No more porn

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

MarkSmash
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2010 5:16 am UTC

Re: No more porn

Postby MarkSmash » Sun Aug 05, 2012 4:40 pm UTC

ddxxdd wrote:OP, If you're trying to argue in favor of the event, I would like to point out thatstuntwoman Gabriella Cedillo ended up comatose and nearly died in the making of Transformers 3, and yet it was still released. I also heard that Roger Moore's stunt double nearly died in the parachute scene in The Spy Who Loved Me.

People don't care about the backstory behind the making of a movie. It does not matter how many times the make-up artist stubbed her toe, or who got raped in the process of making the film. The end product is the end product, and that's what you're supposed to enjoy. People wouldn't care if everybody consented and had a good time while filming a movie that glorified rape; it's all about the end product, and the themes, motifs, and enjoyability of the final product.


They are choosing not to show 'Deep Throat'. Your point is therefore incorrect. People in this case DO care.

Nice troll, though.

User avatar
ddxxdd
Posts: 581
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 7:37 pm UTC
Location: New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Re: No more porn

Postby ddxxdd » Sun Aug 05, 2012 6:01 pm UTC

MarkSmash wrote:They are choosing not to show 'Deep Throat'. Your point is therefore incorrect. People in this case DO care.

Nice troll, though.

The point is that "they" are not acting in the best interests of the student population.

Which actually brings up another point. The film does not display acts of rape. It displays consensual sex, no matter what happens behind the scenes. Therefore, there is no risk of creating a bad influence on the students.
I'm waiting for someone to say something worth sigging...

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: No more porn

Postby Azrael » Sun Aug 05, 2012 6:42 pm UTC

ddxxdd wrote:Which actually brings up another point. The film does not display acts of rape. It displays consensual sex, no matter what happens behind the scenes. Therefore, there is no risk of creating a bad influence on the students.


Are the people who object to the film because the woman in the film was being raped somehow justifying their objection based on the influence on an uninformed (or extremely suspended disbelief) student body?

I'm pretty sure that no, they object because the woman in the film is actually being raped. That the screening is exploiting (to one degree or another) an actual depiction of a terrible crime.

It's people who object to porn on the whole that are concerned with the allegedly negative influence it has on society in general. To them, the distinction is immaterial, which just makes your argument entirely irrelevant.

User avatar
ddxxdd
Posts: 581
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 7:37 pm UTC
Location: New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Re: No more porn

Postby ddxxdd » Sun Aug 05, 2012 6:56 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:Are the people who object to the film because the woman in the film was being raped somehow justifying their objection based on the influence on an uninformed (or extremely suspended disbelief) student body?

I'm pretty sure that no, they object because the woman in the film is actually being raped. That the screening is exploiting (to one degree or another) an actual depiction of a terrible crime.

It's people who object to porn on the whole that are concerned with the allegedly negative influence it has on society in general. To them, the distinction is immaterial, which just makes your argument entirely irrelevant.


This is actually a fairly good point. To which I would respond- there is always a suspension of disbelief when it comes to cinema. The Spy Who Loved Me and Transformers 3 did not depict stunt doubles that nearly got killed, they depicted James Bond parachuting away to safety or the Decepticons coming to destroy the world. Likewise, that film does not depict rape; it was filmed using rape, but it depicts consensual sex.
I'm waiting for someone to say something worth sigging...

User avatar
K-R
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:42 pm UTC
Location: Australia

Re: No more porn

Postby K-R » Sun Aug 05, 2012 7:02 pm UTC

ddxxdd wrote:The point is that "they" are not acting in the best interests of the student population.

Because you, and nobody else, knows what those interests are, right?

Seriously, what interest is served by showing that particular film? I can't think of even one.

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: No more porn

Postby Xeio » Sun Aug 05, 2012 7:06 pm UTC

ddxxdd wrote:it was filmed using rape
This point here? This is why people objected to showing the film.

User avatar
ddxxdd
Posts: 581
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 7:37 pm UTC
Location: New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Re: No more porn

Postby ddxxdd » Sun Aug 05, 2012 7:12 pm UTC

Xeio wrote:
ddxxdd wrote:it was filmed using rape
This point here? This is why people objected to showing the film.


Let me reiterate my argument. The Spy Who Loved Me was filmed using a stunt double that was nearly killed, and Transformers 3 was filmed using a stunt double that was sent into a coma for 6 months.

If those films didn't have a problem getting released, why should there be a problem with the film in question? After all, ALL films require a suspension of disbelief from the viewer. What goes on in the acting trailers has no impact on how we perceive what goes on as we watch the final product.
I'm waiting for someone to say something worth sigging...

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: No more porn

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Sun Aug 05, 2012 7:25 pm UTC

Yeah, if people are OK with watching movies in which compensated professionals who knowingly agree to take on risk in order to do their jobs are occasionally injured, why wouldn't they be OK with watching movies in which the producers collude to deliberately, directly abuse the bodily autonomy of an unconsenting person? There's practically no difference!
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: No more porn

Postby Azrael » Sun Aug 05, 2012 8:20 pm UTC

ddxxdd wrote:If those films didn't have a problem getting released, why should there be a problem with the film in question?

Because those films did not show real-world illegal or immoral acts. Nor was their production contingent on real-world illegal or immoral acts.




[And don't even try to push the 'contingent' part. Yes, the producers could have used a different, willing actress. But they didn't. If they did, no one would complain about the movie showing a real act of rape, now would they?]

User avatar
ddxxdd
Posts: 581
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 7:37 pm UTC
Location: New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Re: No more porn

Postby ddxxdd » Sun Aug 05, 2012 10:19 pm UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:Yeah, if people are OK with watching movies in which compensated professionals who knowingly agree to take on risk in order to do their jobs are occasionally injured, why wouldn't they be OK with watching movies in which the producers collude to deliberately, directly abuse the bodily autonomy of an unconsenting person? There's practically no difference!


Gabriella Cedillo did not consent to getting sent into the coma. She "knew the risks", but you know the risks of leaving your house every morning. If someone jumped you and stole your wallet, would you want people dismissing that tragedy by saying, "You knew the risks of walking near that area"? Likewise, should that poor actress be dismissed because she "knew the risks of getting into that marriage"? Tragedies are tragedies, but works of art should be enjoyed separately from the tragedies behind them.

Azrael wrote:Because those films did not show real-world illegal or immoral acts. Nor was their production contingent on real-world illegal or immoral acts.

[And don't even try to push the 'contingent' part. Yes, the producers could have used a different, willing actress. But they didn't. If they did, no one would complain about the movie showing a real act of rape, now would they?]

Two interesting thoughts here.

1. Films should not show real-world illegal or immoral acts.
Is Goldeneye an immoral film because it shows Fort Knox immorally getting broken into? Or does it not cross the line because it depicts a fictional invasion?
What about Blood Diamond? That depicts tragedies based on real life. Does it not cross the line because everyone there are consensual actors?
What if a movie was made that used footage from the 9/11 attacks? Does that cross the line? Where is that line, and why is that line arbitrarily drawn where it is?

2. A film's production should not be contingent on real-world illegal or immoral acts.

This seems like a more consistent line of thought. So if I rob a bank to fund an indie movie, I should be prosecuted, and the indie movie should be removed from existence... but wait, if someone is prosecuted for their crimes, why does the distribution of the movie have to be affected?
Here's a thought experiment:
I rob a bank, get away with it, and use the funds to shoot a movie. Eventually, I get caught, but not after having 1000s of those DVDs distributed, and millions of torrents spread throughout the web.
Should owning the DVD become a crime? Should getting your friends together to watch the movie be considered an immoral act? After all, watching a movie does not equate to an endorsement of crimes used to make a movie. If you think it is, then should we not watch movies featuring an actor who stole a snicker bar when he was a kid?
Even better example: Lawrence Fishburne lied about being 18 when he got his breakout role in Apocalypse Now. If he didn't lie about his age, he probably would never have been discovered. So does that mean that I endorse fraud everytime I watch CSI: Miami?
I'm waiting for someone to say something worth sigging...

Radical_Initiator
Just Cool Enough for School
Posts: 1374
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:39 pm UTC

Re: No more porn

Postby Radical_Initiator » Sun Aug 05, 2012 10:49 pm UTC

I'd like to take a moment to play a fun game. If anyone remembers the game show "The $X,000 Pyramid", that's what I'm referring to. I'll name several instances of a specific group, and you guess what category they belong to. OK? Let's begin:

Iridium.
Osmium.
The interior of a neutron star.
ddxxdd.
I looked out across the river today …

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7357
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: No more porn

Postby The Great Hippo » Sun Aug 05, 2012 10:54 pm UTC

ddxxdd wrote:Gabriella Cedillo did not consent to getting sent into the coma. She "knew the risks", but you know the risks of leaving your house every morning. If someone jumped you and stole your wallet, would you want people dismissing that tragedy by saying, "You knew the risks of walking near that area"? Likewise, should that poor actress be dismissed because she "knew the risks of getting into that marriage"? Tragedies are tragedies, but works of art should be enjoyed separately from the tragedies behind them.
You are missing the point by a fucking landslide.

The person you're talking about consented to do a stunt. She (assumedly) understood the risks; there was no miscommunication or deception going on. No one was colluding to compromise her bodily autonomy. She was offered money to perform a task that carried a risk of physical harm, which she was aware of. There were no laws broken, no ethical dilemmas, no moral quandaries. Someone paid her to do something dangerous, something went wrong, she got hurt. That's a terrible thing--but there's no reason for us to feel troubled about the product, because as far as we can see, everybody involved consented to be in the movie up until the point where she got hurt.

Now, if they used footage of her actual injury--without her explicit permission--I'd find that fucked up. I doubt she consented to that.
ddxxdd wrote:1. Films should not show real-world illegal or immoral acts.
Is Goldeneye an immoral film because it shows Fort Knox immorally getting broken into? Or does it not cross the line because it depicts a fictional invasion?
What about Blood Diamond? That depicts tragedies based on real life. Does it not cross the line because everyone there are consensual actors?
What if a movie was made that used footage from the 9/11 attacks? Does that cross the line? Where is that line, and why is that line arbitrarily drawn where it is?
How the fuck did you derive this from what Azrael just said? Or anyone in this thread said?
ddxxdd wrote:2. A film's production should not be contingent on real-world illegal or immoral acts.

This seems like a more consistent line of thought. So if I rob a bank to fund an indie movie, I should be prosecuted, and the indie movie should be removed from existence... but wait, if someone is prosecuted for their crimes, why does the distribution of the movie have to be affected?
Here's a thought experiment:
I rob a bank, get away with it, and use the funds to shoot a movie. Eventually, I get caught, but not after having 1000s of those DVDs distributed, and millions of torrents spread throughout the web.
Should owning the DVD become a crime? Should getting your friends together to watch the movie be considered an immoral act? After all, watching a movie does not equate to an endorsement of crimes used to make a movie. If you think it is, then should we not watch movies featuring an actor who stole a snicker bar when he was a kid?
Even better example: Lawrence Fishburne lied about being 18 when he got his breakout role in Apocalypse Now. If he didn't lie about his age, he probably would never have been discovered. So does that mean that I endorse fraud everytime I watch CSI: Miami?
What the fuck are you even going on about?

Movie producers have an obligation to make sure their actors consent to being filmed and doing the things they're doing while they're being filmed. They also have an obligation to make sure that they're following the law while producing the film. If they fail, the resulting film isn't necessarily illegal (in the case of a pornography video where one of the participants is nonconsenting, it may actually be, if only because depictions of sex crimes can sometimes be a special case), but watching and enjoying a film where actual people are actually suffering is terrible. How is this hard for you to grasp?

Radical_Initiator
Just Cool Enough for School
Posts: 1374
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:39 pm UTC

Re: No more porn

Postby Radical_Initiator » Sun Aug 05, 2012 10:57 pm UTC

ddxxdd wrote:Is Goldeneye an immoral film because it shows Fort Knox immorally getting broken into? Or does it not cross the line because it depicts a fictional invasion?


Oh, and for the record, that was "Goldfinger". "Goldeneye" was the one with the EMP-generating Russian satellites stolen by the son of Lienz Cossacks.
I looked out across the river today …

User avatar
ddxxdd
Posts: 581
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 7:37 pm UTC
Location: New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Re: No more porn

Postby ddxxdd » Sun Aug 05, 2012 11:00 pm UTC

Radical_Initiator wrote:I'd like to take a moment to play a fun game. If anyone remembers the game show "The $X,000 Pyramid", that's what I'm referring to. I'll name several instances of a specific group, and you guess what category they belong to. OK? Let's begin:

Iridium.
Osmium.
The interior of a neutron star.
ddxxdd.


This is why I like playing Devil's Advocate on these forums. People here would much rather project their own insecurities and shortcomings onto me than actually reading all the thought experiments and analogies that I construct. Instead of using logic, people use defense mechanisms here.

What's the average age on these forums, by the way? Am I the oldest person here at 26?

Radical_Initiator wrote:Oh, and for the record, that was "Goldfinger". "Goldeneye" was the one with the EMP-generating Russian satellites stolen by the son of Lienz Cossacks.

Whoops. Goldeneye is by far one of the BEST Bond films ever. Pierce Brosnan can take Sean Connery any day of the week. Thank you for that correction.
I'm waiting for someone to say something worth sigging...

Radical_Initiator
Just Cool Enough for School
Posts: 1374
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:39 pm UTC

Re: No more porn

Postby Radical_Initiator » Sun Aug 05, 2012 11:01 pm UTC

ddxxdd wrote:This is why I like playing Devil's Advocate on these forums. People here would much rather project their own insecurities and shortcomings onto me than actually reading all the thought experiments and analogies that I construct. Instead of using logic, people use defense mechanisms here.

What's the average age on these forums, by the way? Am I the oldest person here at 26?


Not even close. But thanks for playing "Haha, you must all be teenagers". One more, and I have BINGO.
I looked out across the river today …

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7357
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: No more porn

Postby The Great Hippo » Sun Aug 05, 2012 11:08 pm UTC

ddxxdd wrote:This is why I like playing Devil's Advocate on these forums. People here would much rather project their own insecurities and shortcomings onto me than actually reading all the thought experiments and analogies that I construct. Instead of using logic, people use defense mechanisms here.
No. An actual interesting thought experiment would be asking a question like whether or not it's okay to use footage from Auschwitz, or the destruction of the Hindenburg--and what sort of contexts make that footage okay to use (education? illuminating tragedy?) and what sort of contexts don't (can I use them for laughs? for entertainment? for profit?). The closest you came to this was mentioning 9/11 footage1.

There's a thought experiment with some meat to it; there's an interesting discussion. Instead, what you proposed was whether or not Goldfinger was bad because it depicted a fictitious break-in. Or whether or not Blood Diamonds is bad because it has some basis in a real situation. Or whether me robbing a bank to fund my indie film makes owning my indie film 'bad' or 'illegal'. These aren't thought experiments. These are the boorish musings of teenagers who just finished their high-school Philosophy elective.

You don't get to hide behind the Devil Advocate defense unless you're actually bringing up some good, interesting, productive points. That's what it's for; enriching a discussion, not dragging it down to a grade-school level.

1 And while that would be an interesting discussion, it's not quite what we're actually discussing--since footage of these tragedies didn't actually have a hand in the tragedy itself. When you watch an actual crime on TV, the footage isn't usually the reason the crime occurred.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: No more porn

Postby Azrael » Mon Aug 06, 2012 2:07 am UTC

ddxxdd wrote:1. Films should not show real-world illegal or immoral acts.
Is Goldeneye an immoral film because it shows Fort Knox immorally getting broken into? Or does it not cross the line because it depicts a fictional invasion?
What about Blood Diamond? That depicts tragedies based on real life. Does it not cross the line because everyone there are consensual actors?
What if a movie was made that used footage from the 9/11 attacks? Does that cross the line? Where is that line, and why is that line arbitrarily drawn where it is?

A fictional depiction isn't real world. I thought that would have been clear, but instead, I'll make sure to delineate fiction and non-fiction specifically. People who object to Deep Throat specifically, rather than porn in general, often do so because the events captured on film are a non-fiction rape. As for consent: Yes, of course the consent of the actors involved matters in a discussion about moral objections to a film showing acts that the actors did not consent to.

Regarding your 9/11 query: Responding to an analogy several steps removed only test the strength of the analogy. But let's be pragmatic here: Using real 9/11 footage in anything but a respectful documentary is certainly going to piss off a lot of people for some combination of glorifying the crime or failing to pay respect to the dead. This too seems self evident. Tracing the analogy back to the situation, we have a film that glorifies the crime (by passing it off as consensual/entertainment) and fails to pay respect to the victim (most notably by failing to acknowledge the crime).

But let's back up from testing that analogy. What about a documentary that shows an actual rape? I would expect the morally decisive line would be whether the rape was construed for the purposes of the film. If it was unmanned security film, I would still find it in poor taste (failing to pay respect to the victim). The line here seems what hand the producer had in creating (or halting) the criminal event; in the case of porn via coercion, they are (to one degree or another) complicit in the crime. It would certainly be unambiguously heinous to stage a rape for the documentary.

Which is what Deep Throat did. But then they denied there was a crime and sold the footage as entertainment.

As for your second bit about criminalizing the showing and/or ownership of the work: First, no one is saying that showing or owning Deep Throat should be criminal*. People are saying that they object to it. There's a massive difference, and the conflation of "opposing" to "criminalizing" is outright poor form, if not utterly intellectually dishonest.

But! Child porn. A legal and moral example where owning something that was (without a doubt) criminal to produce is deemed a criminal offense. So yes, that line can be reached. On the other hand, a documentary about shop lifting that shows real crimes isn't objectionable. What's problematic is therefore defined by an amorphous threshold of the product of the involvement of the producers (primary), the severity of the crime (secondary) and the 'educational treatment'** of the film (tertiary). I would imagine that moral absolutists (those who see no shades of gray, or ask for a logically precise line in the sand) would have trouble with this concept.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The DVD example is yet another analogy that tests not much except the quality of the analogy. But, receiving stolen goods is a crime. I have no idea (and don't care at this time because it's entirely irrelevant) whether legal philosophy and case law precedent stretches to the diluted product of stolen funds. I expect it would depend on how thoroughly diluted and whether money laundering and/or racketeering laws come into play. So yeah, leave that whole mess alone.

** Pardon the terrible term but think documentary on one end, girls gone wild on the other.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: No more porn

Postby Azrael » Mon Aug 06, 2012 2:10 am UTC

ddxxdd wrote:This is why I like playing Devil's Advocate on these forums.

What's the average age on these forums, by the way? Am I the oldest person here at 26?

Ok, purposeful double post here, and an equally purposeful lack of purple text:

This borders on willful trolling. Argue in good faith, or don't expect the rest of the forum population to treat you with respect. Keep in mind that once you concede to arguing in bad faith specifically to elicit emotional responses, you have admitted to outright trolling. Which you ought to know isn't particularly popular with anyone.

And holy shit, don't try to pull the age card. Because you'll lose, and look like an idiot while doing it. Heck, more damaging, someone younger than you will logically refute your points.

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5526
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: No more porn

Postby doogly » Mon Aug 06, 2012 2:57 am UTC

Also a consideration with the possession of child porn is that you create a market for it, and the existence of the market creates more child porn.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26726
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: No more porn

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Aug 06, 2012 4:52 am UTC

ddxxdd wrote:People here would much rather project their own insecurities and shortcomings onto me
I don't think that process is happening in the same direction you think that process is happening.

What's the average age on these forums, by the way? Am I the oldest person here at 26?
Hahahahaha.

Not that it remotely matters one way or the other, Kid, but you are significantly less than half the age of the oldest people here.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: No more porn

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Mon Aug 06, 2012 4:59 am UTC

ddxxdd wrote:Gabriella Cedillo did not consent to getting sent into the coma. She "knew the risks", but you know the risks of leaving your house every morning. If someone jumped you and stole your wallet, would you want people dismissing that tragedy by saying, "You knew the risks of walking near that area"?

No. But I would not hold the risks morally culpable. Which is the point: not that something bad happened, but that someone did something bad in order to make the film. As is always the case, we treat moral agents differently from environmental risks in terms of the harm they cause. Which brings us to:
doogly wrote:Also a consideration with the possession of child porn is that you create a market for it, and the existence of the market creates more child porn.

A big part of the reason we care whether people are dicks or not is that, unlike the case of environmental risks, we can influence people to not be dicks by appealing to their rational nature. Sometimes this means an appeal to moral reason, convincing them that what they're doing is wrong and they should not do things that are wrong. A lot of the time it just means appealing to instrumental reason: they want something, but if they're dicks we won't let them have it.

When people commit a crime in order to make a film, there is usually some further motive. They want to get money, or fame, or the reputation that comes with showing off to scummy friends. If we reject a film when we know that someone did wrong in order to produce it, we take away those incentives. People won't watch their film, so they can't get what they were trying to get by making it. And that means they don't have any incentive to make it. By insisting that the means of a film's production shouldn't matter, because we should just enjoy art for art, we sustain those incentives past their natural course.

As with child porn, so with rape porn. Well, I really should say, child porn is just a kind of rape porn. So we object to them for precisely the same reason: that we do not wish to satisfy the desires that move people to commit rape.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

MarkSmash
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2010 5:16 am UTC

Re: No more porn

Postby MarkSmash » Mon Aug 06, 2012 6:41 am UTC

ddxxdd wrote:This is why I like playing Devil's Advocate on these forums. People here would much rather project their own insecurities and shortcomings onto me than actually reading all the thought experiments and analogies that I construct. Instead of using logic, people use defense mechanisms here.


ddxxdd, I do commend you on your attempt to take on the position of Devil's Advocate. It illustrates your willingness to not only see another point of view, but to argue against a position that you yourself find distasteful. It is through the crucible created through the clash of these ideas that we hope to find the truth. In order to do this properly, I would recommend the following:

1. Try to start at a point where both sides might agree.

- i.e. Pornography has the potential to degrade women and to foster negative attitudes toward women.

2. Then, when you reach the point of division with the other side, draw through the contingencies that follow from the point to support your position and/or damage the position of you opponents.

- The potential harm done to individual women and to women in general is far greater than the benefit of a public showing of pornography, with Deep Throat being a solid example of harm being done.

- It is the responsibility of any educational institution to not harm its students, therefore it should discourage the public showing of pornography in order to avoid the risk of injury to its students.

================

Now, if you read my previous posts, you are probably aware that I have been arguing in support of the OP's position of the continued public showing of pornography at his school. By taking the Devil's Advocate position, I have identified potential flaws in the aforesaid posts. That's the Devil's Advocate payoff - not in arguing for argument's sake, but by identifying weaknesses in one's own position and addressing them.

You will also note that one needs to be intellectually honest with your opponents and directly address their contentions.

If they score against you, honestly grant their points and move on. Ideally, though, you need to think your entire argument through to ensure that the position you are taking isn't going to be demolished so quickly. Maybe a little Devil's Advocate Advocate work would be in order.

Once you're really proficient in Devil's Advocacy, you may be able to seamlessly argue from both sides for a third position that no one has thought of.

Good on you for trying, though. Devil's Advocacy is thankless work!

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: No more porn

Postby Belial » Mon Aug 06, 2012 11:58 am UTC

ddxxdd wrote:This is why I like playing Devil's Advocate on these forums. People here would much rather project their own insecurities and shortcomings onto me than actually reading all the thought experiments and analogies that I construct. Instead of using logic, people use defense mechanisms here.


Hey, you know what it is when you intentionally try to elicit a disruptive response?

Yeah, that would be trolling.

And we don't tolerate it.

This is your warning.


What's the average age on these forums, by the way? Am I the oldest person here at 26?


This, for example. Quit it.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
As the Arbiter of Everything, Everything Sucks
Posts: 8314
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:17 pm UTC
Location: I FUCKING MOVED TO THE WOODS

Re: No more porn

Postby (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ » Mon Aug 06, 2012 2:06 pm UTC

Isn't his statement also statistically untrue, considering there were many posts of other people engaging in this discussion and just one making a personal dig?
Saying that R_I's post is indicative of the forums as a whole doesn't make sense.
Just sayin.
Heyyy baby wanna kill all humans?

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: No more porn

Postby Belial » Mon Aug 06, 2012 2:09 pm UTC

Yes, also that.

But that conversation is over now. Back to porn.

(Man, if I had a nickel)
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
MikeArsenault
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 1:57 am UTC
Location: Winnipeg, Mantoba, Canada
Contact:

Re: No more porn

Postby MikeArsenault » Wed Aug 08, 2012 2:57 pm UTC

I think there is an argument to be made about divorcing the artist from their art when it comes to movies, but that becomes incredibly subjective, especially when you look at pornography and whether or not it can be art the same way non-porn movies can be.

For example, some people cannot watch movies made by Roman Polanski because of his rape of an under-aged girl. They cannot look past the acts and behaviour of the man and enjoy his movies as art. Yet when he was back in the news a few years ago, there were many people who could overlook everything he had done in his personal life in defense of the artistic merits of his work. There are horror fans who love Jeepers Creepers despite the fact that Victor Salva is a convicted pedophile. I am not sure I am capable of separating the artist from his art. I personally have a huge problem with supporting people who commit such heinous crimes, either financially or academically by studying their works. I fully admit this is my own hang-up that I can't get past, and I do not begrudge people who can look at the artworks produced by people like this as just art. Emotionally, I just can't find that cool detachment like other people can.

In the case of Deep Throat, it wasn't even that the creators were guilty of crimes before they made their work of 'art'. They actively perpetrated a crime on the lead actress in order to create the movie. At that point, Deep Throat became a work of pure exploitation rather than something whose merits could be debated. I think the theatre manager made the correct call. As far as the student groups who were using this event as a way to pursue their agendas, that would be an opportunity to debate the role of porn in current times.

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5526
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: No more porn

Postby doogly » Wed Aug 08, 2012 3:27 pm UTC

MikeArsenault wrote:In the case of Deep Throat, it wasn't even that the creators were guilty of crimes before they made their work of 'art'. They actively perpetrated a crime on the lead actress in order to create the movie. At that point, Deep Throat became a work of pure exploitation rather than something whose merits could be debated.

Agreed. The conceptual space for a nuanced and compelling debate is happening a few paces over there. A few hundred paces. This is a rape in progress. Not a gray area.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

HungryHobo
Posts: 1708
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:01 am UTC

Re: No more porn

Postby HungryHobo » Wed Aug 08, 2012 3:37 pm UTC

MikeArsenault wrote: There are horror fans who love Jeepers Creepers despite the fact that Victor Salva is a convicted pedophile. I am not sure I am capable of separating the artist from his art.


this just seems strange.

If a bricklayer was a canibal it wouldn't make all the walls he'd built corrupt.

If a philosopher was a deviant of some kind it wouldn't make his arguments invalid.indeed it would fall under a logical falacy to try to contend that they were because of that.

Jeepers creepers doesn't seem to really have much connection to the seperate crimes of one of the people who made it.

Even when what you're talking about is the product of exploitation it doesn't seem quite right to blame the product. We wouldn't tear down the great wall of china due to the bones of slave laborours burried beside it nor tear down the capitol building because slaves helped build it as neither are monuments glorifing slavery even if they are partially it's product.
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5526
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: No more porn

Postby doogly » Wed Aug 08, 2012 3:47 pm UTC

It's not even in the public domain though. You are giving that rapist royalties when you license his movie and show his rape on a college campus.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

HungryHobo
Posts: 1708
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:01 am UTC

Re: No more porn

Postby HungryHobo » Wed Aug 08, 2012 3:52 pm UTC

doogly wrote:It's not even in the public domain though. You are giving that rapist royalties when you license his movie and show his rape on a college campus.

would your opinion be different if copyright law was different or it was in the public domain?
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.

User avatar
MikeArsenault
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 1:57 am UTC
Location: Winnipeg, Mantoba, Canada
Contact:

Re: No more porn

Postby MikeArsenault » Wed Aug 08, 2012 3:59 pm UTC

HungryHobo wrote:
MikeArsenault wrote: There are horror fans who love Jeepers Creepers despite the fact that Victor Salva is a convicted pedophile. I am not sure I am capable of separating the artist from his art.


this just seems strange.

If a bricklayer was a canibal it wouldn't make all the walls he'd built corrupt.

If a philosopher was a deviant of some kind it wouldn't make his arguments invalid.indeed it would fall under a logical falacy to try to contend that they were because of that.

Jeepers creepers doesn't seem to really have much connection to the seperate crimes of one of the people who made it.

Even when what you're talking about is the product of exploitation it doesn't seem quite right to blame the product. We wouldn't tear down the great wall of china due to the bones of slave laborours burried beside it nor tear down the capitol building because slaves helped build it as neither are monuments glorifing slavery even if they are partially it's product.


This isn't about validating or blaming the work, it's about accepting/legitimizing the work on the basis of who made it. I can appreciate your points above, but in almost all of these cases the people who made these works are dead. Not supporting the Great Wall of China because the labourers were exploited during its construction is silly, because no one is left alive from that period in time. My protestation would fall on the ears of those who had absolutely no responsibility. On the other hand, I won't buy a Volkswagon because of the company's history with exploiting Jewish slave labour in the early days of its existence. Yeah a lot of time has passed between that time and now, yet they still sicken me as a company. In the case of Victor Salva, he is very much still alive. For me to give him money in support of his works would be very hard to do, as I would be allowing someone capable of such a crime to grow successful despite committing that crime. The connection in this case is the fact that, if his movies are successful, he gets to continue making movies and benefiting from being in the same position of power that allowed him to take advantage of a child in the first place. I mean, maybe 30 years from now I won't feel this way, but there is an immediate effect of me supporting these people that I'd rather not produce. Again, this is 100% me being judgmental and having hang-ups about people vs their products. I freely admit this is purely emotional with me and not based on logic.

The one point you bring up that I am struggling with was the case of the deviant philosopher (or scientist, let's say). Unless that individual has something for sale, is reading their papers considered being supportive? Would their works be worthy of study if only to catch a glimpse into their deviant minds? I don't have a clear internal compass on that. Damn you for making me think :P

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5526
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: No more porn

Postby doogly » Wed Aug 08, 2012 4:09 pm UTC

HungryHobo wrote:
doogly wrote:It's not even in the public domain though. You are giving that rapist royalties when you license his movie and show his rape on a college campus.

would your opinion be different if copyright law was different or it was in the public domain?

I'd acknowledge the space for a reasonable debate. Maybe not for public domain Deep Throat, but I could probably watch some Polanski movies, and could be persuaded around with compelling arguments or further detail.

But handing rapists money to watch their rapes, I dunno man, I really don't see a lot of nuance here, y'know?
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

HungryHobo
Posts: 1708
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:01 am UTC

Re: No more porn

Postby HungryHobo » Wed Aug 08, 2012 4:15 pm UTC

MikeArsenault wrote:For me to give him money in support of his works would be very hard to do,


Your example of Roman Polanski makes me wonder, particularly in the cases of those who flee conviction should their earned income in countries which recognise the conviction go to their victims?

would Roman Polanskis films or even deep throat be less repulsive to you if the victim got royalties every time they were shown?
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5526
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: No more porn

Postby doogly » Wed Aug 08, 2012 4:18 pm UTC

Fortunately the victims of both are still alive, so we could just ask them.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

Radical_Initiator
Just Cool Enough for School
Posts: 1374
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:39 pm UTC

Re: No more porn

Postby Radical_Initiator » Wed Aug 08, 2012 4:24 pm UTC

MikeArsenault wrote:This isn't about validating or blaming the work, it's about accepting/legitimizing the work on the basis of who made it. I can appreciate your points above, but in almost all of these cases the people who made these works are dead. Not supporting the Great Wall of China because the labourers were exploited during its construction is silly, because no one is left alive from that period in time. My protestation would fall on the ears of those who had absolutely no responsibility. On the other hand, I won't buy a Volkswagon because of the company's history with exploiting Jewish slave labour in the early days of its existence. Yeah a lot of time has passed between that time and now, yet they still sicken me as a company. In the case of Victor Salva, he is very much still alive. For me to give him money in support of his works would be very hard to do, as I would be allowing someone capable of such a crime to grow successful despite committing that crime. The connection in this case is the fact that, if his movies are successful, he gets to continue making movies and benefiting from being in the same position of power that allowed him to take advantage of a child in the first place. I mean, maybe 30 years from now I won't feel this way, but there is an immediate effect of me supporting these people that I'd rather not produce. Again, this is 100% me being judgmental and having hang-ups about people vs their products. I freely admit this is purely emotional with me and not based on logic.

The one point you bring up that I am struggling with was the case of the deviant philosopher (or scientist, let's say). Unless that individual has something for sale, is reading their papers considered being supportive? Would their works be worthy of study if only to catch a glimpse into their deviant minds? I don't have a clear internal compass on that. Damn you for making me think :P


Personally, I think I would have less trouble with something like the situation involving "Jeepers Creepers" and Victor Salva for the fact that although the director is one of the most integral parts of a film, he's far from the only person involved. Justin Long hasn't been convicted of anything related to pedophilia. Nor has Francis Ford Coppola, for what I know (although Coppola is partly responsible for Salva's career, so that doesn't entirely play well with me). Neither have the cinematographers, the sound editors, the casting directors, the visual effects editors, the marketing offices or the distributors. Something like a major motion picture that, as far as I can tell, has no connection to Salva's crimes other than his existence in connection to the film, has so many parts that aren't connected to his crime that rejecting it completely seems to me (and this is on an emotional level as well, so I'm not trying to state this as anything other than my opinion) like painting everyone involved in the movie as complicit by association.

Now, with Deep Throat, everyone involved in the movie is complicit in the crime, because the movie itself is predicated on rape.
I looked out across the river today …

User avatar
MikeArsenault
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 1:57 am UTC
Location: Winnipeg, Mantoba, Canada
Contact:

Re: No more porn

Postby MikeArsenault » Wed Aug 08, 2012 4:25 pm UTC

HungryHobo wrote:
MikeArsenault wrote:For me to give him money in support of his works would be very hard to do,


Your example of Roman Polanski makes me wonder, particularly in the cases of those who flee conviction should their earned income in countries which recognise the conviction go to their victims?

would Roman Polanskis films or even deep throat be less repulsive to you if the victim got royalties every time they were shown?


I don't know the answer to this. We don't have very many laws in Canada that give the victims of a crime the financial assets of the perpetrator. Would the money make things better for the victims? Would they even want anything to do with the perpetrator? Samantha Geimer didn't (ironically, the press touted her intention to let the incident go as support for Polanski somehow... and this is on top of her saying it was the media that made everything worse for her). I am not sure I could watch his or Salva's films because my instant response would be to think about the poor kids that were hurt by these men. I'd rather just donate money to causes the victims support on their behalf than give money indirectly or otherwise to these two directors.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: No more porn

Postby Azrael » Wed Aug 08, 2012 4:25 pm UTC

HungryHobo wrote:would Roman Polanskis films or even deep throat

Stop equating those two, even if only by putting them in the same hypothetical. Polanksi was a filmmaker who also criminally sexually assaulted a person. The victimization is entirely ancillary to his films. Deep Throat is footage of an actual rape.

But, to be clear (and topical), I think it would be just if the Deep Throat victim sued for and was ceded complete distribution rights of the work -- either to remove it entirely or collect the royalties.

HungryHobo
Posts: 1708
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:01 am UTC

Re: No more porn

Postby HungryHobo » Wed Aug 08, 2012 4:31 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:
HungryHobo wrote:would Roman Polanskis films or even deep throat


Stop equating those two, even if only by putting them in the same hypothetical.


If you cab be bothered to read back I only even included them in the same sentence once.
It was someone else who brought Roman Polanski into this.

I even made the exact same point that it doesn't make sense to demonise a film which doesn't "seem to really have much connection to the seperate crimes of one of the people who made it."
Last edited by HungryHobo on Wed Aug 08, 2012 4:35 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.

User avatar
MikeArsenault
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 1:57 am UTC
Location: Winnipeg, Mantoba, Canada
Contact:

Re: No more porn

Postby MikeArsenault » Wed Aug 08, 2012 4:32 pm UTC

Radical_Initiator wrote:
MikeArsenault wrote:This isn't about validating or blaming the work, it's about accepting/legitimizing the work on the basis of who made it. I can appreciate your points above, but in almost all of these cases the people who made these works are dead. Not supporting the Great Wall of China because the labourers were exploited during its construction is silly, because no one is left alive from that period in time. My protestation would fall on the ears of those who had absolutely no responsibility. On the other hand, I won't buy a Volkswagon because of the company's history with exploiting Jewish slave labour in the early days of its existence. Yeah a lot of time has passed between that time and now, yet they still sicken me as a company. In the case of Victor Salva, he is very much still alive. For me to give him money in support of his works would be very hard to do, as I would be allowing someone capable of such a crime to grow successful despite committing that crime. The connection in this case is the fact that, if his movies are successful, he gets to continue making movies and benefiting from being in the same position of power that allowed him to take advantage of a child in the first place. I mean, maybe 30 years from now I won't feel this way, but there is an immediate effect of me supporting these people that I'd rather not produce. Again, this is 100% me being judgmental and having hang-ups about people vs their products. I freely admit this is purely emotional with me and not based on logic.

The one point you bring up that I am struggling with was the case of the deviant philosopher (or scientist, let's say). Unless that individual has something for sale, is reading their papers considered being supportive? Would their works be worthy of study if only to catch a glimpse into their deviant minds? I don't have a clear internal compass on that. Damn you for making me think :P


Personally, I think I would have less trouble with something like the situation involving "Jeepers Creepers" and Victor Salva for the fact that although the director is one of the most integral parts of a film, he's far from the only person involved. Justin Long hasn't been convicted of anything related to pedophilia. Nor has Francis Ford Coppola, for what I know (although Coppola is partly responsible for Salva's career, so that doesn't entirely play well with me). Neither have the cinematographers, the sound editors, the casting directors, the visual effects editors, the marketing offices or the distributors. Something like a major motion picture that, as far as I can tell, has no connection to Salva's crimes other than his existence in connection to the film, has so many parts that aren't connected to his crime that rejecting it completely seems to me (and this is on an emotional level as well, so I'm not trying to state this as anything other than my opinion) like painting everyone involved in the movie as complicit by association.


I have to admit that I do feel bad about my stance in light of the fact that every movie employs hundreds of people that have nothing to do with the crimes of the 'manager' of that film. But as a consumer and one lone individual, I have no other protest mechanism at my disposal other than to not support the work as a whole. Like with Volkswagon, there are still a few individuals at the top who were around or grew up in the company around the second world war and the true origins of that firm. The vast majority of people involved with them had nothing to do with their evil past, and are very far removed from the management of the company. But I can't get over how the company founded its success on the backs of slave labour that the government of the day had no qualms about murdering in the millions.

Radical_Initiator wrote:Now, with Deep Throat, everyone involved in the movie is complicit in the crime, because the movie itself is predicated on rape.


Yeah, this right here is why I would find it impossible to consider the movie a 'work' worth examining, let alone supporting.

induction
Posts: 241
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 8:00 am UTC

Re: No more porn

Postby induction » Wed Aug 08, 2012 5:09 pm UTC

A few facts:

Linda Lovelace was 'managed' by her husband Chuck Traynor. He is the only person associated with Deep Throat that she accused of raping her. She also said he forced her to perform in Deep Throat, along with a few other movies, beat her, pointed a gun at her, kept the money she was paid for appearing in Deep Throat, etc.

Both Linda Lovelace and Chuck Traynor are dead.

Chuck Traynor was the production manager on Deep Throat, but did not receive any royalties.

Linda Lovelace has not claimed that the actors or director of Deep Throat knew that she was being coerced, but many of the cast and crew later stated that they knew that Chuck Traynor was a controlling prick and sadist, and that he beat her 'behind closed doors'. When she said,
When you see the movie Deep Throat, you are watching me being raped. It is a crime that movie is still showing; there was a gun to my head the entire time.
I think she was being slightly metaphorical. There was no gun pointed at her during filming (at least not during that movie), and the rape was essentially at the hands of her husband, not the people who were actually having sex with her in the movie.

Not sure how much any of this matters. Just clarifying.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests