View Single Post
Old 11-27-2006, 02:09 PM   #170
Spider AL
A well-spoken villain...
 
Spider AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Help, help, I'm stapled to my workstation.
Posts: 2,162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

Yeah, you do need a chip. If I have a babysitter over and they decide to watch TV, at least I know the inappropriate content will be blocked.
Cupboard that locks. TV isn't as necessary as food or air, you know. No matter how convenient a substitute for actual care and attention it might be.

This is what freaks me out about the censorship mindset in all walks of life. People who want to say what others can and cannot watch, read, see or do... they always have these desires for essentially self-interested reasons. Yes, it might make your life easier to control what other people can see and do to conform to your standards... but it's totally immoral. Purely self-interested. Replacing personal responsibility with authoritarianism... Awful.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

I find the use of images of what would be my husband's remains for political gain, pro OR con the war, to be just as immoral.
Ohhh quote it all, Jae, quote it all. You dared to type "if it means that some anti-war groups aren't able to get their yukks out of seeing a bunch of coffins, too bad." Suggesting that anti-war people would laugh at images of dead American soldiers. Is this REALLY the image you have in your head of the way Anti-war people think and feel? If so, you're deluded. If I were to be uncharitable, I'd suggest that such vitriolic lies totally invalidated any opinions you might hold on all related topics. But I'm not uncharitable, so I'm happy to continue to debate you.

Anti-war people don't hate America, nor do they hate US soldiers, nor do they gleefully sit around waiting for some US citizen to die so that they can "get their yukks". Anti-war people are moral, peaceful people, otherwise they wouldn't be anti-war.

As for your assertion that "using the images for political gain", what do you call withholding those images? It's clearly for political gain, not least because the ban was only instituted following Bush senior's distressing gaffe in 1989.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

Video games--simple solution like what they did in Neverwinter Nights--have an adjustable violence setting.
Oh I'm all for adjustable violence settings in suitable games, because that means that more people of more ages will be able to experience the quality of the game. But an adjustable violence setting wouldn't work for something like Silent Hill, Undying or Call of Cthulhu, because those games are inherently adult and intentionally frightening in many respects other than mere violence. And that's good. Because we adults have our games, kids have their games (and family-accessible games), and everybody's happy.

Oh but wait! Mrs Smith from Portland Oregon is unhappy because her kid (whom she doesn't bother to supervise) got ahold of a copy of System Shock 2 from some bargain bin or other, and having played it (while she wasn't supervising him) he's now pathologically terrified that the toaster is going to come alive and eat him!

Face it, "concerned parents" from many nations thought to have a culture of freedom and free speech are always up in arms over the latest Soldier of Fortune or Res Evil. This is because they are too lazy to supervise their child properly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

My knowledge on many things is going to be incomplete--there's no way to know everything. I research the things I choose to learn more about, and frankly, the issue of displaying coffins is not on my top ten list.
That's your choice, but if you can't be bothered to educate yourself on a specific topic, you really shouldn't vociferously defend your ill-informed opinions on that topic. Your government has been censoring all pictures of returning coffins since 1991. They were finally forced to release some anonymous images of coffins in mid 2005. That's a legacy of censorship that even YOUR past arguments don't support. They wouldn't even release ANONYMOUS IMAGES, which you were previously in favour of. You accuse those who want to make the images public of having a political agenda... look to your own government's censorship for a REAL political agenda.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

The thread's about the FCC and content on TV, not the Iraqi War or my stance on the war. We obviously should not have gone in there, but now that we've done this, we need to fix it and get out.
You're supporting an illegal occupation of a scarred and embattled nation. You can't "fix it" without bankrupting yourself. It's taken fifteen years of war, sanctions and more war to ruin the country so completely, and you think it'll be fixed so easily? Add to this the fact that what paltry sums of money we HAVE put into Iraq to "fix it" have been either mis-spent or mislaid, and you have a situation in which the only moral course of action is to listen to the victims- the Iraqi people- and remove the occupying troops.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

Parents cannot keep up with all the things out on the internet--actually, no one can. My kids only use the internet while they're in the same room with me or hubby. That doesn't mean that they couldn't accidentally type something and end up at a porn site--something as similar as a single letter typo in amazon dot com or using dot com instead of dot gov when trying to access some government information sends someone to porn sites. I can black- and white-list sites, but many parents don't know how to do that kind of thing and don't know about programs like NetNanny.
It's good that you supervise your kids on the net. You should do the same with the TV at all times, if you don't already. Then you wouldn't have to campaign for everyone to be denied perfectly good programmes and movies just because you wouldn't want your kid looking at them.

As for the argument for net censorship because "most parents don't know how how to black/white list"... Would you take your child out in a car if you "didn't know how to drive"? No? Well it's the same for the net. People are always whining about spyware, viruses, etcetera. I say to them: "You should have educated yourself before you clicked on that dubious Britney Spears e-mail, shouldn't you."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

I very specifically said *most*, not all. Please don't impugn my taste/understanding of cinema/history of cinema when you have no information on that--I wouldn't be surprised if I've seen and appreciated great (and sometimes violent) movies longer than you've been on this planet.
You have no information to support the assumption that you'd be surprised. I am quite the film buff. And my point stands, since your statement that "most violent movies are crap" is redundant, and could be applied equally to ALL movies. Most romantic comedies are crap. Most thrillers are crap. Most movies are crap.

This has nothing to do with the quantity of violence in those movies. It's their casting, scripting, cinematography, scoring... Well, suffice it to say that my point stands. Violence is a necessary part of some pieces of drama.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

Schindler's List, Platoon, and Apocalypse Now.
You had to pick the three most overrated movies in the history of moviemaking to illustrate your expertise on the subject, didn't you.

No, to be fair Schindler isn't bad. But the style of Apocalypse is sensationalist and the politics of Platoon (like that in all of Stone's films) is juvenile and heavy-handed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

If you're talking cable/movies, leave it be. Some things just should not be seen by children, however, and parents either need a warning ahead of time or the inappropriate material needs to be cut. It's impossible to expect parents to be familiar with new programming unless they have some kind of advisory information.
Then don't sit the child down in front of a "new programme". Tape it, watch it first before showing it to them. It's your responsibility as a parent. Besides, I'm not against advisory information, I'm against people saying (as you have said) that "And frankly, with all the violence in the world, maybe we all could do with a little less of it on our TVs anyway."i You're not talking about "advisory information" there, you're talking about deciding what I can and cannot watch.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

There is nothing immoral about wanting privacy to grieve and having control over what happens with a loved one's remains.
There is if it infringes on the rights of the rest of the US population to know the truth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

My individual rights are also inviolable. He died serving his country, regardless of whether someone feels it's illegal or not to do so.
Your individual rights are not inviolable when weighed against the rights of the rest of the US population. You're just an individual. There's a whole NATION that's paying for an illegal war, they have the right to see ALL the consequences of that war. How can they make informed choices otherwise? They cannot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

Some individual rights do outweigh the public's 'right' to see or do something.
You are correct. The right to remain clothed when the public would like to see one's boddeh, for instance.

But not THIS individual right that we are discussing, because the public's concern is not a trivial one, nor is it personal, and the individual's concern is PURELY personal... though tragic... still personal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

Jae's right to privacy during a very difficult time in life vs. those who'd like to use those images for some political agenda, because that's the sole purpose I can see for the display of those images when the gov't already releases the numbers of dead/wounded. No moral quandary for me. If someone else wants to give permission for their soldier's or sailor's coffin to be displayed, that's their choice.
Those "numbers" you cite are good for the pro-war camp, because they're dry and faceless and anonymous and possible to ignore. Actually seeing the bodies coming home makes it real for people. The coffins are hidden for political reasons. They have to be shown for moral reasons.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

So just what exactly was your implication with that particular comment?
What, my comment that your statement amounting to "If we show pictures of the soldiers coffins, their family home could well be broken into and the family victimised!" was ludicrous, bordering on paranoia? Well as well as being true, it's also a clear and unambiguous statement, with no hidden implications. And people call the anti-war camp "conspiracy theorists"... Ha!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

I don't recall ever saying I was pro-war. We shouldn't have gone in, we need to take responsibility to fix our mistakes and get out. Just because I don't make anti-war protests doesn't mean I'm pro-war.
You're vocally pro-occupation, which is indeed part of the war, and in previous threads you have argued against the conclusion that the invasion was anything but altruistic, and was in fact a war crime... which it most certainly was. This level of denial is understandable considering your personal situation... but it's still denial.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi:

Chomsky--is a linguist, about as left-wing as Limbaugh is right-wing (and I give about equal weight to both their levels of bias accordingly). He is not a Middle Eastern political science expert. He may self-educate on war and Middle Eastern affairs to be sure, but it's not nearly the same as someone who has spent a lifetime studying the politics of that region. I give about as much credence to his views as I do Bush's comments that all is going well in Iraq.
Oh you went and listened to some Chomsky as I suggested! Well, thanks for listening to my suggestion.

As for Chomsky's politics, he's been described as a fascist by the far left, a commie by the far right and everything in between. He's essentially apolitical in terms of classical party affiliations, and has fought for the rights of left wing people, right wing people... this is all a matter of public record. He's no loony lefty. Many people may disagree with his reasoning on many points (mostly spurious points), but even most of his critics acknowledge his intellect. At any rate, he's a wonderful introduction to dissident thinking.

As for his credentials regarding the Middle East... he HAS spent a lifetime on the topic. It's not his professional field, but it's a testament to his work-ethic that he has become an acknowledged authority on both his professional topic of linguistics, but also world political history and philosophy, and US foreign policy. He's been publishing scholarly works on US foreign policy since the Vietnam war, and he's about EIGHTY now. Still publishing.

Your argument that his assertions should be discarded because he doesn't get PAID for this aspect of his scholarship... Is frankly ludicrous.

Listen to more Chomsky! Listen to Vidal, listen to Pilger and Fisk. They're giants, you won't regret it if you absorb and analyse their theories.


[FW] Spider AL
--
Hewwo, meesa Jar-Jar Binks. Yeah. Excusing me, but me needs to go bust meesa head in with dissa claw-hammer, because yousa have stripped away meesa will to living.
Spider AL is offline   you may: