Subject:
|
Re: More LP S P A M : (was Re: Scary Survey results about the US First Amendment)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 10 Jul 2001 22:20:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
873 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Duane Hess writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
>
> > > > "realities of life"? You think violence in movies and pornography represent
> > > > the "realities of life"? It looks like my life is duller than I thought.
> > >
> > >
> > > Then I'm assuming that you've never had sex, or been in a fist-fight.
> >
> > Why?
>
> I don't typically come down in complete agreement with Scott, but I must
> concur with him on this point. Does anyone of full mental capacity actually
> think that any film is a true representation of life? The entire process,
> from the formulation of the idea to the rolling of the credits in the
> theater, is fully synthesized and orchestrated to be a representation of an
> aesthetic sensibility. Even a documentary is a caricature of its subject,
> rather than the subject itself.
Any film as a *true* representation of life? No. *A* representation of acts
in real life interpreted by the director, producer, actors, etc.? Yes.
> To infer something about Scott's sex life or pugilistic history on the
> basis that he rejects films as an objective account of the "realities of
> life" is nonsensical (and, I hasten to add, Postmodernist drivel!)
He never stated that films were an objective account of life, nor did I mean
to imply that they were. My intention is to show that sex and violence
happens in movies as well as real life. Why invite the government into your
household to regulate what your children can watch on the television when
they (your children) can see very similar things in their own daily life?
Violence and pornography represent broad definitions. Violence could be
defined as the slap-stick comedy of the 3 stooges, or the D-Day invasion in
"Saving Private Ryan". Pornography likewise covers the spectrum, from
explicit copulation between consenting adults to acts which I prefer not to
describe in this forum, written as well as pictorial. However, I don't think
that the media should be censored for the same reason that we shouldn't try
to censor real life. The only difference between a violent act on TV or one
at the local mall is that I can choose not to see the one on TV. But I want
it to be *my* choice.
Is my assertion about Scott's personal life nonsense as you claim? Probably.
In fact, I will say yes. To make my point, take a quick mental test. Imagine
a camera following you around for a time 24 hours a day for a month
(arbitrary time frame). In that amount of time, how many sexual encounters
will you have, and how many violent episodes will you witness in real life?
Now take that imaginary camera and publish the imaginary movie. I
*guarantee* that there will be things on that imaginary film that the
government wouldn't let through by todays standards. Now, why is it we can
*experience* those things in real life, but can't *express* them through
freedom of speech?
>
> Dave!
-Duane
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
189 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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
