Slashdot Mirror
Star Wars Most Violent Movie Ever?
alphaparadigm writes: "Is Star Wars: A New Hope the most violent movie ever? What I mean is, does it have the highest body count of any movie ever? They blow up a planet full of people and then a death star full of people! I figured if anyone would know, it would be you guys."
That's a very good point. If violence is measured by number of sentient beings killed, then Star Wars Episode IV is going to be first on the chopping block when the Republicans come to censor our movies. And censor they will. Also there's the one episode of Star Trek: Voyager in which not just planets but entire species are wiped out, but then they crash Voyager into the time ship and the timeline reverts to the way it was so nobody ever really died ... or did they? Anyway these are the films, ladies and gentlemen, the mass-murdering films and TV shows, that John Ashcroft will ban, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition. Anyone standing up for them will be tarred as defending mass murder. Mark my words.
Oh the humanity!!
Animals are sentient beings who deserve to be able to live their lives without having humans killing them for meat. It's quite strange that there's such a taboo on sex with animals, (just watch a slashbot moderator moderate this post down for example) and yet eating animals is perfectly acceptable
Why don't you do some thinking before you do some posting. Human teeth are designed to be able to eat meat. That means somewhere down the line man evolved (from another species) to eat meat. The only good and reasonable arguement I've ever heard to not eating meat, is an issue of energy efficiency. It takes a large magnitude more energy to create beef than it takes to create grains (Just remember grain needs to grow for the cows).
Orin Hatch was heavily involved in the DMCA. He should die a slow and painful death when he goes. I don't care how he tries to justify himself now.
Let's see... From 1980-1992, under the Reagan/Bush administrations (with congress passing their budgets), the government ballooned exponentially, along with the national debt and deficit. Under Clinton, the size of government decreased dramatically (back down to 1960s size) and the Republican runaway spending was brought under control.
>Republicans, as part of their underlying belief, constantly try to disable government's role in how we govern ourselves.
That's a joke, right? Thier underlying belief is christianity, and they want to enforce the government's role in how Sweet Jesus governs us.
As much as republicans claim to be small, limited government, I see nothing from them but more government, more restrictions, and more paranoia of other ways of living/thinking that don't jibe with their perverted and illusionary conception of the status quo.
This libertarian votes democrat.
While many right wing politicians favor censorship of the media, plenty of democrats do to. Joe Leiberman was one of the strongest proponents of government intervention to keep socially unacceptable (sex, violence, etc) things out of the media. Remember Tipper Gore? She was in charge of a very vocal group that fought AGAINST freedom of expression for record labels, television producers, and the movie industry. For some reason you decided to interject your own political bias into this post yet it adds nothing to the discussion. Well I guess it does do a good job of demonstrating your ignorance about how both the democrats and republicans are against true freedom of expression in many cases.
A Body Count only counts when you can Count the Bodies.
:)
Otherwise, something like The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy would win, because they go forward through time, when everyone is already dead...
Incidentally, some friends of mine tried to count bodies (literally) in Bubblegum Crisis. I think they came up with a number that was over one hundred, which is pretty impressive.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Didn't anybody see Clerks?
:)
Good grief. The deathstar in Star Wars was manned by evil storm troopers of the imperial army. In Jedi it was still under construction and thus manned by Union contractors.
Obviously Jedi was a far more violent film. In Star Wars they deserved it, but in Jedi they were just innocent bystanders.
Not to mention the horrific depictions of ewoks dying by the dozens.
Hmm, but then again it does get more complicated when you look at things from the Republican perspective. Considering most of the deaths were these union contractors, they don't really count.
And of course all those cute ewoks... Well they were just getting in the way of fully utilizing the resources of the moon anyway. It's just those damn bleeding heart liberals like Vader who were moved by their deaths.
So I don't know... I guess maybe you were right. If the Republicans are going to ban one movie it will be Star Wars. While Jedi had far more violence, it was mostly justifiable. At least from the Republican perspective.
Interesting, considering the Republicans controlled both House and Senate in '95 when the CDA was passed.
At least in the Senate, they voted 84-16 for the measure.
Granted President Clinton did sign it, but still...
It always amazes me how ignorant Republican supporters are. Instead of going around accusing liberals of anything and everything, maybe it would just be better if you concentrated on educating yourself.
You ask if liberals have brains, and then you prove that you yourself don't.
/. in years. I only wish I had moderator points to mod it up as informative.
One of the most amazing posts I've seen on
"First of all, that's a Government subsidy, which is COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY for any given library to accept. "
This always seems to be the excuse of Republicans when they violate Constitutional rights.
Why is that?
Orin Hatch is one of the biggest attackers of hollywood in the government.
He comes out in favor of certain rights, but only because he is trying to harm the political power that Hollywood holds.
He has a clear ulterior motive, sheesh.
Sigh, it's really disturbing when people just eat the crap shoved down their throats instead of using their head. I'm in my 30's so maybe that's why I no longer do this.
The Republicans don't believe in freedom, any more or less than the Democrats. They might say that in the campaigns, but they've been actively seeking to control your private live through acts of censorship, discrimination, etc. The fact that they've been actively working to repeal civil rights gains from 30 years ago should cause anyone concern.
This is not to say that the Democrats are saints, but they tend to try to protect the little guy from the big guys. It's the little guys who need the protection most often.
Another lie is that Republicans are for smaller government... This is factually untrue as the government has grown in size under every Republican administration.
Regulations are typically formulated by corporate lobbying groups and as such result in barriers to entry to the market, rather than restraint on existing entities.
Oh what else...
Oh yeah, your right. Not all Christians are in favor of censorship. But all right-wing Christians in favor of censorship are Republicans.
And yes, it's primarily the Southern Republicans who promote this evil. But that doesn't make the Northern Republicans less responsibile, since they are the ones kissing the south's butt for the petty votes.
I also disagree that Republicans believe in the free market, as they are the ones who frequently involve Government sticking their hands in to pick winners and losers in the marketplace. Look at how Bush is handling the economy today, the minute he get's into office he starts giving corporate welfare to all his patron companies. The Democratic approach, especially under Clinton, was far more Laissez-Faire.
As far as the Libertarians. Interesting philosophies, but they are definately anti-environment, as well as anti-safety. These are the people who believe that if you just leave everything alone, it'll all work out.
The Liberatarian idea of protecting the environment is to allow people to sue companies after hundreds of people have died from toxic waste dumped in the water system.
It's a reactive way of solving problems. Unfortunately it also has proven to be incredibly unsuccessful over our nations history. The fact that Libertarians cannot learn from past mistakes concerns me tremendously.
Well, it's true that virtually everybody in both parties caved into this thing.
I was chiefly referring to who sponsored and presented the amendment which made this all possible. None other than Senator McCain.
It was passed 95-3, with 2 abstaining.
But of the 3 people voting against the amendment, they were all Democrats i.e. Senators Feingold, Kerrey, and Lautenberg.
Kerrey and Lautenberg are no longer in the Senate.
Then again, which party is pushing for censorship of the internet in libraries.
Oh yeah... The Republicans.
BTW, the V-Chip and TV ratings gave responsibility to the parents to control content within their own homes. I can't see why you would attack this.
"Reagan didn't spend a cent without a Democrat congress voting for it, "
Reagan only had a Democratic congress the last two years. By then the budget was already bloated out of control.
What's also interesting is that every proposed budget by Reagan was actually larger in size than the actual budgets passed by Congress.
As far as Waco. Again, this is more of an example of the Republican form of government as the even happened only a month after Clinton was in office.
Waco was directly the fault of FBI and BATF leaders who had been appointed by the Reagan and Bush administrations.
If it's any consoluation, both Reno and Clinton apologized for the incident, and fixed the problem by firing the Bush appointees and bringing in people such as Freeh to clean up the corruption within the agency.
If it's one thing I hate, it's people who try to distort history for their only mistaken agenda.
I live in a contry where you can get 15 years in prison for having an onused and onlicensed gun in your poosesion.
We still manage 800 to 1100 morders per year for the last 1/2 decade. The total population is 2.7 million which makes this a huge anual slaughter.
Would we be worse off with less stringent gun laws ? 30 years ago we had 40 murders in the year before this law was enacted. We are curently in the top 3 cuntrys to get killed worldwide so it seams preposturus to claim no gun ban would have made us worse off.
All this proves is that there is more to the social order than simple things like "ban guns" or "remove violent movies and games".
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
Tom Wolfe describes an incident involving Gunter Grass, a promoinent German author. He (Grass) is at some American academic event and all the speakers are taking turns complaining about the police state existence they must endure. For quite some time Grass is just staring at the doors rather than paying direct attention to the speakers. Finally, someone asks him why he is staring at the doors and he explains that when the Nazis were in power in Germany the storm troopers would have arrived and kicked down the doors by now. He is just watching so he won't miss the event.
So when no one bans Star Wars or takes any of the silly measures predicted here will those that make these bullshit predictions allow any reality to sink in? What a bunch of morons.
Just a thought.
RFC2119
Quick! Someone organize a march on Washington to protest the banning and let Darth Bush know that the open source community will not take this lying down. If there is one crucial issue facing us today, it is the potential banning of our Holy Scripture.
Though they probably won't ban it; after all, it's just violence; not like there's any sex there, is it?
Bzzzzt. Time to go back to school and learn about sexual reproduction.
It was a joke, just like you're a joke.
~ radiographite: art by john shepard
Just look at all the billions of sperm dying such horrible, needless deaths in any porno flick! Each one of those is a HUMAN BEING! (or would have been, if they hadn't been left to die in the open air like so many microscopic beached whales)
"every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great..."
(yes I know what day it is)
~ radiographite: art by john shepard
Well, ./ as a whole seems to have a real obvious political slant. It annoyed me so much, that I mostly stop reading it during the election and since, and I used to be a really bad /. addict. Congradulations guys, you're driving away you're long time readership.
And if you examine my user number, you'll see that my penis is much larger than yours.
It's a joke. Get over it.
No, YOU are a troll!
TROLL!
Jamie McCarthy
Jamie McCarthy
jamie.mccarthy.vg
In _The Magician's Nephew_, first (in story order, not publication order)of the Narnia books, Jadis deliberately kills every living thing in her world except herself. "other world" specifically doesn't mean merely another planet, but it's not clear if her world has more than one planet.
And it's a children's book.
--
rant
In the Dr Who story "Logopolis", a major part
of the plot is the collapse into entropy
of significant chunks of the universe, so this
is probably the upper limit for body count.
You want death on an unimaginable scale, try the Big Finish Doctor Who Audio: 'Dalek Empire: The Apocalypse Element'. He who says Audio can't be spell-binding obviously hasn't heard this and how can a mere planet or species' extinction compare to the utter EX-TER-MIN-A-TION of an entire GALAXY!!! Few stories have described devistation on such a cosmic scale. Thus by your definition, this is by far one of the goriest works of fiction ever produced, and not ONE second of video was ever rendered. The power of Audio!
Be Seeing You,
Jeffrey.
Time Lord, Dark Horse: The Techno Mage of Gallifrey
... is the Republican party interested in censorship? I thought they were all about less government interference in peoples' lives.
I especially like the part where King Solomon (I think, or maybe David) sends one of his officers off to the front of the war to die so he can sleep with his wife.
Classic.
Actually, there were no school shootings here 100 years ago when almost every boy over the age of 6 had a gun.
Of course, back then cavalry soldiers (in Canada too) who went to church every Sunday had no qualms about slaughtering Native American women and children, so the problem of violence is probably not related to movies, TV or music either.
The current problem (IMHO) is alienation and lack of moral education, not guns. People tend to ignore their children or assume that they know right from wrong; modern Americans are extremely self-centered. The culture is sick, but not in the way you think.
Well, no that wasn't my point, but I see yours.
How are guns more easily accessible? Guns are less accessible now than in any other time in American history. 100 years ago almost every boy over the age of 6 had a gun.
Cavalry soldiers who went to church every Sunday had no problem slaughtering Native American women and children, so how can you say it's media violence? They didn't have movies and TV. They did have a very bloodthirsty Old Testament, but I don't think that was the problem either.
You are oversimplifying. I agree with your point that someone (not necessarily the woman) should spend a lot more time with the kids than is currently the norm in this country. Children are growing up ignored and alienated. The divorce rate and lack of a strong family probably contributes more than anything else.
Absolutely.
Anybody who actually pays attention knows that, in general, it's liberals who want to censor violence plus anything that contradicts their ideologies, while it's conservatives who want to censor sex and anything that contradicts their ideologies.
Thus, Bob Dole attacked Hollywood for sex in 1996, but endorsed Independence Day, which blew up entire cities. And the Children's Defense Fund counts acts of violence committed in Bugs Bunny cartoons, but doesn't object to explicit sex education for first graders.
Steven E. Ehrbar
Let me remind you that Sen. Joseph Leiberman (D) is one of the most censorship hungry individuals in Congress. And who was it that started all the Internet censorship bills that have gone through Congress? Democrats, that's who. Think about it.
A whole universe is destroyed in the Sci-Fi series Lexx. In a particularly disgusting way too, mind you.
Violence sell goods (guns & bullets) and services (medical and auto repair.) These are good for business.
Sexi s satisfaction and contentment. You can't sell contended people anything.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Much ado about nothing, to use material from Shakespeare.
As far as I can tell from most of the comments on this subject, Trolls 1, the rest of us 0.
Bring back the wholesome, intellectually challenging Monty Python movies, and blow off all of this BS.
Wasn't it Tipper Gore(a democrat) who wanted to censor music considered to start violence?
It's not just one party here, it's both of them.
Bah. Carnivores have inhabited this planet from the day we moved past single-celled organisms. Take a day and go sit on the African safari and tell me that it's wrong to eat meat.
;-)
If you believe in God, you can rest easy knowing that he made the Tiger eat other animals. If you don't, then you can rest easy knowing nature/evolution did. Either way, why does humans' intellect make us any less moral for doing what the rest of nature does on a daily basis?
If God didn't want us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them out of meat.
--Xar
BS. It lives with neither of the established parties; they just want to perpetuate their duopoly on the political process, not freedom.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
Let me give you a disclaimer first: I generally vote Independent, occasionally vote Libertarian, and have in the past votes for a random Republican or two in my "youth." I do not vote Democrat, because while in general I hate politicians, I specifically hate the neo-socialism that the Democratic Party has come to embrace over the past 15-20 years. I subscribe to no organized religion, and believe that there are better people to serve as Attorney General of the USA than John Ashcroft.
I will also disclose, possibly unwisely, that I was clicking the "Read More" link with the full intention of clicking "Post Anonymously," then telling Jamie in no uncertain terms that he should attach a certain orifice to a certain part of my genitalia. Which I have never, EVER done on Slashdot before, but felt justified in doing so in this case.
However, when I arrived at the story, I found that I had fresh Moderator Points. And I also remembered the old cliche: "Never raise your voice, when you should be reinforcing your argument." So I was left with the conundrum: Do I spend my mod points here on people who make good points, or try to make points of my own?
That being said, you can now see which choice I selected.
Jamie: Your comments on this article, as quoted above, are the most reckless, biased, FUD-inducing load of crap I have ever seen posted on Slashdot by a contributor. And yes, my fellow commentors, I have read every article JonKatz has posted.
While I fully support your right to speak your mind, and reveal whatever prejudices you might have, there is absolutely no justification for any of the above-quoted text. If you want to modify the behavior of politicians, suggest positive response methods from your audience to let the Christian Coalition and "The Republicans" what the American People are thinking.
These elected officials may be politicians, but they are by no means Hitler-esque fascists or thought police. In much the same way that Bill Clinton and company didn't turn this country into a Socialist welfare-state. This great country, with its checks and balances, usually ends up moderating itself.* The will of the 280,000,000 individuals in this country may not be overwhelmingly obvious, but there always seems to be a happy medium to be found politically. If Gore had been elected, there would be complaints by some part of the populace about this, that, and the other thing as well-- I'm sure you realize that.
* - Ignoring the recent examples where Corporatism seems to have overtaken the Capitalism and Consumerism we're so used to in this country; e.g. RIAA and MPAA. But that appears to be because the politicians (judges) and lawyers involved in those cases are not as good at hiding their sources of funding as politicians in bygone eras.
Before this degenerates into some kind of wild, sweeping manifesto, I just wanted to do a little checking and balancing on my own. I need to take a little bit of wind out of your sails, Jamie, because face it:
The Republicans are NOT going to take away your Star Wars. The Christian Coalition is NOT going to take Sar Trek off the air. John Ashcroft is NOT going to ban violent movies.
Mark MY words: This country will be moderated by the same "anonymous middle" that has elected alternating conservative and liberal groups of politicians for at LEAST the last 100 years.
SlashSigTheorem: Humorous, Political, Critical, Constructive- If you have a
---
Because of all of the independent contractors working on the new death star. They had families to look out for.
Sorry, had to steal that from "Clerks"
Taos
How many planets did the Shadows and Vorlons destroy before they retired?
Je ne parle pas francais.
in 12 monkeys, a virus wiped out over 5 billion people. That's gotta count for something.
i am a *conservative*, but i don't think that there's any direct correlation between conservative and republican any longer. those days seem to be behind us, but clearly, the stigma lives on.
this entire thread is a great example of journalistic embellishment. there are far too many people who know better than to let what you're discussing happen actually take place, imho of course.
please, try not to inflame the masses to further *your* cause. you're just like them if that's your goal. they inflame the masses with influence, you're inflaming the masses with knowledge. in the end, it's really the same tactic.
Peter
The book goes on in some detail about this "god" instructing a man to kill his own son, which he does.
I presume that you're referring to Abraham and Isaac. Abraham was a righteous man who loved his son, perhaps a bit too much.
God told Abraham to sacrifice his son - this was to shape Abraham's character - so that Abraham would be clear on where the allegiance lies.
Where you get it wrong is that Abraham did NOT kill his son. He was obedient, even to the point of tying Isaac on the altar, and holding the knife over him - but just as he was ready to strike the fatal blow, God stopped Abraham, and showed him the ram (trapped in the bushes) to use as a sacrifice.
If you're going to bust on the Bible, for God's sake, get it right! (and I do mean for His sake)
The most violent act in the Bible is the one where God Himself steps down from heaven and lives as a man, and then is put to death by evil men - for the sins of each of us!!!!!
"God demonstrates his love for us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."
Anomaly
PS - God loves you and longs for relationship with you.
If you want to know more, please contact me at tom_cooper at bigfoot dot com
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
If all he did was claim to be God, then you are correct. He demonstrated his deity by being raised from the dead.
The ressurection is one of many ways that Christ differentiated himself from those others.
God loves you, too. If you want to know more about this, please contact me at tom_cooper at bigfoot dot com
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
If all he did was claim to be God, then you are correct. He demonstrated his deity by being raised from the dead.
The ressurection is one of many ways that Christ differentiated himself from those others.
God loves you, too. If you want to know more about this, please contact me at tom_cooper at bigfoot dot com
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
Ok, I can appreciate that you don't believe this asertion, but have you ever looked at the evidence for the resurrection?
I'd be willing to be at least even money that you haven't.
Rejecting something that sounds implausible when you have never investigated it is really not a great idea.
If you are open minded enough to investigate this rather than simply rejecting it based on your religoius beliefs, please contact me at tom_cooper at bigfoot dot com
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
They wont care if a bunch of non-white, non-voting aliens are killed. So Star Wars should survive.
You are right, the next few years in the U.S. are going to pretty much suck ass with these Republicans in office.
It has to get worse before it can get better. Part of me hopes that the Republicans do all the horrible things that I know they are capable of. Then and only then will the masses see why the U.S. is not really all that free after all.
"Don't you know, They're talkin' about a revolution, It sounds like a whisper" - Tracy Chapman
LoRider
When dealing with children it's not called censorship, it's called parenting. That is the problem with young people trying to speak intelligently about political issues. Censorship is when adults are no longer allowed to see something because the government doesn't want them to.
We don't need the fucking government telling us adults what to do or raising our children.
We DO need parents to parent.
LoRider
his name is Robert Palson, his name is Robert Palson........
There was actually one death, but still a good point.
For a while I contemplated not dignifying your post with a response, seeing as how it would only lend credence to any notion that your arguement (a term, in this case, I use in the loosest of interpretations) was poignient, or even comprehendable. Nevertheless, I will answer the issues you address, if only to prove that I am indeed an equal opportunity rhetoritician; I do not back down from a challenge, regardless of my opponent's abilities or disabilities.
More blather. I should have simplified my point: you are a hypocrite. A big one. You attack Jaime for making bogus, hostile generalizations about the Republicans, then turn around and give the tired old conservative bullshit about the evils of liberalism. Just look at your first post and the one I'm replying to.
If you want to get in a flame war with liberals, great! Just don't have illusions of principled superiority while you're doing it.
Conservatives judge their arguments based on how successfully they put their points across, much like a game of chess.
Now compare the primary talking points of Republicans to those of Democrats. In order for Democrats to obtain power, they have to resort to demonization of their opponents. Their opponents aren't merely wrong, they are an evil entity.
I wasn't going to respond to any more of your partisan musings, but I burst out laughing at this. HELLO, WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN THE LAST DECADE!
How about the Republican speaker of the house passing around a big list of words to use when describing democates? Vile, disgusting, unamerican, etc.
How about how the leaders of the Republican party manufacured Gore's "fibs"? "If he invented Internet, I invented the paper clip" (Lott, I think). Or when an ass (Republican party chair) and a team of mules drove a wagon into a Tennesee city to question Gore's assertion that he worked hard on a farm as a kid......when he had.
Or how about the irrational hatred of President Clinton? They couldn't nail him on any criminal investigation, so their little pet Starr manufactured a purgery case against him by asking Clinton personal questions when no other American would have answer, or even be asked in the first place?
Or the made up stories over Hillary's "bridal registry", or the cow the press and the GOP had over her book deal, complaining that her fellow democrates didn't raise an eyebrow, when they forced Gengrich to give up his advance a few years earlier. Conveinently forgetting to mention that Hillary's book was sold off to the highest bidder, when Gengrich got a sweet deal from Rupert Murdoch (what a liberal he is). They also forgot that Gengrich forced out a democratic speaker of the house over his own questionable book deal, and was just taking what he had dished out as a minority whip.
I sincerely hope you are just trolling, and aren't actually this blind.
Of the Republican and Democratic parties, which group believes in greater government intervention in your life?
Why the Democrats, of course....unless you are pregnant, homosexual, or of a minority religion. We don't need Christian churches taking over the governments social services, and we all know that "prayer in schools" means "Christian prayer in schools".
There is the Democratic Party, which bears no resemblence to its ancestors of two hundred years ago.
I for one am glad that the Democratic party is no longer the party of southern white slave owners, aren't you?
Which of the two parties has the philosophy of "Small Government"? If you think small government consists of just fewer government employees, then you're fooling yourself. Small Government is not just a policy, it is a philosophy.
Which in the end just means cutting programs they don't like. Thank god massive increases in military spending and forcing our country in to debt doesn't count (Reagen).
Perhaps you would like to tell me just how Right Wing Tipper Gore and Joseph Liberman are?
Whoop dee doo, there are a couple of Democrates who do favor censorship. Doesn't mean that the rest are gung ho for it as well.
Just to jog your memory, Democrats are the the people who believe in a "living" (IE changeable) Constitution.
Your point being what.
If you're hunting for "extremists" who plan to take away your freedoms, you would have done a better job at looking at our former Attourney General, a woman whose values are equally (if not more) extreme than Mr Ashcroft's.
Name some.
Unlike the author of this story, I broker my argument on logic, rather than ignorance and flailing emotionalism.
Sure, and you did a great job....until you got past the subject line and started ranting like everybody else.
And, being fundamentalists, we can be pretty sure they never will. There are, after all, many instances of genocide, torture, mass murder, homosexual activity, rape . . . a sick, sick book. And that's our defense, I think. They want to yank Star Wars. Fine, but they have to yank The Ten Commandments, too.
.
Of course, now I'm expecting consistency from the Religious Right, so . .
Silly signature limit . . .
Blaming Republicans?!!? Is this another attempt of LIBERALISM? Think about what Jamie the liberal said? LIBERALS, the ELITE liberals believe they are above others (usually white and rich), therefore they "supposedly" know what is better for us. In saying that, they want to take your freedoms away because they know better. Republicans embrace individual freedoms and place responsibility on families and individuals to make decisions for their underaged. It is the LIBERALS who want to censor and make decisions for individuals. Your intent attack on the GOP is ignorant and should be ignored. Learn politics before making yourself look like an ass. Censor this if you will.
-------- Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most. --Ozzy
It is true most conservatives have religious conviction. But understand that the Constitution was constructed under direction of the fore-fathers beliefs.
-------- Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most. --Ozzy
Hear hear! It's a shame that the slashdot admins would allow their liberal and sometimes socialist political biases to influence their postings so heavily.
Most Republicans are more interested in personal responsibility than they are in whining to the government to control their lives. Democrats, on the other hand...
Arguing about vi versus Emacs is like arguing whether it's better to make fire by rubbing sticks or banging rocks.
Face it.. the libertarians are a minority in this country. The mainstream drives politics, and the media drives the mainstream. It's these "you should be offended at this" news shows that really warp people's minds.. FOX News comes to mind as one of the worst.. And who is FOX run by.. one of the hardest-assed Republicans ever, Mr. Rupert Murdoch. The Democrats are only listening to their brainwashed constituants. (Listening to their constituants? Ohhhh.. that's what representatives in a republic are supposed to do.. too bad most of 'em only listen to the biggest pile of cash.. and who's against campaign finance reform of /any/ kind? Mostly Republicans.)
-Splat
"I hate ALL political parties"
"It bothers me to see a blanket statement against any group."
Do I need to draw a diagram here?
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
does this mean it's ok for me to beat the hell out of you if i close my eyes?
sincerely,
me
I was thinking about the US constitution recently, when I was mulling over government design issues.
If they hadn't allowed the constitution to be changed, I'm sure it would be gone by now. Someone would have come up with a knee-jerk issue (flag burning) and they'd have convinced everyone a document which DIDN'T forbid that, and didn't allow for changes, was a bad one. They'd have stricken it, and replaced it with a much different document.
But because it can be changed, even though it's hard, it's actually much more stable. It makes people realize that they have to have a good reason to change it, but that those good reasons might exist.
IMHO, that makes it more stable than if they weren't allowed to change it. Like the difference between telling a kid that they can never do something and to just forget about it... they'll do it right away. But, take the time to explain why the shouldn't do it, except in extraordinary circumstances and they'll be less likely to want to do it...
I know this story is just
clunk, clunk
There you go.
SEO Copywriter. Just Say ON
Apparently, we'll have to run down the list - AGAIN - of who's trying to censor us...
Lets try Lieberman ("Friends is EVIL and should not be on prime time TV", McCain (he's trying to stop groups like EFF from having a voice in the political world by not allowing them to contribute to politicians who are pro-rights, like Orin Hatch - Republicans can't stand McCain) Al Gore, Mrs Al Gore (CD warning labels), Barbara Boxer, John D. Rockefeller (leaders of the anti-Hollywood movement in Congress along with Lieberman)
hell, Hollywood was warned not to back the Democrats because they are clearly out to censor movies
And if i'm to listen to jamie, it appears that it was then Republican President Bill Clinton that started the most recent act of, essentially, putting a gun (if you'll pardon the expression) to the head of Hollywood?
far be it from me to also bring up who are the ones that want to stop people from exercising their rights to talk about religious matters at every turn - oh yeah.. those darn Republicans...
Instead of just toting the line of HOW the media would like you to think, Jamie, why don't you open your mind and get a clue to who the true anti-1st Amendment legislators are...
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
Getting the Hollywood power would certainly be more difficult if this government was destroying those Oscar statues...
Phooey. So long as it's bad people killing good people and good people killing bad people, and both sides are clearly labeled, conservatives are whooping along with the rest of the audience (okay, I suppose bad people killing bad people is acceptable too).
It's only the combination of violence and moral ambiguity that gets the Right all worked up
To quote the original story posting: "Anyway these are the films, ladies and gentlemen, the mass-murdering films and TV shows, that John Ashcroft will ban, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition. Anyone standing up for them will be tarred as defending mass murder"
That's a serious bit of opinionated horse-hockey, NOT news. Common' slashdot -- if you're going to pretend to be a news organization then at least try to act like it. Even the Clinton News Network isn't this biased. And would you all get off your soapbox long enough to realize that "ratings" != "censorship" Adult citizens still have a choice what they see/do/hear/read. No one is going to outlaw your smut, pR0n, mass-murder shoot-em-up games/movies/TV or anything else you cherish. And if you don't like what Congress is doing, then VOTE, write them, email them, call them, fax them, or grab a pair and run for Congress/Senate/state legislature/Governer/President/etc yourself! But please quit bitching and moaning!
Tentacle, my hat's off to you. I didn't find this thread when it was fresh, or I would have been posting alongside you. Your postings have been accurate, thoughtful and polite - that's not easy in the face of such raw hatred as seems to be flowing here.
You missed one very important point, though: when you said,
"I read an earlier post, whose main arguments against a conservative is that they are anti-women, anti-homosexual, and anti "minority-religion" (whatever that means). Honestly, I don't recall the last time a conservative suggested beating women, imprisoning homosexuals, or burning Wiccans at the stake.",
you should have mentioned that the *only* societies in the history of the world that have tolerated other religions as a policy are Christian.
Don't forget - it was the intensely Protestant & Puritan founding fathers that created the most tolerant culture in the history of the entire planet. I sometimes wonder if the Slashdot Socialists would even be capable of *reading* Jonathan Edwards without suffering from sever cognitive dissonance... (For those of you suffering as I was, from a public education, Jonathan Edwards is widely regarded even by many non-Christian historians as the most intelligent person ever to live in the Americas. And apparently, the insight and intelligence stayed in the family: A survey done in 1900 showed his descendants included 13 college presidents, 65 professors, 30 judges, 100 lawyers, a dean of a prestigious law school, 80 public office holders, nearly 100 missionairies, 3 mayors of large cities, 3 governors, 3 US senators, one US treasurer, and a US vice-president!)
If they're not afraid of the truth, the Slashdot Socialists should read Edwards at my friend Mark Trigsted's excellent site: www.jonathanedwards.com. It's funny, isn't it, that Edwards was one of the most influential driving forces behind the mindset that created the uniquely tolerant American government?
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
Yes, but Red Dawn would never get banned by Ashcroft & Company 'cause it's all about good ol' American boys kicking the shit out of those evil commie bastards. ;-)
"I came here to kick ass and chew bubblegum. I'm all out of bubblegum." MSE USC APX AIA CSI CASp
Censorship and facism isn't the sole parlance of the Republicans, the Democrats will meet or beat them in this department any day of the week. The plain fact is, young people are at the mercy of older people. Some of these older people see the young as a way to gain political power. They will quite readily exploit the young, abuse their civil rights, etc. if it will allow them to further their own agenda.
Once upon a time someone said not to trust anyone over 30. They were right.
Lee Reynolds
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
if i'm totally off base then i apologize, but i assume that this move to ban violent movies is an attempt to stem the unreal level of violence that currently resides in america. if it is then i say it's a good step, although it's not going to cure the horrible state you guys are in. attempting to solve youth violence and violence in general by stopping violent movies is not giving the issue enough credit. there are so many factors that cause this type of mental state.
you guys might want to start addressing guns, family lives, media coverage of crime and so forth.
such an odd society, many great advances, yet a kid can get shot in school. That idea, of guns in school, is so wrong that i can't stress it enough. school is a place to be safe, to learn, to go through childhood. that can't happen if some lunatic who hates his parents and has access to weapons besides that your life isn't worth living.
end of rant, glad to live in canada.
I'd mod you up another point. The good thing about Slashdot is that -- unlike Fight Censorship and some other places where the overly-political like Jamie can try to cram crap down our throats with relatively-little consequences -- the readers can slap back. Look at the top comment, and yours, and we all see that Jamie just got intellectually-slam-dunked.
Just think of what would be possible if this happened to Dan Rather, whenever he injected leftwing bias into a story! There'd be no more need for the right-wing MRC, a compendium of bias these days. There'd also be little need for the far-less-relevant (um, the problem is not FOX, it's how bad NBC, ABC, CBS & CNN suck as journalists-of-the-left at being rational) but-at-least-they-TRY left-wing group "FAIR." As an interesting experiment, do what I've done, and subscribe to both sites' email alerts. While the MRC (and FAIR, come to think of it...) have a blind eye to stories about the tax-and-spend war on (some) drugs, the MRC makes a generally better logical case for leftist bias in the media, despite things like a repetitive format & slightly-worse editing.
You may not want to insult journalism, but you've not lived in my shoes for the last 48 hours. I think an insult or two might help matters, but I'll stick to facts if I can. Journalism ISN'T all that hard of a job to do correctly. Actually, sitting around and writing "professionally" can be pretty cushy. I know, because I've done it (right) before, sometimes in my spare time. (We can start with duh-file crap like reading a story BEFORE attempting to write an accurate headline, but on second thought, don't get me started).
Slashdot is an incredible site, and the moderation system - albeit imperfect - makes it an incredibly interesting phenomenon, but your comment and others demonstrate that Slashdot editors lack even a shadow of the ideological diversity of their audience. Higher salaries won't cure that, different hiring policies (and possibly LOWER salaries) might (and no, I'm not available to write Slashdot stories or anything else, if that's what you think I mean).
Anyway, the bottom line is that your comment is a well-spoken one, and I encourage moderators to note your admirable logic-over-emotionalism. Thanks.
JMR
Speaking, as always, for myself.
Try e-gold - (contact me). I'm NOT e-
All those people drowning in the north Atlantic?
Execute? [Y/N] _
Wow do you really believe that crap?
Ronald Reagan regularly confused reality with movies, he fell asleep during an audience with the pope!. The man alhzeimers disease!
War is necrophilia.
Granted, this is April Fool's Day, but c'mon, this is utter crap. Cutting on Christian organizations in such a brutely stupid manner, saying they'd try and get things like Star Trek and Star Wars sensored? Never mind that the gripe is carnal violence, not 'theoretical, unseen violence' such as that in Star Wars and ST... Heck, Looney Toons is more graphically violent than either.
This is stooping pretty low, even for April 1st.
-------
CAIMLAS
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Someone once figured out that 98% of all the people who've ever been born are already dead.
Chances are, you're dead!!
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Actually, it the first movie made (A new hope) was episode IV. Ep3 has yet to come.
Do not go gentle into that good night. Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Specifically, it also asked about the general issue of censorship in various contexts, including books and film, as well as publically funded art exhibits.
Dude, this is /., not a freaking poli-sci doctoral disseration. But a few minutes with Google will show that in addition to backing the CDA, Ashcroft introduced and sponsored the Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act, which in addition to the usual War on (Some) Drugs atrocities, would send you to jail for talking about how drugs are made. Satisfied?
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
If this was a debate on anything approaching a rhetorical level, maybe we'd be somewhere near the original point...you know, about whether the Republican party has a history of censorship. Maybe you'd even provide a fact or two, instead of ad homiem insults based on misdefintions and semantic nitpicking (on a point already yielded).
If you have an argument that the Republican party has always been a staunch supporter of free expression, go ahead and make it.
Note: the fact that there are plenty of Democrats who are also pro-censorship (though usually with different justiciations/excuses) is not disputed but is not relevant to the proposition under discussion. Nor is it disputed that there are members of the Republican party who are strong free speech advocates. The question is about the overall position and direction of the Republican party political leadership.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Oh, please. Giving money to an elected official, or an elected official wannabe, is bribery, not speech.
You're either trolling, or so far removed from reality that further discussion is pointless. Neither the Republican nor the Democratic party leadership have any interest in the Constitution other than how they can use it to serve their agendas and put more members of their party into power.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Where the heck have you been? Yes, of course they have a history of censorship. The Republican leadership have been the lap dogs of the Religious Right for years. Does the name "Ed Meese" mean anything to you? How about Henry Hyde?
According to this study of attitudes towards censorship in New York, while pro-censorship attitudes were disturbingly high among all groups, they were significantly more common amoung Republicans than Democrats.
I suggest you start paying attention to the antics of John Ashcroft, who supported the CDA, supported mandatory internet filtering, and supported a law that would have made it illegal to talk about how drugs are made.
"It's said that we shouldn't legislate morality," Ashcroft told Charisma magazine in December 1999. "Well, I disagree. I think all we should legislate is morality. We shouldn't legislate immorality."
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
A count of your wrongosity:
Wow. And that was only a hundred words or so.
Nice research. No cookie for you.
Um.. hello? That movie is amazingly violent! =)
------------
CitizenC
David Brin wrote a very good article for Salon.
Amongst other things, the article looked at how Darth Vader, despite ordering the deaths of billions of people, is completely forgiven and welcomed into Jedi heaven because -- wait for it -- he saved the life of his son Luke S.
--
Repton.
--
Repton.
Repton.
They say that only an experienced wizard can do the tengu shuffle.
Its sad to use any excuse to spew forth ridiculous propaganda against republicans. Scary thing is, sounds like you believe it wholeheartedly.
END THE BRAIN WASHING! I'm sick of it! Keep the propaganda down until you get your head straight. You think you know whats up, but you just sound like everybody else
this is without a doubt the biggest troll I've ever seen on /. jamie, you are a troll.
mod me to obvlivion if you want, but this is pathetic.
In Soviet Russia...michael would be rotting in Siberia!
If you kill a hundred - that's mass murder.
If you blow up a planet - that's Star Wars.
It's just another form of statistics.
Why would the Republicans censor movies? Do they have a history of Censorship? I know the Democratic party does. Clinton signed the V-Chip bill and Al Gore's wife Tipper spent many years getting 2 Live Crew and other "Offensive" music banned/rated.
And movie censorship is currently not government based all. Nor has it ever been.. It is done by the MPAA. Granted the MPAA started the rating system so the government wouldn't censor.
Just my 0.02.
(appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
What I find really strange about Friends is the lack of ethnicity in New York City. I have been to New York City, there weren't just a bunch of lame white people there. In fact, when I hang out with my friends, not everyone is white.
It is just weird!
--
microsoft, it's what's for dinner
bq--3b7y4vyll6xi5x2rnrj7q.com
it's a sig, wtf?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'm not going to reiterate the finer points of why this entire story is a bunch of misinformed, opinionated, and sensationalized CRAP, because it has all already been said in previous comments.
Instead, I'll cut right to the chase: the next story I read on Slashdot like this one will be my last.
At least a flag burning AMENDMENT is Constitutional as long as they correctly follow the ratification process -- which, to my knowledge, they did (after trying and failing to simply use a bill rather than an amendment).
Simply saying "To Hell with the Constitution, let's pass a law anyway" is in my mind far worse, since it establishes a precedent that laws are only to be followed when it is expedient to do so.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
You're talking about Internet filtering restrictions applied to libraries receiving E-rate discounts.
First of all, that's a Government subsidy, which is COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY for any given library to accept. This is NOT an entitlement. The government is NOT obligated to give them this money, nor for the library to accept it.
Second, once it's noted that the Government is indeed paying (at least partially) for the access, the Government therefore gains an interest in WHAT is being transferred.
This has NO EFFECT on what can be posted, since this is client-side and not server-side.
This also has NO EFFECT on libraries NOT accepting this public money.
For a library which would only have 'net access due to a grant (because the locals apparently aren't willing to subsidize it enough at their level), then the end result is a *net plus* -- there is access where there is none before.
Face it -- Government money, ranging from highway funding (legal BAC levels, speed limits, et al) and onwards, provides leverage. And both parties have been willing to tolerate this, because on a whole the people don't give a damn.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Kids should certainly be aware that "evil people do evil things". Life ain't the set of Barney. Hell, many of the strictures -- "Don't talk to strangers", especially -- often told to kids are based PRECISELY on fear of evil. Would you rather treat them as incomprehending robots whom you control, instead of rational beings that should question WHY?
And you wonder why people can't distinguish fact from fiction? Hell, if you try to "protect" them from the nastier parts of life, you're immersing them in a fictional Wonderland. If you're telling them lies, should you be at all surprised when they lie to others?
Vast amounts of "advice" like "If at first you don't succeed, try try again" are clearly excessively optimist drivel. To repeatedly try again with different expectations has been cited as one version of insanity... Pah. I'd rather they be contemplative, rational beings who realize that people have different perspectives and motivations than their own, rather than be little self-centered robots who are naive enough to assume that others' perceptions, beliefs and values are necessarily anywhere close to their own. If they realize that some people will freely resort to force to achieve their objectives, then that's better than naively trusting or distrusting on somebody's say-so; forewarned is forearmed.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
My vote for the most violent movie has to be Starship Troopers. To steal a line from the Self-Made Critic, in the book, the bugs have guns. In the movie, they can only slice the bejeezus out of you. There are more gore-filled, screaming, slashing, bloody, horrific deaths happening right on screen, in front of you, and in more amazing detail than in any other movie that I've ever seen.
While I don't agree that the government (or any other agency) should decide what we, as adults, are allowed to watch. However, I just ask that you think before exposing your children to these movies. A three-year-old that sees a giant bug hacking a girl who looks like his babysitter into tiny bits is going to become a quivering, crying, snot-gushing puddle of screaming fear.
In my opinion, Starship Troopers is a pathetic adaptation of a very good book with liberal servings of intestines, brains, limbs, and a side order of blood tacked on (Hmm... sounds like a haggis and black pudding), I still enjoy occasionally turning off my higher brain functions and feeding the primal bloodlust (if only by proxy). I only ask that parents remember that sometimes there are some very good reasons that a movie is rated R.
-NOC Monkey (OOK!) Experience is what allows you to recognize a mistake the second time you make it.
I've noticed that most of the teens and twenty-somethings associate christianity = conservatism = stealing rights. The funny thing is that it is the exact opposite. First of all, I am sure you all know who James Exon is (D-Neb) :) As far as party ideals go, the Republican party stands for shrinking government regulation while the Democratic party believes in increasing it. Think of issues like gun control, censorship, health care, and taxes. Republicans favor free market decisions, while the Democratic party favors socialist regulation. (Now all the know-it-alls yell "You are calling Democrats Marxists! Burn him!")
Non all Christians believe strongly censhorship. Just like all groups, there are extremists whose views do not represent the whole. Parents of today remember WWI and WWII and haven't forgotten what we fought for. Christians believe that they are responsible as parents for controlling the moral ideas, and empowering their children with making those decisions for themselves. Maybe down south they have another idea of Christianity, but most people I know don't want to push religion-based censhorship onto the government.
Why was this article placed into "Your Rights Online?" Does Star Wars face censorship? There is no link in this article stating that. The quoted portion from alphaparadigm is just interested in body count in a Star Wars movie. How did this get to be a bash on Republicans? I don't recall John Ashcraft commenting about Star Wars or Star Trek (except in reference to the missle defense plan, ofcourse)
Most current congresspeople know nothing of internet, so naturally they fear it and want to regulate it. But nobody has proposed censoring books or movies recently at all. If you all are looking for a party that favors the environment, wants freedom from censorship and regulation, and is totally non-religious, I recommend learning more about the Libertarian party.
Score -1, Flamebait?
I'm fairly certain that "The Killer" and "Hard Boiled" are 1-2 for the body count record. Actually, if I recall correctly, Hard Boiled has 576 bodies - and I mean you see 576 *different* people take bullets to the head/face, chest, etc. etc. etc.
The last scene of the movie is an hour long, and consists of a bunch of terrorists 1) mowing down patients, doctors, nurses etc. in a hospital and 2) then shooting rocket launchers at the cops in the parking lot, followed by 3) (repeat 1 and 2).
Remember, it wasn't Republicans who forced the CDA through (and its successors). It was the good old-fashioned 'we know what is good for you' big-government liberals. Back then it was Paul Simon and Jim Exon; now it's The editors of the New York Times, the producers of the evening news, Ted Turner, many feminists and those who are 'more sensitive' who want to protect you from anything that may damage your tender psyche. After all, with our laws, who but the media can censor the media?
You know? I jumped at this pun, then kept reading and found the lzip article...curse my impatient posting behavior!
"These people look deep within my soul and assign me a number based on the order in which I joined" --Homer re:
...it's the gz/bz2 compression you have to look out for.
(da da dum...sorry)
"These people look deep within my soul and assign me a number based on the order in which I joined" --Homer re:
Think about it.
1. It's a morality play (good vs. evil)
2. Has an nearly all white cast (barring Lando and any aliens)
3. No homosexuals (though bobba fett did hold that blaster kinda funny)
4. Religion (the force)
That one was shown on TV in the UK a couple of weeks ago (Sky I think). But as noted above you don't actually get to see him individually kill all these people (and of course I don't imagine that he actually went through the galaxy killing billions of people one at a time). TNG managed to show nothing that would interupt your thoughts of dinner by avoiding all flashbacks/memories of the terrible distruction etc. Nothing worth censoring here.
I don't recall what the episode was named but there was one where they came across a life form living on a planet alone with his wife that was devistated by war. Long story short, the wife wasn't real, just a creation by the sole survivor who turned out to be a "Q" like being who inflicted genocide on an entire race.
The 'being' in the story was truely sorry for what he had done but could not bring back any of the population, as I recall his dialogue was something like "I didn't kill a hundred, thousands or even millions of their people, I obliterated the entire population across the galaxy, we are talking billions of people".
That by far has to be the highest frag count.
-b
"I hate ALL political parties" "It bothers me to see a blanket statement against any group." Do I need to draw a diagram here?
Perhaps the point was made a litte too broadly, he should have stated: "I hate BOTH of the major parties in the US" or "I hate the American party system". But I think most of the people got the point.
-rt-
-rt-
** Evil Canadians are taking over the world. Learn about the conspiracy
Sorry, I forgot the quotes. The God's command to rape is quite clear here: 5. Moos. 21:10-14. God tells Israelites to take slaves and wifes from enemies, without their consent (and such wifes will not have same rights other wifes have).
Here's a second one where he doesn't really condemn it: 5.Mos 22:28-29 ("Oh, you raped the woman, now you must take her to be your wife.")
And, no, modern Christians don't typically go around killing their neighbours. They don't follow the insane laws of the Old Testament anymore, like they did during the Burning Times. Thank no God for that!
I think there some German lawyers tried to ban Bible in some schools (or kindergarten) last year or something, because it contained so much violence and sex that it clearly should be considered illegal. I don't know if they succeeded.
But that gives a neat idea, if some book or movie is censored, just create a religion around it, and it'll be uncensored in no-time. (Make it preferably a Christian sect, and success is guaranteed.)
But then, if you look at SciFi, I think Lexx is quite violent. Hey, Mantrid even destroyed the Universe! One of the main characters, Kai, has "killed countless people; men, women, old people, children, mothers with their babies in their wombs, heroes, scientists, and poets..." The other main character is the captain of Lexx, the most powerful weapon of two universes, and uses it to occasionally blow up planets, moons, and such. Lots of sex and all kinds of really sick combinations of sex and violence in the series too. Oh, I forgot to mention, Lexx is definitely the best TV-series around right now!
The republicans want censor sex, the democrats, violence.
This must be an April Fools day joke right? Either that or someone forgot their meds.
I'm still working on a clever footer.
For such a cheery message of peace and cooperation, this series has the most destruction I can think of!
Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
Im sorry - what side is Mr. Lieberman on? OH THATS RIGHT HE IS A DEMOCRAT! The attorney general isnt going to be the one censoring us, congress is you dolt. Jesus. Damn democrats never can realize they are for more government and more censoring where as the republicans are for less government and less censoring.
The ultimate network admin tool needs HELP!
Also there's the one episode of Star Trek: Voyager in which not just planets but entire species are wiped out, but then they crash Voyager into the time ship and the timeline reverts to the way it was so nobody ever really died ... or did they?
Yeah, with the Krenim (sp?)... that was a fun episode. But look at it this way: Were they really killed in the first place? Reality was just altered so that they had never existed. (though to Janeway, it was the same thing)
Just playing devil's advocate. Temporal mechanics is headache-inducing at best.
-J
Karma: T-rexcellent.
Rape of the environment
Corporate profits over human rights
Legal regulation of bedroom behavior
Crushing of labor unions
The supremacy of the almighty dollar
Bludgeoning non-believers with the Bible
A gun in every pot
Sure this list is extreme, but 18 is too young to be that conservative. Of course, if Mommy and Daddy's trust fund is what you're out to defend then it makes sense, your wealth over everyone else's.
Aknot, WHOT!
Free Techno/Jazz/DNB/MI Music by guys obsessed with monkeys!
Interesting dramatic device anyways...
Free Techno/Jazz/DNB/MI Music by guys obsessed with monkeys!
This is nuts! By this reasoning they should ban the bible too.. How about the flood???
Has anyone confirmed the total population of Alderaan at the time of its destruction, or the total number of Imperial troops on the Death Star at the time of its destruction? I don't think anyone has tried, because IT'S ALL PART OF GEORGE LUCAS' IMAGINATION. People who try to censor this stuff are wasting their time and our tax dollars. If they need something to do, how about spending more dollars on educating the parents of today's kids to take some responsibility.
Cows (which are just horses in black and white anyway) eat meat in the UK (hence BSE) and monkeys (whose DNA is not doubt 100% compatible with yours) taste good with a spicy sauce so therefore eating meat is compulsory.
Rich
What would Xenu do?
I'll miss seeing Xev Tweedle Kai and 790 and their adventures through space =(
NightHawk
Tyranny =Gov. choosing how much power to give the People.
Fox news is the BEST news channel on the air (I never said it was too good :)). Fox news only looks conservative because the other networks are so liberal. In fact, fox news is the most central news network. Look at O'Reilly, he'll bash anyone regardless of party if he thinks that they are wrong, and even if one doesn't agree with him, you have to respect him for that.
Face it, nobody in Washington *really* support campaign finance reform, Washington looks out for Washinging and everything they do is to preserve Washington. There are two representitives that I can think of who I think are actally good (used to be 3 until Traficant became a wuss): Ron Paul, and Bob Barr.
He who knows not, and knows he knows not is a wise man
This is true, in fact, the first person that comes to mind when I think of censorship is Joe Liberman.
:))
One must admit, though, that Republicans are bad too, they support such things as the flag burning amendment (even my favorite republican congressman, Bob Barr).
My rule is, don't trust any of 'em (save Barr, and Ron Paul, of course
He who knows not, and knows he knows not is a wise man
Do you have any proof of this allegation or are you just pulling it out of your ass?
He who knows not, and knows he knows not is a wise man
A Bugg
The problem with the Christian Coalition is that they have indeed been the instigators of censorship and denial of freedom and liberty to others. They very much judge others and act against the will of God in a manner that indicates that they believe that they have God's permission and granted power to judge mortal man. Christianity is about choice, and I see that in your post that you realize that. Unfortunately (for whatever reason... perhaps because of the name) you don't recognize the fact that the Christian Coalition is anything but Christian. They are the Sagicee who violently rips his clothes off and wails for all to see and hear his piety yet fails to understand the love of God. Republican and Christian may not necessarily be the opposites, but that is only if said Christian Republican works to return his/her party to the way it was intended to be run. As it is right now, the Christian Coalition is a baby Inquisition, just waiting for an excuse to 'cleanse and purify' the country/world.
I encourage you to do the logical thing and analyze your party and the extremist group known as the Christian Coalition. And then to study until you know the difference between a stated goal and an actual one. Tyrants and other evil men throughout history love to gain support by convincing others that they are doing what they do for 'the good of the people'... please don't become one of them!
POLICE YOURSELF AND YOUR GROUP!!!!!!!!
As for the reason for mistrust of Government, if you don't know the answer to that I implore you to look at history, both international and domestic, ancient and recent... then go and read up on the memoirs and other documents that detail the desires and reasons for the Founding Fathers of this country doing what they did. The Republicans have a great opportunity to return the country back to its citizens, but if they continue to stall and play politicians instead of Statesmen... well it is just the same script titled "Tyrant" but with different actors and stage names.
I part with a couple of quotes that seem to fit here, well to me at least!
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. " - George Washington
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin
"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." --Voltaire
A multitude of laws in a country is like a great number of physicians, a sign of weakness and malady. --Voltaire
"The only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it." -- John Stuart Mill, 1859
"We ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected upon a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained." ~George Washington ~April 30, 1789, Washington's first inaugural address
"Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it." - Lock
"When people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People's Stick'." -Bakunin
I seek not only to follow in the footsteps of the men of old, I seek the things they sought.
Ok... who's forgetting how to spell? Or leaving off words? ;)
-- Is "Sig" copyrighted by www.sig.com?
So in Britain we'd probably get a two part rating ie: 18cert - 150,000, 27,500 (being the total body count followed by the seperated body parts thereof)
Oh how I love the censors.
I can't believe The Exorcist was censored out for so many years in the UK - when I finally watched it, it was such a let-down
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
I think the highest body count should be tallyed by the number of on screen deaths - wiping out civilisations shouldn't count because more often than not you don't see 'em bite it.
The first terminator film had quite a high body count - likewise Rambo always used to polish off quite a few. But for maximum onscreen fatalities, I quite like Apocalypse Now mind you, a lot of people in this film are already dead when you get to see them (or parts of them)
Then of-course there is HotShots part deux which proclaims: Body Count:150,000 - Bloodiest Movie Ever (or something to that effect)
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
So is it also voluntary for the citizens who use libraries to pay the taxes that fund this subsidy?
That was exactly my impression when I saw it the day it opened in 1978. I happened to have that day off, and saw it in midafternoon, with absolutely no idea what to expect other than that it was supposed to be a science fiction movie. With no preconceptions, it didn't seem that great. The production looked very good, comparable to a Bond film, but the plot seemed lame.
Does anyone here read Stephen Baxter? In his Xeelee Sequence (spread across several books), EVERY LIVING THING IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE is killed, some of them TWICE (time travel is involved). Some folks in OTHER universes, as well ("Raft") The Xeelee Starbreaker is a pretty impressive weapon, too - a small handgun that destroys stars!
I am very much afraid that we live in interesting times.
Yeah. You'd have thought the starship designers would have learned not to put explosives in the consoles after the first few "accidents", wouldn't you? But no...
Grab.
... is seriously on-screen violent. not counting, say, grenades thrown into barracks, arnold kills at least 110 people on screen in this, one of the worst movies of all time. (but also very, very funny when watched in the correct light. in this manner it is not unlike 'Soldier' with Kurt Russell. Battlefield Earth, of course, has absolutely no redeeming qualities whatsoever.)
The REAL sam_at_caveman_dot_org is user ID 13833.
Don't blame the Democrats or Republicans. It's the American voting public which wants their representatives to "do something."
There's censors on both sides of the aisle, and also defenders of free speech.
Now Atty General, the Sen Ashcroft sponsored last years major censorship effort, hidden in the Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act, passed the Senate unanimously. A ray of hope was seen in the House Judiciary Committee, where a bipartisan odd couple of Tammy Baldwin (D WI) and Bob Barr (R GA) removed both censorship and expanded search power provisions, and picked up the vote of the current Committee Chair Jim Sensenbrenner (R WI). Amazon, which sells a lot of marijuana grow guides, was the only corporate player to weigh in.
Hollywood will continue to buy its way out of censorship. A shrinking dotconomy means the censors will be appeased with further legislative restrictions on the Net.
Ben Masel: 51,282 votes for US Senate in the Wisconsin Democratic Primary
Um, I think you may have your parties mixed up here. If there is censoring to be dished out of Washigton it will be the Democratic congressmen who start the ball rolling. Its our liberal left that wants to censor video games, books, television, the internet and our history. Oh, lets not forget, these are the same fine folks who think taking guns away from citizens will cut down on crime - yeah right. The Attorney General does not make laws, he enforces them. Ashcroft, may support and even agree with some overzealot religious groups, but he cannot do their bidding without Congress making it law. Give the guy a break. I think you're confusing him with his predecessor whos main job was to cover-up and hide the crimes of her boss.
Just read the bible:
...and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.
Gen 7:4
Gen 19:24
Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven...
Duet 3:6-7
And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city. 3:7 But all the cattle, and the spoil of the cities, we took for a prey to ourselves.
etc., ad nauseam...
It seems clear that John Ashcroft and the Christian Coalition should ban the bible because of its deplorable violence.
Warning! Keep Out of Eyes! Wash Out with Water! Don't Drink Soap! Dilute! Dilute!
But is it really feasible for a teenager to blow up the planet? Its a lot more feasible for him to pick up a gun and wax a few of his schoolmates. Not that I believe a movie would actually cause him to do this anyway.
Try Gentoo Linux!
The whole point of labelling the music is to allow parents to more easily make informed choices about their kids' music. This way no censorship is necessary. However stupid parents may be sometimes, withholding music is not against the constitution.
WARNING: there is a trojan on your
Hi,
I remember Star Trek: Voyager when Species 8472 attack the Borg destroying several planets and almost whiping out the entire Borg civilization. When a Borg cube allies with Voyager they speak of trillions of Borg killed in the attack.
The Borg negotiator was Seven of Nine who is freed from the Borg at the end of the episode.
One of my favourite episodes !!!
Good, all-american violence (Star Wars, or the Lone Ranger shooting a few dozen Indians) is fine. We appear to have no problem with violence in media (as long as it's properly sanitized and clean-looking), but god forbid somebody should see a woman's nipple...
Madness? You decide.
Okay, if we're talking gigadeaths, then ST:ANH isn't really up there. Off the top of my head, I can think of: 1. Dr. Who: Remembrance of the Dalek where Davros manages to wipe out Skarro and his entire spieces. 2. Anther Dr. Who, this one with Tom Baker, where he wipes out "the Swarm", an intelligent virus that certainly numbers in the multi-billions. 3. The ST:TNG alien, the Dowd, who wipes out an entire spieces... That's off the top of my head... jmt
J. M. Tisdel jmt@jmichaelt.org
"reversed big bang"
--- Metamoderating abusive downgraders since my 300th post.
"Ward, don't you think you're being a little hard on the Beaver?"
Geeze, with lines like that it's no wonder there are so many unwed mothers.
DanH
Cav Pilot's Reference Page
Cav Pilot's Reference Page
UNIX - Not just for Vestal Virgins anymore
That is just a ruse to get the violent kids theory off guns and onto something else.
Maybe if there's a stalemate about the violent movies Vs gun availablility we can get to actually deciding what in the heck is allowing the violence to propogate in kids.
In all honesty, school violence is lower than it has been in decades, violence in general, in the US has been on the decline since about 1993 and both sides, liberal and conservative, know it.
John Ashcroft is about the LEAST of your worries about civil rights. You might want to take on the book banners, the 'the freedom of speech is for anyone who agrees with MY point of view' types within the liberal community and the 'I don't care what it says about the people, ban inanimate objects' types.
Maybe we can get to allowing parents to -er- parent and not require schools and other government bodies to do so.
DanH
Cav Pilot's Reference Page
Cav Pilot's Reference Page
UNIX - Not just for Vestal Virgins anymore
Its very sad that you think that the Attorney General could or would try to ban movies like that. I know you are used to living under the clinton regime, which decided not to follow laws or the constituion, but you aren't going to see that kind of attitude now (like sending Elite forces into florida to "capture" Elian) ...or i guess if you are so afraid of this, you could always move to like, uzbekistan?
Hollywood has this warped concept that graphic violence in the movies sells. This concept is driven entirely by a sick ideology rather than market evidence. Lets look at the top 10 box office movies of all time:
Titanic, Star Wars, The Phantom Menace, ET, Jurassic Park, Forrest Gump, The Lion King, Return of the Jedi, Independence Day, and Sixth Sense.
Not a single rated R movie. It turns out the first rated R movie weighs in at 21 (Beverly Hills Cop -- not a terribly violent movie).
People do not want to take their families to violent movies. Some people do, but I would argue those people are the minority. Messing with people's dark sides is dangerous. People are curious about mortality and will always look for dead bodies beside a car accident, but they will often not enjoy what they see. I believe most people will be left with a more sincere enjoyment for a movie if it does not have graphic violence.
For the most part I enjoyed the movie Gladiator. I would argue, however, that if the movie did not exhibit such graphic violence and went to the box office with a PG-13 rating, it would have doubled the amount of money it made. You do not need graphic violence for a great action movie.
Movie-makers attempt to add shock value to their movies by including repulsively violent scenes. Of course they have to out do last year's ultra-gory movies to maintain that shock value. A few people will get a kick out of it, or appreciate the artistic expression, but most people would really rather not see it.
Eventually the violent trend in Hollywood needs to be reversed. Making ultra-gory movies is not only questionable from a moral standpoint, but simply does not make sense from a market perspective. Wake up Hollywood.
The founding fathers were very religous. They promoted a philosophy of individual responsiblity, much like the bible.
I consider myself religous but I am appauled at what many people do in the name of their religion. In most of these cases, their actions contradict their guiding philosophy.
I think it is pretty obvious how to rate violence. For any dipiction of violence (either audible or visual), you must consider:
- How realistic is it?
- How brutal is it (a punch to the nose, vs. someone's legs getting blown off)?
- How explicit it is?
I can't believe many people would consider silly cartoon violence or the implication of people dying as serious criteria for graphic violence.If you don't believe it it's only because you arn't actually following the issue.
I'm serious, the people fighting against violence on TV rate Tom and Jerry as the most violent content on television and want it rated as such.
These people, you have to remember, are * thought police,* and are often the same people who want to be able to say that a cartoon is child pornography because an animated charecter * appears * to be under the age of consent.
Tell me, can YOU tell and animated 17 year old from an animated 18 year old? I can't.
They CAN, and do.
KFG
What is being rather facetiously brought up here is actually a serious philosophical/political issue.
/. has ever seen fit to put up for our public observation and debate.
Just who determines what is, and is NOT violence. What standards will be used, and will they actually be applied fairly and without bias?
If Tom and Jerry, and The Three Stooges are violent why ISN'T Star Wars?
What, you didn't know that Tom and Jerry, and The Three Stooges are violent? They are at the TOP of the anti media violence hit parade.
Or conversely, if The Alamo starring John Wayne is not violent why IS Taxi Driver?
In Road Runner cartoons * noone dies*, but in Star Wars hundreds of millions do, some of them up close and personal. Road Runner is considered extremely violent by the people pushing this issue, and in Road Runner clearly * noone real even exists to be harmed.*
This is one of the deepest most provocative posts of a general interest that
KFG
Jamie's trollism about the Republicans is just as pathetic. I dislike Democrats and Republicans equally, but remember that it was the VP candidate Joseph Lieberman that pushed the hardest for censorship in the Fall campaign.
I've never seen his girlfriend and he seems awfully chummy and non-threatening with Lois... /shrug
---
canrnivor, herbivore, and omnivore, 3 political parties. omnivores have the distinction of having rage (pent up conflict between not knowing what to eat?). bears, hummies, wolverines, badgers... a polar bear will sit a hole in the ice for a couple of hours not catching fish, and then stand up, beat the shit out of the water and storm off. omnivores are cool, we can get angry about anything.
---
just to be the devils advocate, pig blood is the closest blood to humans... and pigs like bacon, and bacon is good... (i saw it on south park)
---
the likes of Joe Leiberman gets up in the LA Arena, and blasts Hollywood for 'inciting so much violence against America' and all of you clap, like trained seals. but some stupid theoretical conversation sparks up, and you're off and running about how 'the republicans will censor it. and censor they will' what a crock of shit. blast Ashcroft as you will, at least Bushy-baby didn't pick someone stupid enough to commit political suicide by mentioning how 'healthy masturbation can be' that honor is reserved for clinton. stick to technology, leave the role of liberal soap-box to salon.com
Why do we need to bring religion into it? Simply, children need better parents... these parents (who need the help of religion, to be sure) need to raise their children from the time they have them to the time they leave their house. They need to instill VALUES. It doesn't take a village to raise a child, it takes committed parents. And that's all it should take. Bad parents shouldn't blame others for THEIR mistakes.
1. Human race destroyed by aliens in unflattering Rob Zombie makeup.
2. Said aliens' home planet destroyed by a squatting lacky with a nuclear device clutched to his chest.
So I believe if you want to go by body count, Battlefield Earth is in the same league as Star Wars.You heard (read) me. Battlefield Earth is in the same league as Star Wars.
come for the naked robots, stay for the zombies
Serioulsy, isn't Luke blowing up the Death Star (killing approx. 150000 workers) the ultimate union bashing?
Smuffe
I need to point out that while there's a certain group of "evil," censoring Republicans, there's also a great number of libertarian Republicans. Check out the 2000 Liberty Index of Congress and see what I mean.
They also make sure that that god-fearing person is fearing the correct god, and at the correct times.
--
Soma: because a gramme is better than a damn.
The next time a kid blows up a planet, killing billions of sentient beings, we'll know just who to blame.
--
Soma: because a gramme is better than a damn.
Do aliens have civil rights? Star Wars most violent movie ever? Slashdot during a war? What isn't on the Internet?
Is it just April Fools stuff, or are the questions getting weirder and more far-out?
please explain how John Ashcroft and the CC are going to ban ANYTHING on their own? anyway, maybe its time for such action... Lord knows the country has gone to hell over the last 30 years and it ain't the fault of the right-wing, in case you hadn't noticed
So much for news for nerds/stuff that matters. It's more like knee-jerk hysteria... as if I don't get enough of it on tv.
They're all about less interference in a person's life . . . as long as that person is a wholesome, law-abiding, god-fearing citizen.
You really do need to educate yourself on who stands for what in politics. The brain-police are represented on both sides of the aisle. Quoting from here: "It was the Democrat Al Gore who, in an unscripted moment, put the arts in play by attacking what he called ''cultural pollution'' - by which he meant the degradation of society by a torrent of near-porn movies and violence-glorifying pop songs.
[snip]
Gore's running-mate, Senator Joseph Lieberman, gave edge to the issue by telling Congress that it might need to legislate against anti-social art. "If the entertainment industry ... continues to market death and degradation to our children," he had previously warned, "then the Government will act."
Warning. Many spoilers for those who haven't had the chance to see Robotech yet (see the /. post concerning Robotech being released on DVD. It's under the anime topic).
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
In 1999, a mysterious starship crash lands on Earth during WWIII, causing massive destruction to a city during it's decent.
In 2009, the SDF1 (the starship) fires its main cannon from ground level, destroying a large area of the city around the ship and two large alien (Zentradi) vessels in space.
A pacific island is accidentally "folded" (warped) into the orbit of Pluto, killing everyone not sheltered.
Two aircraft carriers in the ocean surrounding the island were also folded to Pluto's orbit. All aboard died.
The SDF1 neutralizes several Zentradi warships on its way back to Earth.
The SDF1 overloads and wipes out Toronto (or a Canadian Metropolis in close proximity).
_90%_ of the Earth's population is annihilated in the Zentradi's attempted genocide of humanity.
The alien race (Zentradi) and its culture are destroyed by a combination of music and the SDF1 while in orbit destroying the Earth.
A surviving Zentradi force launches several attacks into civilian populated areas (once during Christmas Eve).
The sole remaining Zentradi starship, commanded by Khyron, launch a suicide attack on the SDF1, killing everyone on both ships (except one of the bridge crew, who escaped via an ejection module).
...This is before the Robotech Masters and the Invid came to destroy the planet, which would bring up the tally accordingly. The Macross saga was originally a separate series in Japan, and there are slight differences between these versions in the US and Japan.
It's a memorable show; I saw it when I was 9, and could still hum the theme and recall the storyline when I was 19, without seeing it once during this period. I believe it was taken off the air for violence.
It's strange now to think this series was once targeted to afterschool children, but after seeing the human side of all of this destruction, it unfolds as a deep and intelligent perspective of the amount of change that's always possible in the _immediate_ future.
Presently children are bombarded with dumbed-down slapstick in animation, apparently with the hope that it will be less dangerous to their young minds. Minds require some form of conflict to stay active, and receiving it from an animated story (or a movie such as SW) seems to be healthier than to have adolescent kids wake up one day realizing that the world is not all Rug Rats and Pooh Bear. It just seems more honest to show conflict and it's affect on people, rather than to hide the world behind ever more pointless and myopic dialogue.
Dont get me wrong here - I'm not a vegetarian, but I eat very little meat, since it makes me feel better, from a health standpoint. I have no problem morally/ethically with eating animals.
Our teeth are indeed designed to eat meat. But isn't this because humans must be very adaptive? Humans were vegetarian from the beginning, according to many scientists. The reason for eating meat seems to be survival. It's MUCH easier to survive on meat due to the high fat it has, and it easier to manage. I.e. animals are better at surviving cold environments than plants. Humans can eat and digest lots of things - but we generally are better off, from a health standpoint to eat vegetarian food. I know I am!
And no, there are absolutely no problems whatsoever to attain protein, Vitamin B12 or Zinc when one is veggie, no - that is just popular science.
Any movie in which meat is shown being eaten easily beats any of these movies mentioned. Here we're showing the continued enslavement and decimation of entire species for our pleasure. So the next time they show Lenny stopping at a Hot Dog stand, just think of the thousands of years of slaughter that represents!!
I demand a million helicopters and a DOLLAR!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Without viewing/reading both good and evil how can a person correctly judge what is good or evil?
In every experiment, you need to compare your results to what you are ready know to be true. But since we do not know what is true we need to compare everything to everything. In this case, we need to be able to access everything ever made to truly be able to decide if something is good or evil. Censorship destorts the truth.
This one did have the honor of being the most violent film ever made (at least when it came out). A quote from Red Dawn's DVD liner notes:
"...The National Coalition on Television Violence calls Red Dawn the most violent film on record..."
Since Red Dawn came out in 1984 and Star Wars was released in the '70s I don't think we can give Star Wars this honor.
-- Spammers: My E-mail server is in California. Consider yourself warned.
And the Democrats will steal our money for their Socialist programs, and our freedom with their enviromental propaganda. If I can tell that I have a federal gov't on a daily basis, the Federal Gov't is invasive and in violation of my rights.
As a form of protest, I will be boycotting Slashdot, PT Cruisers, News, Nerds, Free Registration at the New York Times, Futurama (for shamelessly naming one of their characters after a SlashCode release), and Disney (What's a boycott if you don't include Disney?).
Furthermore, my boycott shall continue until one of the following conditions is met:
The most violent act in the Bible is the one where God Himself steps down from heaven and lives as a man, and then is put to death by evil men - for the sins of each of us!
History tells us there were many mean nailed to the cross - a good portion of them _also_ claimed to be Gods on Earth.
Arent you glad you've chosen the cult of the one who was 'real'.
Sorry - i got your other story wrong, I guess i should pay better attention to the Christ--o-Bots selling your stinking cult.
Oh and Happy April Fools... im not kidding - but you may be... i hope for your sake that you are.
He demonstrated his deity by being raised from the dead
Yes, he rose from the dead. Thats right. Dead. Rose again. Uh Huh.
Dont let the door to reality hit you on the ass on your way back to your fantasy...
I think if we analyze The Bible it would be found to be one of the most violent novels of all time.
/. forum, we should bind together to support the banning of this 'bible' because it encourages emulation of the protagonist who openly describes and romanticizes immoral and perverse acts of violence.
The 'old testament' details a malicious omni-presence ' god ' who wipes out the entire population of the planet in a great flood. The book goes on in some detail about this "god" instructing a man to kill his own son, which he does.
There are stories about death, grotesque descriptions of torture at the hands of the antagonist ('the devil') abound throughout.
There are even sections that describe purposeful plagues, violent destruction all caused by 'god' to punish thousands of innocent people.
This 'bible' is a foul and dangerous book, i am afraid it may lead to another uprising of violence like it has in the past (the crusades, salem witch trials, etc etc etc).
I am here to appeal to the morals of this
The Bible should henceforth be banned, all works and organizations which serve to support and foster the horrible descriptions within should be abolished.
I love how you said Republicans are trying to take away peoples rights. This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Republicans (and other conservatives) don't believe in censorship, they just don't condone things that have very bad meanings. They won't block it, but they don't think peope should see it. By the way, ever heard of Joseph Liberman? He is a DEMOCRAT and believes in a rediculous amount of censorship.
This proves what I've always believed. Democrats will put the needs of the innocent and helpless ahead of Republican 1st amendment spewers like yourself.
If by "young child" you mean under 14, I don't think you should raise children. Images of people being shot point blank in the head or being dumped into furnaces are not the kinds of things a young mind can deal with, even with "guidance". What the hell are you going to tell this kid? "Don't worry, they're just actors"? Or "Sometimes evil people do evil things"? Young children simply do not have the experience or context to be able to be able to understand complex social issues like this. Children are decreasingly being allowed to testify in court because they can't easily distinguish fact from fiction. This is proven stuff!!!
It's no wonder there are so many screwed up kids in America. People like you aren't willing to protect them from anything!
Please mod me up. My grandma might not make it to the weekend and she always wanted me to hit karma cap.
Nope. You are misusing the word 'censor'. Keeping horrible images from young children is not censorship, in my mind. As an adult, you can go find it and look at it, that is your choice. But Republicans tend to say things like "Just monitor your children 24 hours a day, even when they visit friends whose parents may let their little kids watch unsupervised hardcore porn movies. It's entirely the responsibility of the parents!" Do you understand how incredibly impossible it is to know everything your kid is doing/seeing all the time?
Please mod me up. My grandma might not make it to the weekend and she always wanted me to hit karma cap.
So to teach kids not to talk to strangers, do you suggest telling them it is dangerous? Or perhaps you would prefer to show them a video of a little girl being abducted and raped, beaten, tortured and hacked to bits, all very graphically, so they understand the dangers. Good luck raising a well-adjusted kid!
"If at first you don't succeed, try try again" I think is a great message. What if I reword it to "Practice makes perfect"? Now are you happy? Or do you just give up as soon as you make a mistake? My kids will not be raised to be negative, insecure, jaded pessimists.
Have you studied any child psych? You might find it interesting that in fact, small children ARE self-centred and they don't really have a choice. Until about 4 years of age, children don't even realize that other people have experiences different from their own!
Please mod me up. My grandma might not make it to the weekend and she always wanted me to hit karma cap.
Actually, if you re-read my comment #461, you will see that you and I are in pretty good agreement. If you read more carefully, you'll see that my stance is definitely NOT "all-or-nothing". All I have been trying to say is that some degree of filtering (not censoring at source) for young children is very beneficial. I don't think it is all that extreme a viewpoint???
At any rate, this won't continue unless the other side adds something relevant.
Please mod me up. My grandma might not make it to the weekend and she always wanted me to hit karma cap.
Get over it, this whole thread is a joke!
I can't be karma whoring - I've already hit 50!
SIG: HUP
Looks pretty much like a toss-up to me.
If you have been conditioned by the less informed, you would believe that these are both the same parties.
If you have been conditioned by the less informed, you judge political parties by their words rather than their actions. Yes, Republicans pay greater lip service to smaller government and personal freedom than Democrats. Any evidence of this from their actions is lacking, however.
Which of the two parties has the philosophy of "Small Government"? If you think small government consists of just fewer government employees, then you're fooling yourself. Small Government is not just a policy, it is a philosophy.
Name ONE SINGLE government program that W. proposed to cut during his campaign. You can't, because he didn't.
Why do you think Libertarians, who believe that government's only role is to maintain our roads build a military, typically vote Republican?
A blatant lie. Harry Browne reported that of the people he talked to who were supporting him in this election, about 1/3 traditionally voted Republican, 1/3 traditionally voted Democrat, and 1/3 considered themselves independents or didn't usually vote.
Unlike the author of this story, I broker my argument on logic, rather than ignorance and flailing emotionalism.
Perhaps so, but the flaw in your argument lies in judging Republicans by their words rather than their actions.
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
Come, come now... You can't that blatant. Not even on /.
P.S. At least, Mr. Ashcroft will never be found in contempt of Congress. Unlike his predecessor...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Bigger government and more big-brotherly restrictions is a Democratic goal. I think you have your parties mixed up. It has been the Republcans who historically adopt a more "Laissez Faire" position when it comes to business. Remember that the "Radical Christian Right" is a media buzzword used by an overwhelmingly liberal media (85% of media majors are liberal). Not every conservative Christian Republican wants to censor art and kill abortion doctors, dig!
"As flies to the wanton boys are we to the gods; they kill us for sport." - William Shakespeare, King Lear
It's ok, the Republicans won't censor it- George Lucas will just release a new version in which a big gun on the planet of Alderaan fires first at the death star and misses, then the death star fires back in self defense. Then it'll all be ok.
Obi-Wan will say "I felt a disturbance in the force as if a million souls cried out in pain and then vanished- but they had it coming to them just like Greedo did".
Bryguy
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
I wish I could name more, but how many movies out there deal with atomic war (Omega Man (Project?), Mad Max, 9 monkeys), interstellar battles (Last Starfighter, Independence Day, Titan AE), and just about anything else imaginable that I'm sure has showed up in some anime movie? (Nothing against anime, it's just that they are the most creative, and thus have explored more in every direction) Any good movie has conflict, because that's what keeps us interested. I also don't think it's really bodycount that is the best indicator of violence either. I was much more disturbed by movies like Seven, where you begin to appreciate the villan's intelligence, and perhaps are able to relate to that. I guess that would be why that was an "R" movie and Star Wars isn't.
(Sorry to all the non-Americans for being so US centric, but that's all I know)
Kurdt
Kurdt
I'm not anti-social. Just pro-technology.
It's not the bun that kills them, it's the bullet ripping throu their body.
"Cornflakes are not the innocent critters they seem"- Sterling Morrison
Well there was that show about the Galactic Devourer or whatever, the giant worm-like thing that swallowed whole planets, indestructible, yadda-yadda-yadda.
Besides, every good ST:TOS episode had at least a couple of people dying in any possible way (exploding consoles being the number one cause, of course). Bu then they were mostly red shirts, so they don't really count.
Tongue-tied and twisted, just an earth-bound misfit, I
Tongue-tied and twisted, just an earth-bound misfit, I
Learning to fly, Pink Floyd.
CmdrTaco has just won first class tickets to Alderan. There he will learn the ways of the Grammar Jedi. Much time will be spent under the tutelage of Spelling Won Kenobi, where he will face his darkest fears. Many hours will he spend learning how to discern the essence of good articles from evil ones. He will become the most feared of Grammar Jedi. His very prose will inspire generations to come.
It will come to naught however, when, at his Jedi graduation, the planet gets blown up beneath him.
Lets see, with Gore and Clinton we had the V-chip, Tipper censoring music artists, and so forth. Now granted, there are a lot of things out there in the media that I morally object to. Its hard sometimes to determine where artistic expression ends and the gratuitous, immoral, etc. begins. However, our country does give us the freedom to determine that line for ourselves. On the other hand, you have to keep in mind that there are some things that just shouldn't be out there for public consumption, where its unavoidable, such as, say, 50' billboards advertising some porn movie, with one of the hottest scenes in living color. There are those of us who do not want to have to see that, or want our children to see that. There should be standards of decency for things that are "out in public" such as billboards, but parents are responsible for controlling their children. Does someone have a link to the Ashcroft proposal that the poster mentioned? I haven't seen it yet, but I suspect that the possibility of censoring star wars is a gross exagerration, and hopefully just a sick april fools prank. I think our existing ratings system is OK. Maybe not perfect, but it does the job. One more thing... as far as RvD goes, even if this does constitute an attack on the first, at least the Rep's have never gone after the second!
This space for rent.
I think the biggest difference has to be in what's seen on the screen. In ST:ANH, yes, you see a whole planet get blown to bits. You don't see each individual person die a bloody death like in Robocop or Lethal Weapon. Similar to the Greek Chorus of old, violence is more acceptable when you don't actually see it happen.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." -- C. S. Lewis
---
in star trek generation "all good things" (stardate 47988) a temporal anomaly that travails backwards in time prevented the formation of life on earth and undoubtedly countless other species throughout the alpha and beta quadrant (possibly even the delta and gamma? consider that the anomaly first appears in the neutral zone, and is more than visible from earth, primordial earth anyway).
i'm sure that's a higher body count than that voyager episode.
"That's the primary different between my argument and that of a liberal. What I infered by my "Living Constitution" notion is that liberals believe in the insulting concept that our Constitution is free to ammend and develop as time progresses. In fact, the greatest thing about our Constitution is how little we have had to change it since we first wrote it. I welcome anyone to cite me an official document that has stood the test of time for such a period."
While I agree with you that the Constitution is one of the greatest documents ever penned and am extremely reluctant to even consider changing it, I digress -- in a way. One of the greatest things about the Constitution is that it is an amendable document. The Founding Fathers had the wisdom to know that they couldn't foresee everything and set it up so that it could be changed. That they were so farsighted to create a document that has lasted this long is incredible. It's such a shame that race of politicians is extinct.
It takes a 2/3rd majority to ammend the Constitution. That is a Good Thing(TM). It protects us all from the knee-jerk reactions of both parties -- in the case of the Republicans, the flag burning amendment and in the case of the Democrats.... well, I'm not aware of any proposed ammendments from them, but I can imagine that they'd gut the second if they had a chance.
I don't want to start a flame war, but John Ashcroft is the ATTORNEY GENERAL. He has NO power WHATSOEVER to make laws. The only power he has is to enforce existing laws. Furthermore, any laws that congress pass against violence in movies will no doubt be deemed unconstitutional, as it violates our first ammendment right.
Someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill them right back!
Total visible body count does matter. For instance, T2 and Total Recall had incredibly amounts of corpses. I can remember "Hot Shots! Part Deux" had a little section with a body counter, as though it was a game. "Bloodier than Die Hard! Bloodier than Total Recall!! BLOODIEST MOVIE EVER!!!!"
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
If this article was a post, it'd be down to -1 with "Offtopic" moderations.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
Originally, fairy tales were filled with blood, sex and violence. This was to prepare children for real life, which would not be pleasant.
How about Little Red Ridinghood? That red coat symbolized blood from menstration (yeah, I know its not blood, but...). The original ending left Red Ridinghood dead, eaten by the wolf, signifying rape and violence against women by men.
This kind of thing is part of our culture, and right or wrong its not going to go away.
"...At the end of the day"..."when everyone goes home, you're stuck with yourself." RIP Layne Staley
First, how do you decide when too much death is really too much? Will a movie with five violent deaths not be censored whereas a movie with fifty not-so-violent deaths be allowed? It sounds like if they're using a body count as a measurement, then a couple of extremely violent movies will still be around even though very few characters actually get killed. Second, what about the value of the movie as a film? Saving Private Ryan, Braveheart, Patriot are all extremely violent movies, but are also an exceptional film. The first 40 minutes of the Saving Private Ryan have been said to be extremely accurate. There is a WWII museum that shows those first 40 minutes because of their accuracy. What kind of consideration will be taken into account that will allow a movie like Saving Private Ryan to still be seen even though it is much more violent than a RoboCop or Terminator? Is there such a thing as acceptable violence?
What about the pro-choice movement?
--
--hongpong.com
I mean, Joe Lieberman is crazy. He's supposed to be a liberal? Enforcing morality, not letting me see Fight Club (an excellent movie by the way)? Come on! Democrats are just as bad as Republicans!
What happened was that many record stores took any cd with warning labels off the shelves. When the Dead Kennedys were taken to trial for obscenity, their stuff was quickly taken off the shelves in many stores. So if you have unapproved-of words or topics in songs, you can't sell them. This IS censorship. Plus, the Dead Kennedys almost were banned in a trial due to the ol' Tipper/Al duo.
Well, here's something that gets brought up a lot as an argument for censorship. The thing is, though - it's not essential that you know what your child is doing all the time. Seeing one dirty picture or one violent movie is not going to traumatize your precious poppet for life. Seeing a whole bunch of them might (although I'd argue about the dirty movie bit, unless it was *really* nasty porn - rape fantasy stuff or something (not that there's anything wrong with that, for consenting adults, etc, etc)) Even most people who believe things such as "violent media cause violent children" usually say it's due to a pattern of desensitization to violence. Desensitization (or the destruction of moral fiber, maybe, in the case of porn) takes place over time.
For that matter, if you're a decent parent, and your kids have seen something that upset them or that they think is inappropriate, they're gonna tell you. Young children aren't like teenagers - they still think mommy is the source of all good and the solution to all their problems. As for teenagers, well, at that point you've pretty much done your job, and if you've done it well, they can handle it. If they can't handle it, they're never going to be ready for the real world anyway, and they'll need just as much censorious "protection" as adults.
One more point - when I was little (at least, so little that I might not to be able to handle hardcore porn or movie violence - say until I was ten or twelve, I believe) I wasn't allowed to go over to someone's house until my mother had met their parents. That's how you keep tabs on what sort of environment your children are in, away from home.
Cyclopatra
"We can't all, and some of us don't." -- Eeyore
"We can't all, and some of us don't." -- Eeyore
Well, how old are you? I'll say about a year before that.
I truly like the way you pair off "impetuous, hothead, no sense of how the world works liberal" with "works for a living, raises a family, wise conservative". Where I come from, that's referred to as "name-calling". Didn't anyone ever teach you good, old-fashioned manners?
Never mind. You needn't answer that question.
Virg
I feel the need to slap the both of you. Why must both of you assume that there's no middle ground to any of this? Do I think it's a good idea to tell kids that it's dangerous to talk to strangers? Yes. Do I need to show them death videos to get this point across? No. Do I think that not showing a 6 year old child "Schindler's List" is lying to him? No. Do I think that nobody should be allowed to air the movie because it's not appropriate for a 6 year old? No.
You've both taken an appallingly "all-or-nothing" stance, and you should both be ashamed of yourselves. Now, go back to your corners, and when you come back out, stop overextending each others' arguments to ridiculous extremes to try to make your points.
Virg
Dam I swear I heard this stuff in Kevin Smiths Clerks movie. Ok while maybe is was not the exact thing but it was a dam close argument.
But what makes you think that they have a monopoly on restricting free speech? Have you not been paying attention to the people who actually TRY? It's not partisan.
You've got that right. It's the Andrea Dworkins of the world that I fear a hell of a lot more than the Ashcrofts. Hell, you know Republicans can be bought, right? They just want the Hollywood dollars and star power on their side.
True Believers like Dworkin, on the other hand, are a little bit creepier. I think that she believes in Feminism a hell of a lot more than she believes in Democracy, and that's a problem of priorities.
There ARE some first-amendment feminists out there, but they're not the ones in academia who are shaping the feminist dialectic. The scary, man-hating feminists are the ones with all the cushy academic positions...
In The Restaurant at the End of the Universe, the entire Universe is destroyed.
no, no, no. It will be destroyed. That's why the restaurant is where it is.
very appropriate. Lewis is full of good quotes. I recall something about bureaucracy, as well...
found it! Gotta love Google.
I live in the Managerial Age, in a world of "Admin." The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" that Dickens loved to paint. It is not done even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed, and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voice. Hence naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the offices of a thoroughly nasty business concern.
All that good stuff and Narnia too.
Yeah, yeah, I know, off-topic. Moderate appropriately.
Is the person who posted this purposefully LOOKING for a flamewar??? OK, perhaps this is an offtopic comment, but I would submit to anyone who pays attention to what is going on in the US capitol that NO ONE POLITICAL PARTY IS EXCLUSIVELY SUIGGESTING CENSORSHIP. Members of both the Democrat and Republican parties each have proposed large scale censorship in our country (which by the very letter of the bill of rights is NOT CONSTITUTIONAL!) Personally, I believe that polarizing the opinion of people so that they are compelled to take one side over another is simply Orwellian. There can be no freedom of thought when everybody is on the defense of their subjugative protectorate! Goddammit, when will people learn to think for themselves and try to make a difference, instead of blindly electing political calves to fatten and vainly defend.
Oh, I'm certain that plenty of poeple reading this are saying 'not MY party!!!' but that's just the problem... when people begin dividing into factions that believe they are representing the better good they are immediately taken advantage of. This kind of blind faith had brought us misery throughout history!!!! Being Catholic myself, I begin with the Crusades, then I move on to Nazi Germany, and finally our current party-centric political system... Is anyone reminded of 1984???
Dammit, this's got me pissed.
Well then in order to bring this full circle, I reiterate: I am deeply appalled that the editors at slashdot have (for the second time since I joined) invited flaimbaiting trolls to spread their mindless drivel and uninformed, incorrect, and purposefully misleading doublespeak.
Well, now what I've whined like the libertine I believe I am, (do NOT Read Libertarian! I have merely stated I believe in the principle of total human liberty within the bounds of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not that I claim to belong to any political party of organized agenda.) I should state that on a practical level, I find the post's primary assumption, that Congress may attempt to censor movies based solely on a possibly estimated body count ridiculous. Why? you ask?? Because 1: Americans care about TV. (wedon't care about much else, though) A movement as broad as this would have to be hidden so deep in a pork barrel it would be years until it managed to squeeze through the house. 2: Politicians get lots of money from Hollywood... And I seriously doubt they's give up all that lobbying and settle for their basic wage as members of the house. Oh, one more thing... Does anyone else find it strange that it's April Fool's day and this post is such a joke it's not funny??? </RANT>
THINK FOR YOURSELVES!
I'm done with sigs. Sigs are lame.
Well, I'm feeling a little more calm now and I've actually read some of the other posts. I apologize for vitrol expelled by my rant above. My opinion is nothing to apologize for... just my bitching and yelling.
If you read this and you have some mod points left, mod this other person's post up!
At least on slashdot, people actually care enough about the value of thought that they will attempt to educate their fellow man. I will of course stick to my opinions until someone has a well thought-out, backed-up and compelling arguement that convinces me otherwise. CowboyNeal, CmdrTaco, Jamie, you two have no excuse. You guys have every right to post what you want, and I have every right to say that you are demonstrably moronic. TTFN.
I'm done with sigs. Sigs are lame.
This is the first decent pun I've seen today... and it's 4pm here.
---
nuclear presidential echelon assassination encryption virulent strain
nuclear presidential echelon assassination encryption virulent strain
Whizzmo
It is still illegal for a woman to kill her own fetus by inducing drugs or such. You can be, and it has been done, charged with murder for causing a pregnant woman to lose her child (through assualt (like shooting her) or physical injury via abuse or even an automobile wreck)
Sorry, its not a woman's right, its a state's right. The state has kept to itself the right to choose who can die and when. No individual is allowed this right.
Besides, what did democrats have to do with it in the first place. They did spend money, but your a little to damn ignorant to realize this aren't you? How, they take tax-dollars and fund abortions here and overseas (like we should really be sending out tax dollars overseas to fund abortions and other such crap, sorry - saving people overseas from disease and hunger is fine - keeping them from having children isn't)
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I would suggest V'Ger's rampage through the federation in StarTrek: The Movie might trump the measly two spheres that got snuffed in SW4.
(by the way, does any one else get creeped out by the parental stars of 7th heaven being ex-ST movie cast members?)
As I recall in Star Wars: A New Hope, specific counts for either the Death Star or Alderaan were not mentions. Granted that both are large bodies, one can assume that lots of people live on or in those bodies. However the only vague mention is Obi Wan stating that it was "if as millions of voices cried out and were suddenly silenced". Millions are not necessarily an exact term. I mean it could just mean 2 million. One can't assume that all planets are populated the same as Earth. And Death Stars well... that's an entirely different guess... although I'm sure someone has some "tech" manual on it. (They probably Bothan - hehehe).
"Target the death star" - Darth W. Vader
Clear winner in this field is the ren and stimpy episode where they push the red button and white out all of existance. How much more of a deathcount can you get than everyone?
Your opinion of republicans grossly misstates the events which have transpired in the last 15 years about censorship.
Who was the biggest backer of the V-Chip aka Violence Chip? The Democratic party-- to help "preserve our children's minds."
Who was the biggest proponent of ratings of TV shows (which are already tame)? The Democratic Party-- so parents "know what their children are watching."
Who blames school violence on the video game culture today? The Democratic party-- because pictorial violence supposedly caused all of the "recent rash of school shootings."
As for Ashcroft, you don't have the whole story. His statement that there is a culture of violence in this country does not preclude him from upholding the constitution; in fact, the media never mentions that he has consistently put his beliefs aside in the best interest of his state. You are out to get him only because his personal beliefs differ from your own.
I'm afraid you're looking in the wrong place for pro-censorship forces. Why don't you look into the liberal ideals before bashing someone whose views you won't even listen to.
Except that none of them are libertarians...
Yeah, whatever, Beefcake.
USNG: 14TPU4605
I think that beats the rather insignifant magnitude of deaths caused by the destruction of one lonely little planet and a moon-sized battle station.
Please don't moderate this up...I'm quite embarassed that I knew this...
Cheers,
Ken
Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy starts with Earth being demolished (with all indiginous life less dolphins and 2 humans), then later our heroes watch the end of the universe as entertaiment.
God may be good, and bad may be bad, but in American (and American-induced) cultures, it's all about the villian's accent being different from your own.
Cue The Sun...
Well, in the 1st movie, Alderan (hope that's spelled right), a major center of the Empire (home planet to the princess) is destroyed as well as a Death Star, so unless the new movie blows up a more key planet (the Emperial homeworld) it's unlikely that it will kill more enities. ;-)
BTW, unless these planets have a greater pop density than 20th century earth, (surely not, if they had the option of off-planet migration) any end-of-the-world genre movies like On the Beach killed off 3 billion or so, and should be worthy of consideration
On your first seven objections, I'll concede your superior knowledge on all the Star Wars trivia. Actually, I shouldn't even give you those since I already warned that the planet name may be misspelled and the you haven't broken my premise that any planet with a Princess and obvious pull in the Senate is probably well populated by Imperial standards. Therefore, your attempt to diminish it's importance is futile. My point was just that in the new SW movie (whatever the hell it's called) would need to kill more than that planet Darth et. al. wasted in the first SW movie (at least).
= directhit&origin=0&MetaURL=http%3A%2F%2Fask%2Edire cthit%2Ecom%2Ffcgi%2Dbin%2FRedirURL%2Efcg%3Furl%3D http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ecensus%2Egov%2Fipc%2Fwww%2Fworl d%2Ehtml%26qry%3DWorld%2BPopulation%2B1960%253F%26 rnk%3D8%26cz%3D8adfc7bd8ea2b4a4%26src%3DDH%5FAsk%5 FSRCH&qCategory=news&metaTopic=World+Population+In formation&ItemOrdinal=7&logQID=C88C81E756BB2C41881 649AE8BD180E1&sv=0&back=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eask%2Ec om%2Fmain%2FaskJeeves%2Easp%3Forigin%3D0%26qSource %3D4%26site%5Fname%3DJeeves%26metasearch%3Dyes%26a ds%3D%26ask%3DWorld%2BPopulation%2B1960%253F
;-)
BTW, if nobody has blown up Coruscant, why does it matter if it probably has more people in it's one continous city than the earth had? If the rebels or somebody else commits this kind of crime in the new movie your point is taken -if not, so what?
On The Beach (a fine nuclear holocaust flick released, no doubt, before you were a zygote) was made in 1960 - I was using the approximate number of people alive THEN on earth*. (Unless you are suggesting I should be counting the people who would not have been born later because their ancestors died prematurely -which is silly). The number alive today is really irrelevant.
Your response is an incredible example of nitpicking facts that have no bearing on the interesting part of the discussion.
*For exact corroboration of my fabulously accurate guess that 1960 world population was about 3 billion, check
http://www.ask.com/main/metaanswer.asp?metaEngine
Just the important facts
It's been a while since I've watched or read HHGTTG, but come on, the movie starts with a body count of around 5 billion in the first 15 minutes or don't you remember the Earth being destroyed just to build a new space freeway?
I'm not sure if the Universe being destroyed counts since that was natural causes (or what it?) but that bumps up the body count beyoned any other movie. And not to forget the bloody wars and what not.
Overall, using whatever violence rating system that /. used for Star War, Hitch hikers guild to the galaxy is 1000 times more violent.
--
M0571y H@rml355.
Actually, if you happen to ever see The Punisher movie (which absolutely sucks compared to the comics) through out the 90min movie the body count average breaks down to a person dying every minute. However, so many people die in the last scene that it throws that average off entirely. =)
Well, in a similar vein, those huge cylon, sorry, doughnut spaceships seemed to be on the order of star destroyers in size, maybe much larger. Tens of thousands of deaths at least.
Planets blown up:
- Superman = billions (natural event, not murder)
- Star Wars (Alderbaran, sorry, Alderan) = billions (murder), plus Death Star = hundreds of thousands (self defense), plus a few dozen stinky, nomadic, hard-bargain-driving, trying to rip you off Jews, sorry, Jawas, uncle, aunt, Greedo, etc.
- ID4 = Tens of billions (mother ship) + hundreds of thousands per disk + sundry fighter pilots, but it's self defense (but so are the body counts in Arnie movies)
Ehh, all these giant space ships are so low-tech. Gort in his glowing ship could take on the entire Federation, Klingon and Romulan Empires, The Dominion, the Empire and the Rebels.
He was the nasty side of the aliens in Contact.
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
Of course, comic books are wiping out the entire universe over and over.
Perhaps the biggest mass murder was the consolidation of the DC universe, way back when I actually read them. They basically killed off uncounted parallel universes just because the writers had nothing better to do.
Probably 10^^30 or more killed, depending.
And, of course, the worst mass-murderer of all?
Why, God of course! He created all reality, and created sentient beings, and stuck them in a reality where they could harm each other, or even if they didn't, they would die anyway. Everyone who ever lived or will live died because of God, ultimately, and completely needlessly, since it would have been preventable infinitely easily.
(To tie it to movies, there must be one where the rapture occurs.)
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
Awwww......and you totally left out how badly he dragged his own views out of a totally off-topic email from me. I just wanted a hefty nerd-trivia deathmatch. Unfortunately now we have a hefty politcal camp deathmatch, and I hate campers. -Alpha Paradigm
-=The Dude=-
Okay, we are a misunderstood bunch. We don't want to "BAN" movies. What most people in the Christian Coalition want is more restrictions on how younger kids view violent movies.
:-)
Violence is NOT measured by deaths, it is measured by the intensity of a death.
Back during the 1950s there were westerns and scifi etc. that had people dying, but they were lowkey.
We used to never have school shootings! What the hell is happening to the country? What is different?
Two things:
1. Guns are more easily accessible
2. Graphic Violence is more common.
Are these two things to blame? Sure.
Most kids can handle violence with no problem. It won't make them want to kill or act out malaciously, they will handle it fine. But some won't. What we need are more responsible parents, and a stronger emphasis on family unity. The ratings are just to keep kids with apathetic parents from accessing it.
My kids will more allowed (encouraged) to watch all the starwars movies
Here is my un-PC statement of the day to conclude this, what could help, is having women stay home with the children. Stay at home moms can help supervise children.
--Joey
The democrats are the ones that scare me. they don't ask for stuff to be censored because of moral obligations, they ask for stuff to be censored to 'protect people'. The republicans will back off when the big money/companies tell them "if it's censored it'll affect our bottom line". The democrats on the other hand think they are sticking up for minorities, children, women, etc.
m l
Lieberman is a Dem (and we know how much he loves violence - he is the most outspoken critic of it in congress)
Tipper Gore (remember the record/cd labels and wanting to outright ban explicit albums) is a Dem.
Sen Jim Exon (D-Nebraska) sponsored/got the ball rolling on the CDA http://www.prognet.com/contentp/rabest/thebill.ht
That's one thing that bothers me, people look at the republicans and totally ignore the democrats. When censorship starts, it's going to be from a direction we don't expect.
It doesn't matter whether the people in the voyager episode "really" died according to the final star trek timeline. We still experienced their deaths and the experience cannot be revoked. So yes, depending on the sizes of varoius populations, the episode (entitled "Year of Hell") would depict more deaths (though that's not how I define violence anyway). Don't forget the stuff that got blowed up real good in Generations.
--------------------------------
The human refuse who keep proposing these censorship laws are about 95% of the time Republican (in name), so it's no way prejudicial to point that out....but yes, you have a point, it is VERY against traditional American conservatism to interfere in peoples' lives by banning movies, medical procedures, herbs...in other words, you've about to join a party that sold out worse than Metallica. All the political 'isms' are substitutes for rational thought and communication.
"Society is like a stew. If you don't keep it stirred up, you get a lot of scum on top. " - Edward Abbey
conservative \Con*serv"a*tive\, n. 1. One who, or that which, preserves from ruin, injury, innovation, or radical change; a preserver; a conserver. An american, political conservative, is one who resists change to the constitution. The constitution provides for free speech. Any censorship, by definition, would be a liberal movement. So why do republicans often go for this? Because many are Religous conservative, that is to say they are conservative towards the bible and not the constitution. It was Goldwater who said "Most people dont know what a conservative is", while also saying the christian right is the worst thing that could happen to the party. He realised religous conservatives are oxymorons, as the bible is more for social rights then indivudal rights, which the constitution provides. So stop assuming conservative republicans want to take your rights away. We are the only ones wanting to keep them. Liberals, ones who believe you should ratify the constitution every day, are the ones who would want to change this. And yes, i consider aschcroft a liberal based on webster's definition.
Yes, however they noted that we should keep seperate religon and state, because any goverment that is headed or supported by one dominate religion becomes corrupt and abbusive (see israel).
in back to the future, they knock off not only multiple species, but the entire existance of different paths that the world could go in...
Enjoy your job, make lots of money, work within the law. Choose any two.
That's enough. If you have not noticed, the Democrats are just as guilty of censorship.
Examples:
1) Tipper Gore and the whole music labeling thing,
2) The recent Brown University fiasco,
3) the Anti-Defamation league (granted they have points, but they still get things censored).
The list could go on forever.
I am not a republican (in fact I hate ALL political parties). It just bothers me to see a blanket statement against any group.
So, stick to technology/science/geekdom and leave politics out!!!!!!!!!!!!
Here's a fun movie thats bound to be thrown out the Window with cement censoring shoes.
Well, by this rationale, Fight Club would have to be one of the LEAST violent movies of all time, since nobody dies. Now it must be suitable for children under 6, since nobody's life has been taken away. Am I the only one who thinks that's insane?
this is sadly a good perception of Republicans
Republicans are Nazis. LetsRiot!
April Fools?
-Mark
Dovie'andi se tovya sagain.
Exactly what do we know of John Ashcroft's agenda? And the Christian Coalition's? And why do you think that they have any desire to ban these movies or shows? For one thing, they are completely made up. As someone mentioned, it's implied violence anyways. I would much prefer implied where I don't see anyone die, then a bloody gory movie where two people die in an awful, gut-spilling, blood-spewing battle. As is, I have recently been reminded that even Christians sometimes need to see a bit of the nasty side of battle to remind us that not everything is flowers and hearts.
I, nor anyone else I know, are proponents of mass murder. I do not like a great deal of violence and gore, but I do not judge those of my friends who do like movies like that. I don't see them as defending mass murder simply because they like to see people cut up. To make such an assumption would be ignorant, rude, and show that I don't understand people at all. Someone once told me, Never assume, because it just makes an . . . out of 'u' and 'me'.
~ Sera
"People who play with hazardous materials often die." Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
Why should the Republicans yank the Ten Commandments? They've already been yanked! e.g. No prayer in school, not allowing the Ten Commandments to be shown in a courtroom or in a school classroom (for fear someone might actually follow them). Hello?! I can see just how horrible do not kill, do not steal, obey your parents and the like are. Oh, goodness, no! We don't want that! We want mass murders and thieves and rebellions.
~ Sera
"People who play with hazardous materials often die." Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
In Superman, not only do they accept Homosexuality (Jimmy Olsen), but they also allow for intelligent black people (That computer guy) and also start the whole thing out by blowing up an entire planet filled with good guys. Man of Steel may as well be Man of School Violence. John is going to go nutz.
I'm the best IRC client ever.
Taco: Hemos, you won't believe the April Fools joke I just pulled.
Hemos: Do tell, do tell.
Taco: I've secretly replaced Jamie's Prozac with dark, sparkling Folger's crystals. Let's watch and see what happens...
why not blame the 6 o'clock news as the most violent source...or WWII documentaries? fingers are being pointed every which way, but seldom is reality blamed. if i remember correctly (i may be wrong) but the v-chip wouldn't block news casts, so essentially after blocking all the smut on tv you'd still have the ole dependable news cast at 6 to warp your mind. i'll stop now before i go any further. don't blame the entertainment industry. no one's forcing you to watch movies, play video games. get a clue
In the Australian Review of Books, August 1999, Louis Nowra wrote an interesting article on the "plot theory" of films. Standard plots have the opening full of action to get your attention, build the plot, develop a crisis - often ridiculous where the supposedly dead baddie rises and grabs the heroine - and finale where all is resolved. But there are spins. I put it to you all, do such spins impose a theory of the mind on unsuspecting movie goers? Nowra writes: "In 'The Writer's Journey: Mythic Structure for Storytellers and Screenwriters' (1988) Christopher Vogler has taken the stereotyped theories of Joseph Campbell and applied them to story structure. His idea of a story is a 12 part journey: a hero who begins in the ordinary world has a "Call to Adventure" and progresses through such things as "the Ordeal" "the Resurection" and finally "the Return with the Elixir". ...Titanic (1997) a shocker of a screenplay, touched all the story bases of the hero's 12 part journey. George Lucas is a fan of Vogler's and his Star Wars characters plod through the hero's journey in such an obvious way that they resemble cardboard cut-outs."
Of course the audience usually does not see the plot structure, they are mesmerised by the flickering images.
and besides, it's more humane the way we do it :-)
is it still legal for me to hunt jelly doughnuts?
According to a Salon review of the new book about Timothy McVeigh, he used the original Star Wars movie as part of his inspiration for the bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building. "As a kid, McVeigh had noticed that the 'Star Wars' movies showed people sitting at consoles -- Space-Age clerical workers -- inside the Death Star. Those people weren't storm troopers. They weren't killing anyone. But they were vital to the operations of the Evil Empire, McVeigh deduced, and when Luke blew up the Death Star those people became inevitable casualties. When the Death Star exploded, the movie audiences cheered. The bad guys were beaten: that was all that really mattered. As an adult, McVeigh found himself able to dismiss the killings of secretaries, receptionists, and other personnel in the Murrah building with equally cold-blooded calculation. They were all part of the Evil Empire." http://www.salon.com/books/2001/04/07/mcveigh/inde x2.html
Take all of your friends by the hand to the voting booth next election and cast your votes. Thats how its done my boy. Couldn't be more simple. No reason to get the screaming heebee jeebee's. Really.
It could be...
The end of Dr. Strangelove: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb was one of the most surreal moments in movies, *spoiler* Complete nuclear destruction accompanied by pleasant music leaves you horrified and chuckling at the same time.
___
Cogito cogito, ergo cogito sum.
Excellent point. The various races in the Star Trek universe seem to be there to provide an outlet for the viewer's racist feelings and unconscious desires to stereotype people different from themselves. And all done while avoiding rousing the ire of civil rights groups by using fictional races. It wouldn't surprise me if plot lines like those above were an attempt to tap into subconscious genocidal urges of the viewing public.
This must be the best example of Hollywood's double standard. Millions (billions?) of people are killed and the movie is rated PG but a porno movie is rated X. Go figure.
Just my $0.04 (adjusted for inflation)
In Civ, millions are wiped out constantly, and we're not talking about some distant galaxy's distant planet. No, we're talking about genociding egyptians, americans, the french(good riddance), the mongols, over and over again. Sure, the numbers might be smaller, but in effect, it's eternal genocide game. When will they ban it? =)
--- Hajotkaa siihen, kapitalistit!
I'm not writing this because I want to argue politics or religion. I just want it known that I read Slashdot every day, often several times a day. When I read something like "the republicans" I get the impression that the person posting thinks that no republicans read this group and therefor can be talked about in the 3rd person.
It's easy to say "Watch out for John Ashcroft and the Christian Coalition" without any facts. Why not just say "Look out for Tipper Gore and her band of fanatics." After all, Tipper has more of a record of wanting government censorship than John Ashcroft. For those of you who don't know Tipper saw the devil on MTV and wanted to control the record industry.
Think there was only that one April fools thing about lzip? Think again. This weekend, /. answers your stupidest questions.
This must be sweeps week.
This has got to be an April Fools joke. Just go to ggogle and search for: "lieberman censorship" To see who the real free speech killers are.
My vote goes to Babylon 5, during the shadow war many whole planets are destroyed and their are epic space battles to boot.
Was a movie originally, wasn't it? Seven earth-sized planets except for a 'rag-tag' fleet I think are blown up.
Bork bork!
Bork bork bork!
what difference does it make whether we eat meat of veggs, they are both life, if you are looking at it from a morale stand point then you are still taking a life by killing either, does the fact that one has a more complex nevous system make any difference ? Any way at least animals have got a chance to run away
I find it distressing that the writer here took the springboard of a poster's comment/question to launch in to a politically bigoted diatribe on the "evil right-wing conspiracy." Granted, this is your site, but really, do we have to read about one person's bigotry over an innocent question about Star Wars?
:) What can I say, I root for the underdog and do not join the unthinking masses. Doesn't that give a white, heterosexual, Christian male a common bond with Linux fans? If not, I don't know what does.
:) Does that make me a hypocrite? No. At least not in that area of my life.
In moments of intellectual and moral honesty, we all know that it is the political liberals in this country who are the true bigots. I happen to be one of the most discrimminated-against minorities in this country, a fundamental Christian, white, middle-class male. I find all these coments (here and elsewhere) extremely offensive. I'm also a Mac user, so what does that say about my desire for abuse and misunderstanding?
As a semi-regular reader, I'd like to see more of a focus on the technology and its related news (political or otherwise). Let's keep the bigotted statements in our hip pockets. To accuse John Ashcroft of censorship, or attempted censorship, is like calling Mother Teresa a white supremacist. John Ashcroft will enforce the laws of this country more fairly than the previous AG ever even thought of doing.
Being in the aforementioned "hate group" of fundamental Christians, I still am a fan of the Star Wars and Star Trek movies - despite their predisposition to exterminating entire planets full of people.
That's the end of my rant for now. If those of you here who agree with the bigotted comments that launched my rant are as accepting of other opinions as you claim to be, there will be no flaming responses to this post. Any disagreements will be reasoned and respectful - as mine are.
-- Those of you who think you know it all are very annoying to those of us who do.