logo Sign In

imperialscum

User Group
Members
Join date
7-Mar-2013
Last activity
16-Jan-2022
Posts
3,205

Post History

Post
#755502
Topic
Musical Obsessions
Time

Frank your Majesty said:

imperialscum said:

My favourite music is hard bop and cool jazz, especially stuff from 50's and 60's. My favourite musician from those genres is Miles Davis.

 Stop imposing your musical taste on others. That's brainwashing. Also, I disagree.

 I have license for that!

darth_ender said:

If there is a God, He must be you.

Post
#755326
Topic
thread to continue the sex/gore in movies/tv dicussion from the Random Thoughts thread
Time

darth_ender said:

Imperialscum, thanks for telling me what I think and believe, what I want, what motivates me.  Clearly you know better than I.  Clearly all my posts mean what you say they mean and not what I say. Clearly you are the Knower of All.  If there is a God, He must be you.

No doubt about that. :p

I realise that this argument was pointless from the start as I wasn't going to achieve anything with it but my own amusement. Anyway if I offended you in any way, I apologise. :)

Post
#755305
Topic
thread to continue the sex/gore in movies/tv dicussion from the Random Thoughts thread
Time

Frank your Majesty said:

Wishing for things to be different is not wishing for things to change it's wishing that things in the past played out differently. And there is no way to put such a wish into practice.

That is just putting the change at a different point of time scale. It is still wishing for a change.

Unless you wish for something to have happened differently in the past and assuming that it cannot be changed in the present/future then of course it cannot be changed. However this was not the case in the current argument as Ender was clearly talking about present.

Frank your Majesty said:

Also, there is an alternative to brainwashing: simply talking to people and trying to convince them.

Well that is brainwashing. Especially if you do it on kids. Put kids into creationist school and you can be sure they will convince them simply by talking. Of course I am fair enough to admit that from their perspective our normal schools are brainwashing too.

Frank your Majesty said:

Which is what he is doing. You are doing it, too, and now I am doing it. That's what a discussion is all about and the ultimate origin of all changes in society.

Well to me, expressing a wish that people would think his way is not really much of a discussion.

Note: I didn't reply to the first part as I simply disagree.

Post
#755286
Topic
thread to continue the sex/gore in movies/tv dicussion from the Random Thoughts thread
Time

Frank your Majesty said:

Don't you want your kids to see you as a role model and follow your example? Or do you let your kids decide for themselves wether they can drink alcohol or not? Or if they can eat then whole bars of chocolate at once? Yes, there is evidence that drinking alcohol and eating too much chocolate is unhealthy, but when it comes to atheism vs. religion there is no proof that one is better than the other, it is all personal opinion.

And that is exactly why you should use your power as a parent in the first instance but not in the second instance. As a parent you should to try to guide your kids away from the things that there is a clear evidence of their harm (i.e. drugs, too much alcohol or sugar). On the other hand, imposing subjective things is wrong (i.e. imposing religion, imposing your tastes in art, etc.).

Frank your Majesty said:

Furthermore, I even think banning nudity and violence from the media wouldn't make Ender happy, since people are still wanting these things. In my understanding, he wants people to realize themselves that these things are not appropriate and no ban would lead to this realization.

According to the paradigm I explained in my previous post, such wish is in a sense potentially even more harmful, as achieving it would require brainwashing.

Post
#755268
Topic
thread to continue the sex/gore in movies/tv dicussion from the Random Thoughts thread
Time

I agree that a mere wish is just a goal without means, but nevertheless it is still a goal. Some wishes my be harmless, while others may not. For example, you wish to have an ice cream and you don't have the money. Even if you come to "power" and buy yourself one, it is still harmless (unless you feel sorry for ice cream being eaten). On the other hand, if you wish that something normal/natural would not be shown in films then that is not harmless any more when you come to power. As I said, even if you are consciously not willing to directly impose it, there is a very high probability you will do it subconsciously. Not to mention people change when they come to power, so even if they now say they would not willingly impose, they might as well do so then.

I think a very good indicator whether you are the kind of person that would impose your ideas on others (if you were in power to do so) is the way you handle your kids. When it comes to kids, parents have a great deal of power. So for example (if you have kids and if you are religious), did you impose your religion on them or did you let them free and allow them to decide when they would become old enough to do so?

Post
#755197
Topic
thread to continue the sex/gore in movies/tv dicussion from the Random Thoughts thread
Time

Post Praetorian said:

 Stare bleakly at the movie marquee for several moments...scratch one's head...stare down at one's portable device in search of upcoming releases...heave a great sigh at the results...then state aloud, to no one in particular, "I do wish there were fewer reboots being proposed!"

Return home. Think no more about it...

That's no method. It is merely specifying ones wish. The very basic question you need to answer here is: how do you want your wish to happen?

Post
#755189
Topic
thread to continue the sex/gore in movies/tv dicussion from the Random Thoughts thread
Time

Post Praetorian said:

imperialscum said:

Warbler said:

imperialscum said:

Statements like "I wish movies didn't show it as not only acceptable but even preferable" are just a softer version of "I want it to be banned".

 that is hard true.  saying I wish movies didn't show x, is quite different than saying I was x to be banned.

Don't be funny. If someone says "I don't want films to show x", he/she clearly specifies the wish. However the preferable method to achieve that wish is not specified. Someone preventing x from appearing in film is one method that satisfies that wish.

So what other methods are there? Performing brain surgery to change artist's mind? Assassination of artist? Divine intervention? Ban seems like the most reasonable one.

I am quite certain one could honestly wish for fewer prime-time showings of slapstick humor without being required to support a complete ban against same...just as one could desire fewer reboots without forming a committee to see about having such a ban enacted through Congress...

Then specify the alternative method...

Post
#755180
Topic
thread to continue the sex/gore in movies/tv dicussion from the Random Thoughts thread
Time

Warbler said:

imperialscum said:

Statements like "I wish movies didn't show it as not only acceptable but even preferable" are just a softer version of "I want it to be banned".

 that is hard true.  saying I wish movies didn't show x, is quite different than saying I was x to be banned.

Don't be funny. If someone says "I don't want films to show x", he/she clearly specifies the wish. However the preferable method to achieve that wish is not specified. Someone preventing x from appearing in film is one method that satisfies that wish.

So what other methods are there? Performing brain surgery to change artist's mind? Assassination of artist? Divine intervention? Ban seems like the most reasonable one.

Warbler said:

There are a lot of people here that wish Jar Jar Binks wasn't in the PT, does this mean they think Lucas should have been banned from using him?  Of course not.

Is this another paradox? You wish something to happen but at the same time you don't want it to practically happen?

This is like someone wanting to take a dump but at the same time not wanting to dirty his ass hole.

Post
#755169
Topic
thread to continue the sex/gore in movies/tv dicussion from the Random Thoughts thread
Time

Dear Ender,

please do not try to reverse the reality of things now. I wasn't imposing anything on you. I was only defending the freedom of art. I felt you were trying to attack that freedom (and apparently I am not the only one who got that impression from you).

Statements like "I wish movies didn't show it as not only acceptable but even preferable" are just a softer version of "I want it to be banned".

Yours sincerely,
imperialsucm,
the defender of free world.

Post
#754933
Topic
thread to continue the sex/gore in movies/tv dicussion from the Random Thoughts thread
Time

Warbler said:

imperialscum said:

darth_ender said:

Um.  Is it that hard to understand that I wish people held a standard like mine?  That isn't the same as dictating that they should.

There is only one step from wishing to imposing, and it is called power. When people get in power their wishes will be imposed on others, consciously or subconsciously.

 actually that is not true.  There has to be one more step: the willingness to impose.  Wishing for somthing is not same as being willing to force it to happen. 

What you say is true for conscious part. That is exactly why I added "subconsciously" to the sentence. If you wish for something then there is no way you will at least subconsciously try to achieve it.

Post
#754909
Topic
thread to continue the sex/gore in movies/tv dicussion from the Random Thoughts thread
Time

darth_ender said:

It's really not that hard when you imagine that the whole discussion is about the morality of such open sexuality, instead of all the minor supporting points you fight against.  You, my friend, are the very epitome of "Can't see the forest for the trees."

You can blame me now, but unlike you, I was staying on topic (i.e. nudity/sex in film/art), except when I replying to your off-topic arguments.

So if I briefly restate my point... there is absolutely nothing improper about nudity/sex appearing in film/art, if they represent natural parts of our lives. Showing nudity/sex in film is done for the sake of authenticity of scenes. As I said, if you take a shower you do it alone and naked. If the scene shows a character naked and alone taking a shower, that is just an authentic reproduction of real life. It most certainly doesn't compare to "walking around naked" in real life or any other weird stuff you suggested.

And your argument that showing nudity/sex should be avoided in film by just hinting it is without any ground and a very dumb one too. Then why the hell don't they just avoid showing all other casual parts of our lives like: talking, eating, walking etc. Ahh why even make a film at all when they can just make a hint with a title...

Post
#754886
Topic
thread to continue the sex/gore in movies/tv dicussion from the Random Thoughts thread
Time

darth_ender said:

But do we have to see everything?  I can tell someone is in the shower just by seeing bare shoulders and head, tiled walls, and water emitting from a shower head.  Do I need to see a butt crack to be sure?  But this fails to address my point in the quoted paragraph that most of us value modesty in life, even if many enjoy the lack of it it movies.

Yes we have to see everything and yes you have to see butt crack, if the director wishes so. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. And it has nothing to do with modesty, since seeing naked breasts or butt is not to be considered as any kind of "bonus" but something completely normal and casual.

darth_ender said:

But now since you went beyond the topic let me say this... when it comes to bad stuff from ancient cultures, modern religions took those things and even "evolved" them. I won't go into details of medieval Church public executions and torture again, or suppression of people with different ideas.

Yes, because it was only the Catholic Church that did this, not other religions and societies, or even irreligious societies.  But this is not the point of this discussion.

I wasn't walking only about Catholic Church... that was only an example. I said "modern religions" when I was making the main point.

darth_ender said:

darth_ender said:

I know know of no movie or show that glamorizes sex and pregnancy when it shows you some famous actress's breasts bouncing on screen.

Showing bouncing breasts on screen actually has nothing to do with sex. It merely showing something natural about human body. Bouncing breasts are human body under the laws of physics.

I'm not just talking about watching a girl in a bikini on the beach.  I'm talking about explicit scenes that show breasts while I woman is in the act of sex.  You missed my point more here than anywhere, as I am saying that sex is shown to be only fun, while glossing over the risks (and joys) of pregnancy or the risks (and sorrows) of STDs.  It's just all about the self-indulgence of sex.

Well if the storyline prescribes a scene that is to rely an information that two characters had sex (let's say sex just for fun), then that's what the scene should rely. Why the hell would you force filmmaker to attach a big discussion about pregnancy and STDs to the film, just because there is a sex scene in the story?

darth_ender said:

I am tempted to continue itemizing responses, but I am still convinced you are an idiot who is determined to miss my point most of the time.

We went over this already once. If you want people not to miss your "points" write them in one or two sentence and leave out all the unnecessary ballast.

And it may not be that I missed/ignored your points just because I didn't directly replied to them. If I estimate that something came down to a matter of different opinions, then there is little to no room for further arguments and discussion.

Post
#754864
Topic
thread to continue the sex/gore in movies/tv dicussion from the Random Thoughts thread
Time

darth_ender said:

But if it's just so natural that we shouldn't be ashamed at all, why do we hide it?  Because we do in fact want "privicy" in what we do.  We expect some degree of modesty.  I work with a number of females, as you might imagine in the nursing field.  But I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable ever saying to one of my coworkers, "Hey, I feel like I might have a hemorrhoid.  Since I was born naked and it's no big deal, can you take a look and give me your professional opinion?"

I thought we are discussing nudity in film/art here. Showing something natural in film/art is something completely different to what you proposed. If a film scene is to show someone taking a shower, he/she obviously has to be naked.

darth_ender said:

It is showing it for erotic purposes, clearly, so that it can garner a greater appeal among zit-faced nerds who have no lady friends.

Who is "high and mighty" now?

darth_ender said:

It ensures the survival of the species, which is why polygamy is such a prevalent practice among natures creatures.

As I said, polygamy by itself is far from ensuring the survival of the species.

darth_ender said:

You're not a bigot, but modern religion "polluted" Greek and Roman cultures? Well, let's look at ancient cultures then.  Some religious cults (not in the modern pejorative sense, but cult in the actual dictionary sense) were centered on fertility and and public sexuality.  I guess modern religion polluted those noble ancient ideals.  Maybe you and your significant other could try to reinvigorate those ideas with public acts.  Don't be shy.  Don't demand privicy.  Don't go behind locked doors.

And as I recall, the Romans publicly executed prisoners in violent manners until modern religion polluted them once again.  The Greeks suppressed other cultures whom they had conquered, but modern religion polluted those ideas too.  The Romans thought their way of life so superior to that of others' that they took it upon themselves to militantly spread that lifestyle to the rest of the world.  Now, thanks to modern religious corruption, we no longer practice such methods.  Gosh, it looks like modern religion just ruined everything good, since the Greeks and Romans were right about everything.

Again, I thought we are discussing nudity/sex in film/art. I did not say Ancient Greek and Rome were generally perfect. I specifically said they had no problem with nudity/sex in art, as it is evident by many statues etc. And that is one decent thing from ancient cultures upon which modern religions regressed.

But now since you went beyond the topic let me say this... when it comes to bad stuff from ancient cultures, modern religions took those things and even "evolved" them. I won't go into details of medieval Church public executions and torture again, or suppression of people with different ideas.

darth_ender said:

I know know of no movie or show that glamorizes sex and pregnancy when it shows you some famous actress's breasts bouncing on screen.

Showing bouncing breasts on screen actually has nothing to do with sex. It merely showing something natural about human body. Bouncing breasts are human body under the laws of physics.

darth_ender said:

Um.  Is it that hard to understand that I wish people held a standard like mine?  That isn't the same as dictating that they should.

There is only one step from wishing to imposing, and it is called power. When people get in power their wishes will be imposed on others, consciously or subconsciously.

Post
#754727
Topic
thread to continue the sex/gore in movies/tv dicussion from the Random Thoughts thread
Time

darth_ender said:

Imperialscum, I don't know if you are aware, but you are actually a bigot.

Am I? I actually consider myself tolerant. For example, I think the religion is one interpretation of nature. Like science is. Something that you won't hear from many atheists, let alone scientists. However I obviously think science is by far better one.

darth_ender said:

If sex is so acceptable for general discussion, why don't we include children in the visuals?  Why do we lock the bedroom door so our kids can't get in?  Why don't you walk around the house naked with your significant other at all times? Why do we keep most details between partners?

Well you lock the door because you want a privacy in general. I lock the door when I go to a toilet. I lock the door when I work (is now work inappropriate because people like privicy when doing it?). I even prefer to eat alone if possible. But that doesn't make any of that inappropriate to be shown in a film/art. Whether you want to see it is up to your preference. However you have no ground to forbid artists showing it.

darth_ender said:

Why do most people remain faithful to partners, or at least find that an ideal, especially since in evolutionary terms, a strong bull impregnating multiple cows is the best way to ensure a stronger species and many children to pass on genes?

One bull impregnating multiple cows does not necessarily ensure stronger species. Too many offspring from a single individual (no matter how good it may be) may reduce the variety. Poor variety is not good from evolutionary perspective.

darth_ender said:

In fact, now that we're on that topic, if sex is so important for evolution, why is its primary evolutionary function (reproduction) downplayed and in fact portrayed as undesirable more often than not?  Why is it lust that is advocated, not love, not producing children whom one could love?  Why is the possibility of pregnancy skipped nine times out of ten, as if contraceptives were not of concern because, hey, we're talking about fun sex here?  Why are the less pleasant aspects not usually shown, such as messy bodily fluids, or the difficulty of bringing women to orgasm or sometimes simply arousing them, or the discomfort of a woman's first time, or premature ejaculation, or heck, unless we're talking actual pornography, even the most essential organs for sex actually shown?  Still, people find it necessary to censor certain things, it appears?  Why?

I will answer: because people still draw certain lines where they take offense or find revulsion.  But filmmakers want to push that line.  I remember reading that the director of Basic Instinct wanted to be the first to show an erect penis and still maintain an R rating.  He did not succeed, but not for lack of trying.

So what is the point of showing all this?  It's not to show the beauty of sex.  Anyone who has had love-filled (not lustful) sex already appreciates that beauty.  It's to arouse, to make it self-serving and about pleasure and indulgence.  We are a society that loves to indulge ourselves rather than give.  And it is that selfish indulgence that film makers and TV producers are appealing to.

All I am saying is that an artist can freely show nudity and sex as these things are nothing inappropriate. They aren't considered inappropriate by the society per se. Ancient Greek or Ancient Rome had not problem with it. It is the more modern religions that polluted the society with "moral" standards that consider them inappropriate.

darth_ender said:

Yes, I sound high and mighty.

Well I am.

:p

darth_ender said:

And Imperialscum, I also don't know if you realized, but you're a bit of an idiot.  You have cast religion as nonsense and sex (nominally baby-free) as essential to evolution.  Has it occurred to you that the reason that religion is so prevalent is because it too is an important evolutionary step?  But please, don't stop being an idiot or a bigot on my account.  Continue to be a jerk, by all means.

When I said "sex" I was referring to the entire concept (reproduction included). You seem to twist things the way you want to hear them.

Post
#754715
Topic
thread to continue the sex/gore in movies/tv dicussion from the Random Thoughts thread
Time

darth_ender said:

Briefly, seldom does sex advance the story.  And I don't care how arrogant it sounds, I don't believe in sex before marriage, and I wish movies didn't show it as not only acceptable but even preferable: apparently only losers wait.  This really is a common theme.

Even if sex is part of the story, or acceptable, how much do we have to see to know what is happening?  Alfred Hitchcock implied sex scenes without even showing anything more than passionate kissing.  Today we have to see a lot of skin for lengthy amounts of time.  It doesn't matter if it arouses.  It doesn't matter if actually shows the nipples or the butt cracks or whatever.  It's trashy and unnecessary.  We all know what sex is, but movies these days try to make it more and more risque in order to, as was said earlier, though with different intent, appeal to the lowest common denominator.  Why not show a little respect for the human body and for sexual intimacy?

Were you born dressed up? The way to show respect to the human body is to throw away the stupid "moral" standards that makes it a taboo.

Now I too don't care if I sound arrogant, but there is something fundamentally wrong with a belief that showing naked human body is unacceptable or even "trashy". In fact, such notion (propagated by many religions) is downright sick. Same goes for trying to present sex as something inappropriate for general discussion/presentation.

If a film wants to shows a human body or sexual intercourse, then that is no more inappropriate than showing a human eating food or taking a dump.

Gore, physical violence and psychological violence (things seen in almost every film) are actually inappropriate compared to naked body or sex, which are not inappropriate at all. Yet a lot of people seem to find those things much more acceptable in a film than for example sex. And I think I know know what is to be blamed for this sick hypocrisy.

And my comment about "marriage before sex"; marriage is a human-made nonsense, while sex is an essential and fundamental step in human evolution.

Post
#754593
Topic
General Star Wars <strong>Random Thoughts</strong> Thread
Time

DuracellEnergizer said:

Wookieepedia changed the title of its Palpatine article from "Sheev Palpatine" to "Darth Sidious".

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Darth_Sidious

As full of suck as I think "Sheev" is, "Darth Sidious" is worse. I utterly loathe that that stupid name has become the character's de facto name over his true one in the eyes of so many fans.

Oh, and fuck you, Wookieepedia. You're on my enemies list now.

Why do you even read it if you can't control yourself? If a sane SW fan is to use Wookiepedia, he/she should have the ability to ignore (not get upset by) a lot of crap that comes with it. :)

Post
#754514
Topic
Episode VII: The Force Awakens - Discussion * <strong>SPOILER THREAD</strong> *
Time

ray243 said:

imperialscum said:

pablumatic said:

We even saw TIE Fighters, not TIE Interceptors in the sneak peak trailer which to me was saying "Return of the Jedi didn't happen, folks!".

ROTJ or not, seeing the same fighters 30 years afterwards is a stupidity from the story point of view.

They brought X-wings and TIE fighters back just so they can play on the "look we are going back to OT" note. I am sure many fans get "orgasm" by seeing X-wings again... LucasFilm knows that and exploits it for marketing reason of course.

Almost everyone likes X-wings and TIE fighters. They just play it safe and reuse the already proven stuff. But the film creativity will suffer because of that.

 I won't be surprised if this backfires on Disney. Mainly because the vocal fans who wants the new movie to be one big nostalgic trip down their memory lane aren't necessary reflective of the much larger casual SW fans who didn't grew up with the OT. 

Well I grew up with OT and they are my 3 favourite films. Still I would be disappointed if they make it a nostalgic trip instead of giving us something new.

The point is that OT is unique. There is no point in trying to reproduce or copy it. If I want OT I go see OT.

Post
#754384
Topic
Episode VII: The Force Awakens - Discussion * <strong>SPOILER THREAD</strong> *
Time

NeverarGreat said:

imperialscum said:

pablumatic said:

We even saw TIE Fighters, not TIE Interceptors in the sneak peak trailer which to me was saying "Return of the Jedi didn't happen, folks!".

ROTJ or not, seeing the same fighters 30 years afterwards is a stupidity from the story point of view.

They brought X-wings and TIE fighters back just so they can play on the "look we are going back to OT" note. I am sure many fans get "orgasm" by seeing X-wings again... LucasFilm knows that and exploits it for marketing reason of course. On the other hand, the film will suffer in the story aspect because of it.

I don't mind the X-wings, because they're clearly updated as one would expect. Same with the Stormtrooper armor. Keeping one classic ship design somewhat unchanged from the original trilogy seems reasonable to me.

In wartime (for example WW2) new models of war-planes were developed on yearly basis. I think TIE interceptor and A-wing introductions in ROTJ nicely followed that paradigm.

Even if I somehow accepted the use of upgraded X-wings 30 years later, they didn't seem upgraded at all in the trailer.

Post
#754377
Topic
Episode VII: The Force Awakens - Discussion * <strong>SPOILER THREAD</strong> *
Time

pablumatic said:

We even saw TIE Fighters, not TIE Interceptors in the sneak peak trailer which to me was saying "Return of the Jedi didn't happen, folks!".

ROTJ or not, seeing the same fighters 30 years afterwards is a stupidity from the story point of view.

They brought X-wings and TIE fighters back just so they can play on the "look we are going back to OT" note. I am sure many fans get "orgasm" by seeing X-wings again... LucasFilm knows that and exploits it for marketing reason of course.

Almost everyone likes X-wings and TIE fighters. They just play it safe and reuse the already proven stuff. But the film creativity will suffer because of that.