Subject:
|
Re: More LP S P A M : (was Re: Scary Survey results about the US First Amendment)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 11 Jul 2001 19:16:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1054 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Duane Hess 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:
> > > > > > Then I'm assuming that you've never had sex, or been in a fist-fight.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why?
> > > >
> > > > Pornography is just a graphical depiction of sex. Sex happens in real life.
> > >
> > >
> > > It does yes. But not as it is depicted in pornography.
>
> This is a family forum. Like I said before, it may just be that I am a prude.
Alright, I'll put this topic to bed (Oooo, that pun's just bad)
>
>
> >
> > What is your basis to the claim that acts depicted in pornography are
> > different than those done in real life behind closed doors?
> >
> > >
> > > > Violence happens in real life to varying degrees. Get threatened with a
> > > > crow-bar, or get maced sometime. I feel that both are pretty violent and
> > > > they have both happened to me.
> > >
> > > You must be mixing with the wrong people.
> >
> > The crow-bar incident stemmed from my attempt to help a woman in a
> > neighboring apartment who was being abused. The abuser, didn't like my
> > involvement.
> >
> > The macing incident resulted from my inability to back down from a
> > confrontation. The crowd I was associating with had nothing to do with it.
> >
> > > Violence in the movies is not the
> > > same as in real life.
> >
> > How so? What is different?
>
> Just what war torn coutry do you live in?
I'm just wondering what the difference is in your mind.
>
> >
> > > Perhaps the US's fascination with gun culture would be
> > > lessened if the movies depicted the full horror of what they can do - rather
> > > than depict the usual band-aid type wounds.
> >
> > Does this mean that you feel that violence should not be censored? It seems
> > like you are suggesting that movie violence (gun violence in particular)
> > actually be made *more* graphic to communicate more effectively the damage
> > resulting from a gunshot wound.
>
> Not more violent, but more realistic. There is a clear distinction between
> the two.
OK, I'll give you that.
> Movies have the stylised violence we see today as the market does
> not want to see the real thing. Films which show real violence (Nil by Mouth
> comes to mind) do not make huge $$, because the market wants, to a certain
> extent,
Then why is there such a hunger for the media to lay their hands on (to use
the example again) autopsy photos of Dale Earnheardt? It seems like people
*want* reality in their media. Think back to the older westerns and war
movies. When someone was shot, they either coverd up the wound or showed the
"ketchup stain" wound. Today a gunshot wound seems incomplete unless you can
see the graphic damage done by the bullet (preferrably in slow motion).
I think people truly want reality in their media, even if it is a stylized
representation of reality interpreted by the director. Why shield people by
removing their rights?
> escapism – not reality.
Nice phrase, I like that.
>
> Scott A
-Duane
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
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
|
|
|
|
