Taking the moral lowground….
- This topic has 38 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 23 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Why is it that Lexx get cut in the US?
It seems that you can show any amount of violence, guns, explosions etc. but you cant bear to see a nipple or two (Ive heard they usually come in pairs). Lexx isnt that extreme in its content so why do US TV see the need to cut it?quote:
Originally posted by JumpingJedi:
Why is it that Lexx get cut in the US?
It seems that you can show any amount of violence, guns, explosions etc. but you cant bear to see a nipple or two (Ive heard they usually come in pairs). Lexx isnt that extreme in its content so why do US TV see the need to cut it?
The idea is to not give people nasty offensive images that they don’t want to see.
And plenty of violence gets cut out (like in movies shown on T.V.). There are really more complaints about violence in the media than sexuality. People object to even tastefully executed films like [i]The Matrix[/i] because of mild violence. [img]images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img]
Is a nipple a nasty offensive image? Ive got a couple and they dont look that bad to me. Okay, if its on before the watershed or when kids are watching cut out nudity but after a certain time Im sure it fine. Do you get offended by what goes on in Lexx?
What was the sci-fi show that the Scott brothers did?….the Hunger….that was it. Did that get shown on US Sci-Fi? That was non-stop softcore and not very good softcore for that matter. Did they cut out all the nudity in that. If so the show would have lasted about 30 seconds.
quote:
Originally posted by DalekTek790:
People object to even tastefully executed films like [i]The Matrix[/i] because of mild violence. [img]images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img]
I’d hardly consider the lobby scene of [i]The Matrix[/i] mildly violent. I sometimes ask the metal detectors/x-ray machine people what they do if someone came in armed to the teeth. They just shrug their shoulders and tell me to move along.
Speaking of nipples and [i]The Matrix[/i] if you look at a matrix psoter with Trinity in the leather outfit you can clearly see a nipple. Go figure?
What is it with men and nipples anyway? If you look really hard during the beginning of Luvliner, you can see Xev’s. At least on the DVD. But I digress.
You’re more likely to see a graphic, gory picture of somone’s brains splattered all over than you are to see a woman’s nipple…
They showed the Lexx movies here a little while ago, they left in all the scenes of legs getting cut off in Eating Pattern, and Stan’s hand getting ripped off, but they just [i]butchered[/i] that lovely scene where Zev takes a shower.
All the great dialog between her and Stan, gone!
Gawd, I remember a few years ago some morons were objecting to Rodin’s The Kiss being shown ’cause it was too racy! They won!
Here’s a link to a picture of the offending statue (warning may contain nudity!)
[url=http://www.ncac.org/images/kiss.jpg]www.ncac.org/images/kiss.jpg[/url]Anyways, JJ, it’s because Americans have a nasty puritanical streak. Luckily, it’s fading.
It’s also because of female jealousy, so-called ‘feminists’ have taken to protesting what they see as ‘unrealistic body images’.
Remember the Wuzzard of Woz? They’re just like him.
quote:
Originally posted by JumpingJedi:
Is a nipple a nasty offensive image?
oh jj [img]images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img], the us has a broad range of opinions obviously, but there is a strong fundamentalist tradition here (remember the puritans who founded the massachussetts colony?)…and although we are a democracy, with separation of church and state, there is an equally long tradition of people trying to make their values the law of the land, as in prohibition…finally, the country is founded in violence, like many others, but that founding is only 2or 3 hundred years old, so guns are, for many people, a right and a way of life here…having said all that, there is room for everyone’s opinions, and i really do not know why people can’t simply not watch or read things that offend them…i don’t listen to gangster rap; i find it offensive, but i would never tell someone else not to listen to it…i also do not particularly wish to watch people having sex,but i do watch [i]queer as folk[/i], i am not offended by nudity, and in any case, i can always change the channel [img]images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]…
lexx is shown at 10 pm, on a cable station…so it is both after ‘prime time’, and not always easily accessible…but scifi still follows many ‘network television’ rules…so no, many americans do not find the casual nipple offensive, but those who do, are more vocal about not having it shown [img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]As FX said, the problem is that the US has a very strong fundamentalist/Puritanical bent that has resulted in periods of heavy restraint (say, the 1950s) balanced by periods of repressed energy escaping (say, the 1960s).
While it is true that there is more common expression of outrage over excessive violence in media than sexuality, that is simply because most people see sexuality as healthy and a natural part of life (note, DT, I said *most* people), while excessive violence is generally seen as ugly and brutal. Unfortunately, though, the people who are organized enough to lobby advertisers and networks with threats of boycotts are fundamentalist religious groups who believe that everyone should share their view that the human body (and its functions) is an ugly, shameful thing (which goes back to the religious stance of these people). This is why sexuality is frowned upon in media: not because the majority of people are bothered by it (most people, I’d say, aren’t), but because of the fact that threats of boycotts and petitions from these fundamentalist groups have made advertisers and networks gunshy. If they fear “bad publicity” from the likes of Rev. Donald Wildmon and his American Family Association (whose sole purpose, it seems, is to force networks to kowtow to their own idiosyncratic ideas of what kind of pablum the American people should be fed), then they’re not going to take any chances, and will instead pull punches. Movie studios, who don’t really have to answer to advertisers, have (for the most part) escaped the influence of these groups because (A) the studios are large enough to be able to ignore them, (B) they know that people will still buy tickets, which will make them money *anyway* (ratings don’t get networks more money — they attract advertisers, who provide more money, but who are sensitive to petitions and boycotts), and (C) the studios can always say that they’re only providing what the public wants.
Contrary to an above statement, it’s not that the networks don’t want to “give people nasty offensive images that they don’t want to see.” If people didn’t *want* to see them, then R-rated films would sell no tickets. People would patronize more gentle fare, the demand would shift to G-rated (or soft PG) films, and more of these films would be made. It’s not because of public demand. It’s because of the relationship between networks and advertisers, and their being influenced by the actions of a handful of zealots with too much time on their hands and too much dogma in their heads.(And I’m not even getting into the nasty bit of business that is the FCC, as we’re primarily talking about venues like the Sci-Fi Channel, which is a cable network, and not subject to the regulation of the FCC — this is why Comedy Central was able to show an episode of [i]South Park[/i] that featured the word “sh*t” over 100 times.)
–Aleck
Okay, this is a fairly long post that could offend a few people. But I have some good points in there.
Don’t assume that someone is a Fundamentalist Christian just because they differentiate between good and evil. Concepts of ethics and morality are not by definition religiously-based. They are socio-psychological constants that allow for the construction and perpetuation of civilization. Morality and religion are independent of one another. Just because religion contains codes of conduct doesn’t mean it invented them. And Christianity isn’t the only religion to oppose evil. Most faiths in the history of the world have concepts that certain acts are right and others are wrong.
By the logic that only organized religion can bring organized conduct all atheists would be immoral anarchists. I’ve had friends who were atheists, and they had essentially the same value system I do. People have ethics hardwired into their brains. It’s for survival: we couldn’t function in society if all were willing to kill each other or steal each other’s possessions. Even if homicide wasn’t against the law its frequency would be about the same. Without police, there would be enforcers in our brains. One doesn’t need religion to have a sense of morality. And my posts are certainly not religiously motivated.
Fundamentalist Christians are people who believe that the Bible is literally true in its entirity, and that it hold more weight than anything else in tho world. These are the people who say evolution shouldn’t be taught in schools, and have boycotted biology textbooks because they had pictures of nudes. They are religious fanatics with a tenuous grip on reality and near complete disregard for secular opinions.
I am not offended by nudity in and of itself. It can be science, it can be art. There are movies where a little sex is necessary for the story, like [i]Species[/i]. But I am offended by repulsive displays of sexuality on television and in film. I’m sick of seeing nipples in otherwise great movies like [i]Starship Troopers[/i]. I think the censorship of the shower scene in [i]Super Nova[/i]. was reasonable. I’ve never seen the uncut version of it, but I had the misfortune to lay eyes on the awful picture of Zev in the summary for [i]Super Nova[/i]. Those parts (you know which parts I’m talking about) shouldn’t have been there in the first place. I mean, there wouldn’t have been anything like that in a [i]Star Trek[/i] movie.
——————
“You people have been chosen to reveal our existence to the world. You will witness what happens here today, and you will tell of it later. All eyes to the front. Never shall innocent blood be shed. Yet the blood of the wicked shall flow like a river. We shall spread our darkened wings and be the vengeful striking hammer of God. Now you will receive us. We do not ask for your poor or your hungry. We do not want your tired and sick. It is your corrupt we claim. It is your evil that will be sought by us. With every breath we shall hunt them down. Each day we will spill their blood until it rains down from the skies. Do not kill, do not rape, to not steal. These are principles which every man of every faith can embrace. [b]These are not polite suggestions[/b]; these are codes of behavior, and those of you that ignore them will pay the dearest cost. There are varying degrees of evil. We urge you lesser forms of filth not to push the bounds and cross over into true corruption, into our domain. For if you do you, one day you will look behind you and you will see we three, and on that day you will reap it. And we will send you to whatever god you wish. And shepherds we shall be; for thee, my Lord, for thee. Power hath descended forth from thy hand, that our feet may swiftly carry out thy command. We will flow a river forth unto thee, and teeming with souls shall it ever be. [i]In nomine Patris, et Fili, et Spiritus Sancti.[/i]” -[i]The Boondock Saints[/i]
If you’ll notice, the adjectives “nasty” and “offensive” are usually only applied to *female* nipples on display. Also, while there was much groaning and eye-rolling at the droolfest over Michael McManus’ one nude scene in four seasons, the quest for ever more Xev shower scenes continues unabated. [img]images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]
My real point is, I don’t mind a little violence or a little sex if it has a point and advances the story. It bothers me not at all to see two people making love (as opposed to merely having sex). But when it comes to pointless graphic sex or pointless bloody violence, I’d just as soon not watch. However, it’s not my business if somebody else wants to: they pay their cable premiums same as I do. I can always switch channels or pick up a book.
Did I let my kids watch things like that? Not until they were old enough to make rational judgments about it, and believe me, we had some arguments. But I never believed in letting them grow up thinking the world is all sweetness and easy answers, either.
quote:
Originally posted by Flamegrape:
::Looking at stopwatch::5… 4… 3… 2… 1…
CUE DT790. [img]images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img]
[b]ROTFL!!!! Your timing was perfect!!! :-)[/b]
The last thing I want to discuss is whether or not nudity is acceptable, especially in a [i]Lexx[/i] forum. I’m getting sick of morality discussions. It’s like preaching temperance at Oktoberfest. Yer harshin’ my buzz! [img]images/smiles/icon_mad.gif[/img]
The human form is beautiful and for me there is no question about it. Telling someone, “NO! YOU CAN’T BE BEAUTUL!” is a violence in itself, an assault upon human emotions. Shame is an evil tool, a destroyer of confidence and self-image. Just look at the Taliban for the worst example of misogynistic abuse. [img]images/smiles/icon_mad.gif[/img]
I have a bit of a problem when it comes to swear-words. I think That is the worst kind of censorship.
Take MTV for example, where the worst profanity you might hear is “poo”.
It annoys me everytime I hear some made up “light swearwords” like that. What’s so horrible about swearwords anyway?
Is it evil?
Are the parents afraid that their children will learn these words? Won’t they learn these words anyway?
Will the children that learns those words become more rebelious and talk back?The whole problem lies in that all swearwords has either something to do with sex or with “something evil”… like hell.
It seems as it’s an invention of the Christian beliefstructure. Where both evil and sex is considered sins. And to mention these factors
whould be blasphemy. I think that violence and sex is needed on TV as a counterbalance to the “family programs” that has no profanities (is that a word?),
no grafic violence or sex, and gives a warped image of reality. A reality controlled by easy-offended people and censorship-hungry moralpreachers.
Violence and sex is a very present and real part of life.And I would like to throw some shi’t at “political correctness” while I’m at it. I see it as a pathetic attempt to influence (or more like put in chains)
the minds of people by censoring words, and by censoring words – censor opinions, and by censoring opinions – take away peoples freedom to view issues
from a different angle. Something that religions has always been very strict with.
BTW, someone mentioned Southpark. I’ll just take a moment to praise that series for going against the wind and display the other side of popular political
issues, than just about all the other series on Television now. Take for instance, the episode about the rainforrest, I love that ep!All in all, this is just my opinion. I will never apologize for my opinions, but I CAN apologize for my horrible spelling. I hope you’ll understand atleast some
of the words. Movies is a form of art, and to censor them would be like taking a brush and start painting over peices of artwork you don’t like. [img]images/smiles/icon_mad.gif[/img]No-one assumed you were a fundie, Daleck Tek. But good and evil lose whatever meaning the terms have when applied to a everyday phenomena like sex, or nipples.
It’d be a hard sell to convince me that sex is moral or immoral. It just is. The existance of good as a thing, or evil as a thing, is axiomatic and fairly subjective. The assumption that sex is either is merely an assumption, lacking evidence.
Ultimatly, it rests on personal preference, and the preferences of most Americans.
My beef is that people like the American Family Association try to [i]impose[/i] their preferences. I’d rather let the free market take care of it, with certain limits. [b]If you don’t like it, change the channel.[/b]
I just don’t see why sex is considered worse than violence. The two are practically opposites!
[b]Aleck[/b] I was always hoping that the AFA would publicly complain about Lexx, it would’ve made such good publicity. *Sigh*
Good Theli, do throw **** at political correctness. I think Rush Limbaugh is a bloody fool, but he called those types ‘feminazis’.
[ 25-11-2001: Message edited by: Hypatia ]
quote:
Originally posted by Theli:
Movies is a form of art, and to censor them would be like taking a brush and start painting over peices of artwork you don’t like. [img]images/smiles/icon_mad.gif[/img]
well said theli, may i add books and music to what you are saying?
fg, you are too funny! did you and dt set that up? [img]images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img] don’t answer that, i’m just being a wise ass [img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]
The amusing thing in the second half of this thread is the assumption DT made that I’m talking about him (which is incorrect).
DT, you schlub, I’m talking about the groups that organize in order to force networks and advertisers to obey some moral code that others may or may not share. These groups are, by and large, if not exclusively, religious-oriented. The most active and effective group is the AFA, which is admittedly and forthcomingly a fundamentalist Christian group. Others have been organized and/or helped along by the Revs. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, among others. Show me a group that has, in this country, effectively organized and used its influence to successfully pressure advertisers to pull sponsorship from a TV program, and I’ll show you a group with religious ties.
Now, onto the fairly completely unrelated stuff that DT brought up:
DT, you believe that morality is hard-wired into our brains. A theory, BTW, which you have yet to support with any documentation (I mean, after all, remember what Carl Sagan said about claims and evidence…oh, and I don’t accept anything by Meyers, as he is using religious faith as a justification for outmoded, if not harmful, psychological theorizing and is, thusly, invalid). Of course, despite all of the evidence cited which points to the inborn nature of sexuality, you refuse to believe *that*, which is curious, but another story.
Then again, is it really? We’re not talking about violence (which you seem to think that we have an inborn tendency *against*, even though western society seems inherently violent and agressive). We’re talking about sexuality. We’re not even talking about the objectification of women. We’re talking about viewing some body parts. The view of the human body as repulsive (which is the basis of most fundamentalists’ anti-sex crusades) is not something in-born. If this were true, nudity would be frowned upon by all people everywhere. A quick look at a couple of issues of [i]National Geographic[/i] can dispel that notion pretty quickly. Therefore, we can assume that the “tastelessness” of showing the human body in entertainment (which is the result of “human body = shameful” theorizing) is the result of societal programming. And in this country, our society is affected by the Puritanical thought brought over by the common people who settled it.
It is this thought that carries over into the line of thinking used by the religious fundamentalists who use their influence over relatively small groups of people to try and force the hands of advertisers, networks and studios into following their own sense of what is “moral” and “immoral.”
As I’ve said before, what is “moral” to one is “immoral” to another. Eating pork is immoral according to orthodox Judaism. Not to Christianity. Eating meat on Good Friday is immoral in the eyes of Catholicism, but not to Protestants. Your notions of what is “moral” are, I’m certain, *wildly* different from my standards.
You imply that sexuality is something to be equated with killing and stealing. That it’s something we’re hardwired into rebelling against. You do this by bringing a discussion about the hardwiring of “morality” into our brains into a talk about the censoring of nudity and sexuality, and using them as examples. Your argument is that it’s for “survival.” Tell me, then, how can an inborn sense to be revolted by sexuality be in *any* way tied to survival? The answer is that it can’t.–Aleck
Hmmm… Interesting discussion. I’ll throw my two cents in. I don’t believe that humans have any inbuilt or innate knowledge of good or evil, nor any inherent moral sense.
I can’t imagine a truly devout person who would genuinely believe such a thing. It seems to me that the crucial element of Man’s compact with God is that Man has the ability too freely choose to love God. By definition, the choice must be free. Load the dice and the game is rigged, its all worthless. In such a case, the concept of free will loses all meaning.
Of course, I suspect many devout Christians probably wouldn’t agree with me.
But I’m off topic. In terms of innate hardwired behaviour, what humans do seem to have are ranges of behaviour built into them which tend to express under certain sets of conditions. Defining the human behavioural cage is beyond the scope of this post, but I believe it exists. I also believe that within this range there’s a capacity for choice, and at least theoretically, of transcending the cage. Such transcendance is not necessarily good or evil.
As for the shower scene in Supernova. Sorry, but it was an absolute pleasure to watch. Zev was spectacularly beautiful and the director and dop photographed that beauty with a fetishists delight. The counterpoint between these images and Stan’s unrequited lust and desire, and her conversation with Stan worked quite well.
Frankly, I have no problem with it whatsoever.Recently, I got to see scenes from IWHS, an American edit, and there were these amazingly grotesque scenes of Lex G’s skull being sliced open and a machine physically removing his brain. That wasn’t shown in Canada, and perhaps not many other countries.
If I had the choice of showing one of these scenes to my children, I have no doubt whatsoever which scene it would be. Frankly, I don’t have the patience to coddle months of screaming nightmares about brains being ripped out of heads.
The debate over scenity and obscenity, in my view, has nothing whatsoever to do with moral values or concepts of good and evil. It has everything to do with personal tastes. One person’s gratuitous violence or sex is another person’s taste. There’s nothing that makes a porn star an inherently less worthy person than a corporate raider who loots companies and throws thousands of people out of work.
One of LEXX’s most consistent themes is its willingness to seek out and cross the boundaries of taste, to push for astonishment and outrage.
The fact that Zev’s shower scene would never have made it in a Star Trek movie is one of the reasons I find Star Trek movies dull. Somewhere along the line, they decided to stop taking chances, stop exploring or thinking, stop taking risks, to stop “going boldly forth…” and to simply become ‘corporations in space.’
Oops, opened a huge kettle of nipples there.
My basic point is that I find it strange that the US Censors have no problem with violence but problems with the slightest hint of nudity. I find that odd.
I dont agree with exessive violence or sex in a TV programme/film but I think they are part of life and part of our culture so therefore people should be able to show them on TV/Cinema.
THE BEST FORM OF CENSORSHIP IS SELF-CENSORSHIP!
[QUOTE]Originally posted by :
Hmmm… Interesting discussion. I’ll throw my two cents in. I don’t believe that humans have any inbuilt or innate knowledge of good or evil, nor any inherent moral sense.strongly strongly strongly disagree with only this part of your post valdron;
but let us talk about inherently repugnant behavior versus good and evil if you like…those words are obviously loaded with at least 2000 years of judeochristian baggage
most children will not harm animals intentionally,they will in fact try to cuddle and and play with animals…when you see a child who tortures an animal, not only are you immediately startled/appalled/whatever, you are witnessing one of the strongest indicators for an antisocial personality disorder, as well as other ‘less destructive’ personality disorders…what used to be termed a sociopath; the simplest definition being someone who knows that there are concepts of admissable and nonadmissable behavior, but these concepts have no meaning for that person; he or she does not ‘feel’ those concepts…this lack is, for all intents and purposes, as inherent a trait as congenital blindness or deafness…something is ‘missing’, and it begins early enough in life, and is so resistant to current treatments, that it is basically incurable…while sexuality is a continuum, as welll as the capacity for violence, it is not true that [b]any[/b] person will do [b]any[/b] thing under the right circumstances; that is where free will comes into play…but some people are simply not capable of subscribing to universal norms of behavior…and those are the people who are basically born that way…
as to ‘norms of behavior’,innate or not, that is obviously the rub here; i don’t particularly wish to subscribe to the narrow norms that aleck and dt are alluding to…but unfortunately, many other people do, and they have the time, interest and money to petition lawyers to legislate their own narrow views of morality [img]images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]
Timothy Leary told me that the brain can be programmed and reformatted and programmed again like a hard drive. (Met him at DragonCon 1992.) [img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]
At this time, I would like to recite the astronomer’s mnemonic for star spectral types:
[b]O[/b]h
[b]B[/b]e
[b]A[/b]
[b]F[/b]ine
[b]G[/b]irl
[b]K[/b]iss
[b]M[/b]e[img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] [img]images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img] [img]images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img]
[ 25-11-2001: Message edited by: Flamegrape ]
Obviously, you’ve never watched what a four year old will do to a cat? Hmm do those ears come off? Maybe if I twist real hard. Ooh look at the way the legs bend.
Deliberately torturing animals as a child may well be a sign of innate dysfunction, but it seems to be part of the continuum of a childs need/drive to begin to manipulate its environment. I’ve seen many instances of children who acted out abuse or torture on pets or toys, including one little girl who would absolutely maintain the fiction her barby was alive, even while smashing its head against a desk. This is kind of ugly to say, but many apparently normal people have awkward moments in their history. I once read a schoolyard reflection on the experience of killing a cat that was both chilling and yet utterly prosaic. Consider Goldman’s Lord of the Flies, which, although fiction, I suspect contains a reflection of real psychology. The island was fiction, but the nature of the schoolchildren, I think, was founded in observation.
Still, I don’t think that children are hard wired to love or torture animals, or that there is even a biological factor which establishes such a range. I believe that there are innate ranges of behaviour which can express if you put an animall in front of them.
Woah! Woah! Woah! Ask a simple question and get a full ethical debate on the human syndrome! [img]images/smiles/icon_eek.gif[/img]
Dont people think when you get to a certain age you can make up your own mind what you find offensive and what isnt? What appears in Lexx is hardly hardcore action so why should it be cut out? I see more horrifying things on the news/jim davidsons generation game.
People are people so why should it be you and nipples should get along so awfully?
Flamegrape: I always preferred
Oh
Big
Hairy
Gorilla
Kill
My
RoommateJJ: I agree. I don’t understand why sex is thought as worse than violence either.
quote:
Originally posted by :
Deliberately torturing animals as a child may well be a sign of innate dysfunction, but it seems to be part of the continuum of a childs need/drive to begin to manipulate its environment.
you have just stated the difference i was referring to for me; deliberate torture vs exploring the environment…i assure you, if you see a child set fire to a cat or a dog, or try to draw blood, or try to make the animal scream, you may well be having lots of meetings with school officials, and law enforcement people later in life regarding the same child…i see that in your post you restated that you do not believe in innate ‘goodness’ or ‘evil’…guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on that [img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]
Morality has always been a kind of blueprint on how a person should feel and act.
If a member of society tends to stray from that blueprint he/she get’s treated like a broken machine that must be repaired immediately, to as soon as possible return to the grey masses of seemingly identical people.
Where that person can pick up his rope and join the other to pull the great rock called society. (hehe, was abit poetic there, sorry about that).
But if that person can’t be “repaired” he/she gets locked in, like in a warehouse.Morality has build up alot of rules (or values) that every individual is expected to live up to. Violence and sex on TV might be a great escape from those values that are not in any way designed to match every persons inner self.
There are even more types of escape. For instance, drugs or alchohol. Most of these are illegal and ALL OF THEM are immoral. The only escape that has not been viewed as immoral is fanatic belief in mythical figures, such as god.Hmmmm… abit of Timothy Leary in that to. Sorry about that to.
Some interesting reading about morality, ethics and family values that covers this subject.
[url=http://www.impactpress.com/articles/augsep97/values.htm]Family Values = Witchhunt?[/url] [img]images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]I’m not sure I like where this is going. I’m afraid that now Valdron thinks that I’m an argumentative nut or something. I’ll try to make what follows as friendly as possible. I don’t want another out-of-control off-topic argument.
quote:
Originally posted by Dgrequeen:
My real point is, I don’t mind a little violence or a little sex if it has a point and advances the story. It bothers me not at all to see two people making love (as opposed to merely having sex). But when it comes to pointless graphic sex or pointless bloody violence, I’d just as soon not watch.
I agree.
quote:
Originally posted by Flamegrape:
Just look at the Taliban for the worst example of misogynistic abuse. [img]images/smiles/icon_mad.gif[/img]
I have two questions for you, Flame:
1. What does the Taliban have to do with this?
2. Why do you feel the need to mention the Taliban in every other post?quote:
Originally posted by Aleck:
The amusing thing in the second half of this thread is the assumption DT made that I’m talking about him (which is incorrect).
You were talking about me, indirectly. You were saying things to provoke me.
quote:
Originally posted by Aleck:
DT, you believe that morality is hard-wired into our brains. A theory, BTW, which you have yet to support with any documentation (I mean, after all, remember what Carl Sagan said about claims and evidence…oh, and I don’t accept anything by Meyers, as he is using religious faith as a justification for outmoded, if not harmful, psychological theorizing and is, thusly, invalid). Of course, despite all of the evidence cited which points to the inborn nature of sexuality, you refuse to believe *that*, which is curious, but another story.
I have not seen any evidence of religious faith in my psychology textbook by David G. Myers. It says certain things that go against my philosophy, but besides that I don’t see any evidence of bias. It’s not like it’s just some book by Myers (and that is how it’s spelled), it’s a textbook. So it’s essentially just reporting the findings of others and the beliefs of the psychological community as a whole. And if it were really inaccurate or contrary to the mainstream I doubt it would be a widely used college psychology textbook.
quote:
Originally posted by Aleck:
You do this by bringing a discussion about the hardwiring of “morality” into our brains into a talk about the censoring of nudity and sexuality, and using them as examples. Your argument is that it’s for “survival.” Tell me, then, how can an inborn sense to be revolted by sexuality be in *any* way tied to survival?
It’s to prevent overpopulation. I’ve been reading these essays by Richard Harter and Jared Diamond that say that it is generally accepted that our concepts of morality are inherited instincts.
quote:
Originally posted by Valdron:
Recently, I got to see scenes from IWHS, an American edit, and there were these amazingly grotesque scenes of Lex G’s skull being sliced open and a machine physically removing his brain. That wasn’t shown in Canada, and perhaps not many other countries.If I had the choice of showing one of these scenes to my children, I have no doubt whatsoever which scene it would be. Frankly, I don’t have the patience to coddle months of screaming nightmares about brains being ripped out of heads.
That scene wasn’t included in Canada? Crazy purists. I love that scene! I know it’s a little scientifically inaccurate, since the body moves after the brain has been removed, but it is ultimately a wonderfully conceived and artfully executed sequence. I mean come on, a brain removed by machine (with a circular saw and robot fingers and everything!) from a living, unanesthetized patient, who willingly subjected himself to the process. That is what science fiction is all about, surreal situations like that which an ordinary person would’ve never even dreamed of. It’s like the alien in [i]Alien[/i], æsthetically appealing while at the same time gruesomely disquieting. Kudos to the Beans for that visual treat!
Besides, it’s pertinent to the plot, and with it cut out later scenes don’t make sense. The brain excision sequence was a little creepy, but it didn’t induce actual feelings of disgust or repulsion in me, like the Zev shower still. I keep retracing my thoughts on that image logically in my head, from different angles, and I keep coming up with the same reaction.
I wonder, does the [i]I Worship His Shadow[/i] D.V.D. include that scene?
quote:
Originally posted by DalekTek790:
You were talking about me, indirectly. You were saying things to provoke me.
No, I wasn’t. I was making a point about the relationship between advertisers, networks, and “special interest” groups and how they relate to the cutting of sexual material. I made one (1) lighthearted remark about how I was talking about most, but not all, people’s views about sexuality, and answered a point that you made in a rational way. You made the point that censorship was in existence to keep people from seeing “nasty and offensive images that they don’t want to see.” I countered with the response that it was due to a complex relationship between the three groups mentioned above, and that if people didn’t want to see these images, that they wouldn’t be patronizing entertainments that feature said images. You, however, took a simple counter-argument as a [img]images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img] personal attack, which it wasn’t. If you want to take everything I post personally, it says more about you than me.
–Aleck
[b]DaleckTek[/b]
quote[quote]It’s not like it’s just some book by Myers (and that is how it’s spelled), it’s a textbook. So it’s essentially just reporting the findings of others and the beliefs of the psychological community as a whole.[/quote]
That’s an argument from authority. It really dosen’t matter what the ‘psychological community as a whole’ thinks, what matters is the evidence.
quote[quote]It’s to prevent overpopulation. I’ve been reading these essays by Richard Harter and Jared Diamond that say that it is generally accepted that our concepts of morality are inherited instincts[/quote]
‘Generally accepted’ is another argument from authority. I’d be interested in seeing evidence for this claim, as would [b]Aleck[/b]. But you’ve yet to provide anything beyond ‘my textbook says’ that I know of.
[b]Aleck[/b] Myer’s motives are irrelevent.
Now Zev’s shower scene (and her dialog with Stan) is essential to develop Zev’s character,
1 that she’s capable of free choice in her partners,
2 that her needs are ‘beyond measurement’,
3 that she’s not ‘settling’ on Stan,
4 it shows her character, fiercely uncompromising and brash.Somone made the point that they’d rather let their kids watch that than the scene with Lex G’s brain being cut out. I agree, even if I don’t have kids.
I’d hardly think anyone is an argumentative nutcase. Don’t worry about it. The hidden pleasure of a really good argument is losing it, because that’s actually the only time you’ll walk away with more knowledge and insight than you brought to the table.
On the subject of instinct… I think humans do have instincts. It’s hard to say what they are, because they are innate to our behaviour. We never think about them, we just do them as the most natural things under the situation.
But let me offer some suggestions as to what some human instincts might be…
A tendency to walk upright.
A tendency, when frustrated, to verbalize increasingly louder (such as when you are speaking to someone who doesn’t speak your language, you unconsciously talk louder and louder although there is no rational basis to do so.)
A tendency, under stress, to repeat verbalizations (saying the same things over and over, as in talking to the befuddled foreigner, but in many other situations.)
A tendency to associate socially in family groups and age groups.
There are probably others. I’d basically try to suss out human instincts by looking at overlapping behavioural patterns with other primates and higher mammals. If we’re all doing the same kinds of things, its probably instinctive.
But I don’t believe instincts have a moral component. I also don’t believe that instincts are really geared towards dealing
with the environment. Lets face it, the environment we live in as higher mammals is so complex and so diverse that any kind of elaborate instinctual framework oriented towards it is hopelessly counterproductive. Instincts would only change by evolution. Often, there just isn’t time.For instance, children may have an instinct to be attracted to small, brightly coloured objects. Well, I suppose that particular instinct is being culled out of the population of Afghanistan. But you’d need a dozen or a hundred more generations to see a real effect.
So, there’s no such thing as an instinct against torturing animals, or an instinct to follow sexual or moral codes.
Rather, I would suggest that moral codes arise and are maintained by practical utility.
Look at it this way, a society is by definition a self perpetuating entity. In order to survive, a society must, inherently have mechanisms which enable it to perpetuate itself, which means, ensuring its citizens survive and are relatively prosperous, ensuring there is a next generation, etc. etc.
There are, of course, societies which do not do that. In the last century, there was a russian religious sect which practiced castration. They died out for some reason.
There are or have been societies marked by
massive social breakdown, violence towards
women and children, and failure to maintain even minimal levels of stability and service resulting in things like war and famine. The Taliban’s Afghanistan is one such. The point of these societies, however, is that they aren’t viable, they don’t last, they’re no more functional than a man bleeding from an arterial wound.Rather, functioning societies, as part of the feedback systems naturally tend to evolve moral or political codes to regulate behaviour. It may not necessarily matter what the source of those codes are, religious, philosophical or whatever, but they have to be there, and there have to be certain bottom lines. Behaviour or conduct between individuals is formally regulated, violence within the group is tolerated only from specific individuals or within specific circumstances, relations between males and females are also regulated, there will be various mechanisms to promote or inhibit certain forms of social organization, and there will be provisions for the maintenance of children.
Those seem to be the bottom lines. Societies that don’t have codes protecting children, for some reason, don’t seem to make it much past a second or third generation, if that,
as one example.Moral codes, in my view, therefore are functional, not instinctive.
As for torturing animals. In our society, we react with shock and horror to such things.
But many societies have approved wholeheartedly of torture. The modern Afghani’s liked nothing better than to skin a captured russian soldier alive and then roll him in salt, the videotapes, I understand, were quite popular. Other societies infamous for torture were the highland Scots, the Apache, the old Romans. Torture type behaviour also shows up in packs of young adolescent males when they have a victim, and interestingly, it shows up in wolf packs bringing down large prey (wolves aren’t big or strong enough to inflict a killing stroke on a moose or caribou, instead, what they do is harry it to death, continually biting and chewing at its flesh, they will literally disembowel a living animal slowly), or with Cats playing with mice.I suspect if one were minded too, you could make at least as good an argument for torture being an instinctive human behaviour as for morality.
quote:
Originally posted by D.G. Valdron:
For instance, children may have an instinct to be attracted to small, brightly coloured objects. Well, I suppose that particular instinct is being culled out of the population of Afghanistan.
Ironically every other species knows to stay away from colorful stuff. Like don’t eat or touch bees, poison dart frogs, monarch butterflies etc. Humans repeatidly do stupid **** like try to catch them, and then wonder why we got stung or sick.
As for Bosnia and Afghanistan, we realy should have put bigger universal warnign on some of those bombs. Skull and crossbones usually works. Although I’m a huge fan of Darwanism, I stil belive in helping a fellow human. Too bad only stupid people are breeding.
[b]Although I’m a huge fan of Darwanism, I stil belive in helping a fellow human. Too bad only stupid people are breeding.[/b]
Um… on behalf of all the parents and children of parents that are here, let me say thanks, Headgehog. But I assume that *your* parents bred also? [img]images/smiles/icon_eek.gif[/img]
Why do simple questions turn into heated debates and mud slinging matches? The topic I was discussing was the minor cuts that US Sci-Fi made to a pretty mild scene and I was wondering why the US cuts it yet the rest of the world doesnt? Some people in this forum have turned it into a much bigger issue than it really is. Some people should read less books about life and try living it instead.
quote:
Originally posted by dgrequeen:
Um… on behalf of all the parents and children of parents that are here, let me say thanks, Headgehog. But I assume that *your* parents bred also? [img]images/smiles/icon_eek.gif[/img]
Your welcome dgrequeen. Seriously though that’s a quote from a song by Harvey Danger. Its meant to be taken with a grain of salt.
To view what todays “geniuses” are doing today to chlorinate the gene pool goto: [url=http://www.darwinawards.com]www.darwinawards.com[/url]I totally agree with Hypatia, the shower scene was there for many reasons. I don’t think it was overly explicit. They practically set it up in IWHS by showing Zev had been given blue hair [i]everywhere[/i]. Dalektek, you don’t seem to have mentioned Stan’s shower scene in [i]Giga-shadow[/i], does that repulse you just as much? Or is it perfectly acceptable? Nipples are shown which is what this thread is all about…. [img]images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]
quote:
Originally posted by Mercury:
Dalektek, you don’t seem to have mentioned Stan’s shower scene in [i]Giga-shadow[/i], does that repulse you just as much?
oh dear, stan had a shower scene? didn’t see that…does he show a lot? that would be much more information than i need [img]images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img] i do not have a burning desire to see everyone’s nipples [img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]…
Response to JumpingJedi…
quote[quote] Why do simple questions turn into heated debates and mud slinging matches? The topic I was discussing was the minor cuts that US Sci-Fi made to a pretty mild scene and I was wondering why the US cuts it yet the rest of the world doesnt? Some people in this forum have turned it into a much bigger issue than it really is. [/quote]
Issues on a messageboard always changes if the thread gets long enough. Everyone adds a small peice to that change until the original topic is forgotten, It’s common. The issue WAS about censorship and censorship is mostly a question about morality, and morality IS a big issue. Surelly you don’t own the topic, and can’t contain it within the boundaries you set when you started it.
BTW, what’s wrong with some mud slinging matches? I just found a huge rock and I’m ready to throw it in the face of the next person who contradict (thanks, dictionary for the spelling) me!quote[quote] Some people should read less books about life and try living it instead. [/quote]
But that’s just like saying – we should not talk about Lexx, we should watch it instead. And BTW, there is not much to learn about life from living it, other than the little knowledge you need to keep living it. If you wan’t go deeper you will have to read about it, or discuss it with other idiots. 🙂
I have never read a book about it though, I’m just observing. BTW (yes it’s my 3rd “By the Way”!!!) how do you NOT “live life”? Is it possible? What is life?[ 27-11-2001: Message edited by: Theli ]
Sorry If I sounded like I owned the topic. I just get frustrated with some peoples responses to posts at times. One second Im asking about a minor cut in a cult sci-fi programme the next someone if quoting some Psycologist geezers findings on the Moral principals of man. Maybe I just like to keep things light and cheerful. After all thats what Lexx is about. Cant we all just love each other? [img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]
quote:
Originally posted by JumpingJedi:
. One second Im asking about a minor cut in a cult sci-fi programme the next someone if quoting some Psycologist geezers findings on the Moral principals of man. Maybe I just like to keep things light and cheerful. [img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]
actually, this is quite goodnatured and light [img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]…just happens everyone is very vehement about their nipple watching…besides, if all behaved as if the only thing we had ever seen or read was lexx, this forum would not be half as interesting or enlightening…[b]and[/b] we would be missing all of the allusions and satire in lexx [img]images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]…anyhoo, this thread is creaking and groaning, so i will cut and paste the last morality argument to a new topic and let it continue there…love fx
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.