Eric Paddon wrote:I don't accept that premise. I believe there are more people out there who end up being pressured into assuming that was once shocking and violent and destructive is okay because the cultural elite pushes the idea that it's okay. They are ultimately the victims of an "education" of a different kind in which often parents can find themselves powerless to prevent their children from succumbing to the pressure, just as surely as parents themselves can be irresponsible in their own upbrining of their children.

There is no cultural elite pushing anything. It's the individual accepting it. Unless of course you can prove otherwise. And even if parents were succumbing to a pressure, they've decided to succumb to it instead of taking themselves or their children out of the situation. Nearly all the world's horrors (except murder and assault) are created and/or fostered because people either allowed it or didn't give a ___ to do something about it.

The Pessimist put it so right with two statements: banning things does not work and it never will, and they (we) are responsible for their own actions.

Has anyone noticed that when you ban something or want something taken away how much more popular it becomes? Take away alcohol and you not only make more people want to take a drink, but you increase lawlessness and make banned substances glamourous.

Anyone heard of Prohibition, otherwise known as "The Noble Experiment?" Yeah, that worked out real good, didn't it?

The same thing goes for "entertainment" that many people might not approve of, whether it be violence, strong language, nudity, controversial subjects or anything else-try to suppress it and suddenly it becomes the "in" thing to try and see it, watch it, read it or listen to it. I have no interest whatsoever in seeing any of the SAW films because I think the filmmakers wallow in the misery of the characters even while they defend the title character's moral POV about the people he inflicts his morality on. However, I will not impose my feelings or my sense of right and wrong on anyone else who wishes to watch the films AS LONG AS THE PERSON WATCHING THE FILM IS OF THE AGE LISTED IN THE RATING FOR THE FILM and is not forced to watch it. Added to that, suppression just makes martyrs out of films or any other kind of media because some holier-than-thou person or group feels that only they know what is best for you or me or society, and the next thing you know a film that might have taken in a few million dollars and gone to DVD and a low shelf at Blockbuster becomes the new thing.

We were given free will on this little blue planet, but not so free as to disregard laws or common sense or our own individual consciences, and only when all of these have totally broken down and been swept away by tyranny and immorality and the destruction of civilization as we know it, then whatever is in charge here-and I hope I never live to see it-can impose their sense of right and wrong on whomever they choose to.

Until then, we can only hope that parents and educators and spiritual advisors and even friends can help us all try to make sense of things and help us set up our individual moral compasses. Whether that compass includes buying the rights to a Jim Carrey movie that contains some graphic sexual images (and your idea of graphic and mine might differ) or reading Harry Potter books or listening to Lawrence Welk, is up to you.

The only minor thing I can add to that is ban-prevention isn't done to prevent increased popularity, but rather cause no-one has a right to push their morality above others. In other words, a porn website has just as much right to the internet airwaves as a Christian church does. There really is no other qualifier.

The Pessimist wrote:There is no cultural elite pushing anything.

Um, I would say there most assuredly is one in our society and that their particular world view of things rooted in their own personal politics and morality is one that does attempt to push the notion of what is cool, hip edgy and trendy and what today's youth should consider more appropriate at the expense of what their parents might happen to teach them.

The Pessimist wrote:The only minor thing I can add to that is ban-prevention isn't done to prevent increased popularity, but rather cause no-one has a right to push their morality above others. In other words, a porn website has just as much right to the internet airwaves as a Christian church does. There really is no other qualifier.

Except that nowadays our cultural elites are such that pushing porn is considered a more noble example of "Free speech" and "free expression" than broadcasting the messages of a Christian church. Indeed, for many of those people a person preaching Christian doctrine is considered more horrible than pornography. And that is another comment for me on what's wrong with the era we live in today where our post-Production Code era has desensitized us to what was shocking and repulsive and an anything goes attitude which includes contempt for religion and religious values is the norm.

The Pessimist wrote: Again, the keyword here you use is "society". Torture porn exists in the first place because some adult checked the "yes" box to whether or not they wanted to view that websites material. If website porn proceeds to force it upon the public by intercepting someone' internet wavelength, then that's one thing that can be fined or receive imprisonment (though usually for repeat offenses). But the mere existence of porn doesn't give The Morality Police the right to ban actions that are overwhelmingly supported by adults in private.

Who said anything about banning anything adults do in private? Not me.

The "torture porn exists because there's an audience" thing is EXACTLY the same thing as saying "It's society's fault" except it's not the parents saying it, it's the makers of this stuff who are saying this. The whole "people aren't forced to watch" thing is a complete non sequitur--no one is forcing anyone to watch any of these movies, ok?

But no one is forcing anyone to MAKE this stuff, either. There would be a large and active audience for snuff movies--by your logic here, that's a defense (not legally, but morally) for someone making one: "Hey, there was an audience, I HAD to fill it! Society WANTS this!"

You're forcing together the legal right to make torture porn which I haven't challenged in any way, shape or form, and the ethical/moral implications of filling our society with this stuff. Just because someone CAN make this stuff, by your logic, is the beginning and the end of the responsibility of the makers of this stuff. Why is that the case?

The Pessimist wrote:It is the parents job to make certain their children are not peruving internet porn.

Everyone knows this. Everyone accepts this. No one but the most deranged says "I as a parent have no responsibility for my kids". Again, it's a non-starter for an argument--there is no group out there that truly believes that parents aren't responsible for bringing up their kids. That attitude is a complete distraction that conveniently lets people step around the idea that the makers of something have ANY responsibility.

Torture porn in the past was limited to garbage like LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT, and over the years that movie has been trumpeted as some kind of classic, and it and Herschell Gordon Lewis movies have a small, devoted cult following. Let's not pretend that this kind of stuff has "always" existed--there's never until now been a substantial pool of sadistic horror films, you will look in vain for a substantial amount of this stuff in the 30's, 40's, or 50's cinema. A small group of moviemakers and fans makes and sustains this stuff, and it's not like they're robots who are FORCED to make it because people go to porn sites. Again, that is the ultimate "society made me do it" contingent.



quote="The Pessimist"]There are laws against child porn of which a well majority of the porn industry does not support. The industry may have shacky morals, but, jeez, good luck banning something adults support.[/quote]


Where did I call for banning this stuff? I've never called to ban it. Again, the defenders of this stuff keep trying to make this a free speech thing, when it's not--it's about the ethical implications of the exercise of free expression, which is more complicated AND places the power on the individual--the makers can't keep claiming they're victims of those evil porn lovers, who somehow FORCE them to make this garbage.



quote="The Pessimist"]So there's this child law and internet surfing intrusion measure in place, but if a child clicks "yes" to that "Are you 18 years-old?" thing, I wish you luck in prosecution.[/quote]

Again, when did I say anything about prosecution? I didn't, because it's a complete non sequitur that is an easy out for defenders of this garbage.

Eric Paddon wrote:I don't accept that premise. I believe there are more people out there who end up being pressured into assuming that was once shocking and violent and destructive is okay because the cultural elite pushes the idea that it's okay. They are ultimately the victims of an "education" of a different kind in which often parents can find themselves powerless to prevent their children from succumbing to the pressure, just as surely as parents themselves can be irresponsible in their own upbrining of their children.

Here's where we come to the point where the individual is responsible--sure, the media push that torture porn is acceptable, or "controversial" as opposed to disgusting, but it is the ticket buyer who is the one who decides to buy that ticket. To me, there's no controversy about this, because if people didn't buy tickets, the making of this stuff would slow to a trickle.

But did people just wake up one morning and say "I want to see a movie about kids in a hostel getting chopped up?" Of course not.

Some time ago I cut back on my visits to a web site because the person who reviewed there was writing about a HOSTEL sequel and lovingly describing the "beauty' of the carving up of women. That this kind of thing is reviewed positively by respected reviewers definitely makes it easier to churn these out.

Again, the issue isn't whether they have the right to make these or the right to see them. It's about whether it is a good thing, and a large segment of people DO NOT want to talk about good or bad, saying "It's for the individual to decide," a complete dodge--yeah, we KNOW it's for the individual to decide, but do you think the results of those individual choices result in something that's good or bad?

For some reason, people dismiss this kind of discussion with "It's their right." Well, yeah, it's their right--so what? What's that got to do with whether or not it has a good or bad impact on society? And society indeed exists as something that can and is shaped by conscious actions.


I definitely think that this kind of thing is considered nothing to get upset about because the media--Hollywood and the TV and Internet outlets--accept that this stuff is okay. If the media as a whole decide something is good or bad, for whatever reason, it creates a tone of acceptance. Anyone who thinks it's all just a matter of chance is either closing his eyes or doesn't like the implications, so just ignores them.

Jedbu wrote:The Pessimist put it so right with two statements: banning things does not work and it never will, and they (we) are responsible for their own actions.

I find it odd that these kinds of discussions always end up with these two points being brought up, because they are convenient conversation-enders.

I don't know of anyone who wants to ban these things, and I don't know anyone who doesn't think people (adults) are not responsible for their own choices.

Getting back to where we started, neither theater owners nor moviegoers have called for this Carey movie to not be made. Theater owners seem to have decided that they either don't want to deal with the inevitable complaints about this kind of thing from those who oppose it (as they would if it were a movie that is against the actions depicted), or they don't think enough people will choose to buy tickets to make it worth their while.

Eric Paddon wrote:

The Pessimist wrote:The only minor thing I can add to that is ban-prevention isn't done to prevent increased popularity, but rather cause no-one has a right to push their morality above others. In other words, a porn website has just as much right to the internet airwaves as a Christian church does. There really is no other qualifier.

Except that nowadays our cultural elites are such that pushing porn is considered a more noble example of "Free speech" and "free expression" than broadcasting the messages of a Christian church. Indeed, for many of those people a person preaching Christian doctrine is considered more horrible than pornography. And that is another comment for me on what's wrong with the era we live in today where our post-Production Code era has desensitized us to what was shocking and repulsive and an anything goes attitude which includes contempt for religion and religious values is the norm.

TP and Eric,

Your exchange here gets to the core of the larger issue--this isn't about "free speech" but the quality of the CONTENT of that speech/expression.

Movies are cranked out crammed with sex and violence all the time, but what movie has created the most controversy of any in this decade? LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST. The arguments about the violence in that movie were completely unconvincing to me, because the violence there was PAINFUL, it showed that violence isn't fun, something the hero does with a smirk and a wisecrack while the bad guy's body burns. The ferocity of the debate about that was very interesting because it was about CONTENT.

There was debate about BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, but ultimately it fell on deaf ears because there was no explicit sex displayed in the movie, so those who were against it because they're against any positive depictions of homosexuality had nothing to hang their argument on, so to speak--they couldn't run to the usual cliches which the defenders of violence use, and to the best of my knowledge there were no widespread attempts to suppress the movie.

POTC and BM were interesting contrasts in debate about violence and sex in theaters, but I don't recall anyone involved with BM being so castigated by the mainstream press as was Gibson, so the claim that there is no cultural elite looks pretty weak to me.

double

Eric Paddon wrote:

The Pessimist wrote:There is no cultural elite pushing anything.

Um, I would say there most assuredly is one in our society and that their particular world view of things rooted in their own personal politics and morality is one that does attempt to push the notion of what is cool, hip edgy and trendy and what today's youth should consider more appropriate at the expense of what their parents might happen to teach them.

Again, you're not providing who specifically is doing this. You're just saying someone is.

Eric Paddon wrote:

The Pessimist wrote:The only minor thing I can add to that is ban-prevention isn't done to prevent increased popularity, but rather cause no-one has a right to push their morality above others. In other words, a porn website has just as much right to the internet airwaves as a Christian church does. There really is no other qualifier.

Except that nowadays our cultural elites are such that pushing porn is considered a more noble example of "Free speech" and "free expression" than broadcasting the messages of a Christian church. Indeed, for many of those people a person preaching Christian doctrine is considered more horrible than pornography. And that is another comment for me on what's wrong with the era we live in today where our post-Production Code era has desensitized us to what was shocking and repulsive and an anything goes attitude which includes contempt for religion and religious values is the norm.

Again, you're not specifying who that elite is. Individual adults have made a clear choice regarding their pornographic activities. What all socialists have in common is they MUST believe the individual isn't responsible for their own actions to justify utilizing government and/or forceful intervention.

Religions greatest crux throughout history is if it's such a good idea, why do they need to force it upon society?

The elite refers to those who actually make the movies, those in positions of authority and those who are responsible on the creative end for what we see. And when "Passion Of The Christ" gets snubbed of any consideration for major awards, I call that the ultimate case of the elite's attitude in action. To say there isn't a monolithic attitude in the entertainment industry on a particular political/social world view that incluides hostility to all things religious from a traditional standpoint is to deny reality just as it would be denying reality on the matter of bias in our media institutions.

As for religion "forcing" itself, I would only note my tried-and-true answer to that how enforced hostility to religion by a state rooted in atheism has a higher death toll on its hands than all the excesses attributed to the spread of "religion" (i.e. Christianity). (Of course in the case of Christianity, which got its start by flourishing in the context of 300 years of persecution by the Roman Empire was hardly a doctrine "forcing" itself on anyone since the penalty for following it was quite severe).

But no one is forcing anyone to MAKE this stuff, either. There would be a large and active audience for snuff movies--by your logic here, that's a defense (not legally, but morally) for someone making one: "Hey, there was an audience, I HAD to fill it! Society WANTS this!"

You're forcing together the legal right to make torture porn which I haven't challenged in any way, shape or form, and the ethical/moral implications of filling our society with this stuff. Just because someone CAN make this stuff, by your logic, is the beginning and the end of the responsibility of the makers of this stuff. Why is that the case?

No, I'm not saying that. Their morality isn't something I care for, but I'm not going to force my morality above others. That would be socialism. Two wrongs doesn't make a right. If it isn't forced upon someone or someone else's property, I'm not going to force my morality upon them.

Everyone knows this. Everyone accepts this. No one but the most deranged says "I as a parent have no responsibility for my kids". Again, it's a non-starter for an argument--there is no group out there that truly believes that parents aren't responsible for bringing up their kids. That attitude is a complete distraction that conveniently lets people step around the idea that the makers of something have ANY responsibility.

Torture porn in the past was limited to garbage like LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT, and over the years that movie has been trumpeted as some kind of classic, and it and Herschell Gordon Lewis movies have a small, devoted cult following. Let's not pretend that this kind of stuff has "always" existed--there's never until now been a substantial pool of sadistic horror films, you will look in vain for a substantial amount of this stuff in the 30's, 40's, or 50's cinema. A small group of moviemakers and fans makes and sustains this stuff, and it's not like they're robots who are FORCED to make it because people go to porn sites. Again, that is the ultimate "society made me do it" contingent.

The makers of porn do not have a responsibility towards society. That, again, is socialism. 'You have a responsibility towards society, so I, the non-supporter, have a right in banning your activities cause it isn't responsible to society.' Socialists (thought not you saying it) utilize that one often in justifying their actions.

With liberty, it gives the individual the right to non-association.

Where did I call for banning this stuff? I've never called to ban it. Again, the defenders of this stuff keep trying to make this a free speech thing, when it's not--it's about the ethical implications of the exercise of free expression, which is more complicated AND places the power on the individual--the makers can't keep claiming they're victims of those evil porn lovers, who somehow FORCE them to make this garbage.

Again, that's an individual moral issue. The pornist makes this because they want to. If you wanna change that moral outlook, then educate. Otherwise that's a consequence of liberty: that people partake in activities others disagree with. It sure is a better one than totalitarianism.

Again, when did I say anything about prosecution? I didn't, because it's a complete non sequitur that is an easy out for defenders of this garbage.

Liberty doesn't mean you endorse something but that you tolerate it because to force them to stop it is tyrannistic, too.

The Pessimist wrote:If you wanna change that moral outlook, then educate..

It becomes more and more difficult though to "educate" when we increasingly find that the elites of this world in the political realm (not to mention activist judges sympathetic to this elite) make it more and more impossible for us to "educate" the correct way based on their hysterical efforts to stamp out all traces of religion from the public arena but they simultaneously glorify the loosest standards on porn as the epitome of what makes America great.

When we go from a society that once felt it important to make a biopic on the life of Reverend Peter Marshall to one that thinks the likes of Larry Flynt is worth our attention now, that says it all for me as well.