTE]Do NOT assume that you have the only and correct "value system". If the media challanges your values that's a good thing, it allows you to think for yourself. Censorship is AGAINST freedom and nobody needs protection from themselves from the government. You slap an age rating on art, that's fine, you want to censor art? Kiss your civil liberties goodbye.

I'm angry now......[/QUOTE]Media can challenge my beliefs thats fine but has no-right to corrupt my beliefs or try to get me to water down my beliefs because a bunch of overpaid actors say its cool to do so.
Censorship is not anti-freedom it is true freedom. If we had a government that cared what we watched then we would have a decent government.

Fuck the Govt
Ill watch what I want to watch

Hollywood is righteous and pure--Fox(hate)news should be censored

So if it doesn't agree with you, it should be censored. I think you and Bush may have something to agree on!

Censorship is not anti-freedom it is true freedom. If we had a government that cared what we watched then we would have a decent government.
This is why nobody likes f***ing socialists like you. If we had a government that cared [read: controlled] what we watched then we would have a massive and corrupt government. Don't you know anything about history? Could you name some censorship governments that were "decent"?

Some people fail to grasp the consept of 'Fiction'.

What is this fic-ti-on you speak of?

You're paranoid. Hollywood films don't have a political agenda. Their agenda is mostly to make money and lots of it. Some may also have artistic merit.

I think that there are plenty of films about good winning over evil. Check out the most popular films of the part few years: The Passion and The Lord of the Rings Trilogy. You've got it there.

It is not the duty of filmmakers to tell us what is right and what is wrong.
I do not believe that they should be restricted nor do I believe that they are changing our values.

You want to set up a large-scale propaganda campaign. You want to ban artistic productions that you think are "degenerate" to society.

You should meet this guy:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d7/320px-Adolf-Hitler-7.jpgNo im not paranoid. I just see the truth. It is the duty of fimlmakers to tell us whats right or wrong because people will copy and immiate the actions and behavious of famous people like actors.
Filmmakers get paid extremely high wages and should produce proper films that reflect their salarys on screen.
De-generation of society is a huge problem and something that needs to be fixed. Media censorship wouldplay a big part in this.

I disagree with censorship insofar as banning. I do think there should be an age system, as there are things that a child shouldn't see.

As for "glorifying" thieves. It's called fiction, fiction is meant as entertainment, entertainment is good.

I'm going to go over there now.

Fuck the Govt
Ill watch what I want to watch
What if someone wants to watch FOX news?

This is why nobody likes f***ing socialists like you. If we had a government that cared [read: controlled] what we watched then we would have a massive and corrupt government. Don't you know anything about history? Could you name some censorship governments that were "decent"?Im not a Socialist. You could call me a neo-fascist.

So if it doesn't agree with you, it should be censored. I think you and Bush may have something to agree on!
not at all
I see nothing wrong with censoring outright propaganda

No im not paranoid. I just see the truth. It is the duty of fimlmakers to tell us whats right or wrong because people will copy and immiate the actions and behavious of famous people like actors.

Filmmakers get paid extremely high wages and should produce proper films that reflect their salarys on screen.

De-generation of society is a huge problem and something that needs to be fixed. Media censorship wouldplay a big part in this.
That's why we have an age ratings system. Children try to imitate what people do on screen. Adults know better, which is why we restrict some films to over 18s. I agree with that.

They get high salaries because lots of people like you go and see their films. The amount of money they get should not force them to change their content for the "good of society".

I don't think that degeneration of society is a problem. Even if it is, censorship would not help. Nazi Germany and Franco's Spain had heavy media censorship; would you call them decent societies?

You need to learn that adults are not little children, and the government is not daddy. Or big brother, for that matter.

Im not a Socialist. You could call me a neo-fascist.

Oh ... that clears it up ... you're a joke and a troll.

I see. Thank you. *makes mental note*

It is the duty of fimlmakers to tell us whats right or wrong because people will copy and immiate the actions and behavious of famous people like actors.

How on earth should film makers be able to tell us what is right and what is wrong when philosohpers, ethicists and religious thinkers have all failed in their attempts to do this for thousands of years?

Hollywood films don't have a political agenda.


Nah, they do, just in most cases it matches the political agenda of mainstream culture, and so seems invisible to most.

What if someone wants to watch FOX news?
then they should seek mental health therapy

Im not a Socialist. You could call me a neo-fascist.
Hmmm, fascists are even less popular than socialists for good reason. That is, they want to remove freedom for their perceptions of what is "good for society."

not at all
I see nothing wrong with censoring outright propaganda

so you'd see nothing wrong with censoring outright propaganda proliferated by the left?

then they should seek mental health therapy

so? I think you need mental health therapy, yet Im not advocating censorship of democracynow or any other baloney sites you frequent.

so you'd see nothing wrong with censoring outright propaganda proliferated by the left?
Im not sure Ive ever encountered that before

then they should seek mental health therapy

Are you claiming that anyone that thinks differently to you is insane?

so? I think you need mental health therapy, yet Im not advocating censorship of democracynow or any other baloney sites you frequent.
anyone that knowingly wants to be lied to needs mental help. anyone who believes in Foxnews lives in a psychotic state of altered reality

Are you claiming that anyone that thinks differently to you is insane?

It's liberal fascism, a very rare breed of liberalism.

Are you claiming that anyone that thinks differently to you is insane?
no--but people who believe in the neocon agenda have a form of insanity

Movies today are actually quite reactionary if they hold any real political views at all.

no--but people who believe in the neocon agenda have a form of insanity

What form is it?

no--but people who believe in the neocon agenda have a form of insanity

Yep... definitely fascism. The other side is obviously insane and should be censored.

whatever happened to freedom... shame whats happening to this country with all these laws... shame shame shame

whatever happened to freedom...

I could be wrong here, but I believe it was traded in for some oil.

What form is it?
some form of hypnotic insanity

Yep... definitely fascism. The other side is obviously insane and should be censored.
neocons are totally insane--theyre the terrorists of the West

some form of hypnotic insanity

What on Earth is 'hypnotic insanity'?

How on earth should film makers be able to tell us what is right and what is wrong when philosohpers, ethicists and religious thinkers have all failed in their attempts to do this for thousands of years?


I think the key part of that was 'tell us right from wrong' rather then differentiate the two (that is make some arbitary choices that the majority (or the individual concerned at any rate) will agree with and set those in stone then shove them down our throat).

What on Earth is 'hypnotic insanity'?
its a manifestation of a type of mental zombie-ism.

neocons are totally insane--theyre the terrorists of the West

That's funny - I thought the Real IRA, the Continuity IRA and ETA were the terrorists of the West. Are they all neo-conservatives suffering from a 'hypnotic insanity'?

It's liberal fascism, a very rare breed of liberalism.
It's not a weird new political philosophy. It's just the crappy old authoritarian left bullshit. Neo Alansyism, a previous proponent of "liberal fascism" appeared on the authoritarian left wing of the NS Political Compass (see my sig). There's nothing liberal about it.

I think the key part of that was 'tell us right from wrong' rather then differentiate the two (that is make some arbitary choices that the majority (or the individual concerned at any rate) will agree with and set those in stone then shove them down our throat).

God. It all sounds hideously banal: the films I enjoy most are the ones where there are no easy solutions to moral dilemmas and people find themselves fucked by whatever decision they make.

its a manifestation of a type of mental zombie-ism.

Forgive me if I'm speaking out of turn here, but I don't really think that 'mental zombie-ism' is a recognised psychiatric clinical condition.

God. It all sounds hideously banal: the films I enjoy most are the ones where there are no easy solutions to moral dilemmas and people find themselves fucked by whatever decision they make.

You mean films that make you think :eek:

But what will the children learn from this? Certainly not the affore mention arbitrary values.

If there ever was a case for cencorship, it is this.

That's funny - I thought the Real IRA, the Continuity IRA and ETA were the terrorists of the West. Are they all neo-conservatives suffering from a 'hypnotic insanity'?
no. theyre not neocons. Those are just ancient regionally-based holdover struggles from the 20th century

It's not a weird new political philosophy. It's just the crappy old authoritarian left bullshit. Neo Alansyism, a previous proponent of "liberal fascism" appeared on the authoritarian left wing of the NS Political Compass (see my sig). There's nothing liberal about it.
Fuck Authority

no. theyre not neocons. Those are just ancient regionally-based holdover struggles from the 20th century

Ancient?

:confused:

Ancient?

:confused:
aye--their struggles go back to at least the beginning of the 20th century and in the case of Ireland even further back then that

no. theyre not neocons. Those are just ancient regionally-based holdover struggles from the 20th century

Ah, so when you said "neo-cons are the terrorists of the West", you actually meant "neo-cons and a wide variety of other political groupings across the spectrum (some of whom actually even carry out terrorist activities) are the terrorists of the West".

Ah, so when you said "neo-cons are the terrorists of the West", you actually meant "neo-cons and a wide variety of other political groupings across the spectrum (some of whom actually even carry out terrorist activities) are the terrorists of the West".
those warriors you mention are fighting a war for sovereignity. The neocons are promoting terrorism on a GLOBAL basis to destablize the world so they can take over

those warriors you mention are fighting a war for sovereignity.


By terming them 'warriors' are you claiming that they aren't terrorists?

The neocons are promoting terrorism on a GLOBAL basis to destablize the world so they can take over

If we accept for the moment that they are actually conducting terrorist activities (the sticking point here being that they are acting with the authority of a state), then why are they insane if their plan seems to be working so well?

It's not a weird new political philosophy. It's just the crappy old authoritarian left bullshit. Neo Alansyism, a previous proponent of "liberal fascism" appeared on the authoritarian left wing of the NS Political Compass (see my sig). There's nothing liberal about it.

You're right, but there is a difference. Liberal fascists tend to try and sweeten their position by advocating gay marriages and abortions for all and "equality" and crap like that.

Fuck Authority
Are you capable of anything more than soundbytes, MKULTRA? You say "Fuck Authority", yet you support authority censorship of neocon propaganda?

Are you capable of anything more than soundbytes, MKULTRA? You say "F*ck Authority", yet you support authority censorship of neocon propaganda?
See, I missed the memo that MKULTRA was back as Skapdroe. *whines* No one tells me anything around here! :D

See, I missed the memo that MKULTRA was back as Skapdroe. *whines* No one tells me anything around here! :D

To some of us he will forever be The Red Arrow that we know and love.

By terming them 'warriors' are you claiming that they aren't terrorists?
some are some arent



If we accept for the moment that they are actually conducting terrorist activities (the sticking point here being that they are acting with the authority of a state), then why are they insane if their plan seems to be working so well?
theyre insanity doesnt necessarily affect their intelligence

You're right, but there is a difference. Liberal fascists tend to try and sweeten their position by advocating gay marriages and abortions for all and "equality" and crap like that.
your not making any sense

Are you capable of anything more than soundbytes, MKULTRA? You say "Fuck Authority", yet you support authority censorship of neocon propaganda?
because its false advertising--if they called it propaganda Id have no problem with it

your not making any sense


....said the pot to the kettle.

To some of us he will forever be The Red Arrow that we know and love.
am I allowed to resurrect that name?

Censorship=bad.

If you're not advocating violence against anyone, then by all means, speak your peace.

your not making any sense

A liberal fascist advocates many fascist positions: such as censorship, controlling people's right to spend their money, and so forth. They try to sound like heroes by saying that they advocate gay marriage and/or abortion, since both positions are typically liberal.

Censorship=bad.

If you're not advocating violence against anyone, then by all means, speak your peace.
Im not so much for censorship
Im more an advocate of proper labelling
But I agree with you though that we should all look to Hollywood for moral guidence

am I allowed to resurrect that name?

if it got deleted (which is what happened, I think), the mods won't. if it just ceased to exist through inactivity, you'd be able to resurrect it.

A liberal fascist advocates many fascist positions: such as censorship, controlling people's right to spend their money, and so forth. They try to sound like heroes by saying that they advocate gay marriage and/or abortion, since both positions are typically liberal.
they sound alot more evolved then rightwing fascists

if it got deleted (which is what happened, I think), the mods won't. if it just ceased to exist through inactivity, you'd be able to resurrect it.
It was deleted.

His [the nation's] last thread turned into a memorial/party thread

they sound alot more evolved then rightwing fascists

A fascist is a fascist in my mind. both very bad.

if it got deleted (which is what happened, I think), the mods won't. if it just ceased to exist through inactivity, you'd be able to resurrect it.
it was deleted :(

But I agree with you though that we should all look to Hollywood for moral guidence
And this is how we know you're simply a lunatic, or an agent provocateur.

it was deleted :(

you could always make a nation called The Red Arrows

or A Red Arrow

or something similar.

it was deleted :(

Yes it was at the height of your copy and paste days from MoveOn when you were limited to one thread a day. You went mad and started three in a short amount of time.

It was deleted.

His [the nation's] last thread turned into a memorial/party thread
I remember TAR was dancing on my grave :mad:
But I got him back on Hamburger Boys forum :D

But I agree with you though that we should all look to Hollywood for moral guidence

Id rather not. They usually don't know what the hell they're talking about. This applies to both sides on hollywood (the right and left)

I remember TAR was dancing on my grave :mad:
But I got him back on Hamburger Boys forum :D

TAR? Remind me please.

A fascist is a fascist in my mind. both very bad.
fascism is ok tho if its between consenting adults

And this is how we know you're simply a lunatic, or an agent provocateur.
I believe in and promote everything opposite of the neocon

you could always make a nation called The Red Arrows

or A Red Arrow

or something similar.
maybe I should do that for old times sake
Im amazed some of you were able to keep your same names for so long

maybe I should do that for old times sake
Im amazed some of you were able to keep your same names for so long
:(

I believe in and promote everything opposite of the neocon
Put down that bong...really...it isn't good for you.

Yes it was at the height of your copy and paste days from MoveOn when you were limited to one thread a day. You went mad and started three in a short amount of time.
information is power

fascism is ok tho if its between consenting adults

heh

information is power
Since it's coming from you and your sources, I am sure you mean "disinformation."

TAR? Remind me please.
I think it stood for The Atheists Reality?
Btw whatever happened to Soviet Democracy?

I think it stood for The Atheists Reality?
Ahh, I remember now.

:(
what did yours used to be?

because its false advertising--if they called it propaganda Id have no problem with it

Heres the thing. You know that thing freedom of the press in the 1st amendment. this is where it applies. now lets look at democracynow. it's obviously biased and moreso propaganda against the bush machine. but they deserve freedom of speech and press. as does fox. the reason they don't got scorched for fradulent advertising is because "fair and balanced" is a matter of an opinion, not a concrete fact. fradulent advertising would be like selling rat poison and saying that it enhances the growth of infants under six months. that's false through and through.

what did yours used to be?
Conceptualists.

Died last Tuesday.

Put down that bong...really...it isn't good for you.
:D its saterday nite

Conceptualists.

Died last Tuesday.

what? why?

Since it's coming from you and your sources, I am sure you mean "disinformation."
disinformation is whats used to prop up those in power-its what foxnews does
I post counter-news that fights the power

what? why?
An inappropriate link apparently.

But for someone with a clean record, I think it was a bit harse to be deleted for it.

disinformation is whats used to prop up those in power-its what foxnews does
I post counter-news that fights the power
You call it tomato, I call it to-mah-to. You know full well that between MoveOn and democracynow, you don't get any facts, just leftist whining.

Heres the thing. You know that thing freedom of the press in the 1st amendment. this is where it applies. now lets look at democracynow. it's obviously biased and moreso propaganda against the bush machine. but they deserve freedom of speech and press. as does fox. the reason they don't got scorched for fradulent advertising is because "fair and balanced" is a matter of an opinion, not a concrete fact. fradulent advertising would be like selling rat poison and saying that it enhances the growth of infants under six months. that's false through and through.
but democracynow even with its bias is real journalism
foxnews is the Beast trying to pass itself off as journalism--they create fake news to push their inhuman PNAC agenda

Conceptualists.

Died last Tuesday.
But you were always one of the well behaved ones :confused:

An inappropriate link apparently.

But for someone with a clean record, I think it was a bit harse to be deleted for it.
I agree but once your name becomes too well known its traditional for it to get deated. Its like some kinda mod ritual or something

But you were always one of the well behaved ones :confused:
I know.

Seems strange that quasi-Nazi trolls can run amok and gain no warning. But accidently offend someones sensibilities and you aren't given a second chance.

:confused:

I agree but once your name becomes too well known its traditional for it to get deated. Its like some kinda mod ritual or something
:confused:

Sorry? Elaborate.

I agree but once your name becomes too well known its traditional for it to get deated. Its like some kinda mod ritual or something

not really, there are plenty of long-standing nations. just don't break the rules too often. posting in general greatly reduces your chances of survival, though.

You call it tomato, I call it to-mah-to. You know full well that between MoveOn and democracynow, you don't get any facts, just leftist whining.
all their stories are verified in the relevant overseas media

I know.

Seems strange that quasi-Nazi trolls can run amok and gain no warning. But accidently offend someones sensibilities and you aren't given a second chance.

:confused:
you were KNOWN

:confused:

Sorry? Elaborate.
Kinda what New Genoa said--the more you post the greater your odds of being deated--the only reason I still have this name is I cut my posting down ALOT--newer nations get away with alot cause they fly under the rader--also if you been deated before you must be put on some kinda list where its easier to get deated again even for those most microscopic offenses. Thats why I never like to advertise who I am when I come back but everyone somehow figures it out anyway :(

Does anyone agree with me that most films need strict media censorship in order to be realised and viewed by the general public? Do you not think we are at risk by the media changing our value system every day from one where there is good and evil to one where it just doesnt matter?
I certainly do!

This is like watching American History X, Sleepers or Schindler's List and complaining about the rape and violence. They are excellent movies and complaining about a key element in the movie misses the point. If you are watching a movie about the neo-Nazi/skinhead movement, institutional abuse, or a docu-drama about the Holocaust, some violence is to be expected.

If you don't approve of stealing, then you don't watch a movie that centers around the antics of a group of theives. Pure and simple.

I don't know about you guys, but when I watched The Lord of the Rings I wanted to go around burning villages and cutting peoples' heads off.
:headbang:

The media doesn't make you do anything. How you're raised and if you're already an ass will determine how you'll turn out.

skapedroe, you make ME look like a right-winger, and I believe Al Franken's books (I don't care whatyou say, he is more than just a comedian!).

Hello Everyone!

I watched the film Oceans Twelve the other day and a few things have been bothering me about it.
The film(if you have seen it) features 11 thieves who last year stoled $80Million from Las Vegas Casinos. They get located through help of a jealous theif and Terry Benedict(the man they stole from) finds them and gives them a certain amount of time to get the money back or else!
The whole film is following the Thieves and following their plan to get the money back. Now I dont like these type of films. I dont like it when we are supposed to sit there and 'like' thieves and think there 'cool' but even I couldnt help it. I like every one else in the cinema was made to like them through their 'cool' and 'slick' attitudes that were supposed to make them the 'goodguys' of the film.
It's times like this after the film when I realise the true intent of the film. It wasnt to just make a 'cool' film but rather to 'liberate our attitudes' toward thieves. It makes me sick when Hollywood realiseas nothing but anti-state anti-authority, anti-goodness crap like this. These sort of films are all we get these days. We very rarely get films that show good winning over evil anymore or films that show tell people that their is a difference between right or wrong. Instead we get these 'oh im such a baddass motherf****** who can do whatever the hell I like and not suffer any consequences of my wrongdoing'

Does anyone agree with me that most films need strict media censorship in order to be realised and viewed by the general public? Do you not think we are at risk by the media changing our value system every day from one where there is good and evil to one where it just doesnt matter?
I certainly do!


Un-fucking-believable. I really can't understand how people still think like this. If a government decides to censor motion pictures, what's next? Education? Television? The very lives we live?

Oh wait, that's already happened. Silly me. I guess the power of the FCC knows no bounds.

Are you sure the movie had bad values or do you just think you were overcome by the crapiness of the movie? For those who havn't seen Oceans 12...don't bother.

Then ban such fairytales like Robin Hood. He steals money from the rich right? Glorifying a thief is baaaaaaaad.


Hint: You have brains, use them well.

This is like watching American History X, Sleepers or Schindler's List and complaining about the rape and violence. They are excellent movies and complaining about a key element in the movie misses the point. If you are watching a movie about the neo-Nazi/skinhead movement, institutional abuse, or a docu-drama about the Holocaust, some violence is to be expected.

If you don't approve of stealing, then you don't watch a movie that centers around the antics of a group of theives. Pure and simple.For the last fucking time I didnt say anything about censoring violence. Films like American History X and Shindlers List are very important as they show what racil hatred can lead to. Those films were made for a purpose to educate and thats fine by me.
Try reading my posts more fully next time instead of claiming I said something which I didnt!

That's why we have an age ratings system. Children try to imitate what people do on screen. Adults know better, which is why we restrict some films to over 18s. I agree with that. Age rating systems mean well but they dont get enforced. People can get their older brother or sister to go to a videostore and get a film for them.

They get high salaries because lots of people like you go and see their films. The amount of money they get should not force them to change their content for the "good of society". Thats the media telling us to go and see the film becuase it's cool. Themedia pretty much controls and dictates what we think is good or bad. The amount of money they earn should force them to change the content.

I don't think that degeneration of society is a problem. Even if it is, censorship would not help. Nazi Germany and Franco's Spain had heavy media censorship; would you call them decent societies? I still dont see bringing up Hitler as legitimate argument. Many countries have censored material before the Nazis were around. Nazi Germany was a failry decent society before the war. Maybe censoring certain material was one of the few good tings they did. And Franco's Spain I dont have a problem with period!

You need to learn that adults are not little children, and the government is not daddy. Or big brother, for that matter. But some Adults do act like little children. Some 18-24 year old are still very impressionable at their age and can easily be taken in and influenced negatively by certain material.

Age rating systems mean well but they dont get enforced. People can get their older brother or sister to go to a videostore and get a film for them.

You've got the wrong idea. Ratigns are there to keep kids from buying games/movies behind their parents' backs. Not to keep them from playing the games completely, which would just be wrong.

Thats the media telling us to go and see the film becuase it's cool. Themedia pretty much controls and dictates what we think is good or bad. The amount of money they earn should force them to change the content.

The media controls what we think? Well, excuse me, but that's only true if you've got mental issues.

I still dont see bringing up Hitler as legitimate argument. Many countries have censored material before the Nazis were around. Nazi Germany was a failry decent society before the war. Maybe censoring certain material was one of the few good tings they did. And Franco's Spain I dont have a problem with period!

Excuse me? Nazi Germany sure as hell wasn't decent before the war. Remember them putting the Jews in ghettos? Then after that, the concentration camps? Who the hell do you think you are?

But some Adults do act like little children. Some 18-24 year old are still very impressionable at their age and can easily be taken in and influenced negatively by certain material.

Once again... Only if said people are mentally defficient. And if they are, they shouldn't even be living on their own.

I cannot believe that someone is advocating censorship because the ideas contained within a film are inappropriate...

That's the worst kind of censorship!

"Oh, we don't want you to get any ideas..." *snip snip snip*

Besides, under that logic Fight Club would be banned due to its underlying anarchist sensibilities... And that would make me a very sad panda.

Any type of censorship is wrong, period.

Tainting a basic Human right, such as this one, is wrong on too many levels to list. It's just that the corrupt jerks are usually in power, so we don't have nearly as many freedoms as we should.


And come on... Wanting to censor movies because YOU, ONE PERSON, don't exactly like the material they're showing on the screen?

How about this: Next time you go into an R Rated movie, bring a blindfold and some earplugs. And if those don't work, just walk out of the theater with an escort. Said escort will then proceed to kick your ass for whining.

Grow up.

You've got the wrong idea. Ratigns are there to keep kids from buying games/movies behind their parents' backs. Not to keep them from playing the games completely, which would just be wrong.Some games shouldnt be played by Children like San Andreas or Hooligans which encourage violence and stealing. Children can and do get ideas from this

The media controls what we think? Well, excuse me, but that's only true if you've got mental issues. It's pretty obvious the media controls what we think since people go around immitating the actions and word of there favourite film star or rap star or whatever.

Excuse me? Nazi Germany sure as hell wasn't decent before the war. Remember them putting the Jews in ghettos? Then after that, the concentration camps? Who the hell do you think you are?Nazi Germnay was fairly decent before the war as much so as was Russia, America and great britain. At least they censored some material that caused offence for most people.


Once again... Only if said people are mentally defficient. And if they are, they shouldn't even be living on their own. Not all 18-24 year olds are mentally deficient but some are immature. They need certain things censored from them to keep up good standards moving into adult life.

They need certain things censored from them to keep up good standards moving into adult life.
Who are you, or anyone else, to decide what "good standards" are? This all comes down to controlling people and how they think.

Some games shouldnt be played by Children like San Andreas or Hooligans which encourage violence and stealing. Children can and do get ideas from this
Not if their parents actually help teach them morals rather than trying to make everything they find offensive illegal.
Nazi Germnay was fairly decent before the war as much so as was Russia, America and great britain. At least they censored some material that caused offence for most people.
*cough*
Nazi Germany?
Decent?

Not all 18-24 year olds are mentally deficient but some are immature. They need certain things censored from them to keep up good standards moving into adult life.
Keeping these things away from them won't help, teaching ethics will.

some are some arent

So which of the CIRA, the RIRA and ETA are terrrorists, and which aren't?

So which of the CIRA, the RIRA and ETA are terrrorists, and which aren't?
BWO, it's easy.
See the "T" in "ETA"?
It stands for "Terrorist".
So the ETA are, and the other two aren't. It's that simple.

I agree but once your name becomes too well known its traditional for it to get deated. Its like some kinda mod ritual or something

If they do not sacrifice the well known posters, then the crops will fail and the whole Forum will starve.

"You have come of your own free will to the appointed place - the game is over..."

*cough*
Nazi Germany?
Decent?


Actually I remember someone saying that the Nazi Germany would be the most powerful nation in the world, if hitler weren't so f*cked up... I might be wrong on that one too though...

But I dunno what the heck is happening in the world... People whining about movies with thieves, and claiming that if movie has thieves as the main characters, it's likely that someone will become a thief...?

People imitate and copy only if they have something screwed up in their head I guess... I just don't give a crap about censorship nor the government... I just live as freely as I can

Actually I remember someone saying that the Nazi Germany would be the most powerful nation in the world, if hitler weren't so f*cked up... I might be wrong on that one too though...
It's probably close to true, but it still doesn't make them "decent". What with the executions of whoever they didn't like and all. They could certainly have come to power, but it wouldn't make them right, I would think.

Yes! Yes damnit! We should ban every single goddamn film that doesn't conform to the government's perception of reality! We should ban every film where the characters try and make some money instead of getting a job in Wal-Mart for 15 years in order to be acceptable members of society! AND we should ban books in our high-schools where anything that isn't sensibe happens! And we should ban history classes, because our children might find out that not everyone is a government-conforming clone like you!

Hello Everyone!

I watched the film Oceans Twelve the other day and a few things have been bothering me about it.
The film(if you have seen it) features 11 thieves who last year stoled $80Million from Las Vegas Casinos. They get located through help of a jealous theif and Terry Benedict(the man they stole from) finds them and gives them a certain amount of time to get the money back or else!
The whole film is following the Thieves and following their plan to get the money back. Now I dont like these type of films. I dont like it when we are supposed to sit there and 'like' thieves and think there 'cool' but even I couldnt help it. I like every one else in the cinema was made to like them through their 'cool' and 'slick' attitudes that were supposed to make them the 'goodguys' of the film.
It's times like this after the film when I realise the true intent of the film. It wasnt to just make a 'cool' film but rather to 'liberate our attitudes' toward thieves. It makes me sick when Hollywood realiseas nothing but anti-state anti-authority, anti-goodness crap like this. These sort of films are all we get these days. We very rarely get films that show good winning over evil anymore or films that show tell people that their is a difference between right or wrong. Instead we get these 'oh im such a baddass motherf****** who can do whatever the hell I like and not suffer any consequences of my wrongdoing'

Does anyone agree with me that most films need strict media censorship in order to be realised and viewed by the general public? Do you not think we are at risk by the media changing our value system every day from one where there is good and evil to one where it just doesnt matter?
I certainly do!
Brilliant! You have everyone here believing you are serious. Very very funny if you ask me!

ahem...

HOLLYWOOD DOES NOT NEED CENSORSHIP.

PARENTS NEEDS TO TAKE MORE RESPONSIBLITY ON THE RAISING OF THEIR CHILDREN!

Thank you.

Hey. Is this another one of those 'Jesussaves' esque hoaxes?

ahem...

HOLLYWOOD DOES NOT NEED CENSORSHIP.

PARENTS NEEDS TO TAKE MORE RESPONSIBLITY ON THE RAISING OF THEIR CHILDREN!

Thank you.
no, no, no! adult human beings are not capable of deciding which movies to see and which to avoid, so they CLEARLY cannot be expected to decide what movies to let their children watch! adults are equally unable to turn off the television, or to stop their children from watching television, so we must carefully control anything on the TV. adults also cannot choose NOT to read a given book, so we must make sure nobody writes books with bad ideas in them, and we should probably extend that to cover magazines and newspapers as well.

remember, everybody, it's fun to be helpless! brag to the world about how you have no control over yourself! pride yourself on being so incapable of making moral judgments that a movie made you wicked! tell all your friends how you are such a failure as a parent that watching a movie can make your children into criminals! never forget, you are incapable, morally bankrupt, and without any individual character, and you have no responsibility to control your actions or your children!

of course it is!

no, no, no! adult human beings are not capable of deciding which movies to see and which to avoid, so they CLEARLY cannot be expected to decide what movies to let their children watch! adults are equally unable to turn off the television, or to stop their children from watching television, so we must carefully control anything on the TV. adults also cannot choose NOT to read a given book, so we must make sure nobody writes books with bad ideas in them, and we should probably extend that to cover magazines and newspapers as well.

remember, everybody, it's fun to be helpless! brag to the world about how you have no control over yourself! pride yourself on being so incapable of making moral judgments that a movie made you wicked! tell all your friends how you are such a failure as a parent that watching a movie can make your children into criminals! never forget, you are incapable, morally bankrupt, and without any individual character, and you have no responsibility to control your actions or your children!Don't forget the mantra...
It's never MY fault.
It's the Government's Fault.
It's the other guy's Fault.
it the conglomerate's Fault.
But it's never my Fault.

Am I allowed to do a U-trun on this subject and declare that I am in fact very much in favour of Hollywood not only being somewhat censored, but actually censored completely and prevented from making a film ever again?*










* The fact that this would almost inevitably lead to a rise in the creation of intelligent films from underground, alternative and DIY scenes does have a great bearing on my decision.

then they should seek mental health therapy
If that is cause for a mental checkup so is reading democracy now :p

First of all Hollywood comes up with extremely crappy films each year. Things aren't all black and white. In fact I have written short scripts and I intentionally make things as grey as possible.

First of all Hollywood comes up with extremely crappy films each year. Things aren't all black and white.


What was the last black and white movie released by Hollywood?

I haven't seen the film in question, but Ocean's 11 (the film which oceans12 is based on) is a remake of a movie from a different era. In the time when the older version was made, thieves, gangsters and self-centered detectives were the most popular characters. If you want to ban this movie, you'd also have to ban half of the black&white oldies ever made in the US.

Besides, a place where the government has to approve what is an "acceptable" plotline in a film or a book is a scary place.

if a movie can change your values then you have very little character.

Here, here!

if a movie can change your values then you have very little character.
Here, here!

Do the pair of you hold this belief for those films which would have a 'positive' effect on your values... for example, if after watching a documentary (or, indeed a factually based) film* on the corrupt nature of a particular country's prison system I find myself no longer holding the same unquestioning pro-law and order values as previously, then do I have little character?



* we could take Scum or Ghosts Of The Civil Dead here as an example.

__________

Edit: it is all very easy to make this kind of pronouncement about movies, but would it be fair to say the same about a novel or a work of non-fiction?

No im not paranoid. I just see the truth. It is the duty of fimlmakers to tell us whats right or wrong because people will copy and immiate the actions and behavious of famous people like actors.
Filmmakers get paid extremely high wages and should produce proper films that reflect their salarys on screen.
De-generation of society is a huge problem and something that needs to be fixed. Media censorship wouldplay a big part in this.
Here, take these blinkers for your eyes and these ear muffs. Now your all set!

I'm an adult and I'll watch what I damn well please. The first wimpy little wanker who tries to stop me will get his eyeballs and tongue torn out.
(just venting)
That said, we already have too much censorship here. The last thing the entertainment industry needs is to become is more sanitized. It's already sterile enough. You get the same old crap from all directions. As an adult, I'm perfectly capable of sorting through the propaganda myself. I can decide the merits of a message all by myself. If it doesn't seem right or accurate to me, I can go elsewhere for my information. Parents are the ones who should decide on a childs viewing habits, not the government. Screw the government or some religious nut telling me what information is appropriate for me.

Do the pair of you hold this belief for those films which would have a 'positive' effect on your values... for example, if after watching a documentary (or, indeed a factually based) film* on the corrupt nature of a particular country's prison system I find myself no longer holding the same unquestioning pro-law and order values as previously, then do I have little character?

Nothing surprises me BWO.. in fact I believe Blum said it best.

No matter how paranoid or conspiracy-minded you are, what the government is actually doing is worse than you imagine. - William Blum -



__________

Nothing surprises me BWO.. in fact I believe Blum said it best.

Okay same question, different direction: if you hold to the Blum quote - essentially that all governements are by their nature corrupt - and you see a documentary on Grand Fenwick or Freedonia or Ruritania that shows their government not to be corrupt, are your values changed or do you remain unswayed, even after your own further research backs up the good character of their system?

If I see evidence that suggests "proof" of some thing, yes, I might be swayed, however I don't believe that is really on topic. I think what the maker of this thread was implying was some Hollywood movie. Not a factual documentary.

A few things-

First, just because it's a movie doesn't mean it's Hollywood. Movies not made in Hollywood are actually more likely to be 'challenging' to the status quo. 'Hollywood' is usually used to mean something from the 'Hollywood' system, the big studio system. Those films tow the line, for the most part, because of the risk. Studios release 12-25 movies a year and hope that one of them catches to pay for everything. Wide audiences are needed, and the most treasured are the 16-35, cause they go the first weekend and buy popcorn. That usually means two things, lowest common denominator and sensationalism. Not risk, not so much.

Second-We've done this before. Hayes Commission? Eh? So movies like Otto Priminger's Man With Golden Arm couldn't be shown because it was about a heroin addict. Or The Bicycle Thief because a kid pees on a wall.

The reality is that censorship is too much of a sliding scale, and too selectively applied.

Thing is, media does influence society. A great deal. But we don't need to censor media, we need to learn how to read it. But thats another thread.

If I see evidence that suggests "proof" of some thing, yes, I might be swayed, however I don't believe that is really on topic. I think what the maker of this thread was implying was some Hollywood movie. Not a factual documentary.

Maybe not directly on topic, but I take issue with Bottle's statement that you agreed with. I have been using the example of factual films, rather than fictional ones, as that would just muddy the already unclear waters with reference to poetic truths...

Should we not ban the internet that you are using to air this view, after all there is all sorts of muck on here.............apparently, some one told me...........ahem, coming mother

Maybe not directly on topic, but I take issue with Bottle's statement that you agreed with. I have been using the example of factual films, rather than fictional ones, as that would just muddy the already unclear waters with reference to poetic truths...

Positive or negative, I would say if someone's entire moral belief structure is swayed by a single film, then yes, they are of little character. Just as you wouldn't expect a normally law-abiding person to suddenly try to knock off a casino after watching Ocean's Eleven, you shouldn't expect a movie such as Scum to make a person suddenly start advocating prison reform when they were otherwise happy with the system. Perhaps a good, gripping movie such as Scum would make a person want to find out more about the prison system as a precursor to advocating prison reform, but any film ought to be taken with a grain of salt. A movie might be able to pique a person's interest in a particular cause that might lead to a changing of their values, but it's still a movie. It's primary purpose is entertainment.

Positive or negative, I would say if someone's entire moral belief structure is swayed by a single film, then yes, they are of little character.

I have certainly heard of people who have returned to the fold of the Roman Catholic church after watching Rosemary's Baby: whether this is a good or bad thing is for someone else to decide.

Would you apply the same criterion if someone's entire belief structure was swayed by a single book?

I have certainly heard of people who have returned to the fold of the Roman Catholic church after watching Rosemary's Baby: whether this is a good or bad thing is for someone else to decide.

Would you apply the same criterion if someone's entire belief structure was swayed by a single book?

Pretty much. It should make you think, but if one item, rather it's a book or a film, changes your entire belief structure, then you were on pretty shaky ground to begin with.

Pretty much. It should make you think, but if one item, rather it's a book or a film, changes your entire belief structure, then you were on pretty shaky ground to begin with.

Possibly, but being on shaky ground is hardly the same as ...

if a movie can change your values then you have very little character.

I have certainly heard of people who have returned to the fold of the Roman Catholic church after watching Rosemary's Baby: whether this is a good or bad thing is for someone else to decide.

Would you apply the same criterion if someone's entire belief structure was swayed by a single book?

Yes. I don't think watching, or hearing, or reading about something, anything, ought to be enough to entirely change a person's character. I can understand how a personal experience could accomplish that, but I don't see how a person could have their opinion on anything entirely changed by one piece of media. A really good book or movie can spark interest in a particular issue, and could be the beginning of a change of character, but it shouldn't be able to completely change someone's values all on its own. If a person is so easily influenced by what they see or read, then their values were never really strong and situated to begin with. But that's just my opinion. If you present a really strong argument for the contrary, I might have to re-evaluate my stance.

If you present a really strong argument for the contrary, I might have to re-evaluate my stance.

Nietzsche? Plato? Aristotle? Hume? Marx?

Nietzsche? Plato? Aristotle? Hume? Marx?

I was actually trying to be a jerk, contradicting everything I've been saying by mentioning that a strong argument from you might make me change my values....

I was actually trying to be a jerk, contradicting everything I've been saying by mentioning that a strong argument from you might make me change my values....

Damn. Missed that one, but actually it is a logical position: if however I was to say 'I believe that a single piece of evidence can change my position and you can prove me wrong by providing a single piece of evidence and changing my position', then we get into interesting philosophical waters...

Damn. Missed that one, but actually it is a logical position: if however I was to say 'I believe that a single piece of evidence can change my position and you can prove me wrong by providing a single piece of evidence and changing my position', then we get into interesting philosophical waters...

Wouldn't that be a paradox? I don't know my philosophy that well.

Do the pair of you hold this belief for those films which would have a 'positive' effect on your values... for example, if after watching a documentary (or, indeed a factually based) film* on the corrupt nature of a particular country's prison system I find myself no longer holding the same unquestioning pro-law and order values as previously, then do I have little character?

*eye roll*

jeebus, people around here need things REALLY spelled out.

i was, quite obviously, refering to FICTIONAL CINEMATIC WORKS. please do not ignore context, everybody, it it critical for effective communication.

and yes, i most certainly feel that if any fictional film can make you totally abandon your previous values--for good or ill--then you obviously didn't have strong beliefs to begin with, nor do you have much character of your own. even if something is a good idea, people should arrive at it through solid and meaningful thought, not just by seeing some flick one afternoon. if they can adopt a good philosophy that capriciously then they will likely abandon it with equal ease, and that sort of person isn't worth much to anybody.


Edit: it is all very easy to make this kind of pronouncement about movies, but would it be fair to say the same about a novel or a work of non-fiction?
i don't believe it is right to change your life-philosophy or moral system based on any one fictional work. sure, books and other media can have a profound impact on us, and we can take that information into us and use it to help chrystalize our thinking process, but letting your previous values drop by the wayside because of something the matinee told you is flat out pathetic.

also, to claim that a movie can MAKE you do something you don't believe in (like stealing, in this instance) is beyond stupid. anybody who says they can't control their actions because the movie told them to do it should be taken at their word; they are clearly helpless and a danger to society, so they should be immediately institutionalized.

non-fiction can be a bit different; if somebody gives you a book that documents 50 years' worth of valid research on a given topic, and that research contradicts your current beliefs, obviously you would be a fool not to start questioning yourself. i still think it would be extremely suspect if you turned yourself around over ONE book, since you should be able to find outside confirmation of pretty much any factual and well-supported information, but at least you might have slightly more claim to rationality if you are dealing with non-fiction.

Wouldn't that be a paradox?

Yes, that was the point.

*eye roll*

jeebus, people around here need things REALLY spelled out.

i was, quite obviously, refering to FICTIONAL CINEMATIC WORKS. please do not ignore context, everybody, it it critical for effective communication.

Note how I included 'factually based' (ie. fictionalised) films in the quoted text. Note also the irony of stating that people really need things spelled out when faced with a question.

Do you believe that poetic truths - those which can only be expressed through fictional media - have no value, or that our belief in them cannot be altered by exposure to fictional media?

and yes, i most certainly feel that if any fictional film can make you totally abandon your previous values--for good or ill--then you obviously didn't have strong beliefs to begin with, nor do you have much character of your own. even if something is a good idea, people should arrive at it through solid and meaningful thought, not just by seeing some flick one afternoon.

No one mentioned this sudden scales from the eyes conversion that you indicate here - if a film, be it fictional or factual is the spur to internal reflection and a reassessment of values, then is it valid?


if they can adopt a good philosophy that capriciously then they will likely abandon it with equal ease, and that sort of person isn't worth much to anybody.


i don't believe it is right to change your life-philosophy or moral system based on any one fictional work. sure, books and other media can have a profound impact on us, and we can take that information into us and use it to help chrystalize our thinking process, but letting your previous values drop by the wayside because of something the matinee told you is flat out pathetic.

Are you then claiming that the correct time to change your moral system is only when confronted with a factual work? Fictionalised narratives are the method by which ethicists, philosophers and moralists tackle their subject - take Kierkegaard for example - it matters little whether Abraham did actually take Isaac up the lonely mountain to be sacrificed by his father's hand or not: we have the story which is as good as fiction. One need not be of a religious frame of mind to see that it is a narrative of conflicting responsibilities, and to universalise it in an attempt to learn something about the very nature of the call to responsibility.

also, to claim that a movie can MAKE you do something you don't believe in (like stealing, in this instance) is beyond stupid. anybody who says they can't control their actions because the movie told them to do it should be taken at their word; they are clearly helpless and a danger to society, so they should be immediately institutionalized.


I don't think that is particularly germane to the discussion: the central theme has been whether a movie could seduce you into a different set of values and so it is not a case of you being made to steal, but knowing that it is wrong, instead you see yourself as, for example, liberating the wealth of the workers from the immoral hands of the bosses, or whatever. (EDIT - clarification: one is still appropriating goods from others, but does not view it as stealing, or considers it to be 'justified' stealing for whatever reason).

non-fiction can be a bit different; if somebody gives you a book that documents 50 years' worth of valid research on a given topic, and that research contradicts your current beliefs, obviously you would be a fool not to start questioning yourself. i still think it would be extremely suspect if you turned yourself around over ONE book, since you should be able to find outside confirmation of pretty much any factual and well-supported information, but at least you might have slightly more claim to rationality if you are dealing with non-fiction.

Here we run into the problem again of ethics: a factual study of human reproduction can tell us what properties or abilities are possessed by a fetus at certain times in its existence, but they can't tell us whether it is the correct moral path to allow it to be aborted.

Damn. Missed that one, but actually it is a logical position: if however I was to say 'I believe that a single piece of evidence can change my position and you can prove me wrong by providing a single piece of evidence and changing my position', then we get into interesting philosophical waters...

I would find it very odd if a single piece of evidence couldn't change your position.

If your position is "there's no such thing as a horse" and I show you a horse, how can your position not change?

back on the filmic thing, there *is* censorship in hollywood isn't there? or is there just the rating system?

If I see evidence that suggests "proof" of some thing, yes, I might be swayed, however I don't believe that is really on topic. I think what the maker of this thread was implying was some Hollywood movie. Not a factual documentary.take Bowling for Columbine... the film's evidence is footage that was edited so that phrases can be taken out of context, Newspaper clippings that do not show important facts, mis-interpreted facts as well as re-edited speeches... Yet it still won best Documentary. even tho the facts have been so altered that they are works of fiction yet it was show with the intent of being taken as facts.

I'm not for censorship. I am for increased responsibility on the parts of the parents. If kids cannot tell reality from carefully staged stunts... then I say it's Darwin at Work.

You could call me a neo-fascist.
Let me translate:
You can call me a fuckwit. I can't think for myself and therefore want a father-knows-best totalitarian government to take care of me.

Note how I included 'factually based' (ie. fictionalised) films in the quoted text. Note also the irony of stating that people really need things spelled out when faced with a question.

noted. eye roll repeated.


Do you believe that poetic truths - those which can only be expressed through fictional media - have no value, or that our belief in them cannot be altered by exposure to fictional media?

i don't believe in poetic Truths. poetic truths are beliefs, and of course our beliefs can be altered by exposure to fictional media. as i have already made quite clear, fiction most certainly can impact our values and perceptions, but allowing any single work to instantly de-rail your morality is pathetic. read the topic: do you really think the author was talking about "poetic truths" at all?


No one mentioned this sudden scales from the eyes conversion that you indicate here - if a film, be it fictional or factual is the spur to internal reflection and a reassessment of values, then is it valid?

as a spur, it's perfectly valid. but to give media such utter control of your values and your beliefs is sad. your beliefs should be a composite of all that you have experienced and learned, and if one book or movie can supercede all your previous learning and reflection then you REALLY need to re-evaluate the way you are living your life.


Are you then claiming that the correct time to change your moral system is only when confronted with a factual work?

no, i'm not.

Fictionalised narratives are the method by which ethicists, philosophers and moralists tackle their subject - take Kierkegaard for example - it matters little whether Abraham did actually take Isaac up the lonely mountain to be sacrificed by his father's hand or not: we have the story which is as good as fiction. One need not be of a religious frame of mind to see that it is a narrative of conflicting responsibilities, and to universalise it in an attempt to learn something about the very nature of the call to responsibility.

ok.


I don't think that is particularly germane to the discussion: the central theme has been whether a movie could seduce you into a different set of values and so it is not a case of you being made to steal, but knowing that it is wrong, instead you see yourself as, for example, liberating the wealth of the workers from the immoral hands of the bosses, or whatever. (EDIT - clarification: one is still appropriating goods from others, but does not view it as stealing, or considers it to be 'justified' stealing for whatever reason).

again, if you are willing to commit acts you previously rejected just because people in a film did them, then i would say you were looking for a way to rationalize your misdeeds all along. remember, your whole lifetime of experience (and your resulting moral code) is being weighed against a handful of minutes spent in a movie theatre; if you are willing to revamp your morality for that handful of minutes, then i guess your lifetime up until that point has been pretty worthless. until you are prepared to ground your morality IN CONTEXT, it's not going to be worth much to you or anybody else, because you'll leap at any new means of rationalizing your ill-examined desires and "values."


Here we run into the problem again of ethics: a factual study of human reproduction can tell us what properties or abilities are possessed by a fetus at certain times in its existence, but they can't tell us whether it is the correct moral path to allow it to be aborted.
morality is nothing more or less than our decision about which of a variety of outcomes we prefer. no book, movie, newspaper, magazine, or billboard will ever be able to make a True moral statement, because there IS no objective morality. however, media can present empirical facts. i believe it is best to absorb as many empirical facts on a given subject as possible, then decide (based on that information) which outcome is ideal for you...congrats, you just made a moral decision from no outside input other than fact. you can get IDEAS from fiction, from philosophy, from religion, or from your dog, but the decision is, ultimately, yours. allowing a movie to make such decisions for you is as close to the definition of "sin" as my value system allows me to get.

if you are willing to commit acts you previously rejected just because people in a film did them, then i would say you were looking for a way to rationalize your misdeeds all along.

So if a holocaust denying fascist like say VoteEarly saw a movie like say Life is Beautiful, an entirely fictional account of a man's experiences in WW2 ending in internment and death in a death camp, and that caused said fascist to change his/her mind and start to be less of a nazi moron, you'd be suspicious that the nazi in question had been looking for a way out of their moronic beliefs for ages?

So if a holocaust denying fascist like say VoteEarly saw a movie like say Life is Beautiful, an entirely fictional account of a man's experiences in WW2 ending in internment and death in a death camp, and that caused said fascist to change his/her mind and start to be less of a nazi moron, you'd be suspicious that the nazi in question had been looking for a way out of their moronic beliefs for ages?
That or week character which complies with her original statement

So if a holocaust denying fascist like say VoteEarly saw a movie like say Life is Beautiful, an entirely fictional account of a man's experiences in WW2 ending in internment and death in a death camp, and that caused said fascist to change his/her mind and start to be less of a nazi moron, you'd be suspicious that the nazi in question had been looking for a way out of their moronic beliefs for ages?
if somebody is so ready to drop their beliefs over a few hours staring at a screen, i think they were probably looking for a reason to lose those beliefs for quite a while. they probably were carrying doubts and questions with them before they entered the theatre, but they were choosing not to face them or address them for a variety of reasons.

regardless, i don't think they should just abandon their beliefs after seeing a movie, even if i personally think they really should change their beliefs (like in your example). i think they should add the movie to their experiences and their thought process, and should spend some time thinking about the issue before they jump ship. they should really and fully internalize what they think and feel on the subject, and put it in the context of everything they have thought and felt up until that point. the movie could be a CATALYST for re-examination of their views, but if their entire change in philosophy is based strictly upon what they saw in a movie then they are doing themselves a serious disservice.

I don't understand why you are so set in your thought processes that you don't think anyone should be convinced to change their ideas about something by a movie. Personally I'm always open to persuasion and although it has never happenned yet, I'm willing to accept that a movie could change my life. And I'm not dumb, blinkered or particularly gullible.

The best way to "censor" Hollywood is NOT to buy a ticket to a movie you find offensive, and NOT to rent a movie you find offensive.

Hitting them in the pocketbook works.

Telling other people what they should watch because it offends you personally is a bit egotistical.

I don't understand why you are so set in your thought processes that you don't think anyone should be convinced to change their ideas about something by a movie. Personally I'm always open to persuasion and although it has never happenned yet, I'm willing to accept that a movie could change my life. And I'm not dumb, blinkered or particularly gullible.
She was not saying that you should not be influenced by a movie she was saying that should not be the SOLE reason.
A movie may be the motivator (making you think about something in a certain light) but it should be the aggravating factor not the whole reason/proof behind it (while a movie can make you think rarely does it contain enough unbiased information to make any large life decision on)

I would find it very odd if a single piece of evidence couldn't change your position.

Consider in the context of the sentence I placed in inverted commas and the paradox should become clear.

If your position is "there's no such thing as a horse" and I show you a horse, how can your position not change?

That is not a horse, it is a unicorn without a horn.

Consider the classic example:

All swans are white.
In Australia there are black 'swans'.
These Australian birds are obviously not swans because they are not white.

back on the filmic thing, there *is* censorship in hollywood isn't there? or is there just the rating system?

I assume that there is still censorship of film in America, but am not well versed in the current situation there.

No im not paranoid. I just see the truth. It is the duty of fimlmakers to tell us whats right or wrong because people will copy and immiate the actions and behavious of famous people like actors.
Filmmakers get paid extremely high wages and should produce proper films that reflect their salarys on screen.
De-generation of society is a huge problem and something that needs to be fixed. Media censorship wouldplay a big part in this.

I'm going to go back and read the rest of the thread but I had to comment on this first.

You are confused like many other people. It is not games, music, or movies that make people do bad things. There are a lot of reasons, but mainly lack of education and parents. A lot of the time parents don't teach their kids anything, they teach them the wrong things, or they try and teach them too late. Kids never learn to be held accountable for their actions, mainly because adults blame it on other things. If the parents had taught the kids what fiction is, then they should be able to watch anything they want and not go rob a casino or anything else like that.

It is not games, music, or movies that make people do bad things. There are a lot of reasons, but mainly lack of education and parents.

How very Platonic of you - no man would knowingly do himself harm by doing the bad thing, eh?

How very Platonic of you - no man would knowingly do himself harm by doing the bad thing, eh?

I messed up alittle, that didn't make the sense I meant it too. People do stupid things that they see in movies, because they are stupid people. People should be taught not to be stupid and do things, just because they see other people do them, whether on TV or not.

People knowingly harm themselves all the time, but it's more then the knowledge they need. They need to be taught how to use that knowledge. People also need common sense, which I think should come from the parents.

*I am not good typing my thoughts very well. I've been hit on the head a few times and it seems as if my brian skips sometimes.*

Consider in the context of the sentence I placed in inverted commas and the paradox should become clear.
Do you mean apostrophes?

Do you mean apostrophes?

You say 'tomato': I say 'mildly acid red or yellow pulpy fruit eaten as a vegetable'.

because its false advertising--if they called it propaganda Id have no problem with it
What does it have to do with authority?

skapedroe, you make ME look like a right-winger, and I believe Al Franken's books (I don't care whatyou say, he is more than just a comedian!).
you have to become more militant--the world is on the brink of exploding

So which of the CIRA, the RIRA and ETA are terrrorists, and which aren't?
only the ones that target civilians are terrorists

If that is cause for a mental checkup so is reading democracy now :p
no it aint--democracynow is people power
foxnews serves the Beast

What does it have to do with authority?
because propaganda is what those in authority use to control us

no it aint--democracynow is people power
foxnews serves the Beast

Agreed :fluffle:

Edit: read the Texas Observer and it'll prove there are such things as Texas liberals. :D

You say 'tomato': I say 'mildly acid red or yellow pulpy fruit eaten as a vegetable'.
Umm ... unless I miss my guess, tomatoes are berries. :rolleyes:

Agreed :fluffle:

Edit: read the Texas Observer and it'll prove there are such things as Texas liberals. :D
didnt Dallas just elect a lesbian sheriff or something?

Texans never make sense. That's one of the only things we all have in common. Conservative Dallas and lesbian sheriffs. Ha!

only the ones that target civilians are terrorists

So that makes all of them then, yes?

She was not saying that you should not be influenced by a movie she was saying that should not be the SOLE reason.
A movie may be the motivator (making you think about something in a certain light) but it should be the aggravating factor not the whole reason/proof behind it (while a movie can make you think rarely does it contain enough unbiased information to make any large life decision on)
bingo. a movie can (and often should) make you think, but it should never make you decide.

What was the last black and white movie released by Hollywood?
I believe there are many, though the last major one was Schindlers List AFIK.

bingo. a movie can (and often should) make you think, but it should never make you decide.but now days, movies are trying to influance their audience on how to think and thus what to decide.

Does anyone agree with me that most films need strict media censorship in order to be realised and viewed by the general public? Do you not think we are at risk by the media changing our value system every day from one where there is good and evil to one where it just doesnt matter?
I certainly do!


I respect everyone's political views and all, but seriously, this reeks of Communism.

You movie Fascist.

I respect everyone's political views and all, but seriously, this reeks of Communism.

You movie Fascist.

'Communism'.

'Fascist'.

Ironic?

Hello Everyone!

I watched the film Oceans Twelve the other day and a few things have been bothering me about it.
The film(if you have seen it) features 11 thieves who last year stoled $80Million from Las Vegas Casinos. They get located through help of a jealous theif and Terry Benedict(the man they stole from) finds them and gives them a certain amount of time to get the money back or else!
The whole film is following the Thieves and following their plan to get the money back. Now I dont like these type of films. I dont like it when we are supposed to sit there and 'like' thieves and think there 'cool' but even I couldnt help it. I like every one else in the cinema was made to like them through their 'cool' and 'slick' attitudes that were supposed to make them the 'goodguys' of the film.
It's times like this after the film when I realise the true intent of the film. It wasnt to just make a 'cool' film but rather to 'liberate our attitudes' toward thieves. It makes me sick when Hollywood realiseas nothing but anti-state anti-authority, anti-goodness crap like this. These sort of films are all we get these days. We very rarely get films that show good winning over evil anymore or films that show tell people that their is a difference between right or wrong. Instead we get these 'oh im such a baddass motherf****** who can do whatever the hell I like and not suffer any consequences of my wrongdoing'

Does anyone agree with me that most films need strict media censorship in order to be realised and viewed by the general public? Do you not think we are at risk by the media changing our value system every day from one where there is good and evil to one where it just doesnt matter?
I certainly do!
And that my friend, is the price of freedom. The Second Amendment wasn't written to protect huting rifles -- it was written to protect military arms; the Kentucky rifle of yesteryear, and the assault rifle of today. "Ugly" guns.

Just the same, the First Amendment is needed to protect Jane & Dick readers -- it's needed to protect "ugly" speech, controversial speech. The speech of groups like the KKK and NAMBLA -- and yes, Hollywood.

'Communism'.

'Fascist'.

Ironic?
Not really. They're hardly diametric opposites, as is commonly believed; they have a lot more in common than either does with, say, democracy or capitalism.

You say 'tomato': I say 'mildly acid red or yellow pulpy fruit eaten as a vegetable'.

I saw a tshirt in a shop in whitby that I didn't buy because I have absolutely nowhere I could wear it:

You say tomato, I say fuck you.

And anyway, apostrophes might look like inverted commas, but they aren't the same thing.

So that makes all of them then, yes?
if so its extremely localized forms of it unlike the global terrorism and destabilization that neocon terrorists are promoting that knows no boundaries

if so its extremely localized forms of it unlike the global terrorism and destabilization that neocon terrorists are promoting that knows no boundaries

If the neocons are terrorists, then what are their demands?