moviefreakedmind

Dek Rollins said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

darthrush said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

darthrush said:
I’ve got to say that it does sound a bit harsh to deny the opportunity of life to someone who might grow up in hard conditions. Is it better that they never lived or to give them a shot despite the chances of being miserable?

One could use that sort of logic to conclude that using birth control is immoral. After all, what if your parents had used birth control? Then you wouldn’t have had a chance at life.

Good point.

I guess it really all comes back to the issue of when does a life truly begin. And to that, I do not know. Any time I define a point along the development of a human, I always feel unsure.

Right. This is why I prefer that laws on this follow scientific opinion rather than religious opinion.

And by science, doesn’t life begin at conception? That’s when the child starts growing anyway, which sounds pretty scientific to me. Note that I am not against abortion for religious purposes, but for moral reasons.

EDIT: Also note that I realize my opinions on morality are undoubtedly influenced by my religious beliefs.

I think the most appealing thing about the pro-life side really is that it provides a clear starting point that’s easy to identify. On a technical level, you’re right. All of our existences began when we were conceived, but our existence now doesn’t resemble our four-week-old fetus selves.

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Yeah. Why should female nudity be treated differently?

It shouldn’t, although it’s important to note that typically that movement refers to women deciding for themselves to go shirtless, whereas in film/TV it’s often all males making those decisions (which is where the objectification issue can arise).

Last I heard, actors choose which roles they take.

Only the most powerful ones and much more on the male side. Very few women can afford to turn down a role, else they get blacklisted and never work again.

Well if a nude scene is in a script and the actor doesn’t want to do a nude scene, then that’s the actor’s problem. Modeling and acting is pretty much an “objectification” business.

Every wonder why it took so long for women to speak out against Harvey Weinstein?

What part of my exception for when the actors are mistreated do you not understand? Also, Weinstein preyed on a lot of women who didn’t appear nude in the films that he produced.

I…ok sure.

Maybe I should take a break for a few days. I swear I understand like 10% of the posts made here anymore.

I don’t understand what there is to misunderstand. I’m being pretty clear. Basically I’m giving actors agency in their decisions. If the actor isn’t mistreated in the process of filming a nude scene, then it’s not my place to condemn everyone involved. That seems painfully reasonable to me.

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Yeah. Why should female nudity be treated differently?

It shouldn’t, although it’s important to note that typically that movement refers to women deciding for themselves to go shirtless, whereas in film/TV it’s often all males making those decisions (which is where the objectification issue can arise).

Last I heard, actors choose which roles they take.

Only the most powerful ones and much more on the male side. Very few women can afford to turn down a role, else they get blacklisted and never work again.

Well if a nude scene is in a script and the actor doesn’t want to do a nude scene, then that’s the actor’s problem. Modeling and acting is pretty much an “objectification” business.

Every wonder why it took so long for women to speak out against Harvey Weinstein?

What part of my exception for when the actors are mistreated do you not understand? Also, Weinstein preyed on a lot of women who didn’t appear nude in the films that he produced.

Jay said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Dek Rollins said:

And those people should still get a shot at life. There are buttloads of actual successful people who started from literal crap.

I think you underestimate how miserable the average person is.

Most people — believing they are normal, reasonable, and typical — tend to assume they are representative of the majority and project their thoughts and feelings onto the majority, which is often incorrect.

I wouldn’t presume to tell someone with a shitty life that they’re better off not even having the opportunity to improve it.

Didn’t say I would either.

…

SilverWook said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Another thing that rubs me the wrong way is the idea that I can’t possibly understand how awful it is that females appear nude in film because I’m not a woman that’s sick and tired of the objectification (and by the way there’s plenty of women that don’t feel that way). I may not share the same anatomy with women, but I definitely have more in common with 99% of women in this country than those women have in common with the actresses that appear nude in film. The main thing being that neither of us have or will appear nude in a film. Also, what if I wanted to make a film with nudity in it? (Female nudity of course because that’s more offensive.) Am I supposed to hire an actress for that role and then change or delete the nude scene because she, even though she accepted the role, doesn’t want that to be filmed? I know I’m a male and all, but isn’t it up to the actress? Assuming the actors aren’t mistreated in the process of making the scene, why is it offensive whether the scene is necessary or not? Don’t we respect the bodies and decisions made by women? That’s what I thought we were supposed to do but apparently I’m behind the times.

Many an actress has a nude double. Both the worst and best kept secret in the industry.

That’s also pretty common. I don’t see a problem with that either if they can make it work effectively. In that example I gave, though, sometimes the actor’s face needs to be in frame for it to work, especially if there’s interaction between characters during the scene.

LOL! I’d never seen the TV cut of the Shining. I wonder how television would handle the Last Tango in Paris.

Dek Rollins said:

And those people should still get a shot at life. There are buttloads of actual successful people who started from literal crap.

I think you underestimate how miserable the average person is.

If nudity is really smutty or cheap and not artfully done, then I am opposed to it. Not necessarily because it “hurts women” or something like that, at least not unless the actress was mistreated, but I’m opposed to it because it was a cheap way to win over a cheap and lazy audience that needs what they call “eye candy” because they don’t have attention spans long enough to sit through a movie. That’s often not the case, at least not in movies I watch, and definitely doesn’t sound like the case in Blade Runner 237.

I don’t think it needs to be. If the actors aren’t mistreated, then how could it possibly be a problem?

GOP: The Party of Cruel and Unusual Punishment

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/may/09/gina-haspels-lack-of-clear-answers-on-torture-frustrate-senate-democrats

Another thing that rubs me the wrong way is the idea that I can’t possibly understand how awful it is that females appear nude in film because I’m not a woman that’s sick and tired of the objectification (and by the way there’s plenty of women that don’t feel that way). I may not share the same anatomy with women, but I definitely have more in common with 99% of women in this country than those women have in common with the actresses that appear nude in film. The main thing being that neither of us have or will appear nude in a film. Also, what if I wanted to make a film with nudity in it? (Female nudity of course because that’s more offensive.) Am I supposed to hire an actress for that role and then change or delete the nude scene because she, even though she accepted the role, doesn’t want that to be filmed? I know I’m a male and all, but isn’t it up to the actress? Assuming the actors aren’t mistreated in the process of making the scene, why is it offensive whether the scene is necessary or not? Don’t we respect the bodies and decisions made by women? That’s what I thought we were supposed to do but apparently I’m behind the times.

I can’t be sad about objectification if people are working in the objectification business and choose to make more money than I’ll ever see in my lifetime from doing a nude scene. If they’re mistreated in the process, that’s a different issue.

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Yeah. Why should female nudity be treated differently?

It shouldn’t, although it’s important to note that typically that movement refers to women deciding for themselves to go shirtless, whereas in film/TV it’s often all males making those decisions (which is where the objectification issue can arise).

Last I heard, actors choose which roles they take. I criticized situations where the subject was mistreated, but apparently almost all female nudity is an offense to some moviegoers.

Yeah. Why should female nudity be treated differently?

Like I said, this wouldn’t be as big a problem if we had comprehensive sex-ed and free birth control.

Not when we’re talking about very early abortions.

I don’t get it.

Dek Rollins said:

Also, what about people who are just vegetables? Should they be euthanized?

I would definitely want to be if I were. Like I said though, there is no definitive answer.

You know why my stance sounds hypocritical? It’s because there is no definitive answer.

TV’s Frink said:

Nah, just a comment on how grouchy you seem some days.

I never outgrew mood swings.

Probably applies to me as well.

#truth

They also are a developed individual.

I have no idea. I thought we were past the days of being offended by nudity in art. I guess not though, it’s still improper and impure apparently.

Dek Rollins said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Yeah, I think keeping a comatose person alive for years with no hope of a solution is inhumane.

I mean a comatose person who will definitely wake up. Someone who is completely unconscious but will eventually recover. According to your own words, killing that person (not ‘pulling the plug’) while they sleep is not actually murder.

That’s actually the opposite of my own words. If there’s reason to believe he could wake up, then yes that’s murder.

You guys are more prudish than I expected.