Subject:
|
Re: My Official Viewpoint
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 6 Nov 2000 13:05:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
395 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jude Beaudin writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> > OK. That's out of the way... Now, I have to agree with Chris... Jude, you're
> > missing the point.
> >
> > ++Lar
>
> Larry,
>
> What is the point that I am missing? (not rhetorical) I guess I must be thick
> or I did not follow the topic close enough. :-)
2 posts back... so the >> are not quite right
Chris said:
> Jude said:
> > If Gungans were real beings then yes, I would feel you are bigotted,
> > but the dumb thing is you have to explain why you do not like a bunch
> > of 1's and 0's.
> This is like totally missing the points. (Which have gone way beyond
> Jar-jar, and into the meat of censorship and societal obligation.)
Helps?
To my way of thinking this particular subthread is not about JarJar per se,
or even about real characters vs. fantasy. It's about when is portrayal of
the initiation of violence acceptable? How obvious that it's satire does it
need to be before it becomes OK (if it ever does)?
Some people are saying that if it's obvious to an adult that it's satire,
that's good enough. I have a fair bit of sympathy to that viewpoint, after
all, when one has to explain a joke, one often dilutes it. Especially if one
has to explain it "in advance". But it also "makes me queasy".
I dunno.
Mark and Chris have raised a tangential, but also interesting question, to
wit, how much responsibility for others is appropriate.
Chris and I are both Libertarians, meaning that in general we tend to
disclaim responsibility for other people's stuff unless we agreed to take it
on for some reason. Mark is saying that it's not his responsibility to raise
other people's kids, which I certainly agree with. Chris has countered with
some examples where it's not a guardianship so much as a initiation of an
action that is causing the problem.
I would like to see the argument stated clearly on that one, as I think it's
of great interest. I come from the "I'm not my brother's keeper" school, but
I acknowledge that within the realm of doing as I please, there are things
that I might do that have bad effects on others. The question turns on whose
responsibility is it to prevent these bad effects, mine as the actor, or the
recepient as the receiver.
The "attractive nuisance" doctrine may be helpful here by analogy. That is,
I have a *right* to have dangerous things on *my* property, and it's
generally not my job to erect impenetrable barricades and safety devices to
save the lives of trespassers. But the courts have held that if I have
organized things so that a non adult is strongly attracted to them, (a
mineshaft with a "free candy" sign pointing down it being a canonical
example) the fact that the non adult is trespassing at the time he comes to
harm is not a sufficient defense against negligence on my part. That is, I
need to instead have made sufficient precautions to property entry that a
reasonable person would agree that a child can't get in easily, and that
there's no compelling reason a child would want to (other than
undifferentiated curiosity), else I am harboring an attractive nuisance and
am negligent if anything goes awry to a non adult trespasser.
In this case (posting a bare "gee this is cool, and it's space related" with
no disclaimer that the reader will see violence in a satirical context)
*might* be considered an "attractive nuisance" to an underage reader. I dunno.
Actually one could argue that posting "this has violence and gore in it" may
make it MORE likely that that putative undersupervised underage reader will
view it. So maybe my asking for stuff to be disclaimed (which Todd thought
was a reasonable request) will actually make the problem, such as it is,
*worse*!!!
Bog. Like I said at the very beginning, I JUST DON'T KNOW!!!
One lesson to draw is that no external influence should be allowed to be as
strong in a child's life as the influence and guidance of his or her
parents. I've said my children aren't adults yet, but I do think they can be
exposed to a certain level of gore and satire safely because they have
relatively good values already which they've gotten from Josette (for the
most part) and me.
Hope that helps clarify why this isn't about JarJar per se.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: My Official Viewpoint
|
| Larry, Thanks. I now realize my post would have been more appropriate to the other branch of this thread where the debate seems to be more on the JarJar hatred than the whole responsability issue. As far as the censorship debate goes, I personally (...) (24 years ago, 6-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: My Official Viewpoint
|
| (...) I remember when Tipper pushed through the "Parental Advisory" labels on CD/Tape packaging. I was in Junior High or High School at the time (don't remember exactly which) and soon after she got those pushed through, there were T-shirts and hats (...) (24 years ago, 6-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: My Official Viewpoint
|
| (...) It may depend on what your opinion of the problem is. :-) If you put a disclaimer that says, "Some materials may be unsuitable for some viewers," or "Viewer discretion is advised," or "Some materials may be unsuitable for young audiences," (...) (24 years ago, 6-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
24 Messages in This Thread:
  
- 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
|
|
|
|
