| |
News from the Danish Broadcasting Corporation yesterday:
http://www1.dr.dk/nyheder/indland/article.jhtml?articleID=46165
(my translations)
»Minifigs having sex and going to gay bars is not a part of
Lego's values«
Thomas Reil, The Lego Group says:
»It is something we distance ourselves strongly from. Therefore
we will attempt to have it stopped, if it is legally possible.«
While I understand The Lego Group's dislike of having LEGO
associated with anything but smiling kids and parents, I doubt
that they have any possibility to stop these animations. They
can of course limit the association of the animations with them
through trademark laws.
Play well,
Jacob (who isn't a lawyer)
--
http://jacob.sparre.dk/LEGO/Transport/Tog/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, Jacob Sparre Andersen writes:
> News from the Danish Broadcasting Corporation yesterday:
> »Minifigs having sex and going to gay bars is not a part of
> Lego's values«
...but arming minifigs with pistols, rifles, crossbows, bows and arrows,
swords, knives, spears, lances, dynamite, and other implements of
destructions which in real life cause horrible pain and misery is apparently
in-line with their value system. Glad they have their priorities straight.
-The Rev. Brendan Powell Smith
|
|
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, Eduardo Vazquez Harte writes:
> Fuck u all gay fucks I hope those animations are deleted or else...
I am disheartened by both TLC's attitude toward how people use their products
and this reaction from LUGNET (so much for a family newsgroup, eh).
If TLC is sucessful in their pursuit to remove objectionable films made with
their products, I think we can safetly surmise that the assumption that we have
been living under (that Lego is a medium through which we can express our
creativity) is false. I guess TLC can claim that the minifig is their
trademark...or tradedress, or whatever it is....and as such anything that
includes these elements of plastic reflects on them. Which means that anything
that we build with minifigs, and maybe other elements that TLC considers
representative of the LEGO brand is up for their scrutiny and
approval/rejection. It's a sad day...
My values are different from TLC's; however, I respect them for trying to
express their values my making an excellent product for children's creativity
and development. Is this moralizing about the uses their product is put to by
adults, for adults part of their value system? I thought not...but I guess I
was wrong.
--
Thomas Main
thomasmain@hotmail.com
|
|
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, Brendan Powell Smith writes:
> In lugnet.mediawatch, Jacob Sparre Andersen writes:
> > News from the Danish Broadcasting Corporation yesterday:
> > »Minifigs having sex and going to gay bars is not a part of
> > Lego's values«
>
> ...but arming minifigs with pistols, rifles, crossbows, bows and arrows,
> swords, knives, spears, lances, dynamite, and other implements of
> destructions which in real life cause horrible pain and misery is apparently
> in-line with their value system. Glad they have their priorities straight.
I think they do, and I think your analogy is unfair. One could argue that
tyranny, evil, and oppression are unavoidable in this world-- to defend against
such is both honorable and necessary. To me, *that* is where TLC focuses their
attention in their "conflict" themes-- to *defending good against evil*. There
is nothing wrong with that.
There is something very wrong with portraying MF in the above manner in question
(and something *very* wrong with whomever did it). I am all for freedom, but
with freedom comes *responsibility*. What has been done is irresponsible and I
understand TLC desire to disassociate itself from it (whether they will be
successful or just add fuel to these sicko's fire is debatable).
Society has a vested interest in protecting its youth from such destructive
elements (and people). Violence much be eshewed as well, but there is a fine
line WRT teaching children about good and evil. There is no such line when it
comes to the topic of sex and children. The very definition of a child is one
who hasn't knowledge of such things, and presenting it to them forces their
childhood from them, which is, in my mind, evil.
-John
>
> -The Rev. Brendan Powell Smith
|
|
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, Eduardo Vazquez Harte writes:
> Fuck u all gay fucks I hope those animations are deleted or else...
That sounded just as bad as the animations, if you ask me.
Please, if you cannot withstand from using such language, at least
semi-censor it by using asterisks. Remember: there are, I am sure, younger
people then me here.
--
Mark Nelson
Age 14
|
|
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, Jacob Sparre Andersen writes:
> »Minifigs having sex and going to gay bars is not a part of
> Lego's values«
In the "good old days" minifigs were essentially sexless. They all pretty
much looked the same with the same smily face. Before that, minifigs didn't
have movable arms or legs, so they looked like little people in body casts.
Today's minifigs have extreme facial expressions along with detailed
depictions of hair, including facial hair.
As far as "Lego's values", they have not remained consistent through the
years. For the longest time, guns were forbidden, but they're seemingly
everywhere in Lego today.
As far as Lego's desire to keep sex out of "child's play", I'd certainly
agree, but I'm not sure that "brickfilms" would be viewed by children
anyway. Seems like Lego's legal department is just trying to cover the
company's collective behind.
Jeff
|
|
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, John Neal writes:
> In lugnet.mediawatch, Brendan Powell Smith writes:
> > ...but arming minifigs with pistols, rifles, crossbows, bows and arrows,
> > swords, knives, spears, lances, dynamite, and other implements of
> > destructions which in real life cause horrible pain and misery is apparently
> > in-line with their value system. Glad they have their priorities straight.
>
> I think they do, and I think your analogy is unfair. One could argue that
> tyranny, evil, and oppression are unavoidable in this world-- to defend >against such is both honorable and necessary. To me, *that* is where TLC
> focuses their attention in their "conflict" themes-- to *defending good
> against evil*. There is nothing wrong with that.
Disagree. <!-- heading off-topic... -->
Problem #1 - It teaches violent solutions as acceptable solutions (perhaps
even encouraged?) to moral dilemmas.
Problem #2 - It further solidifies a distinction between good and evil which
doesn't exist in Real Life(tm).
Recent example: I was appauled when GB Jr. said in one of his speeches that
moral relativism was bad, and that the only acceptable moral valuation of
bin Laden was that he is evil. I don't think one needs to recognize him as
evil in order to justify stopping him.
> There is something very wrong with portraying MF in the above manner in
> question (and something *very* wrong with whomever did it). I am all for
> freedom, but with freedom comes *responsibility*. What has been done is
> irresponsible and I understand TLC desire to disassociate itself from it
<!-- now back on topic? hmmm, where to post this?... -->
Agree. It should be as clear as possible that it doesn't represent TLC in
any way.
> (whether they will be successful or just add fuel to these sicko's fire is
> debatable).
Judging from the content, I don't think it'd fuel the fire-- unless TLC
really DOES happen to pull legal strings. The animations in question were (I
think) purely intended to be funny, despite whatever reaction they knew
they'd get from certain groups. IE I don't think they did it to get a
vehement response from anyone... they just have a warped sense of humor.
> Society has a vested interest in protecting its youth from such destructive
> elements (and people).
I dunno if I agree with "society" so much as "parents". Hmm... I'll have to
think on that one. However, I don't think the animations were actually
destructive. And FWIW, I don't think they were targeting children.
Personally, I just found it rather unamusing. I had a hard time watching it
all the way through-- I was bored. I kind of expected a South-Park-ish brand
humor (which I actually find funny), but this was the same brand without
nearly the humor.
> Violence much be eshewed as well, but there is a fine
> line WRT teaching children about good and evil. There is no such line when it
> comes to the topic of sex and children. The very definition of a child is one
> who hasn't knowledge of such things, and presenting it to them forces their
> childhood from them, which is, in my mind, evil.
Interesting definition of childhood-- I think I agree with the definition...
However, I'm not sure I see it as evil if one attempted to 'force' adult
information on them. For whatever reason, humans tend to value innocence,
but not naivity, despite the fact that the former causes the latter :) I've
always been a proponent of being experienced over being unexperienced, though...
DaveE
|
|
| |
Eduardo,
Tienes una boca llena de mierda.
("You're a potty-mouth.")
|
|
| |
I've never even heard of these animations. Are they something new, or just
some obscure little files that no one ever paid attention to until now? If
kids are watching them, then yes, that's bad. I imagine, however, that those
of us in LUGNET are plenty mature enough to avoid such smut.
Fuzzy
|
|
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, Jacob Sparre Andersen writes:
>
> »Minifigs having sex and going to gay bars is not a part of
> Lego's values«
And there was I thinking that the Guarded Inn has always looked a bit on the
camp side...
Jennifer
|
|
| |
I wonder how this will affect the Brick Testament? The Bible
has some very interesting stories...
KL
In lugnet.mediawatch, Jacob Sparre Andersen writes:
> News from the Danish Broadcasting Corporation yesterday:
>
> http://www1.dr.dk/nyheder/indland/article.jhtml?articleID=46165
>
> (my translations)
>
> »Minifigs having sex and going to gay bars is not a part of
> Lego's values«
>
> Thomas Reil, The Lego Group says:
>
> »It is something we distance ourselves strongly from. Therefore
> we will attempt to have it stopped, if it is legally possible.«
>
> While I understand The Lego Group's dislike of having LEGO
> associated with anything but smiling kids and parents, I doubt
> that they have any possibility to stop these animations. They
> can of course limit the association of the animations with them
> through trademark laws.
>
> Play well,
>
> Jacob (who isn't a lawyer)
> --
> http://jacob.sparre.dk/LEGO/Transport/Tog/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.mediawatch, John Neal writes:
> > In lugnet.mediawatch, Brendan Powell Smith writes:
> > > ...but arming minifigs with pistols, rifles, crossbows, bows and arrows,
> > > swords, knives, spears, lances, dynamite, and other implements of
> > > destructions which in real life cause horrible pain and misery is apparently
> > > in-line with their value system. Glad they have their priorities straight.
> >
> > I think they do, and I think your analogy is unfair. One could argue that
> > tyranny, evil, and oppression are unavoidable in this world-- to defend >against such is both honorable and necessary. To me, *that* is where TLC
> > focuses their attention in their "conflict" themes-- to *defending good
> > against evil*. There is nothing wrong with that.
>
> Disagree. <!-- heading off-topic... -->
>
> Problem #1 - It teaches violent solutions as acceptable solutions (perhaps
> even encouraged?) to moral dilemmas.
Of course. Sometimew it is *unavoidable* Please provide an acceptable solution
to stopping the moral dilemma of the Nazi tyranny in WWII without violence.
>
> Problem #2 - It further solidifies a distinction between good and evil which
> doesn't exist in Real Life(tm).
Disagree. I think good and evil can be distinguished IRL. Sometimes it's
harder than other times, I'll admit.
>
> Recent example: I was appauled when GB Jr. said in one of his speeches that
> moral relativism was bad,
It is:-)
and that the only acceptable moral valuation of
> bin Laden was that he is evil. I don't think one needs to recognize him as
> evil in order to justify stopping him.
Semantics? What would be your definition of "evil"?
>
> > There is something very wrong with portraying MF in the above manner in
> > question (and something *very* wrong with whomever did it). I am all for
> > freedom, but with freedom comes *responsibility*. What has been done is
> > irresponsible and I understand TLC desire to disassociate itself from it
>
> <!-- now back on topic? hmmm, where to post this?... -->
> Agree. It should be as clear as possible that it doesn't represent TLC in
> any way.
>
> > (whether they will be successful or just add fuel to these sicko's fire is
> > debatable).
>
> Judging from the content, I don't think it'd fuel the fire-- unless TLC
> really DOES happen to pull legal strings. The animations in question were (I
> think) purely intended to be funny, despite whatever reaction they knew
> they'd get from certain groups. IE I don't think they did it to get a
> vehement response from anyone... they just have a warped sense of humor.
>
> > Society has a vested interest in protecting its youth from such destructive
> > elements (and people).
>
> I dunno if I agree with "society" so much as "parents". Hmm... I'll have to
> think on that one. However, I don't think the animations were actually
> destructive. And FWIW, I don't think they were targeting children.
Well, that is my whole point. As adults, you and I can dismiss this kind of
behavior as stupidity, warped, or even art (;-)). But children aren't able to
process this kind of information and the destructiveness about which I spoke was
having kids exposed to it.
> Personally, I just found it rather unamusing. I had a hard time watching it
> all the way through-- I was bored. I kind of expected a South-Park-ish brand
> humor (which I actually find funny), but this was the same brand without
> nearly the humor.
I didn't bother to watch.
>
> > Violence much be eshewed as well, but there is a fine
> > line WRT teaching children about good and evil. There is no such line when it
> > comes to the topic of sex and children. The very definition of a child is one
> > who hasn't knowledge of such things, and presenting it to them forces their
> > childhood from them, which is, in my mind, evil.
>
> Interesting definition of childhood-- I think I agree with the definition...
> However, I'm not sure I see it as evil if one attempted to 'force' adult
> information on them.
Innocence, once lost, is gone forever. Experience comes with age. When
experience comes before age (childhood), healthy development is almost certainly
impossible. Anyone who would rob a child of the chance to develop normally into
a mature, healthy adult... yeah, I'd call them (or their acts) evil.
-John
For whatever reason, humans tend to value innocence,
> but not naivity, despite the fact that the former causes the latter :) I've
> always been a proponent of being experienced over being unexperienced, though...
>
> DaveE
|
|
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, David Gregory writes:
> I've never even heard of these animations. Are they something new, or just
> some obscure little files that no one ever paid attention to until now? If
> kids are watching them, then yes, that's bad. I imagine, however, that those
> of us in LUGNET are plenty mature enough to avoid such smut.
> Fuzzy
The film being referenced (at least from the pic that shows up on the site that
Jacob cited, I don't speak Danish so I can't attest to the text of the article)
is from a film called "Rick & Steve: the Happiest Gay Couple in All the
World." It can be found through the Brickfilms directory
(http://brickfilms.topcities.com/) and I believe the films (it's a series) are
actually hosted on http://www.hypnotic.com
They are clearly not intended for children (the Brickfilms pointer makes this
clear) but I do not think they should be called smut either. They are edgy
entertainment for adults.
--
Thomas Main
thomasmain@hotmail.com
|
|
| |
> I didn't bother to watch.
> >
> > > Violence much be eshewed as well, but there is a fine
> > > line WRT teaching children about good and evil. There is no such line when it
> > > comes to the topic of sex and children. The very definition of a child is one
> > > who hasn't knowledge of such things, and presenting it to them forces their
> > > childhood from them, which is, in my mind, evil.
> >
> > Interesting definition of childhood-- I think I agree with the definition...
> > However, I'm not sure I see it as evil if one attempted to 'force' adult
> > information on them.
>
> Innocence, once lost, is gone forever. Experience comes with age. When
> experience comes before age (childhood), healthy development is almost certainly
> impossible. Anyone who would rob a child of the chance to develop normally into
> a mature, healthy adult... yeah, I'd call them (or their acts) evil.
I suppose at John's response you would question what it means to "develop
normally" and what it means to be a "mature healthy adult."
I want to throw my name in with those who believe there is a difference
between good and evil. I would challenge you to tell me when rape and child
molestation could ever be considered good (or at least, not evil). I pity
the person whose moral values are so open-minded that they're empty minded.
If that's you, please, please don't have children. And please stay away
from mine.
Markus
who believes moral relativism is cowardly and irresponsible. Though I guess
you'd question my definition on those things too.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> In lugnet.mediawatch, David Eaton writes:
> > Problem #1 - It teaches violent solutions as acceptable solutions (perhaps
> > even encouraged?) to moral dilemmas.
>
> Of course. Sometimew it is *unavoidable* Please provide an acceptable
> solution to stopping the moral dilemma of the Nazi tyranny in WWII without
> violence.
Ah-- I agree in principle. That it IS sometimes unavoidable. But making it
more commonplace gives it the appearance of not so much of an last-resort,
and more of a general solution.
> > Problem #2 - It further solidifies a distinction between good and evil which
> > doesn't exist in Real Life(tm).
>
> Disagree. I think good and evil can be distinguished IRL. Sometimes it's
> harder than other times, I'll admit.
Disagree. :)
See: evil [below]
> > Recent example: I was appauled when GB Jr. said in one of his speeches that
> > moral relativism was bad,
>
> It is:-)
>
> > and that the only acceptable moral valuation of
> > bin Laden was that he is evil. I don't think one needs to recognize him as
> > evil in order to justify stopping him.
>
> Semantics? What would be your definition of "evil"?
Evil (ee-vil): 1) [DaveE's dictionary] - that which goes against one's own
sense of morality. (see: Relative morality)
Prior to seeing & hearing about the videotape (which was the time at which
GWB Jr. was speaking) I was under the impression that bin Laden was actually
still capable of being a good person. However, the comments about his own
people not knowing they were commiting suicide pushed the limit. I think
he's most likely evil. Of course by my relativistic theory, I'm not SURE of
it, but it's my guess.
Better example: Bobo the koala gets ahold of a beretta. Bobo plays with it,
and shoots his pal in the head. Is Bobo evil? No. Should he be stopped from
having the gun? Yes. Is violence necessary? Maybe.
> I didn't bother to watch.
You didn't miss much... (But are you more innocent for lack of it? :)
> Innocence, once lost, is gone forever. Experience comes with age. When
> experience comes before age (childhood), healthy development is almost
> certainly impossible.
I dunno if I agree with that. It would require a definition of healthy, and
I'm not sure it breaks my current assumption of the definition.
> Anyone who would rob a child of the chance to develop
> normally into a mature, healthy adult... yeah, I'd call them (or their acts)
> evil.
I guess we'll just have to disagree until you accept moral relativity, you
evil man :)
DaveE
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Markus Wolf writes:
> I want to throw my name in with those who believe there is a difference
> between good and evil. I would challenge you to tell me when rape and child
> molestation could ever be considered good (or at least, not evil).
From my particular standpoint, it would only be morally good when the person
doing it honestly believed they were doing good. However, it doesn't mean
that the person shouldn't be stopped-- nor that one would be morally wrong
to try and stop them. All it means is that you don't get to judge the person
to be evil until you've seen evidence that they KNOW they did wrong.
In the event of rape (for example), I don't think I've EVER met ANYONE who
believes it's good. Or even simply 'not evil'. And I don't expect I ever
WILL meet anyone of that persuasion. But being a moral relativist, I will
allow the possibility that such a person may exist-- and that if they did, I
would hope I would not judge them to be evil for doing so. But I also hope
I'd be able to stop them from commiting such an act. Because for me, it
would be immoral not to try.
> I pity the person whose moral values are so open-minded that they're empty
> minded.
Sadly, the problem with most people is that they believe that in order to be
moral themselves, they CANNOT act against those who similarly are moral. IE,
if I (say) showed Bob why a particular murderer was moral, he might suddenly
feel compelled NOT to stop the murderer because he's used to ONLY wanting to
stop those who he feels are IMMORAL. Essentially, most people only feel that
evil merits preventative measure, and as such are reluctant to stop people
they SHOULD stop-- even so far as to the point that they pity them, and out
of such pity HELP them.
> If that's you, please, please don't have children. And please stay away from
> mine.
That's a little harsh, I'd say-- I'm not offended or anything, but just to
note, that comment's been made before with some rather... flame-festy results...
> Markus
> who believes moral relativism is cowardly and irresponsible. Though I guess
> you'd question my definition on those things too.
See above-- it's not actually moral relativism that's cowardly and
irresponsible, though I do admit that many people who agree with its
principles forget the consequences of adhering to such a philosophy. People
who would allow heinous acts to continue simply because the person acting
isn't actually ill-intentioned aren't seeing the bigger picture. :(
DaveE
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> > In lugnet.mediawatch, David Eaton writes:
> > > Problem #1 - It teaches violent solutions as acceptable solutions (perhaps
> > > even encouraged?) to moral dilemmas.
> >
> > Of course. Sometimew it is *unavoidable* Please provide an acceptable
> > solution to stopping the moral dilemma of the Nazi tyranny in WWII without
> > violence.
>
> Ah-- I agree in principle. That it IS sometimes unavoidable. But making it
> more commonplace gives it the appearance of not so much of an last-resort,
> and more of a general solution.
Well, (and sorry for straying OT;-) bringing LEGO back into the discussion,
fantasy play IMO is best when the stakes are high (saving the world or even
better, the universe), from the evil Ogel [the *very* antithesis of LEGO and all
that is good] and his HFs (henchfigs:) for instance. That is why there are no
politician playsets-- too boring:-)
As long as the action is taking place in the realm of fantasy, I find no problem
with kids battling evil where ever it is found. Bringing violence one step
closer to home by creating war themes based on actual conflicts can easily
create a tendency to glorify war and this I agree isn't good. As does TLC, as
evidenced by their reluctance to create such themes based on reality.
The major problem I see with kids playing "war" with toys is that they do it
without purpose, because they haven't been taught morality. Right and wrong are
relative and meaningless, and so instead of battling good against evil, they
simply battle for the sake of fighting.
Seems to me that your problem with commonplace violence is being fostered by
attitudes such as yours toward morality.
>
> > > Problem #2 - It further solidifies a distinction between good and evil which
> > > doesn't exist in Real Life(tm).
> >
> > Disagree. I think good and evil can be distinguished IRL. Sometimes it's
> > harder than other times, I'll admit.
>
> Disagree. :)
> See: evil [below]
>
> > > Recent example: I was appauled when GB Jr. said in one of his speeches that
> > > moral relativism was bad,
> >
> > It is:-)
> >
> > > and that the only acceptable moral valuation of
> > > bin Laden was that he is evil. I don't think one needs to recognize him as
> > > evil in order to justify stopping him.
> >
> > Semantics? What would be your definition of "evil"?
>
> Evil (ee-vil): 1) [DaveE's dictionary] - that which goes against one's own
> sense of morality. (see: Relative morality)
lol I'll stick with Webster's;-)
>
> Prior to seeing & hearing about the videotape (which was the time at which
> GWB Jr. was speaking) I was under the impression that bin Laden was actually
> still capable of being a good person. However, the comments about his own
> people not knowing they were commiting suicide pushed the limit. I think
> he's most likely evil. Of course by my relativistic theory, I'm not SURE of
> it, but it's my guess.
So his evil status is based upon how much information you have regarding his
culpability? So as long as I do evil without anyone's knowledge, I am not evil?
>
> Better example: Bobo the koala gets ahold of a beretta. Bobo plays with it,
> and shoots his pal in the head. Is Bobo evil? No.
But his action is. Innocents can do evil without realizing it.
Should he be stopped from
> having the gun? Yes. Is violence necessary? Maybe.
>
> > I didn't bother to watch.
>
> You didn't miss much... (But are you more innocent for lack of it? :)
>
> > Innocence, once lost, is gone forever. Experience comes with age. When
> > experience comes before age (childhood), healthy development is almost
> > certainly impossible.
>
> I dunno if I agree with that. It would require a definition of healthy, and
> I'm not sure it breaks my current assumption of the definition.
>
> > Anyone who would rob a child of the chance to develop
> > normally into a mature, healthy adult... yeah, I'd call them (or their acts)
> > evil.
>
> I guess we'll just have to disagree until you accept moral relativity, you
> evil man :)
:-)
-John
>
> DaveE
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> Well, (and sorry for straying OT;-) bringing LEGO back into the discussion,
> fantasy play IMO is best when the stakes are high (saving the world or even
> better, the universe), from the evil Ogel [the *very* antithesis of LEGO and
> all that is good] and his HFs (henchfigs:) for instance. That is why there
> are no politician playsets-- too boring:-)
And here I thought it was cuz politicians were more evil than war! :)
> As long as the action is taking place in the realm of fantasy, I find no
> problem with kids battling evil where ever it is found. Bringing violence
> one step closer to home by creating war themes based on actual conflicts can
> easily create a tendency to glorify war and this I agree isn't good. As does
> TLC, as evidenced by their reluctance to create such themes based on reality.
I will agree that in a fantasy realm it's better than in a realistic-fantasy
realm. IE a futuristic fantasy with violence is "better" than a modern
fantasy with violence. Helps to distance it from reality. Not that it
doesn't still serve to teach violence as commonplace, though.
> The major problem I see with kids playing "war" with toys is that they do it
> without purpose, because they haven't been taught morality. Right and wrong
> are relative and meaningless, and so instead of battling good against evil,
> they simply battle for the sake of fighting.
Agree. That's a problem.
> Seems to me that your problem with commonplace violence is being fostered by
> attitudes such as yours toward morality.
Honestly I don't have much of a problem with it. I'd actually be fine if TLC
wanted to produce tanks & machine guns. And rest assured that'd I'd be 10x
more likely to buy my kids (had I kids) HP sets than tank sets. Doesn't mean
I *wouldn't* buy them tank sets-- certainly I might as they got older... it
would require case-specific scrutiny-- but if they liked HP *and* tanks, you
can guess which I'd buy first.
> > Prior to seeing & hearing about the videotape (which was the time at which
> > GWB Jr. was speaking) I was under the impression that bin Laden was actually
> > still capable of being a good person. However, the comments about his own
> > people not knowing they were commiting suicide pushed the limit. I think
> > he's most likely evil. Of course by my relativistic theory, I'm not SURE of
> > it, but it's my guess.
>
> So his evil status is based upon how much information you have regarding his
> culpability? So as long as I do evil without anyone's knowledge, I am not
> evil?
No no-- his "true" moral state is unchanged. It's only my understanding of
his moral state that changes with knowledge. IE, if you steal a loaf of
bread, and I hear the headline "AFOL Robs Local Store!", maybe I'll think
you're evil. Especially if I watch the Fox special on you. It doesn't change
whether or not you're ACTUALLY evil, but when I find out what you stole and
why, perhaps I'll change my mind. It won't change your status, just my
understanding.
Similarly, if you SAY you think you're moral, it's not necessarily so. Even
if you consciously believe it yourself. Your subconsious could quite well
know the moral implications that you hide from your own self. Gets tricky
there...
> > Better example: Bobo the koala gets ahold of a beretta. Bobo plays with it,
> > and shoots his pal in the head. Is Bobo evil? No.
>
> But his action is. Innocents can do evil without realizing it.
Disagree. For the same reason that I don't see a lightning bolt as evil. One
needs to have a moral sense in order to be deemed evil, as I see it.
Otherwise you're just amoral. Lightning bolts are amoral. People genearlly
aren't.
DaveE
|
|
| |
I am shocked and disgusted at anyone who would be immoral and low enough to
display these films on the Internet. Even though I have not watched them, I
have learned enough reading this thread. It is not right for anyone to
display this trash anywhere. Legos were not meant to be used in digital
films filled with smut, they were meant for enhancing creativity through
building and designing. I hope nobody flames me for this, but if they do, I
will still stand by my opinions.
Curt Tigges
(who is also 14 and an LDS)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, Curt Tigges writes:
> I am shocked and disgusted at anyone who would be immoral and low enough to
> display these films on the Internet. Even though I have not watched them, I
> have learned enough reading this thread. It is not right for anyone to
> display this trash anywhere. Legos were not meant to be used in digital
> films filled with smut, they were meant for enhancing creativity through
> building and designing. I hope nobody flames me for this, but if they do, I
> will still stand by my opinions.
Well, 1st off, I have to defend free speech. I mean, after all, back in the
50's (or so) bikinis were indecent. Way back in the 20's, showing your
calves (or was it knees?) in public was a disgrace. Supposedly there's blue
laws in Boston about how couples may not hold hands in Boston Common (from
way back in the 1600's). Clearly the idea of what is and isn't smut changes
with time, location, and people in general.
> Curt Tigges
> (who is also 14 and an LDS)
What's an LDS?
DaveE
|
|
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, David Gregory writes:
> Eduardo,
> Tienes una boca llena de mierda.
>
> ("You're a potty-mouth.")
Up yours!
Tu tambien capullo
Now this gay idea of making LEGO
minifigs that are gay, transexual, lesbians... is
stupid.
I understand and agree with my cousin, when I was 7
she changed all my minifig's legs to bricks 1x2,
those bricks where skirts yes LOL that was true.
Anyway I only ask to remove that idea of LEGO gay-minifigs.
Thanks for reading
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.mediawatch, Curt Tigges writes:
> > I am shocked and disgusted at anyone who would be immoral and low enough to
> > display these films on the Internet. Even though I have not watched them, I
> > have learned enough reading this thread. It is not right for anyone to
> > display this trash anywhere. Legos were not meant to be used in digital
> > films filled with smut, they were meant for enhancing creativity through
> > building and designing. I hope nobody flames me for this, but if they do, I
> > will still stand by my opinions.
>
> Well, 1st off, I have to defend free speech. I mean, after all, back in the
> 50's (or so) bikinis were indecent. Way back in the 20's, showing your
> calves (or was it knees?) in public was a disgrace. Supposedly there's blue
> laws in Boston about how couples may not hold hands in Boston Common (from
> way back in the 1600's). Clearly the idea of what is and isn't smut changes
> with time, location, and people in general.
>
> > Curt Tigges
> > (who is also 14 and an LDS)
>
> What's an LDS?
(Church of Jesus Christ of) Latter Day Saints; commonly refered to as Mormons.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.mediawatch, Curt Tigges writes:
> > I am shocked and disgusted at anyone who would be immoral and low enough to
> > display these films on the Internet. Even though I have not watched them, I
> > have learned enough reading this thread. It is not right for anyone to
> > display this trash anywhere. Legos were not meant to be used in digital
> > films filled with smut, they were meant for enhancing creativity through
> > building and designing. I hope nobody flames me for this, but if they do, I
> > will still stand by my opinions.
>
> I mean, after all, back in the
> 50's (or so) bikinis were indecent. Way back in the 20's, showing your
> calves (or was it knees?) in public was a disgrace. Supposedly there's blue
> laws in Boston about how couples may not hold hands in Boston Common
No matter what the standards of reavealing parts of one's body, depictions
of LEGO minifigs being gay and doing you-know-what-else is evil and immoral.
> What's an LDS?
A member of The Church of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints. In other words,
a Mormon.
>
> DaveE
|
|
| |
> No matter what the standards of reavealing parts of one's body, depictions
> of LEGO minifigs being gay and doing you-know-what-else is evil and immoral.
I agree with you that past standards or changes in standards is no reason to
permit something now, but I disagree with your idea of evil. Just why is LEGO
intercourse evil? Now if you meant people forwarding thier own ideas about the
mores of society through a LEGO medium, that *might* be true, but I don't think
so in this case.
Leonard
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Curt Tigges writes:
> No matter what the standards of reavealing parts of one's body, depictions
> of LEGO minifigs being gay and doing you-know-what-else is evil and immoral.
Based on what criterion, exactly?
Is it still evil to do the same in a different medium? If I, say, posted
something similar using crayola crayons, is it still evil? How about if I
use a purposely falic novelty pen? IE, is it the connection between the
innocence of the medium and the "adultness" of the content that's evil, or
is it the content itself?
Or is it not necessarily the content, but the forum in which it's displayed?
Would it be OK if it were not shown on the internet, but instead at a live
porn show? How about if it were still on the internet, but required age
authentication?
Or is it merely the content? I know this came up recently wherein the
discussion turned to whether or not Christianity held homosexuality as evil
or not-- hence, is it merely the "gay" aspect that's evil?
As evidenced in the Brick Testament, we've seen sexuality and nudity
displayed in other, "less-contraversial" forums. Is the display in the Brick
Testament evil for depicting sexual acts & nudity from minifigs? Let's hope
not! :)
DaveE
|
|
| |
Eduardo,
I agree with you that people should not make gay minifigs. I just
didn't like the vulgar language you used to express your thoughts.
Fuzzy
|
|
| |
"David \"Fuzzy\" Gregory" <david.gregory@student.oc.edu> writes:
> Eduardo,
> I agree with you that people should not make gay minifigs. I just
> didn't like the vulgar language you used to express your thoughts.
There is nothing wrong with making gay minifigs, any more than there
is with making heterosexual minifigs. Sexual content may be
inappropriate for kids, but a pair of gay minifigs doing non-sexual
things (like simply living together, or raising an adopted minifig
kid, etc.) is perfectly appropriate for people of all ages.
It's bad enough that there is such a lack of racial and gender
diversity among minifigs, we don't have to compound that by
discriminating by sexual orientation as well!
--Bill.
--
William R Ward bill@wards.net http://www.wards.net/~bill/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, Jacob Sparre Andersen writes:
> News from the Danish Broadcasting Corporation yesterday:
>
> http://www1.dr.dk/nyheder/indland/article.jhtml?articleID=46165
>
> (my translations)
>
> »Minifigs having sex and going to gay bars is not a part of
> Lego's values«
>
> Thomas Reil, The Lego Group says:
>
> »It is something we distance ourselves strongly from. Therefore
> we will attempt to have it stopped, if it is legally possible.«
>
> While I understand The Lego Group's dislike of having LEGO
> associated with anything but smiling kids and parents, I doubt
> that they have any possibility to stop these animations. They
> can of course limit the association of the animations with them
> through trademark laws.
>
> Play well,
>
> Jacob (who isn't a lawyer)
> --
> http://jacob.sparre.dk/LEGO/Transport/Tog/
Isn't this kind of nice...We have dialogue concerning gender issues of
minifigs. How innocuous!
Bert Waters
|
|
| |
> In lugnet.mediawatch, Curt Tigges writes:
> I am shocked and disgusted at anyone who would be immoral and low enough to
> display these films on the Internet. Even though I have not watched them, I
> have learned enough reading this thread.
Maybe you should check it out first, Curt, so you can at least understand
the CONTEXT of the images presented? Just a suggestion. I haven't seen it
yet either (because my computer is sssssslooooooowwww so I rarely see
anything animated) but I want to judge for myself.
> It is not right for anyone to display this trash anywhere.
How do you know it's trash if you haven't even seen it?
> Legos were not meant to be used in digital films filled with smut, they were >meant for enhancing creativity through building and designing.
I'm with you, Curt, but what is smut? Who decides? Back in the days on the
"I Love Lucy" show, they didn't even dare to show Lucy and Ricky, a married
couple, in their bed together.
> I hope nobody flames me for this, but if they do, I will still stand by my >opinions.
No flames here, Curt. You've got a right to speak your mind. All I suggest
is taking a look at the stuff first and then tell us what you think and why.
Better to know specifically what you're condemning rather than follow the
crowd or someone else's interpretation of something. People see things
differently, trust your own eyes and heart :)
Peace,
Dan
|
|
| |
I'm with Dan on this, I'd love to see this stuff myself but my 56k works
agains me when downloading animation. I actually have the impression that
this "smut" may actually have been done tastefully... but I may never know
for myself.
In lugnet.mediawatch, Daniel Jassim writes:
> > In lugnet.mediawatch, Curt Tigges writes:
> > I am shocked and disgusted at anyone who would be immoral and low enough to
> > display these films on the Internet. Even though I have not watched them, I
> > have learned enough reading this thread.
>
> Maybe you should check it out first, Curt, so you can at least understand
> the CONTEXT of the images presented? Just a suggestion. I haven't seen it
> yet either (because my computer is sssssslooooooowwww so I rarely see
> anything animated) but I want to judge for myself.
>
> > It is not right for anyone to display this trash anywhere.
>
> How do you know it's trash if you haven't even seen it?
>
> > Legos were not meant to be used in digital films filled with smut, they were >meant for enhancing creativity through building and designing.
>
> I'm with you, Curt, but what is smut? Who decides? Back in the days on the
> "I Love Lucy" show, they didn't even dare to show Lucy and Ricky, a married
> couple, in their bed together.
>
> > I hope nobody flames me for this, but if they do, I will still stand by my >opinions.
>
> No flames here, Curt. You've got a right to speak your mind. All I suggest
> is taking a look at the stuff first and then tell us what you think and why.
> Better to know specifically what you're condemning rather than follow the
> crowd or someone else's interpretation of something. People see things
> differently, trust your own eyes and heart :)
>
> Peace,
>
> Dan
|
|
| |
> In lugnet.mediawatch, Eduardo Vazquez Harte writes:
> In lugnet.mediawatch, David Gregory writes:
> > Eduardo,
> > Tienes una boca llena de mierda.
> >
> > ("You're a potty-mouth.")
>
> Up yours!
>
> Tu tambien capullo
Please take this to email, guys.
> Now this gay idea of making LEGO minifigs that are gay, transexual, >lesbians... is stupid.
You made your point and you have a right to an opinion. Now, I'm interested
to know why you think this.
> I understand and agree with my cousin, when I was 7
> she changed all my minifig's legs to bricks 1x2,
> those bricks where skirts yes LOL that was true.
Meaning that all the Lego minifigs looked male and she wanted to have some
females as well? That's cool and makes perfect sense to me. How long ago was
that by the way? I think Lego introduced female minifigs with the Castle
series back in the mid-80's.
> Anyway I only ask to remove that idea of LEGO gay-minifigs.
Why dude? Who cares if there's gay minifigs? Some people just happen to be
gay, that's just the way they are and that's "normal" for them. So let there
be gay minifigs, so what? It's not like homosexuality is a disease you'll
catch if you're around it. But if you go on complaining about homosexuality
some readers might start wondering how secure YOU are with your sexuality.
Now, I think the issue should shift to whether it is good taste (or
respectful toward Lego Company) to publicly show Lego minifigs performing
sexual acts on each other. That should go to off-topic.debate and I'll leave
it at that.
Dan
|
|
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, William R. Ward writes:
> "David \"Fuzzy\" Gregory" <david.gregory@student.oc.edu> writes:
> There is nothing wrong with making gay minifigs, any more than there
> is with making heterosexual minifigs. Sexual content may be
> inappropriate for kids, but a pair of gay minifigs doing non-sexual
> things (like simply living together, or raising an adopted minifig
> kid, etc.) is perfectly appropriate for people of all ages.
>
> It's bad enough that there is such a lack of racial and gender
> diversity among minifigs, we don't have to compound that by
> discriminating by sexual orientation as well!
>
> --Bill.
I disagree. To me, the Lego minifig as always been aracial. Yes, it tends
to have the physical characteristics of a caucasian, but it is not hard to
take the same skin tone and change the features and come up with a black
guy. (I think this has already been talked about in relation to Lando
Calrisian from Star Wars). The original smiley minifig had no ethnicity
whatsoever, and it was only as features were added to him that he became
more caucasian. Lego could very easily (they probably already have) create a
black or asian fig with the yellow head.
Similarly, minifigs have always been asexual in my mind. A pair of
minifigs, man-man or man-woman, should never be regarded as a sexual couple.
To my (*extremely* limited) knowledge, Lego has never produced an expressly
heterosexual couple in a set. I don't see why they should introduce a
homosexual couple since it brings up all these issues that should not be
related to the Lego brick.
Equal rights not special rights.
-Ross
|
|
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, Daniel Jassim writes:
>
>
> Maybe you should check it out first, Curt, so you can at least understand
> the CONTEXT of the images presented? Just a suggestion.
> Peace,
>
> Dan
Dan, while I'll agree with you on most points in your post, I still don't think
that allowing a 14 year old to view smut (even in the ABS) is acceptible. The
films (and other sites of this nature) are there for adult viewing and adult
viewing only. The fact that it's hosted by a college run site rather than Yahoo
is another tip off as well that this shouldn't be viewed by younger audiences.
Personally, I was bored by it in the same way I'm bored watching a Meg Ryan
film. Hand me a pillow because sleep is more exciting.
-Dave
|
|
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, Daniel Jassim writes:
> Maybe you should check it out first, Curt, so you can at least understand
> the CONTEXT of the images presented? Just a suggestion. I haven't seen it
> yet either (because my computer is sssssslooooooowwww so I rarely see
> anything animated) but I want to judge for myself.
You're probably right, Dan. I might have been a little too vehement in
stating my opinions without watching the film, but the very idea that
someone would do this using LEGOs appalls me.
> > Legos were not meant to be used in digital films filled with smut, they were >meant for enhancing creativity through building and designing.
>
> I'm with you, Curt, but what is smut? Who decides? Back in the days on the
> "I Love Lucy" show, they didn't even dare to show Lucy and Ricky, a married
> couple, in their bed together.
That also is a good point. I believe that what defines morality is what goes
against one's conscience. I also believe that society's standards can affect
the conscience only to a certain degree.
> > I hope nobody flames me for this, but if they do, I will still stand by my >opinions.
>
> No flames here, Curt. You've got a right to speak your mind. All I suggest
> is taking a look at the stuff first and then tell us what you think and why.
> Better to know specifically what you're condemning rather than follow the
> crowd or someone else's interpretation of something. People see things
> differently, trust your own eyes and heart :)
Well, I have no intention of watching the films, but I will refrain from
calling it "smut", and "trash". Nevertheless, I still believe that
displaying LEGOs doing things like this (the things mentioned the first post
on this thread, quoted from the news article) is not right.
Curt Albert Tigges II
Commander-in-Chief of Starforce
|
|
| |
> I've never even heard of these animations. Are they something new, or just
> some obscure little files that no one ever paid attention to until now? If
> kids are watching them, then yes, that's bad. I imagine, however, that those
> of us in LUGNET are plenty mature enough to avoid such smut.
There are only a few "evil" Brickfilms or not sutable for children. There
are hundreds of cool, fun Brickfilms and these "good" brickiflms shouldn't
be stopped because of a few smutty once
Some brckfilm sites:
www.brickfilms.com
www.brickmovies.com
www.coolbrickmovies.com
and if your new to all this check out:
www.brickz.net/links/movies.htm - The largest collection of LEGO movie
related links. Over 60!
|
|
| |
> Well, I have no intention of watching the films
All Brickfilms? or just these two (Girl and Rick and Steve)
To everyone who has followed this thread:
Please don't think that LEGO animation is a bad thing. There are lots of
great claymation films out there but does "rex the runt" make "wallace and
gromit" evil? no. most of the other films at Brickfilms.com are fine for
family viewing.
|
|
| |
> Dan, while I'll agree with you on most points in your post, I still don't • think
> that allowing a 14 year old to view smut (even in the ABS) is acceptible. The
> films (and other sites of this nature) are there for adult viewing and adult
> viewing only. The fact that it's hosted by a college run site rather than • Yahoo
>
Why not? if it is _legal_ for them to do it, then why not legal to view it?
Are you afraid that they might see what sex is?
I think there is enough warning that what they are going to see is adult that
it should clue in people who don't want to see adult situations not to open it.
If you as a parent are so afraid of what is on the internet, then monitor what
your child views. Sit with them and tell them what is and what is not
appropriate- and don't rely on _any_ of the 'cybersitters'/"netnannys" to do
your job for you.
(if you want a great example of how they fail, view www.2600.com, and the
article on AOL's kid page...)
As far as minifig sexuality, I really couldn't care. I don't have any "PAL's"
kicking around, but then I rarely have 'couples' in my city. I'd rather leave
things like that ambigous rather than force it down my visitors throats.
James Powell
"PAL's"=People of Alternate Lifestyle-its a PC term used here to describe
unusual relationships
|
|
| |
Hello folks,
Some of you may know me, others may not. I'm Jason Rowoldt, the founder and
webmaster of the site www.brickfilms.com.
Someone posted this article and the associate press frenzy in the Danish
media on the forum of Brickfilms.com. We have had several translations
already and been discussing this very issue.
First, it looks like the discussion here has dengenerated into a
gay/anti-gay or rather freedom of gender/sexual orientation portrayal of
minifigs. I'll try to stay away from that whole topic and focus more on the
relavant issue at hand, which is really at the core of this group and what
we are.
To me, LEGO bricks are a hobby. They are a really fun thing to collect and
to to build with for many of us. I know that some of us have started
reselling LEGO bricks via Brickbay, some of us have done commissioned works
for LEGO sculptures, and some of us have made movies. I'm one of the ones
that makes movies.
Brickfilms.com has grown over the past year (I launched it on Dec. 16th,
2000) and has caught the attention of a lot of media. The NY Times, the
London Guardian, various TV shows including ZD Tech TV, UK Channel 4, and
internet outlets such as Salon.com, Plastic.com, and on and on.
I'm glad it's been getting so much attention, because the sole purpose of
the site is to promote quality film-making from LEGO enthusiasts. I have
purposefully, however, not used the word "LEGO" that often, and of course
intentionally called the site _brick_ films, for a couple of reasons.
Below is my reply to a few questions by some of our regulars to the site:
=======
There is a huge difference, and I mean a HUGE difference, between LEGO
saying "We don't approve of this movie that was made" and "We are taking
legal means to shut down production and/or ban distribution of this movie".
I wholeheartedly agree with The Lego Company's right to say the former. I
even think that LEGO should "officially" stay as far away from violent /
abusive / non-family movies as possible. They can deny association all they
want. They can say "We do not endorse or approve of" a particular movie all
they want. They can even go as far as saying "This is not in line with our
corporate values", and even ask you politely to stop.
They can also endorse whatever they want. They have already endorsed,
supported, promoted, and financed one of the film-makers who used to
frequent this site, Spite Your Face. Good for them.
But I would not want to see "Girl", "Heart of Darkness", or "Catharsis,
Texas" on LEGO.com. That is not in line with children's tastes or a
children's audience.
But we are all more or less mature here (I'm looking at you, OCAP *grin*)
and can take some more adult themed movies. In fact I'd love to see more
movies like "Girl". The NY Times just recently did a story on us FOR more
adult movies. That reporter was asking me for directors who have done
serious stuff and I pointed her in the right direction.
There is room for serious, gritty movies and children's fantasy. There is
room for serious brick animations and whimsical comedies. There is room for
all kinds of movies here.
What I want more than anything is more movies like "ONE: A Space Odyssey",
"Barber of Seville", and "The Gauntlet". Really top notch movies that shine
out as great examples of the ART of film-making.
The thing we want to avoid is legal troubles with / pissing off TLC for
using their trademark or confusing people as to who made the film. The
simple way to do that is to follow a few rules. Take note:
1) Do not ever, ever title your movie "LEGO" anything. Such as LEGO wars,
"2001" A LEGO Odyssey", or "LEGO Ninja Attackers from Hell". Right there you
violate their trademark.
2) Take pains to not have the word LEGO in your film. Again, simply for
trademark issues. A block is a block. a LEGO block is a LEGO block.
3) Try not to use images created by LEGO, such as official models used by
them. They take pictures of all their completed models in order to put them
on boxes, promote them, etc. If you use these official models you blur the
line between what they own the rights to for the images and what you do.
Besides, I'm sure you can come up with cooler models than they do, even if
you change it a tiny bit. Same thing with characters used by them, such as
"Ogel" from the recent Alpha Squad.
==============
There is my general take on the matter. I hope everyone here can understand
my intentions and slight frustration at what LEGO has recently been quoted
as saying. I'd like to remain on good terms with TLC. I'd even like to
have them sponsor some prizes for our current contest. But I cannot in good
concious distrance myself from some of these controversial films and not
defend them with every fiber of my artistic integrity. It does not matter
whether I like a particular movie at all. As Voltaire said "I make not like
what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
Jason
http://www.brickfilms.com
In lugnet.mediawatch, Jacob Sparre Andersen writes:
> News from the Danish Broadcasting Corporation yesterday:
>
> http://www1.dr.dk/nyheder/indland/article.jhtml?articleID=46165
|
|
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, Jason Rowoldt writes:
> Hello folks,
>
> Some of you may know me, others may not. I'm Jason Rowoldt, the founder and
> webmaster of the site www.brickfilms.com.
>
> Someone posted this article and the associate press frenzy in the Danish
> media on the forum of Brickfilms.com. We have had several translations
> already and been discussing this very issue.
>
> First, it looks like the discussion here has dengenerated into a
> gay/anti-gay or rather freedom of gender/sexual orientation portrayal of
> minifigs. I'll try to stay away from that whole topic and focus more on the
> relavant issue at hand, which is really at the core of this group and what
> we are.
No, to me the issue at hand is the lack of responsibility and common sense on
your part. Creating "adult" movies out of LEGO MFs is just plain stupid and
tasteless.
>
> To me, LEGO bricks are a hobby. They are a really fun thing to collect and
> to to build with for many of us. I know that some of us have started
> reselling LEGO bricks via Brickbay, some of us have done commissioned works
> for LEGO sculptures, and some of us have made movies. I'm one of the ones
> that makes movies.
Oh, really Jason? Are all LEGO hobbies that equal? I sell bricks on Brickbay,
you display LEGO porn-- sorry, I don't buy it.
>
> Brickfilms.com has grown over the past year (I launched it on Dec. 16th,
> 2000) and has caught the attention of a lot of media. The NY Times, the
> London Guardian, various TV shows including ZD Tech TV, UK Channel 4, and
> internet outlets such as Salon.com, Plastic.com, and on and on.
>
> I'm glad it's been getting so much attention, because the sole purpose of
> the site is to promote quality film-making from LEGO enthusiasts.
So why sully a good thing by allowing such filth? Or is it *that* which is
getting you all of the attention? The only people whom I can envision enjoying
your LEGO porn are Beavis and Butthead types. If the "sole" purpose of your
site is to promote "quality film-making", then why the hell are you displaying
this type of material???!!! Sorry to break the news to you since you seem not
to have already heard: porn *isn't* quality.
> There is a huge difference, and I mean a HUGE difference, between LEGO
> saying "We don't approve of this movie that was made" and "We are taking
> legal means to shut down production and/or ban distribution of this movie".
>
> I wholeheartedly agree with The Lego Company's right to say the former. I
> even think that LEGO should "officially" stay as far away from violent /
> abusive / non-family movies as possible.
What I can't understand is why *you* don't think this is a good idea, too.
They can deny association all they
> want. They can say "We do not endorse or approve of" a particular movie all
> they want. They can even go as far as saying "This is not in line with our
> corporate values", and even ask you politely to stop.
>
> They can also endorse whatever they want. They have already endorsed,
> supported, promoted, and financed one of the film-makers who used to
> frequent this site, Spite Your Face. Good for them.
>
> But I would not want to see "Girl", "Heart of Darkness", or "Catharsis,
> Texas" on LEGO.com. That is not in line with children's tastes or a
> children's audience.
>
> But we are all more or less mature here
You moron! What an ignorant thing to say! *Anybody* can read LUGNET! *Anybody*
can download your trash!
(I'm looking at you, OCAP *grin*)
> and can take some more adult themed movies. In fact I'd love to see more
> movies like "Girl". The NY Times just recently did a story on us FOR more
> adult movies. That reporter was asking me for directors who have done
> serious stuff and I pointed her in the right direction.
Unbelievable. What a patsy you are.
>
> There is room for serious, gritty movies and children's fantasy. There is
> room for serious brick animations and whimsical comedies. There is room for
> all kinds of movies here.
Really? Maybe there isn't. Maybe you should do what adult sites do and require
some adult ID check before people can enter your site. That would be the
responsible thing to do.
> There is my general take on the matter. I hope everyone here can understand
> my intentions and slight frustration at what LEGO has recently been quoted
> as saying. I'd like to remain on good terms with TLC. I'd even like to
> have them sponsor some prizes for our current contest.
Dude, how clueless can you be? They are talking about trying to shut down your
filth-- you have some serious disconnect going on.
But I cannot in good
> concious distrance myself from some of these controversial films and not
> defend them with every fiber of my artistic integrity.
Artistic integrity? You have no integrity.
It does not matter
> whether I like a particular movie at all.
Of course it matters! It's your site! Take a stand, clean up your act, or
crawl back under the rock from which you came.
As Voltaire said "I make not like
> what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
Just because you *can* doesn't mean you *should*. With freedom comes
responsibility. *You* are irresponsible.
-John
|
|
| |
"John" <johnneal@qwest.net> writes:
> In lugnet.mediawatch, Jason Rowoldt writes:
> > First, it looks like the discussion here has dengenerated into a
> > gay/anti-gay or rather freedom of gender/sexual orientation portrayal of
> > minifigs. I'll try to stay away from that whole topic and focus more on the
> > relavant issue at hand, which is really at the core of this group and what
> > we are.
>
> No, to me the issue at hand is the lack of responsibility and common sense on
> your part. Creating "adult" movies out of LEGO MFs is just plain stupid and
> tasteless.
The phrase "adult movies" has become a euphemism for pornography, but
I believe Jason meant it in the sense of "movies targeted at adults",
which is what most of the films you see in theatres are. Adult
characters, themes, situations - not pornography. It was an
unfortunate choice of words.
> > To me, LEGO bricks are a hobby. They are a really fun thing to collect and
> > to to build with for many of us. I know that some of us have started
> > reselling LEGO bricks via Brickbay, some of us have done commissioned works
> > for LEGO sculptures, and some of us have made movies. I'm one of the ones
> > that makes movies.
>
> Oh, really Jason? Are all LEGO hobbies that equal? I sell bricks
> on Brickbay, you display LEGO porn-- sorry, I don't buy it.
If you go to the theatre and see a movie that includes a love scene
where two characters are having sex, do you call that a porn film? I
wouldn't. It might be "R" rated, but it isn't porn. That's the type
of film that Jason is defending, not a XXX explicit pornographic film.
--Bill.
--
William R Ward bill@wards.net http://www.wards.net/~bill/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, Mark Nelson writes:
> Please, if you cannot withstand from using such language, at least
> semi-censor it by using asterisks. Remember: there are, I am sure, younger
> people then me here.
>
> --
> Mark Nelson
> Age 14
Very well said! Despite your age, consider yourself one of the more mature
members of the group here today! :)
-H.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, Jacob Sparre Andersen writes:
> »Minifigs having sex and going to gay bars is not a part of
> Lego's values«
Ug. I was trying to read through all the posts on this thread, but I
started getting a bad taste in my mouth. I want to go back and get the good
feeling that Brad's posts have given me in the Lego Direct newsgroup...
As far as the legality of things, I think TLC can only hit violations of any
trademarks. I like to think of the bricks as just a medium for art and
such. It is the clay of sculpting, the oils of painting, and the scrap
metal of welding art. Of course, the lawyers might say otherwise. They
might say that all elements have the LEGO logo on their studs, making them
trademarked property. But if they go to that extreme, then each and every
one of us would have to pay royalties to post any MOC online, and they won't
do that because our doing so promotes their toy if anything.
As far as questionable values, well okay certain issues of sexuality should
be subjects that are monitored by parents. That's not my decision to make.
I think it is funny though, seeing mini-figs doing adult things. Even the
Brick Testament has that somewhat. However, that site also makes a point of
rating the pics before you view them. I think that is what all such sites
should consider. If a child (or an offendable adult) goes searching the
internet for sites with the word "Lego", they should be warned about the
content of anything questionable. ...The same thing happens if you do a
search for "photography"...
But to what extreme can we complain about depicting adult activities with
Lego? Where I live, only adults can drive cars. Do we outlaw mini-figs in
mini-cars? Only adults can own guns. Do we remove guns from the toys?
At a recent NELUG meeting, I showcased a little MOC of a local working class
bar ("Jinx's Pub"). If I posted an image of that would TLC tell me not to?
The interior clearly shows blue collar workers drinking alcoholic beverages.
Not only would some people consider that not appropriate for children, but
others might also be offended by the stereotypes implied by the depiction of
"white trash types" (including one guy with a cowboy hat). Is my MOC
inappropriate?
...And that doesn't even call into question the trademark labels I plastered
all over the windows (Corona, Miller Lite, Budweiser, etc.)... But maybe
that would pass as free advertising...
A final note, and this is my attempt to bring humor into this conversation:
Of course some mini-figs would be homosexual; afterall, the ratio of females
to males is rather ugly... <smirk>
-Hendo
|
|
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, William R. Ward writes:
> "John" <johnneal@qwest.net> writes:
> > In lugnet.mediawatch, Jason Rowoldt writes:
> > > First, it looks like the discussion here has dengenerated into a
> > > gay/anti-gay or rather freedom of gender/sexual orientation portrayal of
> > > minifigs. I'll try to stay away from that whole topic and focus more on the
> > > relavant issue at hand, which is really at the core of this group and what
> > > we are.
> >
> > No, to me the issue at hand is the lack of responsibility and common sense on
> > your part. Creating "adult" movies out of LEGO MFs is just plain stupid and
> > tasteless.
>
> The phrase "adult movies" has become a euphemism for pornography, but
> I believe Jason meant it in the sense of "movies targeted at adults",
> which is what most of the films you see in theatres are. Adult
> characters, themes, situations - not pornography. It was an
> unfortunate choice of words.
Well, I hear about MFs being depicted as gay. How else can one know the sexual
orientation of a MF unless one sees that MF engaging in sexual activity.
Depictions of sex is the definition of pornography.
>
> > > To me, LEGO bricks are a hobby. They are a really fun thing to collect and
> > > to to build with for many of us. I know that some of us have started
> > > reselling LEGO bricks via Brickbay, some of us have done commissioned works
> > > for LEGO sculptures, and some of us have made movies. I'm one of the ones
> > > that makes movies.
> >
> > Oh, really Jason? Are all LEGO hobbies that equal? I sell bricks
> > on Brickbay, you display LEGO porn-- sorry, I don't buy it.
>
> If you go to the theatre and see a movie that includes a love scene
> where two characters are having sex, do you call that a porn film?
If it were just one or two scenes, I would call it a film (probably lousy,
because any film maker who felt the need to include such scenes is a money-
grubbing hack with no artistic integrity IMO) with gratuitous sex. If the film
were about sex and portrays sex in every scene or so, then yes, I'd call it
pornographic.
I
> wouldn't. It might be "R" rated, but it isn't porn. That's the type
> of film that Jason is defending, not a XXX explicit pornographic film.
I am concerned about the whole *idea* of portraying MFs in adult situations when
it is easily accessed by children. Frankly, I don't care what he does with his
MFs in the privacy of his own house, but I have a big problem with him or anyone
else for that matter making this "art" freely accessable on the net. As I
mentioned before, let him utilize an adult ID check if he feels he cannot
compromise his "artistic integrity" -- in that event, I wouldn't have a problem
with it. Otherwise, he is a merely yet another slimeball who uses the First
Amendment to cover for is own irresponsible behavior.
-John
>
> --Bill.
|
|
| |
"John" <johnneal@qwest.net> writes:
> In lugnet.mediawatch, William R. Ward writes:
> > "John" <johnneal@qwest.net> writes:
> > > Oh, really Jason? Are all LEGO hobbies that equal? I sell bricks
> > > on Brickbay, you display LEGO porn-- sorry, I don't buy it.
> >
> > If you go to the theatre and see a movie that includes a love scene
> > where two characters are having sex, do you call that a porn film?
>
> If it were just one or two scenes, I would call it a film (probably
> lousy, because any film maker who felt the need to include such
> scenes is a money- grubbing hack with no artistic integrity IMO)
> with gratuitous sex. If the film were about sex and portrays sex in
> every scene or so, then yes, I'd call it pornographic.
Your definition of "pornographic" is clearly out of sync with the
generally-accepted definitions in society, then. I haven't seen the
brickfilm in question, but my understanding is that it is not *about*
sex, though it happens to have sex in it, just like any "R" rated
Hollywood film. Just because the characters are gay doesn't mean it
is about sex. Most movies or TV shows with gay characters don't have
*any* sex in them at all!
Lego is many things to many people. To some, it's a toy; but to
others it is an artistic medium, as valid as any other. Museums that
show paintings or sculptures of nudes, even nudes in somewhat sexual
contexts, are generally open to patrons of all ages.
However, I am beginning to sense that this discussion has gone beyond
the charter of this group, and would suggest that if you have anything
further to say, that you do it on the off-topic.debate group (which I
don't typically read).
--Bill.
--
William R Ward bill@wards.net http://www.wards.net/~bill/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
|
|
| |
"William R Ward" <bill@wards.net> wrote in message
news:m23d242o2n.fsf@komodo.home.wards.net...
> "John" <johnneal@qwest.net> writes:
> > In lugnet.mediawatch, William R. Ward writes:
> > > "John" <johnneal@qwest.net> writes:
> > > > Oh, really Jason? Are all LEGO hobbies that equal? I sell bricks
> > > > on Brickbay, you display LEGO porn-- sorry, I don't buy it.
> > >
> > > If you go to the theatre and see a movie that includes a love scene
> > > where two characters are having sex, do you call that a porn film?
> >
> > If it were just one or two scenes, I would call it a film (probably
> > lousy, because any film maker who felt the need to include such
> > scenes is a money- grubbing hack with no artistic integrity IMO)
> > with gratuitous sex. If the film were about sex and portrays sex in
> > every scene or so, then yes, I'd call it pornographic.
>
> Your definition of "pornographic" is clearly out of sync with the
> generally-accepted definitions in society, then. I haven't seen the
> brickfilm in question, but my understanding is that it is not *about*
> sex, though it happens to have sex in it, just like any "R" rated
> Hollywood film. Just because the characters are gay doesn't mean it
> is about sex. Most movies or TV shows with gay characters don't have
> *any* sex in them at all!
Well - if according to you its similar to "R" rated films, then they should
be treated like "R" rated films. Those films are restricted to people over
18 unless they have adult supervision. Shouldn't the same apply here?
I agree with John - it is not being handled responsibly when it is freely
accessible to children.
-Tim
|
|
| |
Hi John,
Since you have personally attacked me, I feel I need to respond. However,
I'm (going to try to) not personally attack you in response. I don't think
that's going to do anything.
From the nature of the comments you have left, I can tell there is no sense
having a rational "argument" with you. Basically, you are ignorant of the
issues involved. You have not watched ANY of the movies in question. I
doubt you have even visted Brickfilms.com.
I'll address a few comments you have made, but I am ignoring personal
attacks and chalking it up to ... well, how shall I put it .. bad manners
and a childish mentality on your part.
In lugnet.mediawatch, John Neal writes:
> In lugnet.mediawatch, Jason Rowoldt writes:
> No, to me the issue at hand is the lack of responsibility and common sense on
> your part. Creating "adult" movies out of LEGO MFs is just plain stupid and
> tasteless.
What do you mean by "adult" movies? There are nothing anywhere near what
you would think of as "porn" on my site. Again, watch the movies before
making ignorant comments like this. In addition, I have made no movies with
any adult themes of any kind.
> Oh, really Jason? Are all LEGO hobbies that equal? I sell bricks on Brickbay,
> you display LEGO porn-- sorry, I don't buy it.
See comment above.
> So why sully a good thing by allowing such filth? Or is it *that* which is
> getting you all of the attention? The only people whom I can envision enjoying
> your LEGO porn are Beavis and Butthead types. If the "sole" purpose of your
> site is to promote "quality film-making", then why the hell are you displaying
> this type of material???!!! Sorry to break the news to you since you seem not
> to have already heard: porn *isn't* quality.
Again, see above.
> You moron! What an ignorant thing to say! *Anybody* can read LUGNET! *Anybody*
> can download your trash!
Hmmm. You must not have gotten what I said. These movies have nothing to
do with The LEGO Company, and are not hosted by their site.
>
> (I'm looking at you, OCAP *grin*)
> > and can take some more adult themed movies. In fact I'd love to see more
> > movies like "Girl". The NY Times just recently did a story on us FOR more
> > adult movies. That reporter was asking me for directors who have done
> > serious stuff and I pointed her in the right direction.
>
> Unbelievable. What a patsy you are.
I'm not even goign to try and understand what you are talking about.
> Really? Maybe there isn't. Maybe you should do what adult sites do and require
> some adult ID check before people can enter your site. That would be the
> responsible thing to do.
Well, since you have not watched any of the films, again I must say .. for what?
From here, you just degenerate into ramblings. I think your post was in
really bad form and hope you maybe you think a bit and watch a few movies
before you judge anything prematurely. If I didn't get to knwo you better
and judged you by this one post, for instance, I would think you were
"Church Lady" from SNL.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, John Neal writes:
<snip>
I'm having a hard time reconciling "Jason Rowoldt" and "merely another
slimeball" as phrases that belong in the same *post*, frankly. Jason has
done a great deal of good for the hobby with his efforts, I put him right up
there in the pantheon of leading lights that have grown the things that the
hobby is known for. (Along with you, you know...)
I think you may be overreaching a bit with that characterization.
LEGO is ultimately, at least in one sense, a medium of expression. While you
may have some merit in suggesting that non child suitable themes ought to be
disclaimed, are you suggesting that the Brick Testament ought not to be
viewed by children? *IT* uses LEGO as the medium of expression and *IT* has
sex in it, after all. And not just wholesome (to most people) missionary
style between married but otherwise unreleated people sex, but nasty (to
most) sex with rape and incest in it.
No one in their right mind would accuse BT of being porn. The sex alluded to
is there in the context of the story and is needful to move it along. I
didn't see any minifig genitals but it was clear enough that sex was happening.
You say "how can you know the characters are gay if you don't see them
having sex?" or words to that effect. Well, when I watch "Will and Grace" on
ABC, I don't need to see Jack actually having sex to know he's gay. He
*says* he is. The minifigs in the movie ARE depicted as gay and you know
what, 10% or so of us *are* gay and to most of us, there is nothing wrong
with recognising that fact and cherishing people for who they choose (or are
driven) to be.
My children have been told that people are gay and encouraged to think about
it and recognise it as a lifestyle choice that I don't necessarily recommend
(because society is so hard on gays) but will embrace if they choose it. but
they are 9 and 12. That topic ought not to come up with a 3 year old other
than in the "yes, Bill and Ted are a family" context. To deny that Bill and
Ted might actually *be* a family is to deny reality and to be insufficiently
tolerant.
You're more tolerant than that, John, I am certain of it.
Now you may not agree that the story needed to be told as much as the
stories in the old testament needed to be told, or that it's as important as
the story in the bible, but it's art. Art is defined as such by the artist
and validated by the viewers. We don't have to agree. You may find it to be
not art, but I do. And if some viewers find it to be art, it is. Hence it's
protected speech in certain ways. (in this case, it's on Jason's server.
He's paying the bills so HE gets to exercise his free speech rights and use
his judgement about what goes and doesn't. You do not)
I suggest you step back a bit and let this simmer for a while rather than
boiling over. Further I suggest you let this be discussed in ot.debate (I
set FUT there) as it's inflammatory. My kids aren't allowed to read
ot.debate... and I suggest yours ought not to be either. But let's not
pollute mediawatch further.
++Lar
|
|
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, John Neal writes:
> In lugnet.mediawatch, Jason Rowoldt writes:
> > To me, LEGO bricks are a hobby. They are a really fun thing to collect and
> > to to build with for many of us. I know that some of us have started
> > reselling LEGO bricks via Brickbay, some of us have done commissioned works
> > for LEGO sculptures, and some of us have made movies. I'm one of the ones
> > that makes movies.
>
> Oh, really Jason? Are all LEGO hobbies that equal? I sell bricks on
> Brickbay, you display LEGO porn-- sorry, I don't buy it.
Equal? No. Different. I can certainly imagine some of the more privilaged of
us on Lugnet who aren't after pieces, but after the collecting part of the
hobby (or some such) who might value movies above Brickbay sales. I don't
think you have the right to insinuate that Jason is any the less for what is
displayed on his site.
> If the "sole" purpose of your
> site is to promote "quality film-making", then why the hell are you displaying
> this type of material???!!! Sorry to break the news to you since you seem not
> to have already heard: porn *isn't* quality.
I'm sorry you feel that way-- personally I think porn CAN be quality, it
just *isn't* 99% of the time. And certainly the film in question isn't
quality IMHO. I found it needlessly obscene, boring, and mostly unhumorous.
But that's not to say that some other Lego porn flick couldn't be quality.
Again, I don't know what your definition of quality is, but it's clear that
either you're assuming too much or that your definition is askew from mine.
> You moron! What an ignorant thing to say! *Anybody* can read LUGNET! >*Anybody* can download your trash!
> ...
> Unbelievable. What a patsy you are.
> ...
> Dude, how clueless can you be? They are talking about trying to shut down
> your filth-- you have some serious disconnect going on.
> ...
> Artistic integrity? You have no integrity.
> ...
> Of course it matters! It's your site! Take a stand, clean up your act, or
> crawl back under the rock from which you came.
> ...
> *You* are irresponsible.
John. I think this was uncalled for. Please-- at least try and avoid direct
insults. They don't help your case. Personally they give me a much lower
opinion of you.
> Really? Maybe there isn't. Maybe you should do what adult sites do and
> require some adult ID check before people can enter your site. That would be
> the responsible thing to do.
I agree to some extent. I'm not really sure what adult sites do other than
make you pay them to see their content, but I agree that there should be
some degree of dificulty to prevent children from easily accessing the
information in question.
DaveE
|
|
| |
"John" <johnneal@qwest.net> wrote in message news:GopoH3.CFF@lugnet.com...
> No, to me the issue at hand is the lack of responsibility and common sense • on
> your part. Creating "adult" movies out of LEGO MFs is just plain stupid • and
> tasteless.
John - I hope you can settle down and move beyond personal attacks and
discuss this rationally. I know you're above this.
Jason - I see merit in what John has said here, but I think he missed the
mark by acting the way he did. I'm going to extrapolate in a calm, non
attacking manner.
As far as creating LEGO movies with adult themes being tasteless - I agree,
but that's in the eye of the beholder. I think its sad, sick and twisted,
but nonetheless the filmmakers have the right to do it.
John - like Jason asked as well, what do you mean by 'adult movies?' I've
seen one of the films, and though there are graphic sexual depictions in
part of the one I watched, its as John Henderson said, akin to the level in
an R-rated film.
> Oh, really Jason? Are all LEGO hobbies that equal? I sell bricks on • Brickbay,
> you display LEGO porn-- sorry, I don't buy it.
See above.
> > I wholeheartedly agree with The Lego Company's right to say the former. I
> > even think that LEGO should "officially" stay as far away from violent /
> > abusive / non-family movies as possible.
>
> What I can't understand is why *you* don't think this is a good idea, too.
Here's the quote from the entry in the film directory on Brickfilms.com:
Rick & Steve - The Happiest Gay Couple in All the World
"Very racy comedy starring gay characters. Great animation and dialog. Be
warned: very adult themes, not for children. Aside from that, some of these
jokes are hilarious. These films are up there with South Park for subject
matter. This series is more about dialog than animating but the animation
is very smooth and the best there is in this situation, that is you don't
notice it detracting from the dialog. Great stuff."
Here it is explained that it is 'very racy' and 'not for children.' This
though assumes someone reads the caption. Perhaps it would be a good
suggestion to put a 'Rated R' graphic over the thumbnail, or a 'Parents
Strongly Cautioned' etc... And I think it would be a very good idea to make
this inaccessible to children - the ID system, something similar to the
R-rated films in the theatres. Without such measures, I do think it is in
bad taste.
> > But we are all more or less mature here
>
> You moron! What an ignorant thing to say! *Anybody* can read LUGNET! • *Anybody*
> can download your trash!
Jason, a lot of children read LUGNET, and I'm sure a lot of children visit
Brickfilms.com, especially after the media attention it has gotten. I would
hope you would show more responsibility when hosting a film like that. I
think each person participating in the community should take responsibility
and continue to creat an environment safe for children.
> (I'm looking at you, OCAP *grin*)
> > and can take some more adult themed movies. In fact I'd love to see more
> > movies like "Girl". The NY Times just recently did a story on us FOR more
> > adult movies. That reporter was asking me for directors who have done
> > serious stuff and I pointed her in the right direction.
>
> Unbelievable. What a patsy you are.
This comment doesn't make sense to me.
> > There is room for serious, gritty movies and children's fantasy. There is
> > room for serious brick animations and whimsical comedies. There is room • for
> > all kinds of movies here.
>
> Really? Maybe there isn't. Maybe you should do what adult sites do and • require
> some adult ID check before people can enter your site. That would be the
> responsible thing to do.
Good suggestion.
> > There is my general take on the matter. I hope everyone here can • understand
> > my intentions and slight frustration at what LEGO has recently been • quoted
> > as saying. I'd like to remain on good terms with TLC. I'd even like to
> > have them sponsor some prizes for our current contest.
>
> Dude, how clueless can you be? They are talking about trying to shut down • your
> filth-- you have some serious disconnect going on.
I agree. I doubt LEGO will sponsor you with the degree you are hoping if
you continue to display that film. Sponsorship can be interpreted as
endorsement (and in a sense it is) by a viewer, and I would imagine LEGO
would not want to be associated in the least with those films or that
subject matter.
> It does not matter
> > whether I like a particular movie at all.
>
> Of course it matters! It's your site! Take a stand, clean up your act, • or
> crawl back under the rock from which you came.
Minus the inflammatory part, I agree with this statement.
LEGO is a product targeted at children, and with children as its primary
audience. Therefore, there's a high chance of chidren visiting these sites
and seeing those films. I believe the films should be treated as R-rated
material, which it is akin to.
> As Voltaire said "I make not like
> > what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
>
> Just because you *can* doesn't mean you *should*. With freedom comes
> responsibility. *You* are irresponsible.
...or he is being irresponsible in this instance (in your view and mine).
-Tim
|
|
| |
> Well - if according to you its similar to "R" rated films, then they should
> be treated like "R" rated films. Those films are restricted to people over
> 18 unless they have adult supervision. Shouldn't the same apply here?
>
> I agree with John - it is not being handled responsibly when it is freely
> accessible to children.
Why? Just because the US _tries_ to restrict the showing of "R" rated material
-that doesn't mean that the material should be restricted. Go to your local
public libary. Ask for a copy of Lolita. I'm fairly sure you can get it on
most libary cards-excepting the "under 12" cards. If, as a parent, you are
afraid of the content which your childern are seeing, you _need_ to monitor
with them what their choices of sites are on the internet. (read
www.peacefire.org, or www.2600.com or www.spectical.org for examples of how
blocking software doesn't work)
Don't blame the medium for the message. In this case, Brickfilms is linking to
another site. IIRC, the content of the other site is not the responsiblity of
the linking site, nor is providing restrictions to what content is on other
sites a responsibility of the linking site. In this case, brickfilms has
followed good, sound practice, and indicates that the film contains "adult"
themes.
If you don't like it, don't watch the film. But, then don't be critical of
those of us who have watched it, and found it funny -and are upset at Lego for
trying to get it removed. It _is_ artwork - no matter if it is in "bad" taste
or not. It is not strict porn - at least, I didn't find it arousing, and since
that is what 'porn' is supposed to do, it wouldn't fit into what I consider
porn.n Mature content, yes. Artwork, yes. Porn, no.
(and yes, I do think that registering the page with the various sites that _do_
block sites is a good thing to do- but, at the same time, don't think that a
machine can do your job as a parent)
James Powell
|
|
| |
"James Powell" <wx732@freenet.victoria.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:Goq2K4.Irv@lugnet.com...
> > I agree with John - it is not being handled responsibly when it is freely
> > accessible to children.
>
>
> Why? Just because the US _tries_ to restrict the showing of "R" rated • material
> -that doesn't mean that the material should be restricted. Go to your • local
> public libary. Ask for a copy of Lolita. I'm fairly sure you can get it • on
> most libary cards-excepting the "under 12" cards. If, as a parent, you • are
> afraid of the content which your childern are seeing, you _need_ to • monitor
> with them what their choices of sites are on the internet. (read
> www.peacefire.org, or www.2600.com or www.spectical.org for examples of • how
> blocking software doesn't work)
I never said it wasn't the parent's responsibility to monitor what material
a child can view or access. I strongly believe in parental responsibility
for children who are too immature to be responsible for themselves.
However, I believe that far too many parents are irresponsible, therefore
having safeguards which limit children when they try to access material on
their own is prudent.
Perhaps if we had stronger families, this would be less of an issue.
> Don't blame the medium for the message. In this case, Brickfilms is • linking
> another site. IIRC, the content of the other site is not the • responsiblity of
> the linking site, nor is providing restrictions to what content is on • other
> sites a responsibility of the linking site. In this case, brickfilms has
> followed good, sound practice, and indicates that the film contains • "adult"
> themes.
Brickfilms has taken one step which is a good practice. But, taking a look
at it, I don't think its promient enough. I realize I can't impose my
standard over Jason or anyone else, but I can most definitely express my
opinion.
> If you don't like it, don't watch the film. But, then don't be critical • of
> those of us who have watched it, and found it funny -and are upset at Lego • for
> trying to get it removed. It _is_ artwork - no matter if it is in "bad" • taste
> or not. It is not strict porn - at least, I didn't find it arousing, and • since
> that is what 'porn' is supposed to do, it wouldn't fit into what I • consider
> porn.n Mature content, yes. Artwork, yes. Porn, no.
What is art?
I did a dictionary.com search for the word, and here's what it pulled up:
2.
a. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms,
movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty,
specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
b. The study of these activities.
c. The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a
group.
URL: http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?db=*&term=art
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
Edition
I trimmed it to the definition which relates to the context.
I don't find the Rick and Steve movies tasteful or beautiful. Nor do I
criticize the people who do.
If according to the American Heritage Dictionary, art is directly related to
a 'sense of beauty,' does art need to be redefined? Sure, 'its not
beautiful' is *my* opinion, but how many people find the films 'beautiful'
according to the dictionary definition of 'beauty?'
(snipped of course, the definition for Beauty, also from the American
Heritage Dict.)
The quality that gives pleasure to the mind or senses and is associated with
such properties as harmony of form or color, excellence of artistry,
truthfulness, and originality.
Or....do people have such an open definition of art that there really can be
no definition of art? A logical extension - are people so open minded they
really are empty minded?
(disclaimer - I may or may not participate in the debate which will almost
surely follow. I'm raising questions, that's all.)
> (and yes, I do think that registering the page with the various sites that • _do_
> block sites is a good thing to do- but, at the same time, don't think that • a
> machine can do your job as a parent)
You're assuming I have kids here, which I do not. Er...if you weren't
assuming I have kids, your rhetoric did.
Anyways, I think parents have an awesome responsibility, and a moral
imperative to act upon that responsibility. A responsibility to their
child, and a responsibility to society. Its a terrible shame that so many
parents don't act, and its a terrible shame that the family is so attacked.
More questions: Do you have to biologically or otherwise have to have a
child of your own to excercise parental responsibility? Wouldn't it be nice
if everyone acted responsibly towards children without anyone telling them
to?
I act as a friend figure and as a parent figure to my best friend's young
siblings - ages 4 and 9. I'm not responsible for them, but I do act (in a
limited sense) an extension of a parent when the parents aren't in the room.
By telling them not to do something that could either damage an item, damage
themselves, or be a house rule. Sure, I don't punish them, but I relay
appropriate information to the parents when needed, and keep them out of
trouble without overstepping my bounds. I don't have to, but I do. The
trust exists in the situation I'm in, both with the parents and with the
children. Keeps the kids out of as much trouble as they otherwise would be
in. That isn't so bad, is it? For the record, we're talking about parents
who are very responsible and take responsibility very seriously - I'm not
cleaning up someone else's mess.
-Tim
|
|
| |
> What is art?
>
> I did a dictionary.com search for the word, and here's what it pulled up:
>
> 2.
> a. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms,
> movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty,
> specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
> b. The study of these activities.
> c. The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a
> group.
>
>
> I trimmed it to the definition which relates to the context.
I get (from Pocket Oxford)
1. A human creative skill or its application
(snipped some stuff about beauty).
I would say that the films _do_ represent "a human creative skill or its
application", therefore are "art". I think they are at least as much art as
the 3 painted strips that the National Gallary here paid ~1 mil for :)
> You're assuming I have kids here, which I do not. Er...if you weren't
> assuming I have kids, your rhetoric did.
Well, neither do I (have kids). But, I can state how I would act. My view of
it is that it is NOT the site's concern to restrict access. That is the job of
the parent. If the parent does not set appropriate boundries, then it really
doesn't matter _what_ other people do, the kid will find the material. They
may well find the material even if the parent does set appropriate boundries.
(as far as kids go, it seems that everyone is taking this to be that we must
protect kids- because they are "innocent". Frankly, I think there are _far_
worse things for a kid than seeing a minifig having sex- hetero or homo. By
the time that they get to an age to understand what it is, then they probably
can find any combination of porn on the internet imaginable- and a few you
havent thought of! :)
> Anyways, I think parents have an awesome responsibility, and a moral
> imperative to act upon that responsibility. A responsibility to their
> child, and a responsibility to society. Its a terrible shame that so many
> parents don't act, and its a terrible shame that the family is so attacked.
how is "the family" attacked by this film? If you are meaning that the people
are living in a alternate lifestyle, then be careful. I _have_ spent time
living in a household of 2 lesbians- in fact, I think about 3 different
households. I think they were _as good or better_ than some of the other
foster care houses I spent time in- at least the people involved seemed to
care. Personally, I think that "Family" is what YOU make of it, and not an
external defined relationship.
> More questions: Do you have to biologically or otherwise have to have a
> child of your own to excercise parental responsibility? Wouldn't it be nice
> if everyone acted responsibly towards children without anyone telling them
> to?
I would say yes, I think it would be great. But...this is reality, not some
fantasy land. On a scale of things likely to damage a impressionable mind, I
think this is about a 3 or so (yes, I have seen at least part of the films in
question)
> I act as a friend figure and as a parent figure to my best friend's young
> siblings - ages 4 and 9. I'm not responsible for them, but I do act (in a
> limited sense) an extension of a parent when the parents aren't in the room.
> By telling them not to do something that could either damage an item, damage
> themselves, or be a house rule. Sure, I don't punish them, but I relay
> appropriate information to the parents when needed, and keep them out of
> trouble without overstepping my bounds. I don't have to, but I do. The
> trust exists in the situation I'm in, both with the parents and with the
> children. Keeps the kids out of as much trouble as they otherwise would be
> in. That isn't so bad, is it? For the record, we're talking about parents
> who are very responsible and take responsibility very seriously -
(I'd applaud your actions up to this point- mostly, I like to see people
involved with kids)
> I'm not
> cleaning up someone else's mess.
But yes, you are. You are by implication, trying to get Jason to clean up what
you consider to be a "mess". Jason has labeled the film as being intended for
"adults", and that is all I consider his obligation to do. He is NOT saying
that everything on his site is fit for kids (he is not decieving anyone).
Jason has NOT got any obligation to "look out for" kids who he has no control
of the actions of (or any way to disipline them).
Responsiblity without athority is pointless, because the person who is
responsible has no meaningful way of controlling the actions of others.
James Powell
|
|
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, Jason Rowoldt writes:
> Hi John,
>
> Since you have personally attacked me, I feel I need to respond. However,
> I'm (going to try to) not personally attack you in response. I don't think
> that's going to do anything.
>
> From the nature of the comments you have left, I can tell there is no sense
> having a rational "argument" with you.
Well, you're wrong. I'd love to have a rational discussion about this subject.
Basically, you are ignorant of the
> issues involved.
If you would, I would like to hear from you what the issues are here, because I
think we are talking about 2 different things.
You have not watched ANY of the movies in question. I
> doubt you have even visted Brickfilms.com.
You are wrong. I have seen some of the movies on your site.
>
> I'll address a few comments you have made, but I am ignoring personal
> attacks and chalking it up to ... well, how shall I put it .. bad manners
> and a childish mentality on your part.
Well, so much for your moratorium on ad hominem attacks;-)
>
> In lugnet.mediawatch, John Neal writes:
> > In lugnet.mediawatch, Jason Rowoldt writes:
> > No, to me the issue at hand is the lack of responsibility and common sense on
> > your part. Creating "adult" movies out of LEGO MFs is just plain stupid and
> > tasteless.
>
> What do you mean by "adult" movies? There are nothing anywhere near what
> you would think of as "porn" on my site. Again, watch the movies before
> making ignorant comments like this. In addition, I have made no movies with
> any adult themes of any kind.
An adult movie is a movie that contains adult content. Sex is an adult topic.
Gay sex is definately an adult topic.
Here's the deal, Jason. You are on a very slippery slope. Perhaps today you
may offer movies that are only slighty racy with a touch of sexual innuendo.
But as times progresses, the level will only increase. Before you know it, you
will be in over your head with junk.
You seem to have a good thing going with Brickfilms, and again I ask, "Why ruin
a good thing?" You don't need to include movies with such content, and it has
nothing to do with artistic integrity, but everything to do with editorial
responsibility.
> > So why sully a good thing by allowing such filth? Or is it *that* which is
> > getting you all of the attention? The only people whom I can envision enjoying
> > your LEGO porn are Beavis and Butthead types. If the "sole" purpose of your
> > site is to promote "quality film-making", then why the hell are you displaying
> > this type of material???!!! Sorry to break the news to you since you seem not
> > to have already heard: porn *isn't* quality.
>
> Again, see above.
>
> > (I'm looking at you, OCAP *grin*)
> > > and can take some more adult themed movies. In fact I'd love to see more
> > > movies like "Girl". The NY Times just recently did a story on us FOR more
> > > adult movies. That reporter was asking me for directors who have done
> > > serious stuff and I pointed her in the right direction.
> >
> > Unbelievable. What a patsy you are.
>
> I'm not even goign to try and understand what you are talking about.
I'll explain. I'm just wondering *why* the NYT would want "more adult movies"
created from a child's toy such as LEGO. To me, if a LEGO film cannot be safely
seen by a child, it really shouldn't be made. But our society thinks it's a
hoot-- would you gladly accommodate them? Maybe you can explain to me the
rationale behind such films. Having MFs swear, or copulate, or murder, or do
drugs, tell dirty jokes (you get the idea) just doesn't seem right.
We are adults playing with a child's toy. I think it is wrong to turn it into
some kind of "adult thing". "Play Well" is a motto by which we all here in
LUGNET try to abide-- I simply don't think that allowing some of the movies you
do on your site is living by that motto. And if you happen to incur the wrath
of TLC, that's another indication that you are not, either.
> > Really? Maybe there isn't. Maybe you should do what adult sites do and require
> > some adult ID check before people can enter your site. That would be the
> > responsible thing to do.
>
>
> Well, since you have not watched any of the films, again I must say .. for what?
And again I respond: To keep them away from children's eyes. Even if 95% of
your site is okay with kids, what good is that if 5% of it isn't? Regulate it,
or better yet, simply refuse to post movies of questionable content. What is so
hard with that? Why do you feel the need to present such material? Because you
don't want to be seen as a....*CENSOR*??? It's your site; you can do whatever
you want with it. Period.
>
> From here, you just degenerate into ramblings. I think your post was in
> really bad form and hope you maybe you think a bit and watch a few movies
> before you judge anything prematurely. If I didn't get to knwo you better
> and judged you by this one post, for instance, I would think you were
> "Church Lady" from SNL.
lol And who made you think of that? I wonder who would do such a
thing...SATAN???
All kidding aside, I apologize for coming on a little strong in my initial post;
the whole idea of "adulticizing" LEGO is a hot button for me-- why people feel
the need to bastardize it into something surley is beyond me. I'm not saying
that people don't have the right to; I'm saying that they don't have the
responsibilty *not* to, or at least do it beyond the watchful eyes of children.
Which is why I guess I came down hard on you-- because you have the power to
curb that kind of material on your site, but yet you feel that you can't, lest
you compromise your "artistic integrity". I just think that's hogwash.
I suggest you think hard about what you want Brickfilms to be-- a site that is a
repository of adult-themed rubbish, constantly dodging TLC lawyers, or one that
TLC would be proud to sponsor and associate.
The world will say, "Don't compromise!", but in fact life is full compromises.
Compromise doesn't make you any less an artist, just evidence of a mature one.
-John
|
|
| |
"James Powell" <wx732@freenet.victoria.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:GoqCy3.F37@lugnet.com...
> > Anyways, I think parents have an awesome responsibility, and a moral
> > imperative to act upon that responsibility. A responsibility to their
> > child, and a responsibility to society. Its a terrible shame that so • many
> > parents don't act, and its a terrible shame that the family is so • attacked.
> >
>
> how is "the family" attacked by this film? If you are meaning that the • people
> are living in a alternate lifestyle, then be careful. I _have_ spent time
> living in a household of 2 lesbians- in fact, I think about 3 different
> households. I think they were _as good or better_ than some of the other
> foster care houses I spent time in- at least the people involved seemed to
> care. Personally, I think that "Family" is what YOU make of it, and not • an
> external defined relationship.
I'm sorry, I wasn't clear enough and because of that you misinterpreted my
intent.
I meant to say - I think its a shame that the traditional family unit is so
attacked in our society and that its acceptable to break it up (divorce,
lack of committment, absentee fathers, etc etc) - the effect being there's
less chance of someone truly responsible and committed raising their
children.
> > More questions: Do you have to biologically or otherwise have to have a
> > child of your own to excercise parental responsibility? Wouldn't it be • nice
> > if everyone acted responsibly towards children without anyone telling • them
> > to?
>
> I would say yes, I think it would be great. But...this is reality, not • some
> fantasy land.
That's why I phrased it 'wouldn't it be nice...'
> > I'm not
> > cleaning up someone else's mess.
>
> But yes, you are. You are by implication, trying to get Jason to clean up • what
> you consider to be a "mess". Jason has labeled the film as being intended • for
> "adults", and that is all I consider his obligation to do. He is NOT • saying
> that everything on his site is fit for kids (he is not decieving anyone).
> Jason has NOT got any obligation to "look out for" kids who he has no • control
> of the actions of (or any way to disipline them).
You misinterpreted me here. That sentence was directly related to the story
about my best friend's siblings. By me acting in a parent role at times,
I'm not cleaning up the kids' parents' mess by replacing them totally. They
are responsible parents, they just can't be in the same room as their kids
24/7.
I did not intend that phrase to mean 'I'm cleaning up Jason's mess by
expressing an opinion that....'
Sure, I'm trying to convince Jason to do more. Is it my responsibility to
do so? No. Do I think it will be beneficial? Yes. Can I freely express
an opinion on the mattter? Most definitely.
> Responsiblity without athority is pointless, because the person who is
> responsible has no meaningful way of controlling the actions of others.
I'm not getting it, could you explain?
-Tim
|
|
| |
> No, to me the issue at hand is the lack of responsibility and common sense on
> your part. Creating "adult" movies out of LEGO MFs is just plain stupid and
> tasteless.
....
> So why sully a good thing by allowing such filth? Or is it *that* which is
> getting you all of the attention? The only people whom I can envision enjoying
> your LEGO porn are Beavis and Butthead types. If the "sole" purpose of your
> site is to promote "quality film-making", then why the hell are you displaying
> this type of material???!!! Sorry to break the news to you since you seem not
> to have already heard: porn *isn't* quality.
Your opinion, and entitled to it, however it is also your choice to
participate. Or to allow those you are responsible for knowing whether they
should participate.
> > There is a huge difference, and I mean a HUGE difference, between LEGO
> > saying "We don't approve of this movie that was made" and "We are taking
> > legal means to shut down production and/or ban distribution of this movie".
> >
> > I wholeheartedly agree with The Lego Company's right to say the former. I
> > even think that LEGO should "officially" stay as far away from violent /
> > abusive / non-family movies as possible.
I think Lego was right in making a statement, however I think legal action
could have been avoided by talking with the site manager. Is this bad
taste? Probably. Shouldn't have been done? Maybe. Innapropriate? Sure.
But so is South Park. As long as it has no real connection to Lego (can't
see the word "Lego" or uses no bonafide Lego image; both are trademark
infringments) I've got no problem with it.
> What I can't understand is why *you* don't think this is a good idea, too.
Bill of Rights, free speach. Is not our highest law not good enough for you?
Now in Denmark they don't have that, but in the US, another story.
> You moron! What an ignorant thing to say! *Anybody* can read LUGNET! *Anybody*
> can download your trash!
And it's your responsiblity to push the button to download. Just because a
loaded gun lies in the road doesn't mean you have to shoot yourself.
Honestly if you see a link to a movie titled "Gay sex lovin'" don't you
think you can figure out what it's about?
> Really? Maybe there isn't. Maybe you should do what adult sites do and require
> some adult ID check before people can enter your site. That would be the
> responsible thing to do.
Agreed!!! If something has explicit sexual content, you should, at the very
least have a age verification page. (click only if over 18, or whatever.
It's not much but better than nothing.)
The sort of ranting in this message scares me. This "filth" is John's
opinion and while entitled to his opinion he has no right to dictate what I
or anyone else can or cannot view. Now I want to say I have not seen this
movie, and have no desire to do so either. That is my right, my privalidge.
I will not have it taken away!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, Mark Neumann writes:
> Bill of Rights, free speach. Is not our highest law not good enough for you?
> Now in Denmark they don't have that, but in the US, another story.
> The sort of ranting in this message scares me. This "filth" is John's
> opinion and while entitled to his opinion he has no right to dictate what I
> or anyone else can or cannot view. Now I want to say I have not seen this
> movie, and have no desire to do so either. That is my right, my privalidge.
> I will not have it taken away!
Mark, you are taking my "rant" a little out of context. Assuming you are an
adult, I couldn't care less about what you watch-- my concern is protecting
children from unsuitable material. It is our *duty* as adults in a civilized
society to dictate to our children what they can and cannot view, because they
are too immature to know what is or isn't appropriate. Yes, we have Bill of
Rights which protects free speech, but that doesn't give one free license. Try
yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater sometime and see how "free" free
speech isn't.
I'll start posting FUs to .debate from now on.
-John
|
|
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, James Powell writes:
>
> > Well - if according to you its similar to "R" rated films, then they should
> > be treated like "R" rated films. Those films are restricted to people over
> > 18 unless they have adult supervision. Shouldn't the same apply here?
> >
> > I agree with John - it is not being handled responsibly when it is freely
> > accessible to children.
>
>
> Why? Just because the US _tries_ to restrict the showing of "R" rated material
> -that doesn't mean that the material should be restricted. Go to your local
> public libary. Ask for a copy of Lolita. I'm fairly sure you can get it on
> most libary cards-excepting the "under 12" cards. If, as a parent, you are
> afraid of the content which your childern are seeing, you _need_ to monitor
> with them what their choices of sites are on the internet. (read
> www.peacefire.org, or www.2600.com or www.spectical.org for examples of how
> blocking software doesn't work)
Sure, a computer whiz-kid could probably defeat blocking software, but the real
intent of such products, in my mind, is to prevent random hits from search
engines when a child is researching breast cancer, for instance.
I am more worried about accidental stumblings onto inappropriate sites rather
than thwarting mischievous 12 year old boys....
>
>
> Don't blame the medium for the message. In this case, Brickfilms is linking to
> another site. IIRC, the content of the other site is not the responsiblity of
> the linking site, nor is providing restrictions to what content is on other
> sites a responsibility of the linking site. In this case, brickfilms has
> followed good, sound practice, and indicates that the film contains "adult"
> themes.
hehe To a 12 year old boy, "Warning, Adult Content" reads "Check *this* out!";-)
The computer with net access of today is akin to the Playboy left around the
house of yesterday-- it's all about accessibility. Then, you hid the Playboy;
now you restrict net access.
>
> If you don't like it, don't watch the film. But, then don't be critical of
> those of us who have watched it, and found it funny -and are upset at Lego for
> trying to get it removed. It _is_ artwork - no matter if it is in "bad" taste
> or not. It is not strict porn - at least, I didn't find it arousing, and since
> that is what 'porn' is supposed to do, it wouldn't fit into what I consider
> porn.n Mature content, yes. Artwork, yes. Porn, no.
Let's not get into a debate over what the definition of art is-- art is
everything, and so consequently art is nothing. True, I do hold disdain for
people who would create pornographic images, movies, whatever from LEGO, and
that's my opinion. Fine. I'm not trying to stop them. But what I am arguing
for is restrictions for this kind of material so that it won't be seen by
minors.
>
> (and yes, I do think that registering the page with the various sites that _do_
> block sites is a good thing to do- but, at the same time, don't think that a
> machine can do your job as a parent)
Agreed! I just happen to believe my job as a parent is to get a machine to do
the job;-)
-John
|
|
| |
> No, to me the issue at hand is the lack of responsibility and common sense on
> your part. Creating "adult" movies out of LEGO MFs is just plain stupid and
> tasteless.
Jason has listed every movie he has recived (I think) and I don't think its
his responsibility at all. It was listed on the site as a "Brickfilm" not a
porn film.
> Oh, really Jason? Are all LEGO hobbies that equal? I sell bricks on Brickbay,
> you display LEGO porn-- sorry, I don't buy it.
"Display?" It is hosted on another site and made by a totally diffrent
person, Jason is just provideing a link. Its your choise if you download it
or not.
> So why sully a good thing by allowing such filth? Or is it *that* which is
> getting you all of the attention? The only people whom I can envision enjoying
> your LEGO porn are Beavis and Butthead types. If the "sole" purpose of your
> site is to promote "quality film-making", then why the hell are you displaying
> this type of material???!!! Sorry to break the news to you since you seem not
> to have already heard: porn *isn't* quality.
The other 100 Brickfilms on the site is what is driving people there, these
films are just mentitioned becauce they shock people.
>
> They can deny association all they
> > want. They can say "We do not endorse or approve of" a particular movie all
> > they want. They can even go as far as saying "This is not in line with our
> > corporate values", and even ask you politely to stop.
> You moron! What an ignorant thing to say! *Anybody* can read LUGNET! *Anybody*
> can download your trash!
Your trash! I say again Jason is just provideing a link.
> Really? Maybe there isn't. Maybe you should do what adult sites do and require
> some adult ID check before people can enter your site. That would be the
> responsible thing to do.
There could be a bigger warning, I agree. But ID! I think he could just copy
one of those "mature" logos off the net the put it by the film.
> But I cannot in good
> > concious distrance myself from some of these controversial films and not
> > defend them with every fiber of my artistic integrity.
>
> Artistic integrity? You have no integrity.
Just like "real" art (painting) Is a picture of a naked woman porn or art?
Its your opinion.
Stephen Lord
www.brickmovies.com
|
|
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, Curt Tigges writes:
> I am shocked and disgusted at anyone who would be immoral and low enough to
> display these films on the Internet.
Wow.
> Even though I have not watched them, I have learned enough reading
> this thread.
I hadn't either, but I went investigating and watched several brickfilms and
all of them included either violence or sex. I'd get revved up about the
violence long before the sex. After all, violence is bad and sex is good.
> It is not right for anyone to display this trash anywhere.
Which trash?
> Legos were not meant to be used in digital films filled with smut,
Oil wasn't meant to be turned into plastic so you could be typing either. So
what?
> they were meant for enhancing creativity through
> building and designing.
I think they were meant for making lots and lots of money for one particular
family.
> I hope nobody flames me for this, but if they do, I
> will still stand by my opinions.
Well, is it impossible that your opinion is silly? Why not be open to changing
your mind? How can you ever grow with an attitude like that?
Chris
|
|
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> are you suggesting that the Brick Testament ought not to be
> viewed by children?
I almost would.
> *IT* uses LEGO as the medium of expression and *IT* has
> sex in it, after all. And not just wholesome (to most people) missionary
> style between married but otherwise unreleated people sex, but nasty (to
> most) sex with rape and incest in it.
The rape and non sex violence is more a problem than the sex. I mean, sex is
just sex.
> they are 9 and 12. That topic ought not to come up with a 3 year old other
Hunh? Why the heck not?
Chris
|
|
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, John Neal writes:
> I am concerned about the whole *idea* of portraying MFs in adult
> situations when it is easily accessed by children.
Because if kids were to know more and understand more about being an adult,
they wouldn't _need_ you as much. They could practice at being adults
themselves instead of being kept powerless and ignorant by their aged
opressors. Man, that's really sick.
There is nothing unsavory about kids learning how to be adults. And the only
real way to learn that (like every subject) is to practice.
> Frankly, I don't care what he does with his MFs in the privacy
> of his own house, but I have a big problem with him or anyone
> else for that matter making this "art" freely accessable on the
> net.
Well, I don't think that anything that I found on his site even remotely
violates our societal mores. And I think our MPAA ratings are completely
screwed. A nipple gets an R rating and multiple beheadings gets PG-13. That
too, is really sick!
> As I mentioned before, let him utilize an adult ID check if he
> feels he cannot compromise his "artistic integrity" -- in that
> event, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Otherwise, he is a
> merely yet another slimeball who uses the First Amendment to
> cover for is own irresponsible behavior.
Or maybe a crusader attempting to bring enlightenment to the opressed. In the
future, those who stand strongly with our fundamental civil rights will be
hailed as heroes.
Chris :-)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, John Neal writes:
> In lugnet.mediawatch, Jason Rowoldt writes:
> > Hello folks,
> >
> > Some of you may know me, others may not. I'm Jason Rowoldt, the founder and
> > webmaster of the site www.brickfilms.com.
> >
> > Someone posted this article and the associate press frenzy in the Danish
> > media on the forum of Brickfilms.com. We have had several translations
> > already and been discussing this very issue.
> >
> > First, it looks like the discussion here has dengenerated into a
> > gay/anti-gay or rather freedom of gender/sexual orientation portrayal of
> > minifigs. I'll try to stay away from that whole topic and focus more on the
> > relavant issue at hand, which is really at the core of this group and what
> > we are.
>
> No, to me the issue at hand is the lack of responsibility and common sense on
> your part. Creating "adult" movies out of LEGO MFs is just plain stupid and
> tasteless.
> >
> > To me, LEGO bricks are a hobby. They are a really fun thing to collect and
> > to to build with for many of us. I know that some of us have started
> > reselling LEGO bricks via Brickbay, some of us have done commissioned works
> > for LEGO sculptures, and some of us have made movies. I'm one of the ones
> > that makes movies.
>
> Oh, really Jason? Are all LEGO hobbies that equal? I sell bricks on • Brickbay,
> you display LEGO porn-- sorry, I don't buy it.
> >
> > Brickfilms.com has grown over the past year (I launched it on Dec. 16th,
> > 2000) and has caught the attention of a lot of media. The NY Times, the
> > London Guardian, various TV shows including ZD Tech TV, UK Channel 4, and
> > internet outlets such as Salon.com, Plastic.com, and on and on.
> >
> > I'm glad it's been getting so much attention, because the sole purpose of
> > the site is to promote quality film-making from LEGO enthusiasts.
>
> So why sully a good thing by allowing such filth? Or is it *that* which is
> getting you all of the attention? The only people whom I can envision • enjoying
> your LEGO porn are Beavis and Butthead types. If the "sole" purpose of your
> site is to promote "quality film-making", then why the hell are you displaying
> this type of material???!!! Sorry to break the news to you since you seem not
> to have already heard: porn *isn't* quality.
>
> > There is a huge difference, and I mean a HUGE difference, between LEGO
> > saying "We don't approve of this movie that was made" and "We are taking
> > legal means to shut down production and/or ban distribution of this movie".
> >
> > I wholeheartedly agree with The Lego Company's right to say the former. I
> > even think that LEGO should "officially" stay as far away from violent /
> > abusive / non-family movies as possible.
>
> What I can't understand is why *you* don't think this is a good idea, too.
>
> They can deny association all they
> > want. They can say "We do not endorse or approve of" a particular movie all
> > they want. They can even go as far as saying "This is not in line with our
> > corporate values", and even ask you politely to stop.
> >
> > They can also endorse whatever they want. They have already endorsed,
> > supported, promoted, and financed one of the film-makers who used to
> > frequent this site, Spite Your Face. Good for them.
> >
> > But I would not want to see "Girl", "Heart of Darkness", or "Catharsis,
> > Texas" on LEGO.com. That is not in line with children's tastes or a
> > children's audience.
> >
> > But we are all more or less mature here
>
> You moron! What an ignorant thing to say! *Anybody* can read LUGNET! • *Anybody*
> can download your trash!
>
> (I'm looking at you, OCAP *grin*)
> > and can take some more adult themed movies. In fact I'd love to see more
> > movies like "Girl". The NY Times just recently did a story on us FOR more
> > adult movies. That reporter was asking me for directors who have done
> > serious stuff and I pointed her in the right direction.
>
> Unbelievable. What a patsy you are.
> >
> > There is room for serious, gritty movies and children's fantasy. There is
> > room for serious brick animations and whimsical comedies. There is room for
> > all kinds of movies here.
>
> Really? Maybe there isn't. Maybe you should do what adult sites do and • require
> some adult ID check before people can enter your site. That would be the
> responsible thing to do.
>
> > There is my general take on the matter. I hope everyone here can understand
> > my intentions and slight frustration at what LEGO has recently been quoted
> > as saying. I'd like to remain on good terms with TLC. I'd even like to
> > have them sponsor some prizes for our current contest.
>
> Dude, how clueless can you be? They are talking about trying to shut down • your
> filth-- you have some serious disconnect going on.
>
>
> But I cannot in good
> > concious distrance myself from some of these controversial films and not
> > defend them with every fiber of my artistic integrity.
>
> Artistic integrity? You have no integrity.
>
> It does not matter
> > whether I like a particular movie at all.
>
> Of course it matters! It's your site! Take a stand, clean up your act, or
> crawl back under the rock from which you came.
>
> As Voltaire said "I make not like
> > what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
>
> Just because you *can* doesn't mean you *should*. With freedom comes
> responsibility. *You* are irresponsible.
>
> -John
|
|
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, John Neal writes:
> to me...Creating "adult" movies out of LEGO MFs is just plain stupid and
> tasteless.
So?
> > To me, LEGO bricks are a hobby. They are a really fun thing to collect and
> > to to build with for many of us. I know that some of us have started
> > reselling LEGO bricks via Brickbay, some of us have done commissioned works
> > for LEGO sculptures, and some of us have made movies. I'm one of the ones
> > that makes movies.
>
> Oh, really Jason? Are all LEGO hobbies that equal? I sell bricks on
> Brickbay, you display LEGO porn-- sorry, I don't buy it.
John, good point! At least Jason is promoting creativity.
> So why sully a good thing by allowing such filth?
Filth is in the eye of the beholder.
> If the "sole" purpose of your site is to promote "quality
> film-making", then why the hell are you displaying this type of
> material???!!! Sorry to break the news to you since you seem not
> to have already heard: porn *isn't* quality.
Sorry to break it to you, but 'porn' and 'quality' are not mutually exclusive.
It is an economic happenstance that porn is boring. There is no reason that I
can think of that cineatic depictions can't include sexuality and still be
riviting.
> > But we are all more or less mature here
>
> You moron! What an ignorant thing to say! *Anybody* can read
> LUGNET! *Anybody* can download your trash!
You really have outdone yourself John. Simply amazing!
> > There is room for serious, gritty movies and children's fantasy. There is
> > room for serious brick animations and whimsical comedies. There is room for
> > all kinds of movies here.
>
> Really? Maybe there isn't. Maybe you should do what adult sites do and • require
> some adult ID check before people can enter your site. That would be the
> responsible thing to do.
That would be the cowardly thing to do. Why isn't an abstract of the work
sufficient to steer those who want to view it toward it and those who don't
away?
Chris
|
|
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, John Neal writes:
> In lugnet.mediawatch, Jason Rowoldt writes:
> An adult movie is a movie that contains adult content.
"Adult content" is a ludicrous phantom. It is a code word for anything that
biggotted right-wing Bible thumpers want to excise from society in order to
"protect" the ignorance of children.
> Sex is an adult topic.
No. Sex is a topic. It is an appropriate topic for anyone who has sexual
urges. The very nature of having such feelings is indicative of the
appropriateness of the topic. Exploration, discussion, education and thought
about sexuality are critically important for anyone with sexual feelings. Six
year olds _should_ be having appropriate exposure to sexual topics.
> Gay sex is definately an adult topic.
No it isn't. It is just another topic. And even if a person is heterosexual,
they may explore homosexuality to some degree and they should be encouraged in
that pursuit. Learning is good.
> Here's the deal, Jason. You are on a very slippery slope. Perhaps today you
> may offer movies that are only slighty racy with a touch of sexual innuendo.
> But as times progresses, the level will only increase. Before you know it,
> you will be in over your head with junk.
This may well be true. But there is some point when the law will dictate what
can and can not be included in such a site. Also, Jason may well chose to
censor some works if and when such a time comes. Why not let that happen ad
hoc rather than get in a twist over it now? The stuff that you're frothing
about is so incredibly mild.
> I'll explain. I'm just wondering *why* the NYT would want "more adult movies"
> created from a child's toy such as LEGO.
Because it is an interesting juxtapositional use of media. It makes people
think and it's entertaining. And as much of the past avant garde had proven,
in time it will seem trite. So just let it run that course and we'll all be
done with it.
> To me, if a LEGO film cannot be safely
> seen by a child, it really shouldn't be made.
Do you really believe that a scene in a depicting masturbation is worse for a
kid to see than beheadings? If so, why? If not, why aren't you bitching about
the 90% of brickfilms that are violent instead of the 2% that are vaguely
sexual?
> But our society thinks it's a
> hoot-- would you gladly accommodate them? Maybe you can explain to me the
> rationale behind such films. Having MFs swear, or copulate, or murder, or do
> drugs, tell dirty jokes (you get the idea) just doesn't seem right.
The rationale is that there obviously exists a market. Why isn't that good
enough?
> We are adults playing with a child's toy. I think it is wrong to turn it into
> some kind of "adult thing".
Why?
> > > Maybe you should do what adult sites do and require some adult
> > > ID check before people can enter your site. That would be the
> > > responsible thing to do.
> >
> > Well, since you have not watched any of the films, again I must
> > say .. for what?
>
> And again I respond: To keep them away from children's eyes.
Which children? What ages? Why does age matter? What is magic about the xth
(18th?) birthday that one day a world of media was "too much" for you and the
next it's just fine? That's absurd. People should decide for themselves what
is appropriate for them.
> Even if 95% of your site is okay with kids, what good is that if 5%
> of it isn't? Regulate it, or better yet, simply refuse to post
> movies of questionable content. What is so hard with that?
Maybe he doesn't see the 'question' that you imply with the phrase
"questionable content." I know I don't. None of what I saw is _really_
top-notch healthy stuff for kids. And aside from all the Jesus references in
Girl, it seems like one of the most appropriate movies on the site that I saw
(in my admittedly small sample) and he warns against it as adult in theme.
> Why do you feel the need to present such material? Because you
> don't want to be seen as a....*CENSOR*??? It's your site; you
> can do whatever you want with it. Period.
Right! That's what he's doing. He's linking to movies about a variety of
topics. Good for him!
> The world will say, "Don't compromise!", but in fact life is full compromises.
> Compromise doesn't make you any less an artist, just evidence of a mature one.
Jason, don't compromise! Unless you think it's the best thing to do.
Chris
|
|
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, Tim Courtney writes:
> Jason, a lot of children read LUGNET, and I'm sure a lot of children visit
> Brickfilms.com, especially after the media attention it has gotten. I would
> hope you would show more responsibility when hosting a film like that. I
> think each person participating in the community should take responsibility
> and continue to creat an environment safe for children.
Tim, do you really think that watching Rick and Steve is unsafe for children?
Chris
(Who thinks the responsible thing to do is warn viewers of the content and let
them decide for themselves.)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, Mark Neumann writes:
> > Really? Maybe there isn't. Maybe you should do what adult sites do and • require
> > some adult ID check before people can enter your site. That would be the
> > responsible thing to do.
>
> Agreed!!! If something has explicit sexual content, you should, at the very
> least have a age verification page. (click only if over 18, or whatever.
> It's not much but better than nothing.)
Wait a minute! Kissing is (or often is) sexual. When twelve year olds hold
hands at the mall, that's sexual too. Sexual describes a huge range of
behaviors, the vast majority of which are healthy.
Why should age verification take place?
Chris
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> > > Violence much be eshewed as well, but there is a fine
> > > line WRT teaching children about good and evil. There is no such line when • it
> > > comes to the topic of sex and children.
That's because sex is neither good nor evil.
> > > The very definition of a child is one who hasn't knowledge of
> > > such things, and presenting it to them forces their
> > > childhood from them, which is, in my mind, evil.
> >
> > Interesting definition of childhood-- I think I agree with the definition...
> > However, I'm not sure I see it as evil if one attempted to 'force' adult
> > information on them.
>
> Innocence, once lost, is gone forever. Experience comes with age. When
> experience comes before age (childhood), healthy development is almost
> certainly impossible.
What you think of as normal and healthy is not. It is a stunted
charicature of humanity. People seek out experiences when they are ready for
them. This information isn't being forced on the inocent babes, it is merely
available. That's not evil!
Evil is keeping humans in the bondage borne of ignorance to satisfy your own
sense of worth and justification. Evil is preventing others from accessing the
information and ideas that their minds and bodies crave. Evil is filling the
minds of the unexperienced juvenile with mythology told as truth in order to
compell adherence to ridiculous and destructive standards.
> Anyone who would rob a child of the chance to develop normally into
> a mature, healthy adult... yeah, I'd call them (or their acts) evil.
You mean by preventing their responsible and educated exploration of sexuality
as an adolescent? I guess I'd call that evil too. Who knew that we'd end up
agreeing?
Chris
|
|
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, Stephen Lord writes:
> > Well, I have no intention of watching the films
>
> All Brickfilms? or just these two (Girl and Rick and Steve)
I really don't have any interest in LEGO films anyway, so I probably won't
watch any of them.
>
> To everyone who has followed this thread:
> Please don't think that LEGO animation is a bad thing. There are lots of
> great claymation films out there but does "rex the runt" make "wallace and
> gromit" evil? no. most of the other films at Brickfilms.com are fine for
> family viewing.
I believe that some films can be and are good, I just don't really enjoy
LEGO movies, including immoral ones.
Curt Tigges
|
|
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, Ross McCullough writes:
> Lego has never produced an expressly
> heterosexual couple in a set.
A man and a woman who come with two kids isn't an expressly heterosexual
couple? What would they have to do be so?
Chris
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > they are 9 and 12. That topic ought not to come up with a 3 year old other
>
> Hunh? Why the heck not?
I said why. 3 is in my view too young to get into the anatomical details of
how exactly gay love works. Or straight love for that matter. It's frankly,
likely to be boring to the 3 year old anyway and not particularly relevant.
But the part you trimmed (why did you do that?) explains that I would (and
did, in fact, as we've known gay couples since forever) explain "Helen and
Carmella are Jenny's parents, just like we are your parents" at that point
without making a big deal about anatomy.
|
|
| |
> > Agreed!!! If something has explicit sexual content, you should, at the very
> > least have a age verification page. (click only if over 18, or whatever.
> > It's not much but better than nothing.)
>
> Wait a minute! Kissing is (or often is) sexual. When twelve year olds hold
> hands at the mall, that's sexual too. Sexual describes a huge range of
> behaviors, the vast majority of which are healthy.
>
> Why should age verification take place?
>
> Chris
Read that again, "explicit sexual content" Explicit; that means clearly
defined. In this case the sexual act itself which is what we are discussing.
Age verification has become somewhat standardized across the internet.
(some of it by law, some voluntary) If it has content that has been
objected to by the majority, and one should have the intelligence to know
what that is, there is a responsibility to notify viewers of said content.
Mark
|
|
| |
> > (read
> > www.peacefire.org, or www.2600.com or www.spectical.org for examples of how
> > blocking software doesn't work)
>
> Sure, a computer whiz-kid could probably defeat blocking software, but the • real
> intent of such products, in my mind, is to prevent random hits from search
> engines when a child is researching breast cancer, for instance.
>
> I am more worried about accidental stumblings onto inappropriate sites rather
> than thwarting mischievous 12 year old boys....
Why? Take a look at the 2600 page- or even better :
http://www.2600.com/news/display.shtml?id=843
Perhaps you put too much faith in a computer to censor?
If you do any research, you will find that the blocking engines don't work-and
_do_ block some sites they shouldn't on political grounds.
James P
|
|
| |
That is my right, my privalidge.
> > I will not have it taken away!
>
> Mark, you are taking my "rant" a little out of context. Assuming you are an
> adult, I couldn't care less about what you watch-- my concern is protecting
> children from unsuitable material. It is our *duty* as adults in a civilized
> society to dictate to our children what they can and cannot view, because they
> are too immature to know what is or isn't appropriate. Yes, we have Bill of
> Rights which protects free speech, but that doesn't give one free license. Try
> yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater sometime and see how "free" free
> speech isn't.
>
> I'll start posting FUs to .debate from now on.
>
> -John
I'm sorry if I insulted you, really I was trying to make a point with a
message that embodied what I feared. I actually looked at a number of
messages, saw a pattern and had to speak my truth.
First, I don't think I took your rant out of context at all. Insults, and
slander and simple though processes are what degrade us all. You simply
slam Jason line for line with a self righteous attitude.
Second, it is a PARENT'S responsibility to know what their children should
or should not watch. If your kid does not know what is right and what is
not, teach them. They're not stupid, don't treat them that way. And if
they are still to young to understand they are not going to be hurt by it
anyway. I'm not entirely sure but I doubt newborns are seriously affected
by such things. Also, the government has no business telling me how to
raise my children. It is not my "*duty*" to do anything to your child.
Think about that for a minute. Do you want Charleston Heston or Pat
Robertson telling you how to raise your children? (both very powerful, both
can pass bills)
Third, the BOR does not protect malicious intent, such as shouting "fire" in
a crowded space. It's all in there, in fact, tell you what, here it is:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Yelling "fire" violates the "peaceably to assemble" part. If you do that,
you are breaking the law unless you do it in an emergency situation. Say if
there is a fire.
With great freedoms comes great responsibilies, no doubt.
2cents
Mark
|
|
| |
> I'm sorry, I wasn't clear enough and because of that you misinterpreted my
> intent.
>
> I meant to say - I think its a shame that the traditional family unit is so
> attacked in our society and that its acceptable to break it up (divorce,
> lack of committment, absentee fathers, etc etc) - the effect being there's
> less chance of someone truly responsible and committed raising their
> children.
-its just that "family values" are too often used as a codeword to bash gays
and lesbians. Having lived in a womans housing coop for 8 years, I was fairly
well exposed to most possible combinations of alternate relationships- and I
won't stand for people saying that one group of people are a "family" and
another group are not. It is the commitment and responsiblity that is
important, not from who it comes.
> Sure, I'm trying to convince Jason to do more. Is it my responsibility to
> do so? No. Do I think it will be beneficial? Yes. Can I freely express
> an opinion on the mattter? Most definitely.
yes you can freely express this opinion. As Jason should be freely able to
link to the films in question, without LEGO coming down on his head. He is a
link, just like LUGNET is, to those films. As such, I think that he should be
supported to the same extent LUGNET is. I would _like_ to see more of a
disclamer before the films, but that is Jason's choice, not mine. (I'd like to
see a "Mature" section, with a warning before entering (a yes/no box type
page).
> > Responsiblity without athority is pointless, because the person who is
> > responsible has no meaningful way of controlling the actions of others.
>
> I'm not getting it, could you explain?
Jason _cannot_ control who views the films. All the technological devices he
uses/could use _can_ be defeated. He doesn't have the athority to restrict
access enough for us to make him responsible for what someone at the other end
does with the content. It's like someone elses gun example- just because there
is a loaded gun at the side of the road, doesn't mean that you have to point it
at yourself and pull the trigger. (In this case, I think more like a baseball
bat than a gun- something that can be innouqous, but can also be harmful)
James P
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
>
> > > they are 9 and 12. That topic ought not to come up with a 3 year old other
> >
> > Hunh? Why the heck not?
>
> I said why.
I missed that. I'm still missing it, in fact, as I read back through your
note.
The sum of what you wrote on this specific subthread is:
> My children have been told that people are gay and encouraged
> to think about it and recognise it as a lifestyle choice that
> I don't necessarily recommend (because society is so hard on
> gays) but will embrace if they choose it. but they are 9 and 12.
> That topic ought not to come up with a 3 year old other than in
> the "yes, Bill and Ted are a family" context. To deny that Bill
> and Ted might actually *be* a family is to deny reality and to
> be insufficiently tolerant.
And I agree with every last detail of your note except when you suggest that
three year olds shouldn't have access to that information.
> 3 is in my view too young to get into the anatomical details of
> how exactly gay love works. Or straight love for that matter. It's frankly,
> likely to be boring to the 3 year old anyway and not particularly relevant.
Boring and irrelevant are perfectly good reasons (perhapse the best reasons of
all) for not discussing something, but that should (IMO) be driven by the
child, not the adult. If it's dull, then they will ask only the most cursory
questions and be satisfied with the answers. But as long as they are asking
questions, I think they deserve honest and detailed answers regardless of their
age. Protecting them from information that they actually want is silly and
mean.
I understand that some people aren't comfortable talking about human sexuality.
I personally think they ought to get over it, but if they can't then they
should honestly tell their kids that they're not comfortable discussing it and
procure another form of education.
> But the part you trimmed (why did you do that?)
Only the part I quoted was relevant to my point. I wasn't trying to
misrepresent you. Sorry, if you took it that way.
> explains that I would (and
> did, in fact, as we've known gay couples since forever) explain "Helen and
> Carmella are Jenny's parents, just like we are your parents" at that point
> without making a big deal about anatomy.
That's fine. I wasn't attacking your practice (though I've always wanted you
to engage in one of the child-rearing discussions that I'm so passionate about)
I was asking for clarity on what I thought was a bad idea and possibly not
really what you meant.
For instance: If Nik (isn't that your son's name (and correct spelling)?) at
three had accepted that a family had two moms instead of a mom and a dad and
had then asked more about the differences in such families and what lead to
homosexual pairings etc, would you have answered freely or would you have
censored his understanding?
I acknowledge that it would be odd for a kid of that age to pursue that topic
to that extent, but I'm asking a hypothetical about what if he'd _wanted_ to
know more.
Sorry if my tone bugged you,
Chris
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
>
> > > > Violence much be eshewed as well, but there is a fine
> > > > line WRT teaching children about good and evil. There is no such line when • it
> > > > comes to the topic of sex and children.
>
> That's because sex is neither good nor evil.
It can be. S & M, which combines sex and violence is evil; rape is evil.
>
> > > > The very definition of a child is one who hasn't knowledge of
> > > > such things, and presenting it to them forces their
> > > > childhood from them, which is, in my mind, evil.
> > >
> > > Interesting definition of childhood-- I think I agree with the definition...
> > > However, I'm not sure I see it as evil if one attempted to 'force' adult
> > > information on them.
> >
> > Innocence, once lost, is gone forever. Experience comes with age. When
> > experience comes before age (childhood), healthy development is almost
> > certainly impossible.
>
> What you think of as normal and healthy is not. It is a stunted
> charicature of humanity. People seek out experiences when they are ready for
> them. This information isn't being forced on the inocent babes, it is merely
> available. That's not evil!
What I am talking about is presenting adult material *before* a child is mature
enough to handle it. In this example, a child wouldn't be seeking out this
information; it would be encountered accidentally.
>
> Evil is keeping humans in the bondage borne of ignorance to satisfy your own
> sense of worth and justification. Evil is preventing others from accessing the
> information and ideas that their minds and bodies crave.
But I'm talking about them accessing that kind of information and ideas that
their minds are *too* immature to understand.
Evil is filling the
> minds of the unexperienced juvenile with mythology told as truth in order to
> compell adherence to ridiculous and destructive standards.
I don't know exactly to what you are referring here, but I'm guessing religion.
1. Don't underestimate the positive influences of mythology, and/or
2. Some myths to which you may be referring might just be *more* than myths, as
far as you know.
>
> > Anyone who would rob a child of the chance to develop normally into
> > a mature, healthy adult... yeah, I'd call them (or their acts) evil.
>
> You mean by preventing their responsible and educated exploration of sexuality
> as an adolescent? I guess I'd call that evil too. Who knew that we'd end up
> agreeing?
:-) We can agree to disagree on your above views, Chris. Personally, I would
choose to err on the side of caution. Better in my mind for someone to learn
about adults things a little late rather than too soon. Kids grow up too fast
these days-- I would rather them enjoy the fullest childhood that they could,
which to me means being oblivious to adult concerns or matters. Eventually, as
they mature, they will outgrow childhood and mature *at their own pace*. And
this brings me back to my original point-- if a child encounters such mature
content in a LEGO movie (of all places) by mistake, it could disrupt that normal
development.
-John
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.mediawatch, John Neal writes:
>
> > to me...Creating "adult" movies out of LEGO MFs is just plain stupid and
> > tasteless.
>
> So?
My opinion.
>
> > > To me, LEGO bricks are a hobby. They are a really fun thing to collect and
> > > to to build with for many of us. I know that some of us have started
> > > reselling LEGO bricks via Brickbay, some of us have done commissioned works
> > > for LEGO sculptures, and some of us have made movies. I'm one of the ones
> > > that makes movies.
> >
> > Oh, really Jason? Are all LEGO hobbies that equal? I sell bricks on
> > Brickbay, you display LEGO porn-- sorry, I don't buy it.
>
> John, good point! At least Jason is promoting creativity.
>
> > So why sully a good thing by allowing such filth?
>
> Filth is in the eye of the beholder.
And I don't want filth in the eye of my or anyone else's child.
>
> > If the "sole" purpose of your site is to promote "quality
> > film-making", then why the hell are you displaying this type of
> > material???!!! Sorry to break the news to you since you seem not
> > to have already heard: porn *isn't* quality.
>
> Sorry to break it to you, but 'porn' and 'quality' are not mutually exclusive.
Please cite examples, or are you speaking hypothetically?
> It is an economic happenstance that porn is boring.
Come again? Porn has *everything* to do with money and nothing to do with
creativity.
There is no reason that I
> can think of that cineatic depictions can't include sexuality and still be
> riviting.
Must be *some* reason, otherwise I would imagine that the free market would have
already exploited it.
>
> > > But we are all more or less mature here
> >
> > You moron! What an ignorant thing to say! *Anybody* can read
> > LUGNET! *Anybody* can download your trash!
>
> You really have outdone yourself John. Simply amazing!
So I was a little harsh. But really! We are all *not* more or less mature
here! It's that kind of naivity and disregard that concerns me.
>
> > > There is room for serious, gritty movies and children's fantasy. There is
> > > room for serious brick animations and whimsical comedies. There is room for
> > > all kinds of movies here.
> >
> > Really? Maybe there isn't. Maybe you should do what adult sites do and • require
> > some adult ID check before people can enter your site. That would be the
> > responsible thing to do.
>
> That would be the cowardly thing to do.
Cowardly? How so?
Why isn't an abstract of the work
> sufficient to steer those who want to view it toward it and those who don't
> away?
For adults that's fine; I'm concerned about kids.
-John
>
> Chris
|
|
| |
John, first of all, I owe you a thanks. I was kind of excited by your tone in
some notes and I wrote more hotly than was wise. You either didn't take it
that way or only calmly replied. Thanks.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> > > So why sully a good thing by allowing such filth?
> >
> > Filth is in the eye of the beholder.
>
> And I don't want filth in the eye of my or anyone else's child.
But I'm saying that it might not _be_ filth in my eye...or our kids'.
> > Sorry to break it to you, but 'porn' and 'quality' are not mutually • exclusive.
>
> Please cite examples, or are you speaking hypothetically?
Only sort of. Many genres of cinema have different goals. To judge an action
film...say Aliens by the standards that you would use to judge a documentary on
the religious practices of Australian natives would be silly. To judge
pornographic cinema by the standards used to judge serious drama is equally
silly. Within the bounds of "pornography" there are varrying levels of
quality. Some of it, judged by appropriate standards, is good.
I am not put off by 99% of pornographic content, but at the same time I am
insufficiently familiar with the industry to give you citations of quality
porn. And even if I did, you would -- I think, just say that you thought it
was bad.
Actually, I just thought of _Crash_. It borders on pornography and I consider
it a good (if a bit twisted) movie. _Eyes Wide Shut_ bordered on being porn
and bordered on being good.
> > It is an economic happenstance that porn is boring.
>
> Come again? Porn has *everything* to do with money and nothing to do with
> creativity.
Unlike feature films?
> There is no reason that I
> > can think of that cineatic depictions can't include sexuality and still be
> > riviting.
>
> Must be *some* reason, otherwise I would imagine that the free market
> would have already exploited it.
I expect that there are multiple reasons for this. The two that seem most
obvious at this moment are: a) different goals and b) fear of social
retribution. People are mostly not buying pornography in order to be rivitted
by dramatic plot or thrilling effects. I guess they're buying porn in order to
masturbate, view with a sex partner, or view with friends and chuckle (Beavis
and Butthead, as you earlier remarked). So plot and effects and
characterization and drama would not only be wasted (and thus overly costly)
but even counter-productive (at least if done wrong).
> So I was a little harsh. But really! We are all *not* more or less mature
> here! It's that kind of naivity and disregard that concerns me.
I agree that the audience here is diverse and that keeping the audience in mind
is important. But we disagree on what is safe for kids. And I just can't see
any harm coming from the sexual content in these movies. What about the
violence? That troubles me more.
> > > > There is room for serious, gritty movies and children's fantasy. There is
> > > > room for serious brick animations and whimsical comedies. There is room for
> > > > all kinds of movies here.
> > >
> > > Really? Maybe there isn't. Maybe you should do what adult sites do and • require
> > > some adult ID check before people can enter your site. That would be the
> > > responsible thing to do.
> >
> > That would be the cowardly thing to do.
>
> Cowardly? How so?
It is caving in to political correctness. Since there isn't anything
inapropriate (that I saw) for kids on the site, there is no need for an adult
check system. To install one because a few users were raving would be silly
and weak. People who are allowed to self regulate, can.
> Why isn't an abstract of the work
> > sufficient to steer those who want to view it toward it and those who don't
> > away?
>
> For adults that's fine; I'm concerned about kids.
I guess we both know that you believe in a greater difference between the two
than I do. The only harm that I know of that early exposure to sexuality can
cause is actually caused by something else. Like coercion, assault, ignorance,
betrayal, etc. Sex is a natural part of life and many cultures grew up in
which kids saw sex take place because the family occupied a single room. They
were not all insane or robbed of their innocence. To even suggest that
knowledge of sex is anti-innocence is to suggest that sex is somehow neferious.
It isn't. I misspoke earlier when I said that sex is neither good nor bad...it
is good!
Chris
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.mediawatch, John Neal writes:
> > In lugnet.mediawatch, Jason Rowoldt writes:
>
> > An adult movie is a movie that contains adult content.
>
> "Adult content" is a ludicrous phantom. It is a code word for anything that
> biggotted right-wing Bible thumpers want to excise from society in order to
> "protect" the ignorance of children.
I did not know that.
>
> > Sex is an adult topic.
>
> No. Sex is a topic. It is an appropriate topic for anyone who has sexual
> urges.
But since we are talking about children who *don't* have sexual urges, then it
*isnt't* appropriate.
The very nature of having such feelings is indicative of the
> appropriateness of the topic. Exploration, discussion, education and thought
> about sexuality are critically important for anyone with sexual feelings. Six
> year olds _should_ be having appropriate exposure to sexual topics.
I disagee.
>
> > Gay sex is definately an adult topic.
>
> No it isn't. It is just another topic. And even if a person is heterosexual,
> they may explore homosexuality to some degree and they should be encouraged in
> that pursuit. Learning is good.
Learning comes in stages. We must first learn multiplication before
fornication.
>
> > Here's the deal, Jason. You are on a very slippery slope. Perhaps today you
> > may offer movies that are only slighty racy with a touch of sexual innuendo.
> > But as times progresses, the level will only increase. Before you know it,
> > you will be in over your head with junk.
>
> This may well be true. But there is some point when the law will dictate what
> can and can not be included in such a site. Also, Jason may well chose to
> censor some works if and when such a time comes. Why not let that happen ad
> hoc rather than get in a twist over it now? The stuff that you're frothing
> about is so incredibly mild.
Actually, this whole thing began over *TLC* frothing over it. If Jason wants
recognition from TLC (which he says he does), then he's got some decisions to
make. Should he post/link to everything that comes his way, or should he create
some boundaries.
>
> > I'll explain. I'm just wondering *why* the NYT would want "more adult movies"
> > created from a child's toy such as LEGO.
>
> Because it is an interesting juxtapositional use of media. It makes people
> think and it's entertaining. And as much of the past avant garde had proven,
> in time it will seem trite. So just let it run that course and we'll all be
> done with it.
Avant garde. Ptooey. The stuff that passes for art these days is literary
unbelievable. I'd rather not have the avant garde take a perverse fancy to LEGO
and completely pollute it, thanks very much.
> > To me, if a LEGO film cannot be safely
> > seen by a child, it really shouldn't be made.
>
> Do you really believe that a scene in a depicting masturbation is worse for a
> kid to see than beheadings? If so, why? If not, why aren't you bitching about
> the 90% of brickfilms that are violent instead of the 2% that are vaguely
> sexual?
lol Didn't know that *they* existed. But you're correct-- gratuitous violence
is just as destructive. I really think Jason should exercise some sort of
editorial control.
>
> > But our society thinks it's a
> > hoot-- would you gladly accommodate them? Maybe you can explain to me the
> > rationale behind such films. Having MFs swear, or copulate, or murder, or do
> > drugs, tell dirty jokes (you get the idea) just doesn't seem right.
>
> The rationale is that there obviously exists a market. Why isn't that good
> enough?
Because it isn't. There's a huge market for child pornography, should I exploit
that as well, simply because there exists a market for it?
>
> > We are adults playing with a child's toy. I think it is wrong to turn it into
> > some kind of "adult thing".
>
> Why?
Because it is a perversion. Perhaps you enjoy perversions. I happen not to.
>
> > > > Maybe you should do what adult sites do and require some adult
> > > > ID check before people can enter your site. That would be the
> > > > responsible thing to do.
> > >
> > > Well, since you have not watched any of the films, again I must
> > > say .. for what?
> >
> > And again I respond: To keep them away from children's eyes.
>
> Which children? What ages? Why does age matter? What is magic about the xth
> (18th?) birthday that one day a world of media was "too much" for you and the
> next it's just fine? That's absurd. People should decide for themselves what
> is appropriate for them.
We are not talking about people-- we are talking about kids. Kids are not
simply mini-adults. The whole point is that they *can't* decide for themselves-
- they are not mature enought to do so. And you are correct-- every one is
different and matures at different rate. 18 is a number. Our society has
decided that by 18, you *should* be mature enough to choose to experience
whatever you want.
>
> > Even if 95% of your site is okay with kids, what good is that if 5%
> > of it isn't? Regulate it, or better yet, simply refuse to post
> > movies of questionable content. What is so hard with that?
>
> Maybe he doesn't see the 'question' that you imply with the phrase
> "questionable content." I know I don't. None of what I saw is _really_
> top-notch healthy stuff for kids.
So why not make it thus? Seems to me that the average AFOL on LUGNET got a big
kick out of the Monty Python LEGO movie, and was indifferent about the gay one
(of the ones who have even bothered to view it). Also seems to me that the
world would get a bigger kick out of seeing LEGO toys copulating ("hmmm, what an
interesting juxtaposition!") than the average AFOL. So, I ask Jason, to whom
will you cater? LUGNET is designed for AFOLs; Brickbay is designed for AFOLs,
Brickshelf is designed for AFOLs; LDraw is designed for AFOLs; Brickfilms is
designed for....?
> > The world will say, "Don't compromise!", but in fact life is full compromises.
> > Compromise doesn't make you any less an artist, just evidence of a mature one.
>
> Jason, don't compromise! Unless you think it's the best thing to do.
Uh, what kind of advice is that?
-John
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> And I don't want filth in the eye of my or anyone else's child.
Why not? It is only by exposure to all kinds of stimuli that children are
able to understand and begin to make sense of the world around them.
> > Sorry to break it to you, but 'porn' and 'quality' are not mutually exclusive.
> Please cite examples, or are you speaking hypothetically?
> Come again? Porn has *everything* to do with money and nothing to do with
> creativity.
This is false. Eroticism is part of what it is to be human. If you want to
shut off that part of yourself, and close the door for your children on it
until they are 18 -- fine, go ahead. I think it is a far different matter
to think that the world at large should help you in your project, or that
they would even be interested in helping you for that matter. I think you
will find that your own children will have their own uses for things that
you would not have accepted for yourself -- just give them time.
You want quality porn, try some of these leads: Michael Ninn, Anais Nin,
Anne Roquelaire, De Sade, Lords of Acid, Franz Von Bayros, Story of the Eye,
Andrew Blake, Lydia Lunch, Icart, Caligula, Brad Holland, Harvey Kurtzman,
Norman Lindsay, Gor, Macho Sluts, Carmina Burana, Baudellaire, Rimbaud, and
the list goes on and on...
Your mileage may vary, but I think a lot of other people would support much
of the above as both pornographic/erotic and of quality.
> For adults that's fine; I'm concerned about kids.
Excessively so. I expect you'll find they can just as easily seek out that
which doesn't just fall into their laps by accident. Children are naturally
inquisitive -- you connect the dots. Basically, I think your project is
doomed regardless of what you do. You are trying to squelch a perfectly
natural, normal, and healthy human motivation -- people are sexual, they act
on their sexuality, they create art about their sexuality, they like to
observe other's sexuality...
People are sexy. Deal.
-- Hop-Frog
P.S. For a long time I thought it was okay to let other discuss their moral
agendas without comment from me -- but in the main, these people generally
turned out to be religious zealots of some kind or another. We others, an
until recently silent majority, have found ourselves on the outside of
public discourse on a number of subjects of great interest to us because we
thought our access to many things was a kind of birthright in the western
world -- that people in the *free* part of the world were not subject to the
petty censorship of others. This is a false assumption. Freedom is not free
-- it has to be paid for with a vigilant eye and a strong voice. You want
to talk about protecting your kids, John -- I want to talk about sex in
public places. You want people to feel bad and hide normal, healthy
expressions of their sexuality away from public view -- I want it out in the
open because I think guilt and shame are more damaging to the human spirit
than pouring radiactive waste on DNA. You may believe in an after life (I
hasten you to it, BTW) -- I believe in the life at hand, and in trying to
make it a happy place to be for those of us that want to make a go of it. I
am not going to let the world around me be designed by Xtian influenced
nincompoops who are more worried about a judgement that most likely will
never come than in trying to make the world a beautiful place to be a human
being. I am on the side of the human beings, I really have no idea what
side you are championing.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> John, first of all, I owe you a thanks. I was kind of excited by your tone in
> some notes and I wrote more hotly than was wise. You either didn't take it
> that way or only calmly replied. Thanks.
lol Well I came in a little strong, and so now I'm trying to tone down:-)
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
>
> > > > So why sully a good thing by allowing such filth?
> > >
> > > Filth is in the eye of the beholder.
> >
> > And I don't want filth in the eye of my or anyone else's child.
>
> But I'm saying that it might not _be_ filth in my eye...or our kids'.
But you agree that at some point it *could* be.
>
> > > Sorry to break it to you, but 'porn' and 'quality' are not mutually • exclusive.
> >
> > Please cite examples, or are you speaking hypothetically?
>
> Only sort of. Many genres of cinema have different goals. To judge an action
> film...say Aliens by the standards that you would use to judge a documentary on
> the religious practices of Australian natives would be silly. To judge
> pornographic cinema by the standards used to judge serious drama is equally
> silly. Within the bounds of "pornography" there are varrying levels of
> quality. Some of it, judged by appropriate standards, is good.
>
> I am not put off by 99% of pornographic content, but at the same time I am
> insufficiently familiar with the industry to give you citations of quality
> porn. And even if I did, you would -- I think, just say that you thought it
> was bad.
hehe I know nothing about the porn industry, except that I hear it's huge, and
that it's largely due to the net. Perhaps I'm speaking from ignorance, but it
seems to me that porn exists for one reason, and it isn't "artistic" expression.
>
> Actually, I just thought of _Crash_. It borders on pornography and I consider
> it a good (if a bit twisted) movie. _Eyes Wide Shut_ bordered on being porn
> and bordered on being good.
Missed them both.
>
> > > It is an economic happenstance that porn is boring.
> >
> > Come again? Porn has *everything* to do with money and nothing to do with
> > creativity.
>
> Unlike feature films?
Touche:-)
>
> > There is no reason that I
> > > can think of that cineatic depictions can't include sexuality and still be
> > > riviting.
> >
> > Must be *some* reason, otherwise I would imagine that the free market
> > would have already exploited it.
>
> I expect that there are multiple reasons for this. The two that seem most
> obvious at this moment are: a) different goals and b) fear of social
> retribution. People are mostly not buying pornography in order to be rivitted
> by dramatic plot or thrilling effects. I guess they're buying porn in order to
> masturbate, view with a sex partner, or view with friends and chuckle (Beavis
> and Butthead, as you earlier remarked). So plot and effects and
> characterization and drama would not only be wasted (and thus overly costly)
> but even counter-productive (at least if done wrong).
>
> > So I was a little harsh. But really! We are all *not* more or less mature
> > here! It's that kind of naivity and disregard that concerns me.
>
> I agree that the audience here is diverse and that keeping the audience in mind
> is important. But we disagree on what is safe for kids. And I just can't see
> any harm coming from the sexual content in these movies. What about the
> violence? That troubles me more.
I agree. As I mentioned in another post to you, I hadn't any idea of the
violent LEGO movie links on Brickfilms-- more fuel for my fire, I guess.
>
> > > > > There is room for serious, gritty movies and children's fantasy. There is
> > > > > room for serious brick animations and whimsical comedies. There is room for
> > > > > all kinds of movies here.
> > > >
> > > > Really? Maybe there isn't. Maybe you should do what adult sites do and • require
> > > > some adult ID check before people can enter your site. That would be the
> > > > responsible thing to do.
> > >
> > > That would be the cowardly thing to do.
> >
> > Cowardly? How so?
>
> It is caving in to political correctness. Since there isn't anything
> inapropriate (that I saw) for kids on the site, there is no need for an adult
> check system. To install one because a few users were raving would be silly
> and weak. People who are allowed to self regulate, can.
Unless the webmaster saw merit in the raving? Then it would become sage advice?
:-)
>
> > Why isn't an abstract of the work
> > > sufficient to steer those who want to view it toward it and those who don't
> > > away?
> >
> > For adults that's fine; I'm concerned about kids.
>
> I guess we both know that you believe in a greater difference between the two
> than I do. The only harm that I know of that early exposure to sexuality can
> cause is actually caused by something else. Like coercion, assault, ignorance,
> betrayal, etc. Sex is a natural part of life and many cultures grew up in
> which kids saw sex take place because the family occupied a single room. They
> were not all insane or robbed of their innocence. To even suggest that
> knowledge of sex is anti-innocence is to suggest that sex is somehow neferious.
> It isn't. I misspoke earlier when I said that sex is neither good nor bad...it
> is good!
Yeah, sex is good, until someone comes along and perverts it. And it seems that
someone is always coming along...
-John
>
> Chris
|
|
| |
> It can be. S & M, which combines sex and violence is evil; rape is evil.
Excuse me? S&M is not "evil"- as long as the people taking part are consenting
(over age of consent, whatever that is where the act takes place), it is no
more "evil" than sex in the missonary position between a man and his lawfully
married wife
> But I'm talking about them accessing that kind of information and ideas that
> their minds are *too* immature to understand.
That is a failing of their parents, not of the rest of the world. Listen, by
your argument, we should ban bridges, because someone _might_ jump off of one.
Or how about eating? Perhaps we should ban eating, because you know, someone
might assoicate Jell-o with sex :)
James P
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> Why not? It is only by exposure to all kinds of stimuli that children are
> able to understand and begin to make sense of the world around them.
Richard, do you think there are any ideas or images to which access should be
prevented or restricted? I was once offended by an afternoon TV show about
coprophilia at the perfect time for kids to come home from school and flip on
the TV. I am uneasy about my kids exposing themselves to such ideas.
> > Porn has *everything* to do with money and nothing to do with
> > creativity.
>
> This is false. Eroticism is part of what it is to be human. If you want to
> shut off that part of yourself, and close the door for your children on it
> until they are 18 -- fine, go ahead.
Is that really fine? Do we really want to stand by and allow that to happen to
some children merely because the children are genetically closer to those who
would do so than they are to us? What do you envision as the "right" place for
minors in our legal system with regard to protection and rights? These are
questions that I have not yet worked satisfactory answers out for myself.
> You are trying to squelch a perfectly
> natural, normal, and healthy human motivation -- people are sexual, they act
> on their sexuality, they create art about their sexuality, they like to
> observe other's sexuality...
>
> People are sexy. Deal.
And the real thing with this is that _people_ are sexy, not just people over
eighteen.
> You want to talk about protecting your kids, John
I want to protect kids too. But only from bad things. Not from natural and
good things. Not from themselves. Not from free expression of their needs and
desires.
> -- I want to talk about sex in public places.
You want to be in public places and talk about sex, or you want to discuss
public displays of sexuality? I think we need more of both.
> You want people to feel bad and hide normal, healthy
> expressions of their sexuality away from public view -- I want it out in the
> open because I think guilt and shame are more damaging to the human spirit
> than pouring radiactive waste on DNA.
I understand that some people are ofended by public breastfeeding too. Weird.
Chris
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
<snip>
> I understand that some people are ofended by public breastfeeding too. Weird.
>
> Chris
Yah, no kidding.
I want to chime in here for a bit. What *is* the big deal about this? I
thought the government was supposed to be seperate from the church, yet it
seems that most levels of society support the Bible's view of "nakedness".
Is this simply a holdover from a more *Christian* America, or is it
something more?
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Powell writes:
> Excuse me? S&M is not "evil
Yeah, I second this.
It's a little off topic -- but I recently heard/learned that kissing was
made popular by the Romans. Now, I don't know if that is true, but it's
interesting to think that something commonplace today -- even in public --
may have originally been met with the disgust and disdain of those being
confronted with the act for the first time. I guess, it goes to the
relativism of these kinds of things -- one person's porn, is another's
preferred mode of expression.
::this part must be J. Neal::
> > But I'm talking about them accessing that kind of information and ideas that
> > their minds are *too* immature to understand.
By whose measuring stick? I tell you -- forbid it to them today, feel sorry
for it tomorrow. Nothing is as tastey as forbidden fruit -- isn't that one
of your myths?
> Or how about eating? Perhaps we should ban eating, because you know, someone
> might assoicate Jell-o with sex :)
What're you, some kind of freak?! :)
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, John P. Henderson writes:
> In lugnet.mediawatch, Jacob Sparre Andersen writes:
> > »Minifigs having sex and going to gay bars is not a part of
> > Lego's values«
>
> Ug. I was trying to read through all the posts on this thread, but I
> started getting a bad taste in my mouth. I want to go back and get the good
> feeling that Brad's posts have given me in the Lego Direct newsgroup...
>
> As far as the legality of things, I think TLC can only hit violations of any
> trademarks. I like to think of the bricks as just a medium for art and
> such. It is the clay of sculpting, the oils of painting, and the scrap
> metal of welding art. Of course, the lawyers might say otherwise. They
> might say that all elements have the LEGO logo on their studs, making them
> trademarked property. But if they go to that extreme, then each and every
> one of us would have to pay royalties to post any MOC online, and they won't
> do that because our doing so promotes their toy if anything.
>
> As far as questionable values, well okay certain issues of sexuality should
> be subjects that are monitored by parents. That's not my decision to make.
> I think it is funny though, seeing mini-figs doing adult things. Even the
> Brick Testament has that somewhat. However, that site also makes a point of
> rating the pics before you view them. I think that is what all such sites
> should consider. If a child (or an offendable adult) goes searching the
> internet for sites with the word "Lego", they should be warned about the
> content of anything questionable. ...The same thing happens if you do a
> search for "photography"...
>
> But to what extreme can we complain about depicting adult activities with
> Lego? Where I live, only adults can drive cars. Do we outlaw mini-figs in
> mini-cars? Only adults can own guns. Do we remove guns from the toys?
>
> At a recent NELUG meeting, I showcased a little MOC of a local working class
> bar ("Jinx's Pub"). If I posted an image of that would TLC tell me not to?
> The interior clearly shows blue collar workers drinking alcoholic beverages.
> Not only would some people consider that not appropriate for children, but
> others might also be offended by the stereotypes implied by the depiction of
> "white trash types" (including one guy with a cowboy hat). Is my MOC
> inappropriate?
>
> ...And that doesn't even call into question the trademark labels I plastered
> all over the windows (Corona, Miller Lite, Budweiser, etc.)... But maybe
> that would pass as free advertising...
>
> A final note, and this is my attempt to bring humor into this conversation:
> Of course some mini-figs would be homosexual; afterall, the ratio of females
> to males is rather ugly... <smirk>
>
> -Hendo
Good Post. As a parent, I am diligent in censoring inappropriate material.
As an individual, I am diligent in protecting free speech. There is a
delicate balancing line here. I just hope I do the right thing for my
children. That is my priority.
|
|
| |
First, let me say that I have not so far in my own life ever had a child. I
may never have a child. So perhaps you may think I don't have an educated
opinion. In fact, most of my views come from how I was raised. So really,
if you have a beef with me or my views -- complain to my father or my mother.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> Richard, do you think there are any ideas or images to which access should be
> prevented or restricted?
Not really. Children see a lot of violence in the world today -- in the
news and via entertainment -- so that's already something that it is
difficult to prevent them from having access to. Crude language -- same
thing (if nowhere else, they will hear everything in the schoolyard). In
particular, I think you are asking me if it's okay to give children access
to different kinds of pornography or sexual subject matter, so let me answer
to that (and this presumes they don't have access already, which I think
they actually do BTW -- I know I could get my hands on stuff when I was a
kid, if I wanted to). The reality is that children of very young age are
very hard to shock, they are very close to nature as they learn to do things
like poop in the toilet instead of their pants, and so forth. Many of them
understand that boys and girls are different. Many of them have some
inkling as to how mothers and fathers create children, and that mothers give
birth to them. So I am not really that unclear about them having the whole
deal if they are interested.
But see, the real issue is context. Children of a young age have to have
context, they don't know much of their own and they are relying on their
parents, teachers, friends, and society to give them context. Lazy parents
will find that children will simply look elsewhere for guidance if they
cannot get it at home for one reason or another. So I believe in ALL ACCESS
to all things, because my parents would talk to me about anything. They
still will to this very day.
And parents talking to their children seems like a good thing to me.
Start shutting the door on all those things that make you uncomfortable and
your child will notice. They will also likely stop seeking answers from the
one or two persons they should be able to trust the most of anyone in the
world. That is how I see it.
> What do you envision as the "right" place for minors in our legal system with >regard to protection and rights?
I think minors should have access to all kinds of information. I don't
believe in minors having sex with adults because minors cannot consent. If
one minor has sex with another minor, I don't see it as a legal matter but
rather something for their parents to deal with.
If I had one complaint about the whole minors v. adults thing is that I
would drop the legal age for sexual consent to 15 or 16 because many
societies worldwide traditionally debut their daughters into society at
around those ages. Beyond that I wouldn't change anything currently a part
of our legal system surrounding these issues. [Just for the record, I tend
to date women of approx. my own age, so this age of consent thing is more an
observation than a personal mission or something...]
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> I understand that some people are offended by public breastfeeding too.
> Weird.
You will also find that many people who act so liberal about it get very
uncomfortable to see a woman breastfeeding a baby over six or eight months old,
say. Yet in many cultures (and presumably in ours at one time) children
breastfeed for a few years.
Maggie C.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Maggie Cambron writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
>
> > I understand that some people are offended by public breastfeeding too.
> > Weird.
>
> You will also find that many people who act so liberal about it get very
> uncomfortable to see a woman breastfeeding a baby over six or eight months • old,
> say. Yet in many cultures (and presumably in ours at one time) children
> breastfeed for a few years.
I know four people (two unrelated Africans and two sibling Americans) who
breastfed to either 4 or 5. They recall suckling at their mother's teat. My
first reaction was to think that would be very odd. But I'm sure they all have
healthier attitudes about breasts than most folks do.
Chris
|
|
| |
The scariest part of this whole announcement to me - and something that very
few people in this discussion have touched upon - is that for the first
time, The Lego Company is telling us what we can or cannot build with Lego!
Think about this! Modern military equipment is (supposedly) not part of
their "values" either, so what if one day they decide to shut down
lugnet.build.military? Or tell us that we can build such things, we just
can't display pictures of them publicly?
The Lego Company is treading a very fine line here. LEGO is of course
primarily a children's toy, and they want to keep their wholesome image, but
on the other hand, Lego is also a medium for creative expression. It's quite
unprecendented for the creator of a medium to impose censorship on what is
created with this medium. (Just imagine a paint company suing a painter
because they didn't like her paintings).
Basically, this is a free speech issue, made somewhat more complicated by
the fact that trademark issues are involved. But the thing with free speech
is that as long as it's the free speech of people you don't agree with that
is being blocked, you tend not to do anything. Only when *your* free speech
is taken away do you realize you should have probably acted sooner...
-- Marc
In lugnet.mediawatch, Jacob Sparre Andersen writes:
> News from the Danish Broadcasting Corporation yesterday:
>
> http://www1.dr.dk/nyheder/indland/article.jhtml?articleID=46165
>
> (my translations)
>
> »Minifigs having sex and going to gay bars is not a part of
> Lego's values«
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > In lugnet.mediawatch, John Neal writes:
> > > In lugnet.mediawatch, Jason Rowoldt writes:
> >
> > > An adult movie is a movie that contains adult content.
> >
> > "Adult content" is a ludicrous phantom. It is a code word for anything that
> > biggotted right-wing Bible thumpers want to excise from society in order to
> > "protect" the ignorance of children.
>
> I did not know that.
Well, now you know. Remember it because it will pop up from time to time and
only Bible-thumpers (and those supported by them) use it.
> > > Sex is an adult topic.
> >
> > No. Sex is a topic. It is an appropriate topic for anyone who has sexual
> > urges.
>
> But since we are talking about children who *don't* have sexual urges, then it
> *isnt't* appropriate.
WRONG! The first thing you learn in Early Childhood Education is that
EVERYONE has sexual urges to some degree. Learning to deal with those urges
appropriately is the key. Ignorance regarding those urges is exactly what
the Right-wingers want to push forward in their 'education' programs.
> The very nature of having such feelings is indicative of the
> > appropriateness of the topic. Exploration, discussion, education and thought
> > about sexuality are critically important for anyone with sexual feelings. Six
> > year olds _should_ be having appropriate exposure to sexual topics.
>
> I disagee.
Disagreement is fine. You have that right. You are incorrect, sir, to
believe this, but it is your right to do so. Six year olds SHOULD have
appropriate exposure to sexual topics. If they don't, they tend to turn into
society's malcontents and fornicators. Misinformation breeds this nicely as
you are attempting to prove.
> > > Gay sex is definately an adult topic.
> >
> > No it isn't. It is just another topic. And even if a person is heterosexual,
> > they may explore homosexuality to some degree and they should be encouraged in
> > that pursuit. Learning is good.
>
> Learning comes in stages. We must first learn multiplication before
> fornication.
Wrong again. What you are saying, in essence, is that we need book learning
before societal learning (i.e. learning to live with others). We need to
learn to get along far more than we need to learn calculus. If we did, there
would be far fewer teen pregnancies, drug babies, child murderers and the
like. 2+2=4? That's nice to know. Now why did Johnny beat the kid sitting
next to him again? That's right, he was too busy learning math to learn how
to deal with society. Life-long learning. That's what it's all about.
> > > Here's the deal, Jason. You are on a very slippery slope. Perhaps today you
> > > may offer movies that are only slighty racy with a touch of sexual innuendo.
> > > But as times progresses, the level will only increase. Before you know it,
> > > you will be in over your head with junk.
> >
> > This may well be true. But there is some point when the law will dictate what
> > can and can not be included in such a site. Also, Jason may well chose to
> > censor some works if and when such a time comes. Why not let that happen ad
> > hoc rather than get in a twist over it now? The stuff that you're frothing
> > about is so incredibly mild.
>
> Actually, this whole thing began over *TLC* frothing over it. If Jason wants
> recognition from TLC (which he says he does), then he's got some decisions to
> make. Should he post/link to everything that comes his way, or should he create
> some boundaries.
Then TLC should re-examine it's own values. Jason has done everything in his
power to keep the content in the hands of those who are of consenting age to
view it short of censorship (adultcheck). If a parent chooses to allow their
children access to a computer without supervision, then that parent is at
fault, not Jason. Teach your kids proper netiquiette and all should be fine.
> > > I'll explain. I'm just wondering *why* the NYT would want "more adult movies"
> > > created from a child's toy such as LEGO.
> >
> > Because it is an interesting juxtapositional use of media. It makes people
> > think and it's entertaining. And as much of the past avant garde had proven,
> > in time it will seem trite. So just let it run that course and we'll all be
> > done with it.
>
> Avant garde. Ptooey. The stuff that passes for art these days is literary
> unbelievable. I'd rather not have the avant garde take a perverse fancy to LEGO
> and completely pollute it, thanks very much.
That's your choice. Same as anyone who wants to build a castle out of Lego
and fill it with sado-masochistic content. It's not my style, but others
like to do this. Art is in the eye of the one viewing it as well as those
that create it. If it isn't to your liking, THEN DON'T VIEW IT.
> > > To me, if a LEGO film cannot be safely
> > > seen by a child, it really shouldn't be made.
> >
> > Do you really believe that a scene in a depicting masturbation is worse for a
> > kid to see than beheadings? If so, why? If not, why aren't you bitching about
> > the 90% of brickfilms that are violent instead of the 2% that are vaguely
> > sexual?
>
> lol Didn't know that *they* existed. But you're correct-- gratuitous violence
> is just as destructive. I really think Jason should exercise some sort of
> editorial control.
Let's see, so you are asking Jason to make his site 'Rated G' simply because
society has changed? C'mon...get with the picture. Watch the nightly news
and show us a night that doesn't include violent content. Sexual content is
in nearly every sitcom in some form. Sports aren't immune either
(cheerleaders/wrestling). This is our life. This is the way things work in
2002. 'Leave it to Beaver' has been off the air for a LONG time for a reason.
> > > But our society thinks it's a
> > > hoot-- would you gladly accommodate them? Maybe you can explain to me the
> > > rationale behind such films. Having MFs swear, or copulate, or murder, or do
> > > drugs, tell dirty jokes (you get the idea) just doesn't seem right.
> >
> > The rationale is that there obviously exists a market. Why isn't that good
> > enough?
>
> Because it isn't. There's a huge market for child pornography, should I exploit
> that as well, simply because there exists a market for it?
Of course not. To imply this is right takes a sick mind. Art and child
exploitation are NOT in any way, shape, or form similar.
> > > We are adults playing with a child's toy. I think it is wrong to turn it into
> > > some kind of "adult thing".
> >
> > Why?
>
> Because it is a perversion. Perhaps you enjoy perversions. I happen not to.
Again, this is your CHOICE. Enjoy your choices until the 'ethical' ones
decide to take them away.
> > > > > Maybe you should do what adult sites do and require some adult
> > > > > ID check before people can enter your site. That would be the
> > > > > responsible thing to do.
> > > >
> > > > Well, since you have not watched any of the films, again I must
> > > > say .. for what?
> > >
> > > And again I respond: To keep them away from children's eyes.
> >
> > Which children? What ages? Why does age matter? What is magic about the xth
> > (18th?) birthday that one day a world of media was "too much" for you and the
> > next it's just fine? That's absurd. People should decide for themselves what
> > is appropriate for them.
>
> We are not talking about people-- we are talking about kids. Kids are not
> simply mini-adults. The whole point is that they *can't* decide for themselves-
> - they are not mature enought to do so. And you are correct-- every one is
> different and matures at different rate. 18 is a number. Our society has
> decided that by 18, you *should* be mature enough to choose to experience
> whatever you want.
Okay, I'll agree with this to a point. Kids should NEVER be allowed to use a
computer unsupervised simply due to the possibility of reaching adult
content by accident. Adultcheck (and similar services) are a way to
sometimes prevent this. What you aren't pointing out is that these same
services are a form of censorship against those of use who choose not to
post our private information to the web. Sorry-Adultcheck is a bad idea.
Adult supervision is a good idea.
> > > Even if 95% of your site is okay with kids, what good is that if 5%
> > > of it isn't? Regulate it, or better yet, simply refuse to post
> > > movies of questionable content. What is so hard with that?
> >
> > Maybe he doesn't see the 'question' that you imply with the phrase
> > "questionable content." I know I don't. None of what I saw is _really_
> > top-notch healthy stuff for kids.
>
> So why not make it thus? Seems to me that the average AFOL on LUGNET got a big
> kick out of the Monty Python LEGO movie, and was indifferent about the gay one
> (of the ones who have even bothered to view it). Also seems to me that the
> world would get a bigger kick out of seeing LEGO toys copulating ("hmmm, what an
> interesting juxtaposition!") than the average AFOL. So, I ask Jason, to whom
> will you cater? LUGNET is designed for AFOLs; Brickbay is designed for AFOLs,
> Brickshelf is designed for AFOLs; LDraw is designed for AFOLs; Brickfilms is
> designed for....?
...those who create Brickfilms, obviously. That content is decided upon by
the creator of the content (something Jason has little control over).
> > > The world will say, "Don't compromise!", but in fact life is full compromises.
> > > Compromise doesn't make you any less an artist, just evidence of a mature one.
> >
> > Jason, don't compromise! Unless you think it's the best thing to do.
>
> Uh, what kind of advice is that?
The best that can be given. He'll compromise if he feels he needs to. No
amount of external pressure should change that.
-Dave
|
|
| |
Curt wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > In lugnet.mediawatch, Curt Tigges writes:
> > > I am shocked and disgusted at anyone who would be immoral and low enough to
> > > display these films on the Internet. Even though I have not watched them, I
> > > have learned enough reading this thread. It is not right for anyone to
> > > display this trash anywhere. Legos were not meant to be used in digital
> > > films filled with smut, they were meant for enhancing creativity through
> > > building and designing. I hope nobody flames me for this, but if they do, I
> > > will still stand by my opinions.
> >
> > I mean, after all, back in the
> > 50's (or so) bikinis were indecent. Way back in the 20's, showing your
> > calves (or was it knees?) in public was a disgrace. Supposedly there's blue
> > laws in Boston about how couples may not hold hands in Boston Common
>
> No matter what the standards of reavealing parts of one's body, depictions
> of LEGO minifigs being gay and doing you-know-what-else is evil and immoral.
Ummm, only if you believe being gay is immoral. Luckily for gay people, I and
enough other people don't believe that (or at the least don't worry about it
enough to persecute gay people).
--
Tom Stangl
***http://www.vfaq.com/
***DSM Visual FAQ home
***http://ba.dsm.org/
***SF Bay Area DSMs
|
|
| |
Christopher Weeks wrote:
> In lugnet.mediawatch, John Neal writes:
>
> > to me...Creating "adult" movies out of LEGO MFs is just plain stupid and
> > tasteless.
>
> So?
>
> > > To me, LEGO bricks are a hobby. They are a really fun thing to collect and
> > > to to build with for many of us. I know that some of us have started
> > > reselling LEGO bricks via Brickbay, some of us have done commissioned works
> > > for LEGO sculptures, and some of us have made movies. I'm one of the ones
> > > that makes movies.
> >
> > Oh, really Jason? Are all LEGO hobbies that equal? I sell bricks on
> > Brickbay, you display LEGO porn-- sorry, I don't buy it.
>
> John, good point! At least Jason is promoting creativity.
>
> > So why sully a good thing by allowing such filth?
>
> Filth is in the eye of the beholder.
>
> > If the "sole" purpose of your site is to promote "quality
> > film-making", then why the hell are you displaying this type of
> > material???!!! Sorry to break the news to you since you seem not
> > to have already heard: porn *isn't* quality.
>
> Sorry to break it to you, but 'porn' and 'quality' are not mutually exclusive.
> It is an economic happenstance that porn is boring. There is no reason that I
> can think of that cineatic depictions can't include sexuality and still be
> riviting.
>
> > > But we are all more or less mature here
> >
> > You moron! What an ignorant thing to say! *Anybody* can read
> > LUGNET! *Anybody* can download your trash!
>
> You really have outdone yourself John. Simply amazing!
Agreed. John made himself look disgusting and ignorant with that post.
Then again, he's the one that wants the machine to do his parenting for
him...how's that for ignorant?
--
Tom Stangl
***http://www.vfaq.com/
***DSM Visual FAQ home
***http://ba.dsm.org/
***SF Bay Area DSMs
|
|
| |
John wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> >
> > > > > Violence much be eshewed as well, but there is a fine
> > > > > line WRT teaching children about good and evil. There is no such line when • it
> > > > > comes to the topic of sex and children.
> >
> > That's because sex is neither good nor evil.
>
> It can be. S & M, which combines sex and violence is evil
What a load of crap. If the S is happy, and the M is happy, who the HELL are you to
call it evil?
Self-righteous bigot. Hide behind your righteousness if you want, but it won't
disguise that you're a bigot.
> ; rape is evil.
Rape is not sex. It's not about sex. It's about power.
> > > > > The very definition of a child is one who hasn't knowledge of
> > > > > such things, and presenting it to them forces their
> > > > > childhood from them, which is, in my mind, evil.
> > > >
> > > > Interesting definition of childhood-- I think I agree with the definition...
> > > > However, I'm not sure I see it as evil if one attempted to 'force' adult
> > > > information on them.
> > >
> > > Innocence, once lost, is gone forever. Experience comes with age. When
> > > experience comes before age (childhood), healthy development is almost
> > > certainly impossible.
> >
> > What you think of as normal and healthy is not. It is a stunted
> > charicature of humanity. People seek out experiences when they are ready for
> > them. This information isn't being forced on the inocent babes, it is merely
> > available. That's not evil!
>
> What I am talking about is presenting adult material *before* a child is mature
> enough to handle it. In this example, a child wouldn't be seeking out this
> information; it would be encountered accidentally.
And if they're not mature enough to handle it, they won't really understand it, so
what harm is there in it? If they DO understand it, I would say that they must be
mature enough to "handle it".
> > Evil is keeping humans in the bondage borne of ignorance to satisfy your own
> > sense of worth and justification. Evil is preventing others from accessing the
> > information and ideas that their minds and bodies crave.
>
> But I'm talking about them accessing that kind of information and ideas that
> their minds are *too* immature to understand.
See above.
> Evil is filling the
> > minds of the unexperienced juvenile with mythology told as truth in order to
> > compell adherence to ridiculous and destructive standards.
>
> I don't know exactly to what you are referring here, but I'm guessing religion.
>
> 1. Don't underestimate the positive influences of mythology, and/or
Don't deny the negative influences of religion either.
> :-) We can agree to disagree on your above views, Chris. Personally, I would
> choose to err on the side of caution.
Hm, caution, yet in an earlier post, you said you'd prefer that the machine do the
parenting? How lazy and irresponsible.
> Better in my mind for someone to learn
> about adults things a little late rather than too soon.
OOOOOOOKKKK. Remind me not to move near you. People like you tend to have kids
that have kids, because they kept their kids as stupid as they possibly could as
long as possible.
> Kids grow up too fast
> these days-- I would rather them enjoy the fullest childhood that they could,
> which to me means being oblivious to adult concerns or matters.
They don't need to be exclusive.
> Eventually, as
> they mature, they will outgrow childhood and mature *at their own pace*.
Yet you want to deny them THEIR OWN PACE??
Make up your mind! Are you going to let children decide when they are ready for
something, or are you going to closet them? You've been arguing the latter all
along.
> And
> this brings me back to my original point-- if a child encounters such mature
> content in a LEGO movie (of all places) by mistake, it could disrupt that normal
> development.
Who are YOU to say what is a child's normal development? I'd say that is up to the
individual child, NOT you.
--
Tom Stangl
***http://www.vfaq.com/
***DSM Visual FAQ home
***http://ba.dsm.org/
***SF Bay Area DSMs
|
|
| |
John wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > In lugnet.mediawatch, John Neal writes:
> >
> > > to me...Creating "adult" movies out of LEGO MFs is just plain stupid and
> > > tasteless.
> >
> > So?
>
> My opinion.
Rather narrow-minded opinion at that.
> > > > To me, LEGO bricks are a hobby. They are a really fun thing to collect and
> > > > to to build with for many of us. I know that some of us have started
> > > > reselling LEGO bricks via Brickbay, some of us have done commissioned works
> > > > for LEGO sculptures, and some of us have made movies. I'm one of the ones
> > > > that makes movies.
> > >
> > > Oh, really Jason? Are all LEGO hobbies that equal? I sell bricks on
> > > Brickbay, you display LEGO porn-- sorry, I don't buy it.
> >
> > John, good point! At least Jason is promoting creativity.
> >
> > > So why sully a good thing by allowing such filth?
> >
> > Filth is in the eye of the beholder.
>
> And I don't want filth in the eye of my
Ah, now that's your right...
> or anyone else's child.
Now here, you need to BUTT OUT! Quit forcing your narrow-minded morality on
everyone else.
> > > If the "sole" purpose of your site is to promote "quality
> > > film-making", then why the hell are you displaying this type of
> > > material???!!! Sorry to break the news to you since you seem not
> > > to have already heard: porn *isn't* quality.
> >
> > Sorry to break it to you, but 'porn' and 'quality' are not mutually exclusive.
>
> Please cite examples, or are you speaking hypothetically?
Quality film-MAKING has nothing to do with the content. Is that so hard to figure
out? It's certainly possible to have a quality porn film (and the opposite is
obviously true, there is TONS of crappy non-porn out there).
> > It is an economic happenstance that porn is boring.
>
> Come again? Porn has *everything* to do with money and nothing to do with
> creativity.
Whatever. If you want to stay that bigoted and narrow-minded, fine. Even raise
YOUR children that way if you want to. But BUTT OUT of everyone else's family.
> There is no reason that I
> > can think of that cineatic depictions can't include sexuality and still be
> > riviting.
>
> Must be *some* reason, otherwise I would imagine that the free market would have
> already exploited it.
Film isn't a free market, with porn-bigots like you screaming at them, picketing
them, etc, and getting the gubmint to shackle the industry (in the US, anyways - not
sure about other countries).
> > > > But we are all more or less mature here
> > >
> > > You moron! What an ignorant thing to say! *Anybody* can read
> > > LUGNET! *Anybody* can download your trash!
> >
> > You really have outdone yourself John. Simply amazing!
>
> So I was a little harsh. But really! We are all *not* more or less mature
> here! It's that kind of naivity and disregard that concerns me.
John, you've showed the least maturity in this thread so far, so I question your
judgement on this. I also think your naivete towards the maturity level of children
should be a cause for concern.
> > > > There is room for serious, gritty movies and children's fantasy. There is
> > > > room for serious brick animations and whimsical comedies. There is room for
> > > > all kinds of movies here.
> > >
> > > Really? Maybe there isn't. Maybe you should do what adult sites do and • require
> > > some adult ID check before people can enter your site. That would be the
> > > responsible thing to do.
> >
> > That would be the cowardly thing to do.
>
> Cowardly? How so?
Bowing down to bigots, rather than sticking to his guns.
> Why isn't an abstract of the work
> > sufficient to steer those who want to view it toward it and those who don't
> > away?
>
> For adults that's fine; I'm concerned about kids.
...and in the process, you want to force your morality on everyone else. I'm
concerned about everyone if too many people like you end up in gubmint (there are
already too many now).
--
Tom Stangl
***http://www.vfaq.com/
***DSM Visual FAQ home
***http://ba.dsm.org/
***SF Bay Area DSMs
|
|
| |
Forgive me for jumping in late here, but I haven't been hanging around
.debate much the past few days...
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> > But I'm saying that it might not _be_ filth in my eye...or our kids'.
>
> But you agree that at some point it *could* be.
And at some point it *could* be the finest piece of art ever crafted by
humankind; *that* is the point at which we should decide. To enforce a
summary prohibition before the fact is dangerously myopic and at best
speculative.
> > I am not put off by 99% of pornographic content, but at the same time I am
> > insufficiently familiar with the industry to give you citations of quality
> > porn. And even if I did, you would -- I think, just say that you thought it
> > was bad.
>
> hehe I know nothing about the porn industry, except that I hear it's huge, and
> that it's largely due to the net. Perhaps I'm speaking from ignorance, but it
> seems to me that porn exists for one reason, and it isn't "artistic" expression.
Well, Snickers bars exist for one reason--because people want them. The
same is true of porn and Beanie Babies and Christian bookstores. None of
these fine institutions would continue to exist in the absence of adequate
public demand.
Further, while it is true that the porn industry is huge because of the
net, it can also be argued that the net is huge because of the porn
industry. Just do a websearch for any of a dozen evocative porn buzzwords,
and you'll wind up with millions of hits. For example, a search on
Altavista for the word "porn" returned 5,610,985 results, while a search for
the word "Christ" returned a mere 3,495,329 results.
As a parallel, the VCR industry has also been recognized to grown
hand-in-hand (insert favorite metaphor here) with the home-video porn
industry; once people could view porn without going to a dirty, smoky
theater, the market was much more free to expand to fit public demand.
> > Actually, I just thought of _Crash_. It borders on pornography and I consider
> > it a good (if a bit twisted) movie. _Eyes Wide Shut_ bordered on being porn
> > and bordered on being good.
>
> Missed them both.
But why? If one would presume to judge what is and what is not filth,
then one should have a reasonable (if academic) familiarity with it. And
this isn't a case of "I don't have to fall in the mud to know it makes you
dirty." At stake here is the very definition of "mud" (to continue the
metaphor), and if a person makes no effort to look beyond his preconceptions
and prejudices, then his opinion must be acknowledged to be deliberately
limited.
> > It is caving in to political correctness. Since there isn't anything
> > inapropriate (that I saw) for kids on the site, there is no need for an adult
> > check system. To install one because a few users were raving would be silly
> > and weak. People who are allowed to self regulate, can.
>
> Unless the webmaster saw merit in the raving? Then it would become sage
> advice? :-)
Smiley-face or no, if the webmaster bears primary responsibility for the
site's content, then it is obviously the webmaster's choice to cave or not
to cave.
> Yeah, sex is good, until someone comes along and perverts it. And it seems
> that someone is always coming along...
and that someone is always declaring that somebody else's sexuality is
perverse.
Dave!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> Forgive me for jumping in late here, but I haven't been hanging around
> .debate much the past few days...
>
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
>
> > > But I'm saying that it might not _be_ filth in my eye...or our kids'.
> >
> > But you agree that at some point it *could* be.
>
> And at some point it *could* be the finest piece of art ever crafted by
> humankind; *that* is the point at which we should decide. To enforce a
> summary prohibition before the fact is dangerously myopic and at best
> speculative.
Well, true significance of a work of art is often only realized until after an
artist's death. My point is that if Jason is linking to *all* submissions to
his site; it won't take long for some idiot to submit something that even Jason
will find offensive. And at that point I predict he *will* exercise editorial
restraint. Every decent human being has their breaking point (I say "decent"
because I know that there are some folks out there who would say that *nothing*
is indecent, and I would call them "anti-social").
Question: Why is someone who wants to create some guidelines for social
behavior "myopic" and "bigotted", and yet someone who is essentially an
anarchist labeled "enlightened" or "open-minded"? Wouldn't a truly open-minded
person be a hypocrite to speak out against such a myopic and bigotted person?
Talk about being hoisted by your own petard...
>
> > > I am not put off by 99% of pornographic content, but at the same time I am
> > > insufficiently familiar with the industry to give you citations of quality
> > > porn. And even if I did, you would -- I think, just say that you thought it
> > > was bad.
> >
> > hehe I know nothing about the porn industry, except that I hear it's huge, and
> > that it's largely due to the net. Perhaps I'm speaking from ignorance, but it
> > seems to me that porn exists for one reason, and it isn't "artistic" expression.
>
> Well, Snickers bars exist for one reason--because people want them. The
> same is true of porn and Beanie Babies and Christian bookstores. None of
> these fine institutions would continue to exist in the absence of adequate
> public demand.
But does merely the demand for them justify their existence? Again, I offer
child pornography as an example.
> Further, while it is true that the porn industry is huge because of the
> net, it can also be argued that the net is huge because of the porn
> industry. Just do a websearch for any of a dozen evocative porn buzzwords,
> and you'll wind up with millions of hits. For example, a search on
> Altavista for the word "porn" returned 5,610,985 results, while a search for
> the word "Christ" returned a mere 3,495,329 results.
> As a parallel, the VCR industry has also been recognized to grown
> hand-in-hand (insert favorite metaphor here) with the home-video porn
> industry; once people could view porn without going to a dirty, smoky
> theater, the market was much more free to expand to fit public demand.
Again, does demand justify its existence?
>
> > > Actually, I just thought of _Crash_. It borders on pornography and I consider
> > > it a good (if a bit twisted) movie. _Eyes Wide Shut_ bordered on being porn
> > > and bordered on being good.
> >
> > Missed them both.
>
> But why? If one would presume to judge what is and what is not filth,
> then one should have a reasonable (if academic) familiarity with it. And
> this isn't a case of "I don't have to fall in the mud to know it makes you
> dirty." At stake here is the very definition of "mud" (to continue the
> metaphor), and if a person makes no effort to look beyond his preconceptions
> and prejudices, then his opinion must be acknowledged to be deliberately
> limited.
Assuming of course that I haven't gotten muddy before, which, of course, I have.
That doesn't mean I have to keep on getting muddy. I can recall the experience
instead of having to continually re-experience it. It's called learning.
But that also might assume that "mud" can *ever* be objectively defined, which
it can't. So again, an open-minded person would be slow to condemn my
particular definition of it.
>
> > > It is caving in to political correctness. Since there isn't anything
> > > inapropriate (that I saw) for kids on the site, there is no need for an adult
> > > check system. To install one because a few users were raving would be silly
> > > and weak. People who are allowed to self regulate, can.
> >
> > Unless the webmaster saw merit in the raving? Then it would become sage
> > advice? :-)
>
> Smiley-face or no, if the webmaster bears primary responsibility for the
> site's content, then it is obviously the webmaster's choice to cave or not
> to cave.
I am surprised by your perjorative use of the term "cave". To exercise some
editorial control is hardly "caving".
>
> > Yeah, sex is good, until someone comes along and perverts it. And it seems
> > that someone is always coming along...
>
> and that someone is always declaring that somebody else's sexuality is
> perverse.
And I refuse to acknowledge your presupposition of moral subjectivity. There *
is* moral and immoral behavior. Some sex acts are *by definition* "perverted".
Everything is *not* relative. If one wants to have sex with a chicken, I'm
sorry, I will not stand by and say, "That's okay; whatever turns your crank".
That person is by definition a pervert; they have perverted the act of sex.
Plain and simple. In the same way, some people are bad people; some people are
evil, and that is regardless of what you or I think of them.
Getting back to the original subject of Brickfilms-- all I am saying to Jason is
that, if he wants to create a site that will some day be among the elite for
AFOLs and KABOBs (LUGNET, Brickbay, Brickshelf), he is going to have to be *
intentional* about the content of the site; TLC's reaction to it is already
evidence of that. And I agree with TLC; and I offer the label of hypocrite of
any "open-minded" person who finds fault with their policy-- it is TLC's
perogative. To rail against it only betrays the hypocrisy of the so-called
enlightened people who would not agree with it.
And, of course, if I state an opinion that is against *their* beliefs, I am
labeled "narrow-minded" and "bigotted".
-John
>
> Dave!
|
|
| |
> Getting back to the original subject of Brickfilms-- all I am saying to Jason • is
> that, if he wants to create a site that will some day be among the elite for
> AFOLs and KABOBs (LUGNET, Brickbay, Brickshelf), he is going to have to be *
> intentional* about the content of the site; TLC's reaction to it is already
> evidence of that. And I agree with TLC; and I offer the label of hypocrite of
> any "open-minded" person who finds fault with their policy-- it is TLC's
> perogative. To rail against it only betrays the hypocrisy of the so-called
> enlightened people who would not agree with it.
No. If he wants support from LEGO, then probably, he will have to be more
selective (editorial/censorshipish, however you want to define it). However,
if Jason is willing to forgo the actual financial support of LEGO, then he
should be allowed to host whatever he wants to host --_And Lego should butt out
of it_. It is his right to host any material that is not "obscene material
illegal under the Supreme Court case of Miller v. California" in nature, and
the last I checked, gay sex was not considered to be "obscene" in a legal
standard.
Jason's position is the same as that of LUGNET. There are links off Lugnet to
the _exact same_ material that Jason is linking to, and no-one seems to be
screaming for them to be removed. I can hardly see how Lego can justify a
double standard, because it is common knowlage that LUGNET got ~$7K from Lego,
and LUGNET is linked to the exact same (perverted, gross, however YOU want to
call it-I'd call it art myself) film as Brickfilms links to, with exactly the
same amount of warning that the material is adult in nature.-therefore,
certanly, if Brickfilms is named as having offensive content, Lugnet should get
smeared with the same brush :)
http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=25240
James Powell
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> Question: Why is someone who wants to create some guidelines for social
> behavior "myopic" and "bigotted", and yet someone who is essentially an
> anarchist labeled "enlightened" or "open-minded"? Wouldn't a truly open-
> minded person be a hypocrite to speak out against such a myopic and bigotted
> person? Talk about being hoisted by your own petard...
Okay, I am not sure who the anarchist is, but you seem to have a strange
view concerning the defense of freedom of speech and expression. Defending
freedom of speech generally means defending the right of anyone to express
whatever whacked-out, crazy thing they may fancy to express via whatever
media they have chosen -- agreement with those ideas has NOTHING to do with
it. This allows everyone the same rights in the traffic of ideas -- and
ideas are the lifeblood of a free society. You, John, are essentially
trying to pick and choose from among ideas -- some being deemed by you as
worthy and others as unworthy (and this based I think largely on religiously
driven and personally held morals on your part). Now you can do whatever
you wish in the privacy of your home -- I respect that. But if you try to
impose your own idiosyncratic views over and above the free traffic of ideas
in the world at large -- brother, you have a fight on your hands and I will
be one of those that will fight you. I believe censorship is intrinsically
unamerican. And sorry, but only a moron would suggest that it is
hypocritical to openly criticize pro-censorship views -- how else is one to
defend the very thing that is at stake in these arguments? Of course, I
will try to shout down your views -- you are trying to limit freedom of speech!
My dictionary definitions of the words "myopic" and "bigot" (you connect the
dots):
myopic -- Lack of discernment or long-range perspective in thinking or planning
bigot -- One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or
politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
Honey, if the shoe fits, wear it all the way home...
> And I refuse to acknowledge your presupposition of moral subjectivity. There
> *is* moral and immoral behavior. Some sex acts are *by definition*
> "perverted". Everything is *not* relative. If one wants to have sex with a
> chicken, I'm sorry, I will not stand by and say, "That's okay; whatever turns
> your crank". That person is by definition a pervert; they have perverted the
> act of sex. Plain and simple. In the same way, some people are bad people;
> some people are evil, and that is regardless of what you or I think of them.
You astonish me with your views. Morality is very much in the eye of the
beholder unless we are talking about common law crimes -- and then I will
simply refer you to the laws we have agreed upon in this society and
sidestep this messy "morality" issue. BTW, there are no sex acts that are by
definition perverted -- only silly people like yourself who want a view of
the goings-on in my bedroom. I'll give you the ckicken thing because
animals cannot consent -- otherwise, and in the name of myself and other
consenting adults I'll give you the finger.
Is it the case that you have no idea that your views may simply contradict
those held by others? Isn't the current thread evidence enough for you that
others DO, IN FACT hold opposing views? Do you have no interest in this
little project we call the democratic republic of the United States of America?
If you want some kind of oligarchical control of how OTHER people think and
feel about things, perhaps you should move to a country whose political
system is more in line with your views...?
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> Well, true significance of a work of art is often only realized until after an
> artist's death.
True. But, so? Instances of significant artistic achievement have also often
been branded as pornographic for a time. That seems more apropos to the
discussion. You wrote "Avant garde. Ptooey." in an earlier note, but what
about the avant garde that doesn't morph into triteness and instead into
greatness? Do you not fear disabling the production of things that make you
uncomfortable now, but will be heralded as great works in 100 years?
What would have become of Stravinsky's _The Rite of Spring_, Harper Lee's _To
Kill a Mockingbird_, or Manet's _Olympia_ if repression of expression were the
norm? Now I know that you are specifying restricted viewing for children only,
but I don't feel that I have the right to dictate to others what they are ready
to view. Without being in their head, how could I? I'd prefer to do my part
to educate my kids and help them to find the lines that they are not yet ready
to cross. But ultimately it's up to them. And there will be mistakes made.
As a kid, I made them. My kids have made them. Everyone is exposed to stuff
that makes them uncomfortable and changes them forever. It's part of growing
up, and it needs to happen gradually.
If you're protecting people from ideas, how can you ever decide to clue them in
that bad things happen? If you had maintained perfect innocence in your child
up to some (any) age, then how could you ever decide to let them know that the
world as you've depicted it was a lie? And how many lies can you tell your
kids before they tune you out? The whole protection from ideas thing is a hell
of a slipery slope. And I'm not completely without understanding...as I noted
previously, I've felt the need to censor my son's viewing. But I think I was
probably wrong to have done so.
> My point is that if Jason is linking to *all* submissions to
> his site; it won't take long for some idiot to submit something
> that even Jason will find offensive. And at that point I predict
> he *will* exercise editorial restraint.
That's when he'll get into trouble. By taking the responsibility to edit, a
whole bunch of responsibilities come along. If I understand it, once he does
exert editorial control, he can be held liable for the results of his judgement
in so doing. With the stated stance of not using editorial control, he stays
clear of that.
> Question: Why is someone who wants to create some guidelines for social
> behavior "myopic" and "bigotted", and yet someone who is essentially an
> anarchist labeled "enlightened" or "open-minded"?
Because we live in a time and place where individual liberty (which is still a
tenuous and novel concept) is considered king (more or less). When I assert my
anarchy, I'm spefically rejecting the notion of placing restraints on others.
When you assert your 'guidlines' the opposite is taking place.
> > > seems to me that porn exists for one reason, and it isn't "artistic" • expression.
> >
> > Well, Snickers bars exist for one reason--because people want them. The
> > same is true of porn and Beanie Babies and Christian bookstores.
> But does merely the demand for them justify their existence? Again, I offer
> child pornography as an example.
Demand _is_ a good enough justification for _anything_ to exist. However,
people are protected from some kinds of exploitation. It is the legal
assumption (about which I am reservedly dubious, by the way) that kids can not
consent to provide sexual entertainment -- so it's illegal. I would not
restrict the production of computer generated visual child pornography or
written pedophiliac fiction. If there isn't a victim, then there isn't a
crime.
> Assuming of course that I haven't gotten muddy before, which, of
> course, I have. That doesn't mean I have to keep on getting muddy.
> I can recall the experience instead of having to continually
> re-experience it. It's called learning.
As a potter, I can assure you that there are many experiences that look and
feel like being muddy, but are qualitatively different enough that I would hate
for everyone to assume that they're the same as falling in a puddle.
Maybe your limited experiences at being muddy are misleading or not broad
enough to find the sweet spot on the verge.
It's called overgeneralizing.
> But that also might assume that "mud" can *ever* be objectively defined, which
> it can't. So again, an open-minded person would be slow to condemn my
> particular definition of it.
The very fact that defining pornography is difficult is what makes me less
likely to accept _your_ definition for myself. As one of the "open-minded
persons" about which you are writing, I find that I am slow to accept your
definition as much as I am slow to reject it.
To tell the truth, I am open-minded enough that I would listen to a serious
proposal that harm was caused by exposure to pornography. I've read up a
little on this and it seemed to me that the best they could do was say that
sexual misfits had a problem with seperating their porographic fantasy from
reality. Well, duh...crazy people are crazy.
But I'm not sure what we should do with that information even if we did find it
to be true. I'm still in favor of people exercising caution for themselves and
retaining the right to make mistakes.
> > Smiley-face or no, if the webmaster bears primary responsibility for the
> > site's content, then it is obviously the webmaster's choice to cave or not
> > to cave.
>
> I am surprised by your perjorative use of the term "cave". To exercise some
> editorial control is hardly "caving".
I think he was referencing what I wrote about Jason caving to your raving. ;-)
> > > Yeah, sex is good, until someone comes along and perverts it. And it seems
> > > that someone is always coming along...
Always?
This is like those who argue that we should ban guns because they hurt kids
while ignoring that bleach kills more kids each year than handguns.
> > and that someone is always declaring that somebody else's sexuality is
> > perverse.
>
> And I refuse to acknowledge your presupposition of moral subjectivity.
> There *is* moral and immoral behavior.
Only when you accept (and I know that you do) some kind of supreme arbiter of
good and bad. Otherwise it's just a social (mis)understanding.
> Some sex acts are *by definition* "perverted".
By definition? Perverted means abnormal. So anything people do that is
outside of the normal range is perverted. How many people have to do something
and how often for it to be normal?
> Everything is *not* relative. If one wants to have sex with a chicken, I'm
> sorry, I will not stand by and say, "That's okay; whatever turns your crank".
> That person is by definition a pervert; they have perverted the act of sex.
I would say that person is violating the chicken's right (in the soft sense) to
choose sexual partners. And probably being cruel. I would likely use force to
stop such an encounter, but not because of the perversion of "the act of sex"
but because of the vicious cruelty that I was seeing.
> In the same way, some people are bad people; some people are
> evil, and that is regardless of what you or I think of them.
Like those who cause needles suffering?
Chris
|
|
|
