You are viewing the older version of this Weblog. I have left this version available for those of you who do not have Javascript enabled in your web browser.
If you have Javascript enabled and would like to view the lastest version of this Weblog, please go here.
If you have Javascript enabled and would like to view the lastest version of this Weblog, please go here.
April 17, 2007
Killing is the answer...
I remember a time in my life when it might be a week, or even a month or two, between reports of someone in the world be killed…
It’s sad to think that most people who are under the age of 18-years old haven’t gone one day without hearing about someone being killed.
Since yesterday’s incident in Virginia, one of the things I keep hearing from news reporters (on radio and television alike) is a description of how the people they are interviewing seem very calm and aren’t expressing much emotion. This doesn’t strike me as odd at all.
First, this sort of thing is a traumatic experience. I’m sure everyone at — or around — Virginia Tech are a bit shell-shocked. Why would a lack of emotion, only moments after an unfathomable tragedy surprise anyone?
Second, most of the people they are interviewing (college kids) are very familiar with death by killing. It’s part of their lives — ingrained in their psyche since the day they were born. Yes, this killing is closer to home. But, it’s still just killing after all.
Further, because of the state of our world for the past twenty years, it doesn’t really surprise me that people find it so easy to go out and kill… It isn’t because of violent movies or video games. It isn’t because of drugs or music. It’s because we live in a world where killing happens every minute of every day. We see it. We hear about it. We’re all only a fraction of an inch from being engulfed in the killing that is happening all around us.
Thank you government (who have forgotten the people they are supposed to be governing). Thank you war (who really should thank the government). Thank you parents who think that work and money are more important than your children (I hope you enjoyed the twenty minutes of quality time you spent with them last week).
We live in a culture where sometimes, killing seems to be the only answer. I’t not the correct answer, of course, but who’s gonna tell you otherwise?
Posted at 07:24 am
Trackback:Trackback Link:
Please enable javascript to generate a trackback url
Comments (33):
I think there have been so many studies of how violent movies, drugs, etc. DO desensitize people to be anti-social. I do agree with your analysis that parents not spending quality time with their kids is even bigger than what I said earlier. At the same time, there have been many more times where killing was more prevelent like the Dark Ages, WWII, etc. It is just that people can’t forget how movies and drugs are MORE prevelent than in other times and the affect therein.
dh () - April 17, 2007 at 08:23 am
I also don’t put the War in Iraq in the same category as a mental deranged shooter murdering people right and left in Virginia. This shooting in Virginia was not in response to any other murder taking place but the War in Iraq is in response to terrorists who intentionally kill innocent people and the prevention by those people of the killings therein. There seems to be a difference between the two and don’t seem lumped together. The reasons for them are totally different and the culpability is even more opposite between the events mentioned.
dh () - April 17, 2007 at 08:33 am
tim,
i totally agree. i was very unsettled about this yesterday and you’ve expressed exactly part of my emotions about this tragedy. i also feel like our reaction to the news of a tragic shooting on a college campus is world’s apart from the daily news of Iraqis and soldiers being killed in Iraq. I realize that it is closer to home and should be responded to with empathy, but we’re not that practiced in empathy every other day for Iraqis.
i totally agree. i was very unsettled about this yesterday and you’ve expressed exactly part of my emotions about this tragedy. i also feel like our reaction to the news of a tragic shooting on a college campus is world’s apart from the daily news of Iraqis and soldiers being killed in Iraq. I realize that it is closer to home and should be responded to with empathy, but we’re not that practiced in empathy every other day for Iraqis.
lucas () (URL) - April 17, 2007 at 10:10 am
I’m glad you get what I’m trying to say here, Lucas.
timsamoff (URL) - April 17, 2007 at 11:53 am
I guess to me not all killing is the same. That is why killing and murder are two different things.
dh () - April 17, 2007 at 12:10 pm
If that’s the case, I wonder why the 6th commandment isn’t “Thou shalt not murder“...
timsamoff (URL) - April 17, 2007 at 12:30 pm
What does the Hebrew say about the term and the context? Also, any times God said to the Israelities to destroy the “ites” so we can’t say that God violated the 6th commandment. Therefore, Scripture in light of Scripture and also the Hebrew term for the term, kill is actually murder. That isn’t a problem with the translation because murder involves killing and killing can be murder so it isn’t a contradiction. However, for better context and looking at Scripture in light of Scripture, one must see that murder is the issue with regard to the 6th Commandment.
dh () - April 17, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Of course, I must disagree. And, I have a few points to my argument:
> What does the Hebrew say about
> the term and the context?
Actually, the term “kill,” when used in the Ten Commandments is a fairly broad-sweeping usage of the word that literally means to never take any human life. Reference the Hebrew word ratsach here:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/w..=)
> Also, any times God said to
> the Israelities to destroy the
> “ites” so we can’t say that
> God violated the 6th commandment.
Correct. But, you might remember a conversation we had a while back about the domino effect of human corruption (sorry for those readers who have no idea what I’m talking about). To clarify: During the time of Eden, there was no killing (or murder). Once we were on the “outside,” it began pretty quickly (remember Cain and Abel). So, it’s not God that is violating anything. It is us. Isn’t it tragic that God calls so passionately for us to love him that, time and time again, he accomodates our sinful spirits? (I.e., God’s desire is not for us to kill anyone, but because of our nature, he has allowed for special cases — e.g., the “ites.”)
> That isn’t a problem with the
> translation because murder
> involves killing and killing
> can be murder so it isn’t a
> contradiction.
I don’t understand what you are saying… Do you think that it’s up to humankind (as sinful and contradicting as we are) to decide the different categories of killing? If you take that stance, then terrorists are just (they believe what they are doing is killing for their beliefs), wars are just (it’s any particular government that makes the distinction between killing and murder in that case), and even Cho Seung-Hui is just (who’s to know what he was thinking when he killed all of those people?).
Wouldn’t it be much more Christ-like to believe that all killing is wrong? That way, it is God’s decision alone as to what the differences are. And, if everyone thought about killing that way (as being wrong), then killing would never occur.
(Of course, I’m not speaking about laws and upholding laws, but only the precipice of someone willingly killing another person.)
So, to say that all killing is not the same in all cases is to assume that we know what God is thinking. In my opinion, the edict not to kill is pretty simple: just don’t do it.
> What does the Hebrew say about
> the term and the context?
Actually, the term “kill,” when used in the Ten Commandments is a fairly broad-sweeping usage of the word that literally means to never take any human life. Reference the Hebrew word ratsach here:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/w..=)
> Also, any times God said to
> the Israelities to destroy the
> “ites” so we can’t say that
> God violated the 6th commandment.
Correct. But, you might remember a conversation we had a while back about the domino effect of human corruption (sorry for those readers who have no idea what I’m talking about). To clarify: During the time of Eden, there was no killing (or murder). Once we were on the “outside,” it began pretty quickly (remember Cain and Abel). So, it’s not God that is violating anything. It is us. Isn’t it tragic that God calls so passionately for us to love him that, time and time again, he accomodates our sinful spirits? (I.e., God’s desire is not for us to kill anyone, but because of our nature, he has allowed for special cases — e.g., the “ites.”)
> That isn’t a problem with the
> translation because murder
> involves killing and killing
> can be murder so it isn’t a
> contradiction.
I don’t understand what you are saying… Do you think that it’s up to humankind (as sinful and contradicting as we are) to decide the different categories of killing? If you take that stance, then terrorists are just (they believe what they are doing is killing for their beliefs), wars are just (it’s any particular government that makes the distinction between killing and murder in that case), and even Cho Seung-Hui is just (who’s to know what he was thinking when he killed all of those people?).
Wouldn’t it be much more Christ-like to believe that all killing is wrong? That way, it is God’s decision alone as to what the differences are. And, if everyone thought about killing that way (as being wrong), then killing would never occur.
(Of course, I’m not speaking about laws and upholding laws, but only the precipice of someone willingly killing another person.)
So, to say that all killing is not the same in all cases is to assume that we know what God is thinking. In my opinion, the edict not to kill is pretty simple: just don’t do it.
timsamoff (URL) - April 18, 2007 at 08:57 am
Good post, Tim. While I’d hold, as I’m sure you would, that there’s an important ontological distinction between witnessing death and just hearing about it (even if it’s at close hand), I think the essence of your post is summed up in one line: “most people who are under the age of 18-years old haven’t gone one day without hearing about someone being killed.”
That context of violence, however abstract, has an influence. Kudos to you for not placing the blame on video games and art, as plenty of pundits will in coming days. Just as the gun nuts are now arguing that we’d be safer if every college student were packing heat and guns were allowed on college campuses.
Others can split hairs about the distinction between “killing” and “murder.” It comes to the same thing: death. Violence shouldn’t be the first recourse, as it too often is.
On the other hand, I think there’s only so much you can do to prevent against people like the VT shooter, while still keeping society relatively open. It’s a tough problem. One disturbed person can do a lot of damage in a land where we’re generally free to move about unhindered. But we could start by setting a better example. Pre-emptive strikes, torture, and ends-justifies-the-means thinking don’t help.
That context of violence, however abstract, has an influence. Kudos to you for not placing the blame on video games and art, as plenty of pundits will in coming days. Just as the gun nuts are now arguing that we’d be safer if every college student were packing heat and guns were allowed on college campuses.
Others can split hairs about the distinction between “killing” and “murder.” It comes to the same thing: death. Violence shouldn’t be the first recourse, as it too often is.
On the other hand, I think there’s only so much you can do to prevent against people like the VT shooter, while still keeping society relatively open. It’s a tough problem. One disturbed person can do a lot of damage in a land where we’re generally free to move about unhindered. But we could start by setting a better example. Pre-emptive strikes, torture, and ends-justifies-the-means thinking don’t help.
wheat (URL) - April 18, 2007 at 10:48 am
Wheat, your last paragraph… Exactly.
timsamoff () (URL) - April 18, 2007 at 10:53 am
Even though it is the broad term I still believe from the context and the ites that there are exceptions and that wars against terrorist who murder innocent people with the intent of such is just as much an exception as the “ites”. See terrorists intentionally murder those who are innocent whereas the war against that where some innocent are killed these are not intended and the killing of the terrorist seem to be in the same context as the situation of the “ites”. I also don’t agree with you. God made the disctinction by the very nature of the exceptions and the context therein. Violent movies and video games don’t affect people? I believe science says otherwise. This doesn’t even begin to discuss the inconsistency of people to advocate like you do Tim and say it is okay to see a movie like “Kill Bill” which seems to promote violence or at least does nothing to help. It seems a double standard to say it is okay to watch violent movies but say no guns should be used to defend one’s self or nation against terrorists or end a war through an action that prevented years of wars, etc.
dh () - April 18, 2007 at 4:41 pm
It seems a double standard to say it is okay to watch violent movies but say no guns should be used to defend one’s self or nation against terrorists or end a war through an action that prevented years of wars, etc.
Three points:
1) Lots of people watch violent movies. Heavy viewing of violent content probably does have an effect on people. But fictional representations of violence and real violence are not the same thing. You don’t get post traumatic stress from video games or from watching The Sopranos. Well-adjusted people know the difference between reality and fantasy. Well-adjusted people don’t glorify violence, as this shooter clearly did.
2) No one said that guns should not be used in self-defense. Read back through the thread. No one has made that claim. I don’t have a problem with gun ownership, though certainly there should be restrictions. Gun ownership is protected by the constitution, as is freedom of speech, which includes art that represents violence and our right to discuss all of this. Speech is the most precious of our freedoms.
3) We’re not defending our nation against Iraq. We defended ourself against Afghanistan. We were justified in that action. But the war against Iraq was a pet project of GWB, trumped up by false claims about the threat that country posed to us (i.e. the WMDs that were never found and it’s nuclear capability which was also, as it turned out, a red herring). And we threw the first punch.
So GWB’s pet war against Iraq is based either on 1) lies or 2) gross incompetence. In neither case is it justified. He has used fear about Iraq in order to restrict freedoms, justify torture, and side step due process. This is the man you are defending. These are the practices you are defending.
Three points:
1) Lots of people watch violent movies. Heavy viewing of violent content probably does have an effect on people. But fictional representations of violence and real violence are not the same thing. You don’t get post traumatic stress from video games or from watching The Sopranos. Well-adjusted people know the difference between reality and fantasy. Well-adjusted people don’t glorify violence, as this shooter clearly did.
2) No one said that guns should not be used in self-defense. Read back through the thread. No one has made that claim. I don’t have a problem with gun ownership, though certainly there should be restrictions. Gun ownership is protected by the constitution, as is freedom of speech, which includes art that represents violence and our right to discuss all of this. Speech is the most precious of our freedoms.
3) We’re not defending our nation against Iraq. We defended ourself against Afghanistan. We were justified in that action. But the war against Iraq was a pet project of GWB, trumped up by false claims about the threat that country posed to us (i.e. the WMDs that were never found and it’s nuclear capability which was also, as it turned out, a red herring). And we threw the first punch.
So GWB’s pet war against Iraq is based either on 1) lies or 2) gross incompetence. In neither case is it justified. He has used fear about Iraq in order to restrict freedoms, justify torture, and side step due process. This is the man you are defending. These are the practices you are defending.
wheat (URL) - April 18, 2007 at 8:14 pm
I guess what I feel is that fictional representations of violence IS a glorification of violence. I think we would agree that it is entertainment. So it seems to me my original statement on “double standard stands”. Also, we didn’t throw the first punch. Saddam Hussein threw the first punch toward his people and those people deserve to be defended. WMD was not the only reason we went to war it was for the defense of innocent people of Iraq under a hostile, represive, torturous, restriction of freedom, regime. It wasn’t a “pet project”.
You also misunderstood the “affect” on people. True well adjusted people know the difference between reality and fantasy but I believe there is a searing of the conscious even in well adjusted people that descencitizes people toward violence. That doesn’t even get into people who become not well-adjusted from being well adjusted from observing violent entertainment in addtion to the people who are not well adjusted who observe these things as well.
To me the double standard still stands. To say all killing is the same and be against what we have been talking about and see nothing wrong with watching violent movies like “Kill Bill” seems a total double standard to me.
The fact remains violent movies and video games DO promote more violence or descensitizes people who are not violent to the observance of violence. The science is there to prove these points. The point is when one first watches a violent movie the become scared but after watching future violent movies they don’t and it becomes “no big deal” to the person observing this. You know that. That is what I’m talking about when it comes to descensitizing the soul toward violence particularly the violence where the instigators are never prosecuted or dealt with for protection sake.
I personally believe there are more greater freedoms than “freedom of speech” and I believe some things which promote terrible things or descensitze people should be regulated. We have descency laws for a reason. I have no right to say “fire” in a public place and you and I know that is speech. There are lines for decency and they are there for a reason.
You also misunderstood the “affect” on people. True well adjusted people know the difference between reality and fantasy but I believe there is a searing of the conscious even in well adjusted people that descencitizes people toward violence. That doesn’t even get into people who become not well-adjusted from being well adjusted from observing violent entertainment in addtion to the people who are not well adjusted who observe these things as well.
To me the double standard still stands. To say all killing is the same and be against what we have been talking about and see nothing wrong with watching violent movies like “Kill Bill” seems a total double standard to me.
The fact remains violent movies and video games DO promote more violence or descensitizes people who are not violent to the observance of violence. The science is there to prove these points. The point is when one first watches a violent movie the become scared but after watching future violent movies they don’t and it becomes “no big deal” to the person observing this. You know that. That is what I’m talking about when it comes to descensitizing the soul toward violence particularly the violence where the instigators are never prosecuted or dealt with for protection sake.
I personally believe there are more greater freedoms than “freedom of speech” and I believe some things which promote terrible things or descensitze people should be regulated. We have descency laws for a reason. I have no right to say “fire” in a public place and you and I know that is speech. There are lines for decency and they are there for a reason.
dh () - April 19, 2007 at 08:42 am
I guess what I feel is that fictional representations of violence IS a glorification of violence.
Well, you’re simply wrong there. Many works of art depict violence. Some works of art glorify violence. Some denounce violence. Some have more nuanced views on the necessity or inevitability of violence. Depiction alone does not equal glorification. And this is true for non-fiction as well. The news channels depict violence regularly. The Bible depicts violence.
You might want to live in a society where some mental hygiene committee determines what can and can’t be depicted in art. I don’t. That’s an essential difference between you and me, I suspect.
Saddam Hussein threw the first punch toward his people and those people deserve to be defended.
Hussein was a bad man. We have international tribunals to deal with the actions of bad men. And they could deal with the actions of bad men more effectively if we were more willing to trust the rule of law rather than the power of our armed forces. The existence of dictators who do bad things doesn’t necessarily legitimize our actions against them or against the thousands of innocent who die as a result. Why is the military solution the only solution? Civilized nations resort to war when they have no other choice. We had other choices, yet we resorted to war anyway. This was a pre-emptive war. And you see where it has taken us.
The fact remains violent movies and video games DO promote more violence or descensitizes people who are not violent to the observance of violence.
How many people watch films that depict violence and play games that depict violence? How many of those end up going on shooting rampages? Do the math. So far, there’s been no evidence that the VT shooter was a fan of either of these entertainments. But even if he were, that proves nothing. Are you desensitized to violence because you’ve read about it in the Bible? Should we then ban the Bible in order to protect you? Or are you, as an adult, capable of making your own decisions about what you choose to read or view?
I personally believe there are more greater freedoms than “freedom of speech”
Really? Like what? Freedom of religion is based on freedom of speech. Freedom to create art is based on freedom of speech. Freedom to call for change in public policy is based on freedom of speech. What more fundamental freedom is there? After life itself, speech is the most essential freedom we have.
There are lines for decency and they are there for a reason.
I’ll tell you what: if you find something indecent, don’t engage in it. I’ll do the same. You have the right to decide what goes into your head and so do I. No one forces either one of us to watch TV, see films, listen to music, or visit art galleries. But I’ll tell you this: the greatest works of art always end up on the “indecent” list. Great art is always indecent to someone. Luckily, our government generally trusts adults to make up their on minds about these things. And that is as it should be.
Well, you’re simply wrong there. Many works of art depict violence. Some works of art glorify violence. Some denounce violence. Some have more nuanced views on the necessity or inevitability of violence. Depiction alone does not equal glorification. And this is true for non-fiction as well. The news channels depict violence regularly. The Bible depicts violence.
You might want to live in a society where some mental hygiene committee determines what can and can’t be depicted in art. I don’t. That’s an essential difference between you and me, I suspect.
Saddam Hussein threw the first punch toward his people and those people deserve to be defended.
Hussein was a bad man. We have international tribunals to deal with the actions of bad men. And they could deal with the actions of bad men more effectively if we were more willing to trust the rule of law rather than the power of our armed forces. The existence of dictators who do bad things doesn’t necessarily legitimize our actions against them or against the thousands of innocent who die as a result. Why is the military solution the only solution? Civilized nations resort to war when they have no other choice. We had other choices, yet we resorted to war anyway. This was a pre-emptive war. And you see where it has taken us.
The fact remains violent movies and video games DO promote more violence or descensitizes people who are not violent to the observance of violence.
How many people watch films that depict violence and play games that depict violence? How many of those end up going on shooting rampages? Do the math. So far, there’s been no evidence that the VT shooter was a fan of either of these entertainments. But even if he were, that proves nothing. Are you desensitized to violence because you’ve read about it in the Bible? Should we then ban the Bible in order to protect you? Or are you, as an adult, capable of making your own decisions about what you choose to read or view?
I personally believe there are more greater freedoms than “freedom of speech”
Really? Like what? Freedom of religion is based on freedom of speech. Freedom to create art is based on freedom of speech. Freedom to call for change in public policy is based on freedom of speech. What more fundamental freedom is there? After life itself, speech is the most essential freedom we have.
There are lines for decency and they are there for a reason.
I’ll tell you what: if you find something indecent, don’t engage in it. I’ll do the same. You have the right to decide what goes into your head and so do I. No one forces either one of us to watch TV, see films, listen to music, or visit art galleries. But I’ll tell you this: the greatest works of art always end up on the “indecent” list. Great art is always indecent to someone. Luckily, our government generally trusts adults to make up their on minds about these things. And that is as it should be.
wheat (URL) - April 19, 2007 at 09:13 am
Rather than speak on the socio-political side of this debate — I think Wheat is doing a fabulous job on that front — I’m going to respond to the movie choice that DH has made in his argument.
Why did you choose KILL BILL as you example? Did you view it recently? Did it offend you that much. My guess, is that you haven’t even seen KILL BILL. Which, of course, sort of throws a wrench in a legitimate argument.
Just so you know, KILL BILL is one of the least of the good examples of a “violent film.” It is pure fantasy that relies little on reality and much on cartoon-mockery. It is a highly redemptive film with nary a slice of “this is a good example for us to follow” mantra.
If you have a few minutes, please read this review of the film, by a fairly well-published Christian film critic (at a Christian website):
http://www.theooze.com/articles/article...
So, when choosing a film to depict in your opinions, please:
1. Choose one that you have actually seen.
2. Choose one that roughly articulates the point that you are trying to make.
If you have seen KILL BILL, I apologize for my assumption. But, I still hold true to point #2.
If you would like to use a film example that depicts the glorification of violence, try GLADIATOR, THE PATRIOT, or even THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST — all films which I’m pretty sure you like.
Why did you choose KILL BILL as you example? Did you view it recently? Did it offend you that much. My guess, is that you haven’t even seen KILL BILL. Which, of course, sort of throws a wrench in a legitimate argument.
Just so you know, KILL BILL is one of the least of the good examples of a “violent film.” It is pure fantasy that relies little on reality and much on cartoon-mockery. It is a highly redemptive film with nary a slice of “this is a good example for us to follow” mantra.
If you have a few minutes, please read this review of the film, by a fairly well-published Christian film critic (at a Christian website):
http://www.theooze.com/articles/article...
So, when choosing a film to depict in your opinions, please:
1. Choose one that you have actually seen.
2. Choose one that roughly articulates the point that you are trying to make.
If you have seen KILL BILL, I apologize for my assumption. But, I still hold true to point #2.
If you would like to use a film example that depicts the glorification of violence, try GLADIATOR, THE PATRIOT, or even THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST — all films which I’m pretty sure you like.
timsamoff () (URL) - April 19, 2007 at 09:35 am
I don’t have to watch a movie to have a view about a movie. Even it is one of pure fantasy it had grotesque violence. How can it be cartoon mockery when it isn’t even a cartoon? It is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. I have read review after review of the movie and the views are the same.It DOES roughly articulae the points that I’m tryiong to make. IU have read the review from the “Ooxe” and I don’t understand the logic of how he can come up with that conclusion. After reading unbiased previews of the movie and seeing many of the scenes one can only understand that it wasn’t “cartoon” and it is not a “wrench in my argument”.
To be honest I saw the film, and like I said before that is not the point, on the very first day without any previews and walked out within the first 20 minutes. I also asked God for forgiveness for even seeing the first twenty minutes in the first place. I saw no redemptive value and was totally appauled that such a film could be on a screen for anyone to see. This “good example for us to follow” is to murder people? totally strange. I have strong opinions about “fictional violence” that is shown without legal punishment of the person starting the violence. This is what is indecent.
The Patriot doesn’t glorify violence it glorfies the defense of people who are doing acts of murder of innocent people. Passion of the Christ is the same way as well. It shows the fact of what God went threw and how Christ made a way by Faith in Him for Salvation.
Why does some works of art have to be indecent? I know much of art that isn’t. Why does art have to portray violence in such a way that the it is not in defense of people hurt innocently.
Tim, Wheat has done a terrible job on the socio-political front. The military response against Saddam was NOT the only solution given. We tried for 10 YEARS to negotiate and diplomacy and it didn’t work to where the only choice left after many years of other actions outside of war was war against the evil regime. Actions against evil dictators after years of diplomacy and negotiation sometimes require war to save the people from the evil dictator. THe Bible doesn’t glorify murder and any so-called art, video game and such that does that should be regulated. Violent movies that glorify murder and video games that do the same descenstize people that is why more and more people who watch fictional violence on TV want more “blood and guts” on the screen. Also, are you guys saying there shouldn’t be any decency laws and that pornography shouldn’t be regulated? Under you guys definition it is “art”. Also, how can you guys dismiss the scientifc studies of the soiological implications of violent movies, video games, etc.? One must go beyond just a mass shooting and homicide ther one must look at the group dynamic of the conscience of a person. To me any descencitrizing of a person toward muder is bad. I just can’t sit back and say nothing when more and more people are attracted, promoting, etc things that hurt people, albeit their soul by hardening the heart by descenitizing a person toward murder. Some lines have to be drawnThere has to be decency laws for movies like “Kill Bill” and others which shows murder with no punishment by the authorities. I went too far on the “freedom of speech” part but I have the right to say certain things are not speech. I believe anything that promotes violence and is indecent violates freedom of speech. I don’t believe “great works” of art HAVE TO OFFEND.
To be honest I saw the film, and like I said before that is not the point, on the very first day without any previews and walked out within the first 20 minutes. I also asked God for forgiveness for even seeing the first twenty minutes in the first place. I saw no redemptive value and was totally appauled that such a film could be on a screen for anyone to see. This “good example for us to follow” is to murder people? totally strange. I have strong opinions about “fictional violence” that is shown without legal punishment of the person starting the violence. This is what is indecent.
The Patriot doesn’t glorify violence it glorfies the defense of people who are doing acts of murder of innocent people. Passion of the Christ is the same way as well. It shows the fact of what God went threw and how Christ made a way by Faith in Him for Salvation.
Why does some works of art have to be indecent? I know much of art that isn’t. Why does art have to portray violence in such a way that the it is not in defense of people hurt innocently.
Tim, Wheat has done a terrible job on the socio-political front. The military response against Saddam was NOT the only solution given. We tried for 10 YEARS to negotiate and diplomacy and it didn’t work to where the only choice left after many years of other actions outside of war was war against the evil regime. Actions against evil dictators after years of diplomacy and negotiation sometimes require war to save the people from the evil dictator. THe Bible doesn’t glorify murder and any so-called art, video game and such that does that should be regulated. Violent movies that glorify murder and video games that do the same descenstize people that is why more and more people who watch fictional violence on TV want more “blood and guts” on the screen. Also, are you guys saying there shouldn’t be any decency laws and that pornography shouldn’t be regulated? Under you guys definition it is “art”. Also, how can you guys dismiss the scientifc studies of the soiological implications of violent movies, video games, etc.? One must go beyond just a mass shooting and homicide ther one must look at the group dynamic of the conscience of a person. To me any descencitrizing of a person toward muder is bad. I just can’t sit back and say nothing when more and more people are attracted, promoting, etc things that hurt people, albeit their soul by hardening the heart by descenitizing a person toward murder. Some lines have to be drawnThere has to be decency laws for movies like “Kill Bill” and others which shows murder with no punishment by the authorities. I went too far on the “freedom of speech” part but I have the right to say certain things are not speech. I believe anything that promotes violence and is indecent violates freedom of speech. I don’t believe “great works” of art HAVE TO OFFEND.
dh () - April 19, 2007 at 10:52 am
Two things:
> How can it be cartoon mockery
> when it isn’t even a cartoon?
Explain this still frame from KILL BILL, VOL. 1:
No, the entire thing wasn’t a cartoon, but much of it, in fact, was.
If you’d like to view the entire animated sequence, called, “The Origin of O-Ren,” go here:
http://stage6.divx.com/Movie-quotes-scen..
(Warning: It’s, um, violent?)
> This “good example for us to
> follow” is to murder people?
Please reread what I wrote… I said that the film does NOT portray a statement of being a good example (I’m sorry I waxed a little poetic in my original statement — I guess that could be confusing).
Ok, three things:
If one walked out of THE PASSION twenty minutes into it, they would never think it was a redemptive movie either.
Using an actual example that you actually know about actually does help. Actually.
> How can it be cartoon mockery
> when it isn’t even a cartoon?
Explain this still frame from KILL BILL, VOL. 1:
No, the entire thing wasn’t a cartoon, but much of it, in fact, was.
If you’d like to view the entire animated sequence, called, “The Origin of O-Ren,” go here:
http://stage6.divx.com/Movie-quotes-scen..
(Warning: It’s, um, violent?)
> This “good example for us to
> follow” is to murder people?
Please reread what I wrote… I said that the film does NOT portray a statement of being a good example (I’m sorry I waxed a little poetic in my original statement — I guess that could be confusing).
Ok, three things:
If one walked out of THE PASSION twenty minutes into it, they would never think it was a redemptive movie either.
Using an actual example that you actually know about actually does help. Actually.
timsamoff () (URL) - April 19, 2007 at 11:25 am
You say it was NOT I say it WAS a good example (refering to Kill Bill). I could care less of “cartoon” or not it still should be regulated and just because it was a “cartoon” in parts doesn’t mean it was a mockery. Actually I won’t even respond to your “Passion” comment because to compare “Passion” to “Kill Bill” is such a gross overcharacterization. There is a big difference. “Using an actual example that you actually know about actually does help. Actually.” I also don’t appreciate your condescending attitude I observe with the “actually” comment. The fact remains Passion and Kill Bill are not in the same category and to lump them together is such an overgeneralization. That really proves my point against people who lump killing and murder together and the logic I mentioned earlier. Do we need to watch something that “this is a NOT good example for us to follow” to learn a good example? I don’t buy that logic. That is like saying we need to be at a crime scene to understand that we mustn’t murder people. “Be wise concerning good and simple concerning evil.” Maybe if Christinas learned this as opposed to watching “Kill Bill” we would understand we don’t need to understand evil to know what is evil. If you get my drift.
I still think the Holy Spirit can convict a person of their need for Christ even if they walked out within 20 minutes. I believe strongly that God can do anything and your statment implies that God couldn’t do that. So your example doesn’t work based on that understanding.
I still haven’t got an answer to my pornography question. At some point decency lines have to be there and the logic you have doesn’t “add up” when it comes to these issues.
I still think the Holy Spirit can convict a person of their need for Christ even if they walked out within 20 minutes. I believe strongly that God can do anything and your statment implies that God couldn’t do that. So your example doesn’t work based on that understanding.
I still haven’t got an answer to my pornography question. At some point decency lines have to be there and the logic you have doesn’t “add up” when it comes to these issues.
dh () - April 19, 2007 at 11:57 am
Also, the Holy spirit can also convict a person that a certain movie is wrong and shouldn’t be watched and it did and I walked out. Other people have their “conscience seared” don’t “give into” this conviction. For that I feel sad for those people.
dh () - April 19, 2007 at 12:04 pm
I don’t have to watch a movie to have a view about a movie.
No, but you do have to watch a movie in order to have a view about it that anyone else is obliged to take seriously. You can’t judge a meal you haven’t eaten.
I have strong opinions about “fictional violence” that is shown without legal punishment of the person starting the violence.
Yes you do. And I have strong views, supported by the constitution and legal precedent, about freedom of speech. Dictators limit speech because it limits the power of the people to respond to them. Civil societies grant people speech as an essential freedom. Luckily for me, you are not in charge of defining what is “decent” and what is not, culturally speaking.
Why does some works of art have to be indecent?
Decency and indecency are labels for value judgments. There’s no objective way to sort the decent from the indecent. If you study the history of art and literature, you will find that what are today regarded as some of our greatest works of art have been, at various times, baned as indecent by various censoring bodies. That the judgment of such bodies is not objective is clear enough. This extends to science as well, where free speech is fundamentally necessary. Galileo’s censorship by the Catholic Church is just one example.
Works of art are things about which reasonable people can disagree. Art sparks discussion. That’s a big part of its purpose. Only those who distrust art would attempt to censor it. Dictators of the sort you despise have always censored art, declaring certain art “degenerate.” The Nazis loved burning books. Stalin imprisoned artists whose art did not sufficiently support the socialist cause. Should I continue? Are you too blind to see the dangers of allowing governments to control what can and can’t be said in art?
Actions against evil dictators after years of diplomacy and negotiation sometimes require war to save the people from the evil dictator.
True, but that wasn’t the case here. We invaded Iraq because the dictator in question would not allow weapons inspectors to do their work and because we convinced ourselves that he was a threat to us. Defending the people of Iraq against their own leader was pretty far down the list.
If you believe this is enough justification, why have we not invaded China? Why have we not invaded many of the petty dictatorships in Africa? Why did we not invade East Timor?
THe Bible doesn’t glorify murder
No one said it did. I said it depicted murder, which is objectively true. Can you deny that?
Also, are you guys saying there shouldn’t be any decency laws and that pornography shouldn’t be regulated?
We already have decency laws. Child pornography is illegal. There are many laws about what can and cannot be shown on TV, in films, on magazine stands, etc. There are laws about where pornographic materials can and cannot be sold. US laws are actually much stricter about the presentation of nudity than most other western democracies.
But why are you discussing pornography at all? The discussion was about representations of violence, not representations of sex. Are you incapable of following even a simple argument?
Also, how can you guys dismiss the scientifc studies of the soiological implications of violent movies, video games, etc.?
You haven’t cited any. Cite a few and I’ll be happy to dismiss them by citing others. That’s how science works, by specific citation. You can’t just say “science says” to back up your points. Science speaks with many voices.
To me any descencitrizing of a person toward muder is bad.
Of course it is. But you haven’t established that viewing representations of violence in movies and video games accomplishes that. It is something you assume, but not something you have established. I’ll repeat this for you: explain to me why so many people obviously enjoy representations of violence in film and in games, yet so few people act out in the way the VT shooter did? Remember that we don’t know yet if he even enjoyed these sorts of entertainments.
I just can’t sit back and say nothing [. . .]
Free speech is what allows you to say something, rather than nothing. Yet you rail against free speech.
I have the right to say certain things are not speech
Of course you do. You also have the right to be completely wrong. Every film that has been mentioned in this thread is an example of speech that is protected by our constitution. And that’s a good thing.
I don’t believe “great works” of art HAVE TO OFFEND.
No one said they do. What I said was that they often do. Go read a list of banned books sometime. You’ll find some of your favorites on the list. You’ll find all of Shakespeare on the list. You’ll find the Bible on the list. Censors always begin with the desire to protect others from what they consider to be harmful art. But I don’t need your protection, dh. People don’t need the government to protect them from free speech. They need free speech to protect themselves from the government. They need free speech in order to enjoy the benefits of a free society.
No, but you do have to watch a movie in order to have a view about it that anyone else is obliged to take seriously. You can’t judge a meal you haven’t eaten.
I have strong opinions about “fictional violence” that is shown without legal punishment of the person starting the violence.
Yes you do. And I have strong views, supported by the constitution and legal precedent, about freedom of speech. Dictators limit speech because it limits the power of the people to respond to them. Civil societies grant people speech as an essential freedom. Luckily for me, you are not in charge of defining what is “decent” and what is not, culturally speaking.
Why does some works of art have to be indecent?
Decency and indecency are labels for value judgments. There’s no objective way to sort the decent from the indecent. If you study the history of art and literature, you will find that what are today regarded as some of our greatest works of art have been, at various times, baned as indecent by various censoring bodies. That the judgment of such bodies is not objective is clear enough. This extends to science as well, where free speech is fundamentally necessary. Galileo’s censorship by the Catholic Church is just one example.
Works of art are things about which reasonable people can disagree. Art sparks discussion. That’s a big part of its purpose. Only those who distrust art would attempt to censor it. Dictators of the sort you despise have always censored art, declaring certain art “degenerate.” The Nazis loved burning books. Stalin imprisoned artists whose art did not sufficiently support the socialist cause. Should I continue? Are you too blind to see the dangers of allowing governments to control what can and can’t be said in art?
Actions against evil dictators after years of diplomacy and negotiation sometimes require war to save the people from the evil dictator.
True, but that wasn’t the case here. We invaded Iraq because the dictator in question would not allow weapons inspectors to do their work and because we convinced ourselves that he was a threat to us. Defending the people of Iraq against their own leader was pretty far down the list.
If you believe this is enough justification, why have we not invaded China? Why have we not invaded many of the petty dictatorships in Africa? Why did we not invade East Timor?
THe Bible doesn’t glorify murder
No one said it did. I said it depicted murder, which is objectively true. Can you deny that?
Also, are you guys saying there shouldn’t be any decency laws and that pornography shouldn’t be regulated?
We already have decency laws. Child pornography is illegal. There are many laws about what can and cannot be shown on TV, in films, on magazine stands, etc. There are laws about where pornographic materials can and cannot be sold. US laws are actually much stricter about the presentation of nudity than most other western democracies.
But why are you discussing pornography at all? The discussion was about representations of violence, not representations of sex. Are you incapable of following even a simple argument?
Also, how can you guys dismiss the scientifc studies of the soiological implications of violent movies, video games, etc.?
You haven’t cited any. Cite a few and I’ll be happy to dismiss them by citing others. That’s how science works, by specific citation. You can’t just say “science says” to back up your points. Science speaks with many voices.
To me any descencitrizing of a person toward muder is bad.
Of course it is. But you haven’t established that viewing representations of violence in movies and video games accomplishes that. It is something you assume, but not something you have established. I’ll repeat this for you: explain to me why so many people obviously enjoy representations of violence in film and in games, yet so few people act out in the way the VT shooter did? Remember that we don’t know yet if he even enjoyed these sorts of entertainments.
I just can’t sit back and say nothing [. . .]
Free speech is what allows you to say something, rather than nothing. Yet you rail against free speech.
I have the right to say certain things are not speech
Of course you do. You also have the right to be completely wrong. Every film that has been mentioned in this thread is an example of speech that is protected by our constitution. And that’s a good thing.
I don’t believe “great works” of art HAVE TO OFFEND.
No one said they do. What I said was that they often do. Go read a list of banned books sometime. You’ll find some of your favorites on the list. You’ll find all of Shakespeare on the list. You’ll find the Bible on the list. Censors always begin with the desire to protect others from what they consider to be harmful art. But I don’t need your protection, dh. People don’t need the government to protect them from free speech. They need free speech to protect themselves from the government. They need free speech in order to enjoy the benefits of a free society.
wheat (URL) - April 19, 2007 at 12:52 pm
That really proves my point against people who lump killing and murder together and the logic I mentioned earlier.
No one has lumped anything together. But if you kill me or murder me, I’m just as dead, either way. The distinction that you establish is a difference in motive (justified or not). But the essential connection is still there. A man killed and a man murdered is, motive aside, still a dead man. But it would make life easier if you simply use the term “killing” and then tack on “justified” or “unjustified.” Are there cases where killing is justified? I certainly believe there are. In fact, we’re probably all in agreement about that.
Do we need to watch something that “this is a NOT good example for us to follow” to learn a good example? I don’t buy that logic.
Negative example is a strong teaching tool, one that Jesus himself uses repeatedly in his parables. In fact, doing the right thing is often a matter of not doing the wrong thing. How can you know what the wrong thing is if you’re not free to describe it?
Here’s another problem: you assume that any depiction of (unjustified) killing in which the perpetrator is not punished is an endorsement of violence. But that isn’t necessarily true. I can think of several movies where the guilty go unpunished. In every case that I can think of, the point is not that guilty people shouldn’t be punished, but that the justice system often fails to punish them. By your censorship rulebook, such depictions would be “indecent” and must be banned.
I believe strongly that God can do anything and your statment implies that God couldn’t do that
We’re talking about violence in film, and you have to make this an argument about God’s nature and about Tim’s faith. If you could stick to the topic at hand, we might be able to have a profitable discussion. Tim never said or implied anything about the nature of any deity. He merely pointed out that you couldn’t judge a book you hadn’t read. You’re twisting his words, and that’s intellectually dishonest.
Also, the Holy spirit can also convict a person that a certain movie is wrong and shouldn’t be watched and it did and I walked out. Other people have their “conscience seared” don’t “give into” this conviction. For that I feel sad for those people.
You called Tim’s comment arrogant, yet this is the most arrogant, condescending, paternalistic statement I’ve heard in this thread. By this tortured logic, anyone who sat through Kill Bill possess a conscience so scarred that he cannot hear (or cannot follow) the voice of God. But you, with your pristine soul, hear and obey. I suggest a simpler explanation: you didn’t like the film, so you left. Other people liked the film well enough to stay.
No one has lumped anything together. But if you kill me or murder me, I’m just as dead, either way. The distinction that you establish is a difference in motive (justified or not). But the essential connection is still there. A man killed and a man murdered is, motive aside, still a dead man. But it would make life easier if you simply use the term “killing” and then tack on “justified” or “unjustified.” Are there cases where killing is justified? I certainly believe there are. In fact, we’re probably all in agreement about that.
Do we need to watch something that “this is a NOT good example for us to follow” to learn a good example? I don’t buy that logic.
Negative example is a strong teaching tool, one that Jesus himself uses repeatedly in his parables. In fact, doing the right thing is often a matter of not doing the wrong thing. How can you know what the wrong thing is if you’re not free to describe it?
Here’s another problem: you assume that any depiction of (unjustified) killing in which the perpetrator is not punished is an endorsement of violence. But that isn’t necessarily true. I can think of several movies where the guilty go unpunished. In every case that I can think of, the point is not that guilty people shouldn’t be punished, but that the justice system often fails to punish them. By your censorship rulebook, such depictions would be “indecent” and must be banned.
I believe strongly that God can do anything and your statment implies that God couldn’t do that
We’re talking about violence in film, and you have to make this an argument about God’s nature and about Tim’s faith. If you could stick to the topic at hand, we might be able to have a profitable discussion. Tim never said or implied anything about the nature of any deity. He merely pointed out that you couldn’t judge a book you hadn’t read. You’re twisting his words, and that’s intellectually dishonest.
Also, the Holy spirit can also convict a person that a certain movie is wrong and shouldn’t be watched and it did and I walked out. Other people have their “conscience seared” don’t “give into” this conviction. For that I feel sad for those people.
You called Tim’s comment arrogant, yet this is the most arrogant, condescending, paternalistic statement I’ve heard in this thread. By this tortured logic, anyone who sat through Kill Bill possess a conscience so scarred that he cannot hear (or cannot follow) the voice of God. But you, with your pristine soul, hear and obey. I suggest a simpler explanation: you didn’t like the film, so you left. Other people liked the film well enough to stay.
wheat (URL) - April 19, 2007 at 1:16 pm
I’m still trying to get over the fact that I’ve been reduced to one of “those people” who DH feels sad for.
timsamoff () (URL) - April 19, 2007 at 1:22 pm
1) I disagree one can judge a movie without watching it that is why we have trailers, reviews to get an idea of what the movie is about.
2) the argument is “straw man” certain limits of free speech don’t equate to the level of what dictators in the past have done nor is it to the level of what they have done.
3) Again it is strawman just because the extreme of something is bad doesn’t make the thing wrong.
4) I’m glad it is on the list “freeing people from a dictaor “ The answer to the others is that they never murdered people to the extent of Saddam.
5) The Bible mentions directly that murder is wrong Kill Bill doesn’t and in fact shows murder in such a way that people are entertained by the murder. Whenever people are entertained by murder I see no benefit to society to portray those type of things.
6) Why I mentioned pornography is that it is speech. You have no problem with that and say it is okay yet Kill Bill which portrays murder and people are entertained by it is not. Seems a double standard to me. Certain depiction of violence on TV and even movie are regulated and of sex as well. To me both are equally bad and are requlated. I just point out that the standards should be equal among TV, movies and video games equally. They appear not when movies like Kill Bill are not.
8) I don’t believe Kill Bill should be protected so I don’t buy into the argument in the first place.
9)Again straw man just because something is censored in a limited way (as evident of laws of decency we already have that limit “free speech”) doesn’t mean it leads to Nazi censorship.
To Tim and Wheat. I’m not trying to reduce anyone to anything. At least I was able to make it clear that at least I care about you two. That is something that is good. To care for someone. If I feel sad for someone at least I care. I couldn’t get over people who “don’t care”. So at least I care.
7)
2) the argument is “straw man” certain limits of free speech don’t equate to the level of what dictators in the past have done nor is it to the level of what they have done.
3) Again it is strawman just because the extreme of something is bad doesn’t make the thing wrong.
4) I’m glad it is on the list “freeing people from a dictaor “ The answer to the others is that they never murdered people to the extent of Saddam.
5) The Bible mentions directly that murder is wrong Kill Bill doesn’t and in fact shows murder in such a way that people are entertained by the murder. Whenever people are entertained by murder I see no benefit to society to portray those type of things.
6) Why I mentioned pornography is that it is speech. You have no problem with that and say it is okay yet Kill Bill which portrays murder and people are entertained by it is not. Seems a double standard to me. Certain depiction of violence on TV and even movie are regulated and of sex as well. To me both are equally bad and are requlated. I just point out that the standards should be equal among TV, movies and video games equally. They appear not when movies like Kill Bill are not.
8) I don’t believe Kill Bill should be protected so I don’t buy into the argument in the first place.
9)Again straw man just because something is censored in a limited way (as evident of laws of decency we already have that limit “free speech”) doesn’t mean it leads to Nazi censorship.
To Tim and Wheat. I’m not trying to reduce anyone to anything. At least I was able to make it clear that at least I care about you two. That is something that is good. To care for someone. If I feel sad for someone at least I care. I couldn’t get over people who “don’t care”. So at least I care.
7)
DH () - April 19, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Wheat you also put words in my mouth by saying I said that people who watch Kill Bill are unable to hear the voice of God. I never said that I just said I was personally convicted baout watching to the point of asking God to forgive me for watching the 20 minutes. I’m being honest here. To me it is arogant to imply that my hearing the Holy Spirit is somehow not the case. I’m not saying I hear perfectly the voice of God but in this case I know without a doubt that I did. At the same time I know other people also, like myself, don’t hear from God fully. Why not be open to the concept of being convicted by God of this movie? Could it be that people who watched the movie didn’t listen to God? I’m not saying that was the case but that couldn’t it be?
dh () - April 19, 2007 at 2:04 pm
I disagree one can judge a movie without watching it that is why we have trailers, reviews to get an idea of what the movie is about.
Would you trust a movie review that was based only on a trailer? Trailers are advertisements, they’re not necessarily representative of the film itself. How many times have you been mislead by a trailer?
certain limits of free speech don’t equate to the level of what dictators in the past have done
You don’t argue for “certain limits.” You argue for banning anything you find “indecent.” Yet your definition of “indecent” is far from watertight. You seem to think that what is decent and what is indecent is self-evident. It is not.
Again it is strawman just because the extreme of something is bad doesn’t make the thing wrong.
How is my example of a movie where the bad guy gets off being a legitimate criticism of the justice system a straw man? I’m just taking the rule you proposed and applying it to a situation which shows its limits. That’s not a straw man, that’s an argument. I’ve shown the weakness of the simplistic rule you have proposed for sorting “decent” from “indecent” films.
You avoided my point about Galileo, as well.
The answer to the others is that they never murdered people to the extent of Saddam.
So you have to cross a certain threshold of deaths before we feel inclined to intervene? What’s the number? More people died in the Rwandan massacres, if I’m not mistaken. Yet we did nothing. I guess it’s unfortunate for Rwanda that it is not sitting on top of more lucrative resources.
You have no problem with that and say it is okay yet Kill Bill which portrays murder and people are entertained by it is not.
I didn’t say either one was wrong. I don’t have a problem with either one. I think adults deserve the freedom to choose explicit entertainments. Kill Bill has an R rating. You have to choose to see it. I’m sorry you didn’t enjoy it, but that doesn’t give you the right to keep others from enjoying it (or even seeing it and making up their own minds).
I just point out that the standards should be equal among TV, movies and video games equally
Why? No one forces you to go to the movies or to buy a video game. No one forces you to watch TV, either. You’re free to choose for yourself, but that’s not good enough for you. You want to limit what other people can choose. That’s not fair. That’s why I’m arguing with you, because you’re not being fair.
US TV, film, and video games are rated by censorship boards. Reviews of them are ubiquitous. If you want other people to make your decisions for you, you already have the tools. You don’t need to take the additional step of trying to outlaw entertainments you don’t enjoy. I prefer to think and judge for myself. I don’t need or want you doing my thinking for me.
The Bible mentions directly that murder is wrong
The commandment mentions killing, yet you endorse killing. The Bible describes God himself engaged in killing directly and by proxy. It is a contradiction that a book that condemns killing depicts the deity himself engaged in so much of it. But none of that has anything to do with TV/film violence. I brought up the Bible to show you the dangers of censorship, as it is a frequently censored book. But you excel in missing the point.
Again straw man just because something is censored in a limited way (as evident of laws of decency we already have that limit “free speech”) doesn’t mean it leads to Nazi censorship.
A “straw man” is an overly simplistic characterization. I didn’t characterize the Nazi’s; I merely mentioned them as an example of a regime that engaged in censorship. I think what you’re trying to accuse me of is the “slippery slope” argument. But I haven’t committed that one either. I didn’t say that any censorship would lead us directly to Nazi Germany. My point was that we should always be cautious of censorship, as history shows us how often it has been used by the powerful to trump up their power.
The very Bible that you hold dear is the result of free speech. Early translators of the Vulgate were put to death for trying to put those words in your hands in a language other than Latin. The Catholic Church found the idea of a bible in the vernacular “indecent.”
At least I was able to make it clear that at least I care about you two.
By telling us you pity us for being so scarred by violent media that we incapable of hearing the voice of God? This, to you, is a demonstration of care and concern? You fear for our souls because we didn’t hate Kill Bill?
Wheat you also put words in my mouth by saying I said that people who watch Kill Bill are unable to hear the voice of God.
I didn’t put words into your mouth. That is exactly what you said. The gentlemanly thing to do would be to admit you were wrong in saying it or that you didn’t mean to say such a thing. But you did, in fact, say it. And I find that indecent. :)
I’m being honest here. To me it is arogant to imply that my hearing the Holy Spirit is somehow not the case.
I believe that you believe you heard the Holy Spirit speaking to you. I was defending those people who watched the movie (myself included) and who did not walk out of it because they didn’t hear the same voices that you say you hear. I’m not privy to your inner experiences. I’m only privy to my own. I’m not privy to Tim’s either. But, if he had such an experience, I expect he would have blogged it. :)
By all means, if something offends you, walk away from it. I do the same. I don’t finish plenty of movies because I don’t like them. There are plenty of bad films out there that I don’t have time for. But when I say “bad film” I mean that they are of poor quality, not that watching them is going to wound me somehow. I don’t give films that much credit. I don’t believe in dangerous books, either.
Could it be that people who watched the movie didn’t listen to God? I’m not saying that was the case but that couldn’t it be?
Sure, lots of things are possible. It could be that they all had dentist appointments that they suddenly remembered. It could be that all the projectors suddenly stopped working. It’s impossible to eliminate all the things that could be possible explanations, so Occam’s Razor say the simpler explanation is usually the best.
Here’s another possibility: maybe God didn’t want you to see the movie but didn’t mind that Tim and I both saw it. Maybe it wasn’t good for your soul but our souls are made of tougher stuff.
Would you trust a movie review that was based only on a trailer? Trailers are advertisements, they’re not necessarily representative of the film itself. How many times have you been mislead by a trailer?
certain limits of free speech don’t equate to the level of what dictators in the past have done
You don’t argue for “certain limits.” You argue for banning anything you find “indecent.” Yet your definition of “indecent” is far from watertight. You seem to think that what is decent and what is indecent is self-evident. It is not.
Again it is strawman just because the extreme of something is bad doesn’t make the thing wrong.
How is my example of a movie where the bad guy gets off being a legitimate criticism of the justice system a straw man? I’m just taking the rule you proposed and applying it to a situation which shows its limits. That’s not a straw man, that’s an argument. I’ve shown the weakness of the simplistic rule you have proposed for sorting “decent” from “indecent” films.
You avoided my point about Galileo, as well.
The answer to the others is that they never murdered people to the extent of Saddam.
So you have to cross a certain threshold of deaths before we feel inclined to intervene? What’s the number? More people died in the Rwandan massacres, if I’m not mistaken. Yet we did nothing. I guess it’s unfortunate for Rwanda that it is not sitting on top of more lucrative resources.
You have no problem with that and say it is okay yet Kill Bill which portrays murder and people are entertained by it is not.
I didn’t say either one was wrong. I don’t have a problem with either one. I think adults deserve the freedom to choose explicit entertainments. Kill Bill has an R rating. You have to choose to see it. I’m sorry you didn’t enjoy it, but that doesn’t give you the right to keep others from enjoying it (or even seeing it and making up their own minds).
I just point out that the standards should be equal among TV, movies and video games equally
Why? No one forces you to go to the movies or to buy a video game. No one forces you to watch TV, either. You’re free to choose for yourself, but that’s not good enough for you. You want to limit what other people can choose. That’s not fair. That’s why I’m arguing with you, because you’re not being fair.
US TV, film, and video games are rated by censorship boards. Reviews of them are ubiquitous. If you want other people to make your decisions for you, you already have the tools. You don’t need to take the additional step of trying to outlaw entertainments you don’t enjoy. I prefer to think and judge for myself. I don’t need or want you doing my thinking for me.
The Bible mentions directly that murder is wrong
The commandment mentions killing, yet you endorse killing. The Bible describes God himself engaged in killing directly and by proxy. It is a contradiction that a book that condemns killing depicts the deity himself engaged in so much of it. But none of that has anything to do with TV/film violence. I brought up the Bible to show you the dangers of censorship, as it is a frequently censored book. But you excel in missing the point.
Again straw man just because something is censored in a limited way (as evident of laws of decency we already have that limit “free speech”) doesn’t mean it leads to Nazi censorship.
A “straw man” is an overly simplistic characterization. I didn’t characterize the Nazi’s; I merely mentioned them as an example of a regime that engaged in censorship. I think what you’re trying to accuse me of is the “slippery slope” argument. But I haven’t committed that one either. I didn’t say that any censorship would lead us directly to Nazi Germany. My point was that we should always be cautious of censorship, as history shows us how often it has been used by the powerful to trump up their power.
The very Bible that you hold dear is the result of free speech. Early translators of the Vulgate were put to death for trying to put those words in your hands in a language other than Latin. The Catholic Church found the idea of a bible in the vernacular “indecent.”
At least I was able to make it clear that at least I care about you two.
By telling us you pity us for being so scarred by violent media that we incapable of hearing the voice of God? This, to you, is a demonstration of care and concern? You fear for our souls because we didn’t hate Kill Bill?
Wheat you also put words in my mouth by saying I said that people who watch Kill Bill are unable to hear the voice of God.
I didn’t put words into your mouth. That is exactly what you said. The gentlemanly thing to do would be to admit you were wrong in saying it or that you didn’t mean to say such a thing. But you did, in fact, say it. And I find that indecent. :)
I’m being honest here. To me it is arogant to imply that my hearing the Holy Spirit is somehow not the case.
I believe that you believe you heard the Holy Spirit speaking to you. I was defending those people who watched the movie (myself included) and who did not walk out of it because they didn’t hear the same voices that you say you hear. I’m not privy to your inner experiences. I’m only privy to my own. I’m not privy to Tim’s either. But, if he had such an experience, I expect he would have blogged it. :)
By all means, if something offends you, walk away from it. I do the same. I don’t finish plenty of movies because I don’t like them. There are plenty of bad films out there that I don’t have time for. But when I say “bad film” I mean that they are of poor quality, not that watching them is going to wound me somehow. I don’t give films that much credit. I don’t believe in dangerous books, either.
Could it be that people who watched the movie didn’t listen to God? I’m not saying that was the case but that couldn’t it be?
Sure, lots of things are possible. It could be that they all had dentist appointments that they suddenly remembered. It could be that all the projectors suddenly stopped working. It’s impossible to eliminate all the things that could be possible explanations, so Occam’s Razor say the simpler explanation is usually the best.
Here’s another possibility: maybe God didn’t want you to see the movie but didn’t mind that Tim and I both saw it. Maybe it wasn’t good for your soul but our souls are made of tougher stuff.
wheat (URL) - April 19, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Could it be that people who watched the movie didn’t listen to God? I’m not saying that was the case but that couldn’t it be?
Correction: I misread this part of your post. Is it possible, yes. But I’m not privy to the private experiences of people in general. I’m only privy to my own private experiences. I watched the film and I didn’t hear any voices.
Correction: I misread this part of your post. Is it possible, yes. But I’m not privy to the private experiences of people in general. I’m only privy to my own private experiences. I watched the film and I didn’t hear any voices.
wheat (URL) - April 19, 2007 at 3:03 pm
“Maybe it wasn’t good for your soul but our souls are made of tougher stuff.” Maybe you had a hard heart to not realize that this was a bad film to watch? Maybe that was the reason you didn’t “hear any voices”? It seems strange to think that movies that have sin in them don’t somehow wound people and the same goes for books as well. I mention the questions not to be hostile but for ALL of us to look into our hearts and see where we have hardened are hearts toward things of God and where we haven’t.
I never did say that people who watched Kill Bill didn’t hear the voice of God.
“Wheat you also put words in my mouth by saying I said that people who watch Kill Bill are unable to hear the voice of God.
I didn’t put words into your mouth. That is exactly what you said. The gentlemanly thing to do would be to admit you were wrong in saying it or that you didn’t mean to say such a thing. But you did, in fact, say it. And I find that indecent. :)”
When are you going to learn that YOU DID put words in my mouth. I’m just saying that all of hearts need to be soft to things of God and maybe people who hear the voice of God who watched Kill Bill need to rethink the concept of watching it? I know there are many things I need to rethink. I think we all need softer hearts toward things of God and harder hearts toward things that hurt people even if we are not the type to be hurt by these things. Also, who knows maybe you and Tim are hurt by these things and don’t even know it. I know many times that is the case on other things as well. This isn’t indecent but an attitude of humility in ALL that we do. Lord knows I need to work on things and the momment we say we don’t need to or are hard to observing “sinful”, “violent”, things then I think is the momment that we need to rethink our heart standard.
I never did say that people who watched Kill Bill didn’t hear the voice of God.
“Wheat you also put words in my mouth by saying I said that people who watch Kill Bill are unable to hear the voice of God.
I didn’t put words into your mouth. That is exactly what you said. The gentlemanly thing to do would be to admit you were wrong in saying it or that you didn’t mean to say such a thing. But you did, in fact, say it. And I find that indecent. :)”
When are you going to learn that YOU DID put words in my mouth. I’m just saying that all of hearts need to be soft to things of God and maybe people who hear the voice of God who watched Kill Bill need to rethink the concept of watching it? I know there are many things I need to rethink. I think we all need softer hearts toward things of God and harder hearts toward things that hurt people even if we are not the type to be hurt by these things. Also, who knows maybe you and Tim are hurt by these things and don’t even know it. I know many times that is the case on other things as well. This isn’t indecent but an attitude of humility in ALL that we do. Lord knows I need to work on things and the momment we say we don’t need to or are hard to observing “sinful”, “violent”, things then I think is the momment that we need to rethink our heart standard.
dh () - April 19, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Maybe you had a hard heart to not realize that this was a bad film to watch?
Maybe. Maybe I didn’t think it was bad to watch. It wasn’t one of my favorite films or anything, but I don’t believe I’m any worse off for having watched it.
Maybe that was the reason you didn’t “hear any voices”?
Maybe. Maybe I didn’t hear any because there weren’t any to hear. I don’t think I have to argue this point. It’s not a point that can be argued. It’s based on self-reporting of a subjective experience.
It seems strange to think that movies that have sin in them don’t somehow wound people and the same goes for books as well.
People wound people. Books and films are food for thought. Art’s effects are many highly personal. I didn’t say art doesn’t influence people. I only maintained I have a right to choose the art I want to expose myself to. You argued that you have the right to choose for everyone. That’s a harder point to prove, and you haven’t proven it.
I know there are many things I need to rethink. I think we all need softer hearts toward things of God and harder hearts toward things that hurt people even if we are not the type to be hurt by these things.
Agreed. If you want to take up a cause against things that hurt people, I suggest you start with poverty. You might also want to consider torture. Along with it, war. You might want to put your energies toward helping people who are sick in mind or body. You might want to teach the ignorant, so they can lead fuller lives. There is an endless number of things that can be done to make the world a better place.
I don’t think you accomplish any of this by setting up committees that tell adults what they can and can’t read or view. And I don’t think either one of us is making the world a better place by bickering here in Tim’s comments thread.
Maybe. Maybe I didn’t think it was bad to watch. It wasn’t one of my favorite films or anything, but I don’t believe I’m any worse off for having watched it.
Maybe that was the reason you didn’t “hear any voices”?
Maybe. Maybe I didn’t hear any because there weren’t any to hear. I don’t think I have to argue this point. It’s not a point that can be argued. It’s based on self-reporting of a subjective experience.
It seems strange to think that movies that have sin in them don’t somehow wound people and the same goes for books as well.
People wound people. Books and films are food for thought. Art’s effects are many highly personal. I didn’t say art doesn’t influence people. I only maintained I have a right to choose the art I want to expose myself to. You argued that you have the right to choose for everyone. That’s a harder point to prove, and you haven’t proven it.
I know there are many things I need to rethink. I think we all need softer hearts toward things of God and harder hearts toward things that hurt people even if we are not the type to be hurt by these things.
Agreed. If you want to take up a cause against things that hurt people, I suggest you start with poverty. You might also want to consider torture. Along with it, war. You might want to put your energies toward helping people who are sick in mind or body. You might want to teach the ignorant, so they can lead fuller lives. There is an endless number of things that can be done to make the world a better place.
I don’t think you accomplish any of this by setting up committees that tell adults what they can and can’t read or view. And I don’t think either one of us is making the world a better place by bickering here in Tim’s comments thread.
wheat (URL) - April 19, 2007 at 3:47 pm
and one of those things as a “cause” is to help people not to watch things that hurt people. I also don’t believe my view in comparison with poverty, helping the sick, the ignorant, the lost souls who have not accepted Christ, individual sin accountability and all of the other things that the Bible mentions equally. To present these things as “zero sum game” or one with greater emphesis seems odd to me. At the same time to focus on society moral problems as opposed to personal moral issues that go against or promote sin is just as bad. I could say the same in the reverse that to add to your focus on poverty, sick, hurting a greater focus on helping individuals who have hard hearts toward accountability on individual sin. It can be both society and individual at the same time.
Maybe there are problems to think that it is not bad to watch? Maybe we need to have softer hearts in those areas as well? I agree you have a choice on art, movies etc. but what does God want you to watch? Would he ever want us to watch entertainment where sin occurs? Remember we are talking about entertainment. Whenever sin becomes entertainment to someone I think we all need to rethink our views on that one? You say “That’s a harder point to prove, and you haven’t proven it.” I believe I have. I just believe there should be some lines a little stronger than the decency laws that are already on the books. Does this mean I’m advocating Nazi stuff of censorship? Absolutely not. That is strawman no matter how much you say otherwise in that a little bit stronger law doesn’t mean we are ultimately going to be like the Nazi’s. If you understood strawman and logic you would understand that but you obviously don’t.
“You might want to put your energies toward helping people who are sick in mind or body.” I know many people (not yourself) who watch these films and video games who are just that or began to be that at the hand of these violent things.
Again it still seems odd to be against war and violence like you and Tim say and say it is okay to watch indiscriminate violence irregardless of being fictional. That is just me. It just doens’t make in logical sense. If one is against violence then one should be against it in all of its forms that happen to be unbiblical.
I still think all of your arguments are just excuses but that is just me.
Maybe there are problems to think that it is not bad to watch? Maybe we need to have softer hearts in those areas as well? I agree you have a choice on art, movies etc. but what does God want you to watch? Would he ever want us to watch entertainment where sin occurs? Remember we are talking about entertainment. Whenever sin becomes entertainment to someone I think we all need to rethink our views on that one? You say “That’s a harder point to prove, and you haven’t proven it.” I believe I have. I just believe there should be some lines a little stronger than the decency laws that are already on the books. Does this mean I’m advocating Nazi stuff of censorship? Absolutely not. That is strawman no matter how much you say otherwise in that a little bit stronger law doesn’t mean we are ultimately going to be like the Nazi’s. If you understood strawman and logic you would understand that but you obviously don’t.
“You might want to put your energies toward helping people who are sick in mind or body.” I know many people (not yourself) who watch these films and video games who are just that or began to be that at the hand of these violent things.
Again it still seems odd to be against war and violence like you and Tim say and say it is okay to watch indiscriminate violence irregardless of being fictional. That is just me. It just doens’t make in logical sense. If one is against violence then one should be against it in all of its forms that happen to be unbiblical.
I still think all of your arguments are just excuses but that is just me.
dh () - April 19, 2007 at 4:20 pm
dh, I decided the last time you and I tangled like this that arguing any point with you is a waste of time. You’ve now completely confirmed that decision. You think yourself some sort of sophisticated thinker. In truth, you seem barely able to keep up with your own sliding definitions. Your arguments are weak and you simply ignore anything that challenges them. You shift topics rather than offering counter-arguments or further support. Your entire argumentative toolkit is limited to assertion and unsubstantiated opinion.
I still think all of your arguments are just excuses but that is just me.
This is the crème de la crème! Rather than arguing points, you label everything either a “straw man” (a term you do not even properly apply, in most cases) or now an “excuse.” They’re not excuses, dh, they are reasons. But reason is not your friend. I suggest you stick with dogma: it’s simpler and less confusing. Leave reason to the grown ups.
I don’t know if it’s sinful or not, but I’ve decided that it is profitless to waste any more of my life discussing anything with you. I’ll content myself to work and to enjoying and creating art, that stuff that scares you so much.
I know you will reply, because you must have the last word. But if dh cries in the wilderness and no one listens, does he really make a sound? You know what? I don’t care one way or the other.
I still think all of your arguments are just excuses but that is just me.
This is the crème de la crème! Rather than arguing points, you label everything either a “straw man” (a term you do not even properly apply, in most cases) or now an “excuse.” They’re not excuses, dh, they are reasons. But reason is not your friend. I suggest you stick with dogma: it’s simpler and less confusing. Leave reason to the grown ups.
I don’t know if it’s sinful or not, but I’ve decided that it is profitless to waste any more of my life discussing anything with you. I’ll content myself to work and to enjoying and creating art, that stuff that scares you so much.
I know you will reply, because you must have the last word. But if dh cries in the wilderness and no one listens, does he really make a sound? You know what? I don’t care one way or the other.
wheat (URL) - April 19, 2007 at 5:02 pm
Wheat, I’m sorry for the last sentence I said. I went “over-the-top”. I do think that the “strawman” arguments ARE properly applied. I take back the “excuse” statement. I hope you accept me taking back that sentence. I believe that I have shown that there is a rationale for what I have said and I have backed it up. I still logically believe this: “Again it still seems odd to be against war and violence like you and Tim say and say it is okay to watch indiscriminate violence irregardless of being fictional.” and that isn’t being “dogmatic” but an observation of a double standard. That isn’t an attack but an observation that doesn’t seem to make sense logically. I really don’t appreciate you telling me my arguments are not “grown up”. I thought the discussion was very rational on both sides and both sides gave good arguments for their position. In the end we both disagree. At least you were able to move toward a position that “you don’t know if it’s sin or not” from a position that it was not sin and I moved from being super strict to saying we need a little bit stronger decency laws. Can we just leave it at that?
To be honest I love art and appreciate those who make works of art. Not all art and in fact a super majority of art doesn’t scare people nor should it have to. It is just that it seems the people who are so against violence have no problem observing violence and for that it just doesn’t make sense to me.
To be honest I love art and appreciate those who make works of art. Not all art and in fact a super majority of art doesn’t scare people nor should it have to. It is just that it seems the people who are so against violence have no problem observing violence and for that it just doesn’t make sense to me.
dh () - April 20, 2007 at 08:39 am
I’ll go ahead and say it: the last word shall be…“grace.”
peder horner (URL) - April 21, 2007 at 9:10 pm
I did say what I said with Grace. Also, I don’t believe Grace includes condoning things that are wrong but that is me.
dh () - April 22, 2007 at 2:41 pm
