Subject:
|
Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 31 Dec 2001 13:19:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1382 times
|
| |
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
