Subject:
|
Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 26 Dec 2001 07:25:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1213 times
|
| |
|
|
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
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
101 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
