Scenes showing women kissing the devil's bottom... Sadistic violence... Cruelty to chickens...
An article about reasons why films have been banned over the years.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The effects of watching violent TV?
Digital Sharing for Year 13
The effects of watching violent TV?
Labels
- Academic (2)
- Anti-Terrorism (2)
- Broadcasting (6)
- CCTV (1)
- Censorship (5)
- Children (1)
- Comedy (3)
- Disney (2)
- Dress Codes (2)
- Exams (3)
- Excuse (1)
- Film (3)
- Freedom (6)
- Globalisation (1)
- Government (1)
- Hamas (1)
- Image (1)
- Internet (11)
- Israel (1)
- Language (1)
- Lawyers (1)
- Link (1)
- Media Influence (2)
- Mickey Mouse (2)
- Moral Panics (6)
- Muppets (2)
- New technology (8)
- News Values (1)
- Occupation (1)
- Palestine (1)
- Postmodernism (3)
- Propaganda (2)
- Race (2)
- Resistance (1)
- Rethian Values (2)
- satire (2)
- Spy Blog (1)
- TV (5)
- Virtual Worlds (1)
- war (1)
13 comments:
RE : Animal Cruelty.
I think many "animal rights 'nuts'" (myself included) would oppose a ban on the depiction of animal cruelty as long as it is not glorified (which I doubt it is). Showing people the reality is always a way to get people to act. For example with wars - so many people became opposed to Vietnam by seeing footage on the TV. As more people see the reality of animal abuse, the more people will oppose it.
That's definitely what happened to me, when I came to accept the reality of what I was indirectly supporting I cut out products that involved cruelty of any kind.
So - on the same principle - if there was a movie demonstrating in full detail the reality of paedophilia - would that be all right?
Of course, the producers would say that their intention was not to glorify but to expose - just as the News of the World does when it finds a disgusting scandal for people to salivate over while they eat their Sunday breakfast...
Yes, on principle it would, although, due to the sexual nature (to some) of paedophilia, it's quite different. I don't think anybody is turned on by animal cruelty...
What about the people who organise dogfights, etc? Turned on at least in the sense that they are getting excitement from the sport.
Hopefully not sexually !
So are you saying that sexual pleasure is wrong but sadistic pleasure is OK? And can you ever make a neat distinction between getting sexual and non-sexual pleasure out of watching something exciting?
Boxing matches are apparently very erotically exciting for some people.
channel 4 did a documentary about a 'recovering' paedophile the other day, the times said it was very good but i forgot to watch it.
i watched a film in year 10 about animal cruelty, burst into floods of tears at what i was seeing, however, i still support hunting (fight the ban!!!) and eat whatever i want including macdonalds or whatever.
the question is are people really that influenced by what they see on tv? if they was a film about paedophilia, i doubt a lot of people would suddenly start looking at child porn on the internet because the film glorified it. personally if there is a director that can glorify and show paedophilia in a positive light then they need an oscar.
RE: Sadistic vs Sexual. for a lot of people there is no distinction, and i believe there isn't alot of dinstinction. but like i said if someone made an exciting film out of paedophilia, i still wouldn't think of paedophilia in a sexual way. Mainly because thats the ideology i've been indoctrinated into.
hunting is an exciting sport, personally its not sadistic (calm down thom) but i doubt people get a sexual rush or whatever from doing it...so yeah there is a neat line that separates but its individual. you can't blanket opinion when it comes to sex.
If hunting is not sadistic.... then what is ?!
its not sadistic!
its just a fox.
they are pests. its like hunting pigeons for sport
The current law says it's OK to shoot foxes (maybe condemning them to a slower and more painful death) but not to hunt with hounds. A lot of the agitation against hunting is surely because some people enjoy it, and others dislike the fact that killing is giving pleasure. So it's OK to kill foxes as long as you're miserable about it...
In which case it must be okay to kill a person.
Anyway, terms like 'pest' and 'vermin' are just he same as terms like 'bosch', 'gook' and (the newest) 'hajji' – dehumanising. (Yes, it applies to animals)
To quote Jez (Peep Show) "Yeah, well done Mark, you've just killed a sentient being."
I get a bit Alex K over things like this.
there's a big difference between a fox and a human. however, with this discussion in mind, next time i go hunting, i will not smile once - promise!
Or you could not go =)
Post a Comment