Subject:
|
Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 22 Dec 2001 05:37:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1581 times
|
| |
|
|
> 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
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
