Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Fully Baked Left Wing Vegan Cookies

12467…45

Comments

  • #152
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Oh my


  • #153
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,676 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Links234 wrote: »
    So in essense Peregrinus you are saying that if someone takes issue with someone taking issue over someone taking issue... where were we? :confused:
    It's not that difficult. Concentrate hard. Now, come on, I know you can do it! There's a drink in it for you!*

    1. Jank takes issue with certain criticisms of 50 Shades.

    and

    2. You suggest that, because he has done so, jank is saying that "criticism is bad and freedom to protest is wrong".

    but

    3. Jank hasn't said anything remotely like that.


    * [Obligatory Father Ted reference]


  • #154
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    I got what you were saying perfectly fine first time around, I was being jovial.


  • #155
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,676 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    That would be an ecumenical matter.


  • #156
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Well the RCC were behind the ban of "The life of Brian" and if they could not have banned it they certainly would have been behind a boycott, saying prayers and all that stuff (which they are entitled to do).... All I am saying that groups be it conservative, feminist or 'liberal' in asking others to boycott movies or books (again which they are entitled to do) are generally there to be laughed and pointed at.

    Can't put it any better than this...
    father-ted-film-protest.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,190 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    Links234 wrote: »
    I got what you were saying perfectly fine first time around, I was being jovial.

    But today's Friday! :(


  • #158
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,781 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    jank wrote: »
    Feminist activists urge boycott of 50 shades of Grey equating the movie is akin to 'promoting' domestic abuse.



    Not ironic seeing as the target audience of the books and the movie are women in their 20's and 30's? Never mind the author is also a woman. (God help us if it were a man!)

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carey-purcell/fifty-shades-of-grey-feminism_b_2395932.html

    The unholy alliance is also getting in on the act.
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2015/02/12/feminists-moralists-conservatives-slam-fifty-shades/23297675/

    Feminists the new conservatives? Quite possible.
    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/tens-of-thousands-urge-boycott-of-fifty-shades-of-grey


    Anyway, men are at fault and to blame again...
    http://theconversation.com/fifty-shades-of-grey-is-just-an-old-fashioned-romance-thats-the-problem-37440

    Am I missing something or is there no part of this post which explains why you think they are actually wrong for calling on people to boycott it?
    What's wrong with a boycott, it's just asking people to voluntarily not go see it.
    Do you expect is to join in your distatse simply because feminism is involved?


  • #159
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    My experience of fifty shades is mostly from this
    http://www.fiftyshadesgenerator.com/

    But it does actually seem like an abusive relationship. Im most people wont bother to see it anyway, if I want to watch something about sex I'll find better videos online.


  • #160
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    My experience of fifty shades is mostly from this
    http://www.fiftyshadesgenerator.com/

    But it does actually seem like an abusive relationship. Im most people wont bother to see it anyway, if I want to watch something about sex I'll find better videos online.


    It has a 12 cert in France apparently, so you can guess how "wild" it is from that.


  • #161
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    No, what you are saying, Links, is that if somebody ever takes issue with any particular criticism or any particular boycott, they can be taken as saying that criticism in general is bad and freedom to protest is wrong.
    There was no attempt to discredit the criticisms against the book - so it very much just appears to just be taking issue with people for having legitimate criticisms of the book.

    Taking issue like that, apparently without any reason, isn't really anything more than scoffing - and this scoffing seems to extend to the idea of protesting/boycotting against stuff in general.

    Paraphrased, it might as well just be: "Those lefties/feminists, with their protests and boycott's :rolleyes:"


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    jank wrote: »
    Well the RCC were behind the ban of "The life of Brian" and if they could not have banned it they certainly would have been behind a boycott, saying prayers and all that stuff (which they are entitled to do).... All I am saying that groups be it conservative, feminist or 'liberal' in asking others to boycott movies or books (again which they are entitled to do) are generally there to be laughed and pointed at.

    I don't know if you're really this disingenuous or you just like janking people's chains, but there is a world of difference between banning something and criticizing it. Ireland has had a long history of film censorship, many movies were banned, which is indeed a shameful and ridiculous thing, but that is a far cry from a hashtag calling for people to donate to women's charities instead of seeing a movie. Now, were our government to ban it, you and me would be very much on the same side, but that's not what is happening at all.

    Controversy and criticism can be productive, it gets people talking, there are conversations about the kind of relationships depicted in 50 Shades happening, and that's good. There are calls for people to see Secretary instead, and that's a protest I can get behind, because the world needs more James Spader

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFma24S-Uvw


  • #163
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    I have yet to hear about feminists having it not be shown. Same cant be said about members of a certain religious group in Craggy Island Inishowen (think it was Inishowen anyway)


  • #164
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Secretary actually has full frontal nudity. According to the reports Fifty Shades, surprisingly, has none. My issue with it is that it's regarded as 'romantic'. Releasing the film on Valentines day. Now, maybe the film is a lot different from the books. The book however was mostly about an abusive relationship and the 'victim' of that relationship sticking with her abuser, thinking she could find a way to satisfy him. It is utterly fcked up to consider it romantic material.


  • #165
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    Nodin wrote: »
    It has a 12 cert in France apparently, so you can guess how "wild" it is from that.

    I think we're all used to films being made as child friendly as possible to cash in on the bigger potential audience. Its a shame. Its all about making money so my complaint is probably more suited to the other thread :P


  • #166
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    I think we're all used to films being made as child friendly as possible to cash in on the bigger potential audience. Its a shame. Its all about making money so my complaint is probably more suited to the other thread :P


    Tis true. Movies not made, movies made that should not have been.....
    *sob


  • #167
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Links234 wrote: »
    I don't know if you're really this disingenuous or you just like janking people's chains, but there is a world of difference between banning something and criticizing it. Ireland has had a long history of film censorship, many movies were banned, which is indeed a shameful and ridiculous thing, but that is a far cry from a hashtag calling for people to donate to women's charities instead of seeing a movie. Now, were our government to ban it, you and me would be very much on the same side, but that's not what is happening at all.

    Controversy and criticism can be productive, it gets people talking, there are conversations about the kind of relationships depicted in 50 Shades happening, and that's good. There are calls for people to see Secretary instead, and that's a protest I can get behind, because the world needs more James Spader

    I remember seeing the secretary actually. I was a bit of a puzzling movie personally but overall I found it very funny with some scenes that still stick with me. However, I wonder would that movie if it were released today get the scorn of the illiberal left as I can't remember any big contraversy about The Sectary when it was released. I suppose they were the golden days the the Internet pre Facebook, twitter and all the crap that goes with it.

    As I said, people have a right to protest, boycott anything they wish. People also have a right to take the piss out of these people who are protesting. I would have though my Father Ted image would have demonstrated that. Would you be so defensive if this movie was talking the piss out of Jesus and the Iona institute were asking for a boycott? I think not, in fact you would have ripping the piss out of them and rightly so.


  • #168
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    To use a line of rhetoric that you frequently emply. Iona institute not one bit comparable to physical and mental abuse. Choose what you think should have the piss taken out of it, more wisely.


  • #169
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    jank wrote: »
    I remember seeing the secretary actually. I was a bit of a puzzling movie personally but overall I found it very funny with some scenes that still stick with me. However, I wonder would that movie if it were released today get the scorn of the illiberal left as I can't remember any big contraversy about The Sectary when it was released. I suppose they were the golden days the the Internet pre Facebook, twitter and all the crap that goes with it.

    As I said, people have a right to protest, boycott anything they wish. People also have a right to take the piss out of these people who are protesting. I would have though my Father Ted image would have demonstrated that. Would you be so defensive if this movie was talking the piss out of Jesus and the Iona institute were asking for a boycott? I think not, in fact you would have ripping the piss out of them and rightly so.

    I have a few friends who are into the kink scene and are critical of 50 Shades because as best I understand it, the book and/or movie have issues of consent and an abusive relationship, and gives a skewed perspective on what BDSM is. I've not read or seen it, so I won't comment on that. Secretary didn't have these issues, so it's a different kettle of fish and wouldn't have had the same criticisms.

    But are you honestly trying to suggest that pre-internet, people didn't criticize or call for boycotts or worse, call for bans etc? Are you trying to tell me that the 90's didn't happen? Because I'm old enough to remember the moral panic "Ban this sick filth" hysteria over what were quite frankly some crappy horror movies, or similar controversies over anime because some folks didn't know Akira wasn't for kids, or similar again with games and moral crusaders like Jack Thompson and all that noise.

    Anyway, to your point about Iona...

    You're asking me, what if a completely different bunch, called for the boycott of a completely different movie, for completely different reasons? Yes, I might consider that situation somewhat differently and my reaction to it might not be the same.

    So this brings us right back around again to my initial post on the subject, are you saying criticism and calls for boycotts are bad? Because you're offering absolutely nothing about why this is bad, no argument against the criticisms or why they're wrong, etc.


  • #170
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,665 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Links234 wrote: »
    So this brings us right back around again to my initial post on the subject, are you saying criticism and calls for boycotts are bad? Because you're offering absolutely nothing about why this is bad, no argument against the criticisms or why they're wrong, etc.

    just jumping in here but as a general point I 'd say that boycotts against a piece of "art" for want of a better term is pointless and maybe more about a particular organisation wanting to get itself some free publicity. Criticisms are fine, they are called reviews. Boycotts are better used if it might reduce a real life activity that is deemed bad for whatever reason.

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • #171
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,460 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Jank what's your opinion on the UK feminist 'ban page 3' campaigns? I'd agree with pointing out it's undesirable* and sleazy, but don't agree with banning it should an organisation decide to persist with it in spite of it being undesirable and sleazy.


    * There is more than a slight hypocrisy here, they are not seeking to ban out and out porn afaik because of free speech, but they do object to sexual images in mass media, so it's kind of an inverse agumentum ad populum argument - porn is ok provided it's slightly harder to seek out.

    Scrap the cap!



  • Advertisement
  • #172
    pH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    I haven't read 50 shades, nor am I likely to or watch the movie but I just have to ask, where did people get the idea that "art" has to be of some sort of high moral value?

    We have a book written by a woman, read mainly by women, and here come the usual suspects to tell these women they shouldn't be reading it and shouldn't be watching it, I guess a woman shouldn't be writing it either. Go watch something else, I know best! I'm amazed people hold such sexist and anti-women views in 2015.


  • #173
    K4t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,362 ✭✭✭K4t


    pH wrote: »
    I haven't read 50 shades, nor am I likely to or watch the movie but I just have to ask, where did people get the idea that "art" has to be of some sort of high moral value?
    It doesn't. But neither is art subjective. There is good music and bad music, good movies and bad movies, good writers and bad writers. 50 shades of gray is poorly written. That's widely acknowledged by men and women and there is no harm in saying it. Would I ever want to see it banned for being poorly written or for its content ? No. Who the hell am I to say what is and isn't ok to be published. If the female character was 5 years old I'd still maintain it should be allowed to be published.
    We have a book written by a woman, read mainly by women, and here come the usual suspects to tell these women they shouldn't be reading it and shouldn't be watching it, I guess a woman shouldn't be writing it either. Go watch something else, I know best! I'm amazed people hold such sexist and anti-women views in 2015.
    Lots of women hate 50 shades of gray and think it's badly written. It's condescending towards women and insulting towards men to think it sexist or anti-women for men to criticise 50 shades and its writing and suggest both sexes go watch Secretary or read DH Lawrence.


  • #174
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    K4t wrote: »
    It doesn't. But neither is art subjective. There is good music and bad music, good movies and bad movies, good writers and bad writers.
    What are the objective criteria for music, movies, and writers?


  • #175
    pH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    K4t wrote: »
    It doesn't. But neither is art subjective. There is good music and bad music, good movies and bad movies, good writers and bad writers. 50 shades of gray is poorly written.

    You're just saying that because it was written by a woman. If it was written by a man you'd probably think it was great.

    And anyway that statement is a typical bait and switch, there are plenty of terrible movies, pretending that this hysterical fuss about 50 shades has anything to do with the quality of the film is downright silly.
    Lots of women hate 50 shades of gray and think it's badly written. It's condescending towards women and insulting towards men to think it sexist or anti-women for men to criticise 50 shades and its writing and suggest both sexes go watch Secretary or read DH Lawrence.

    Again, I'm not sure if you're trolling, confused or just trying to steer the debate away from the issues, but this has nothing to do with the quality of writing of the book or the movie, but has everything to do with the subject matter and story.

    Actually, the condescension is in telling literally millions of women what types of fiction they should be reading or the movies they can watch, based on the fact that you believe their sub-standard minds can't figure out what they're watching for themselves, so best they not watch it.


  • #176
    K4t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,362 ✭✭✭K4t


    Absolam wrote: »
    What are the objective criteria for music, movies, and writers?
    That they each exist within their own context. It is then subjective among those who dedicate themselves to those areas of specialty, the experts, to measure the importance and significance of them to that area of specialty. It's not the best way, but it's probably the fairest and most reliable to judge the value of art. So yeah, it is subjective, but subjective is a better measure of value than objective.


  • #177
    K4t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,362 ✭✭✭K4t


    pH wrote: »
    You're just saying that because it was written by a woman. If it was written by a man you'd probably think it was great.
    George Eliot wrote perhaps the greatest novel of all time, and that kind of thinking belongs in the 19th century.
    Actually, the condescension is in telling literally millions of women what types of fiction they should be reading or the movies they can watch, based on the fact that you believe their sub-standard minds can't figure out what they're watching for themselves, so best they not watch it.

    Nobody is telling women what they can and can't do here, and nobody is accusing women of having sub-standard minds. This is what you wrote:
    We have a book written by a woman, read mainly by women, and here come the usual suspects to tell these women they shouldn't be reading it and shouldn't be watching it, I guess a woman shouldn't be writing it either. Go watch something else, I know best! I'm amazed people hold such sexist and anti-women views in 2015.
    That a woman wrote it, or that mostly women read it, or that mostly women will watch it, has nothing to do with both men and women criticising the book/film. And accusing those who do criticise it of sexist and anti-women views, is condescending towards women who dislike the book and the movie, and insulting towards men, who you think are only criticising the book and movie because they are sexist and anti-women.


  • #178
    K4t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,362 ✭✭✭K4t


    Links234 wrote: »
    I have a few friends who are into the kink scene and are critical of 50 Shades because as best I understand it, the book and/or movie have issues of consent and an abusive relationship, and gives a skewed perspective on what BDSM is.
    It's a novel; not a BDSM guidebook or safety manual. :pac:


  • #179
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    K4t wrote: »
    That they each exist within their own context. It is then subjective among those who dedicate themselves to those areas of specialty, the experts, to measure the importance and significance of them to that area of specialty. It's not the best way, but it's probably the fairest and most reliable to judge the value of art. So yeah, it is subjective, but subjective is a better measure of value than objective.
    Hang on, the objective criteria for determining if music, movies or writers are good or bad is that they exist? So does that mean that all music, movies or writers that exist are objectively good, or objectively bad? Or are you revising your opinion and saying now that art is subjective? In which case, why is subjective a better measure of value than objective? Particularly in the case of art?


  • #180
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    pH wrote: »
    You're just saying that because it was written by a woman. If it was written by a man you'd probably think it was great.

    ..............

    That's a bit of an outrageous accusation, tbh.


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,964 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    Absolam wrote: »
    Hang on, the objective criteria for determining if music, movies or writers are good or bad is that they exist? So does that mean that all music, movies or writers that exist are objectively good, or objectively bad? Or are you revising your opinion and saying now that art is subjective? In which case, why is subjective a better measure of value than objective? Particularly in the case of art?

    Well, Battlefield Earth is certainly objectively bad. :pac:


  • #182
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    Well, Battlefield Earth is certainly objectively bad. :pac:

    Ah now... Scottt Chitwood of IGN, Bob Graham of SFGate, and JoBlos Movie Reviews all thought it was good! And since they are obviously the voices of minorities, according to K4t they are more important. So Battlefield Earth is objectively good? Or at least the subjective opinion that it is good is more important than the subjective opinion that it is bad :-)


  • #183
    K4t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,362 ✭✭✭K4t


    Absolam wrote: »
    Ah now... Scottt Chitwood of IGN, Bob Graham of SFGate, and JoBlos Movie Reviews all thought it was good! And since they are obviously the voices of minorities, according to K4t they are more important. So Battlefield Earth is objectively good? Or at least the subjective opinion that it is good is more important than the subjective opinion that it is bad :-)
    It's difficult to try to explain something to someone who will not even attempt to understand it, but would rather just win the discussion at all costs, even by consciously refusing to acknowledge reason; and twist everything you say and take things out of context to suit their own argument and agenda. The right of the minority view to be expressed freely is what needs protecting the most in all societies. It's important that we never silence or suppress a view because it is the minority view or we think it is stupid or hateful or wrong or immoral; I never said they were the most intelligent or moral or correct or right views. You're confusing two separate discussions as well and I deliberately didn't reply to your last comment in the humanities thread for reasons I already mentioned. You're a waste of time.


  • #184
    BlaasForRafa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭BlaasForRafa


    K4t wrote: »
    It's a novel; not a BDSM guidebook or safety manual. :pac:

    It sounds like it's probably E.L James wish fulfillment fantasy. And like all great literature of the modern age it grew out of Twilight fan fiction apparently.


  • #185
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    K4t wrote: »
    It's difficult to try to explain something to someone who will not even attempt to understand it, but would rather just win the discussion at all costs, even by consciously refusing to acknowledge reason; and twist everything you say and take things out of context to suit their own argument and agenda.
    That might be true...
    K4t wrote: »
    The right of the minority view to be expressed freely is what needs protecting the most in all societies.
    But I don't think that is. Freedom of speech should be equally protected; favouring the minorities is a disservice to all.
    K4t wrote: »
    You're confusing two separate discussions as well and I deliberately didn't reply to your last comment in the humanities thread for reasons I already mentioned.
    I'm not confusing them; I deliberately included your assertion from one in another.
    K4t wrote: »
    You're a waste of time.
    I suppose that's a matter of opinion :)


  • #186
    K4t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,362 ✭✭✭K4t


    Absolam wrote: »
    Freedom of speech should be equally protected; favouring the minorities is a disservice to all.
    That was my point all along, and in the other thread; but somewhere along the way, in trying to beat me or win the discussion, you ignored that, or simply did not understand it. You have some gall to say that against me now, and attempt to take the higher ground! My point about minority opinions and voices being most important, and the most deserving of protection was simply that; I didn't mean them to receive more protection under the law. You know that, but you clearly saw things about religion you didn't like in my posts and decided to dissect every word of my posts, taking things out of context, and attempted to discredit my views. Which is fair enough, you're entitled to do that, but people reading this should be aware of it, and you should be aware that I will not argue with a person who behaves like that. You only want to WIN, and you'll attack reasonable and logical views, from all kinds of angles, taking whatever suits your argument out of context, and twist them to support your own obvious agenda here on the atheist forum. I will not partake nor give you the pleasure. Good day.


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    K4t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,362 ✭✭✭K4t


    BlaasForRafa wrote: »
    It sounds like it's probably E.L James wish fulfillment fantasy. And like all great literature of the modern age it grew out of Twilight fan fiction apparently.
    I can't think of her name, but there's a great review by a lady in yesterday's Sunday Times of the movie. Basically she says she sat in the cinema at the end of the film feeling perplexed at the women crying, asking them why the hell they were crying after the way the lead female character was treated. Women are still victims of control and manipulation by men in western society, and any attempt to discuss it sees attacks and accusations of sexism, by not only men, but women themselves, as you see in some of the posts above. It reminds me of that picture of Stephanie Roche at the Ballon D'or, with Ronaldo and Messi staring at her. That became the story. One radio station posted the caption on facebook "We all know who Ronaldo and Messi wanted to win" and thousands of girls liked it, not realising how it was disrespectful towards Roche who was their on merit and deserved to win on merit, and insulting towards Ronaldo and Messi, and all men, that they would think a woman deserved to win because she was attractive or because she was a woman. Just a small thing, but an insight into our culture. And of course we all know what institution specialises in the control of people, especially of women.


  • #188
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    K4t wrote: »
    That was my point all along, and in the other thread; but somewhere along the way, in trying to beat me or win the discussion, you ignored that, or simply did not understand it.
    Perhaps you should have made that point, instead of saying something different then? Had you done so, I wouldn't have disagreed with you (on that point) :)
    K4t wrote: »
    My point about minority opinions and voices being most important, and the most deserving of protection was simply that; I didn't mean them to receive more protection under the law.
    So again you single out minorities as being most deserving of protection; if not under the law then what? You can't have it both ways; if all opinions deserve equal protection, then minority opinions are not most deserving of protection.
    K4t wrote: »
    You know that, but you clearly saw things about religion you didn't like in my posts and decided to dissect every word of my posts, taking things out of context, and attempted to discredit my views. Which is fair enough, you're entitled to do that, but people reading this should be aware of it, and you should be aware that I will not argue with a person who behaves like that. You only want to WIN, and you'll attack reasonable and logical views, from all kinds of angles, taking whatever suits your argument out of context, and twist them to support your own obvious agenda here on the atheist forum.
    Win what? I'm pointing out your view is not logical; you can't give someone special status and at the same time claim they're being treated equally, regardless of the context.


  • #189
    K4t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,362 ✭✭✭K4t


    Absolam wrote: »
    Perhaps you should have made that point, instead of saying something different then? Had you done so, I wouldn't have disagreed with you (on that point) :)
    So again you single out minorities as being most deserving of protection; if not under the law then what? You can't have it both ways; if all opinions deserve equal protection, then minority opinions are not most deserving of protection.

    Win what? I'm pointing out your view is not logical; you can't give someone special status and at the same time claim they're being treated equally, regardless of the context.
    For example, look at hate crime; I of course disagree with hate crime legislation, which can give minorities unequal protection under the law, but I do agree with the state collecting hate crime statistics and research. Minority views do deserve more protection, just not any more than other people's views under the law! My example of Russia the other day you clearly could not get your head around, so you simply dissected my post, took lots of things out of context, and were happier to earn some sort of victory. You're just trying to win all the time and it's tiresome. I'm not playing. Please go away.


  • #190
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    K4t wrote: »
    Minority views do deserve more protection, just not any more than other people's views under the law!
    So if they're not getting any more protection under the law, what protection are they getting?
    K4t wrote: »
    My example of Russia the other day you clearly could not get your head around, so you simply dissected my post, took lots of things out of context, and were happier to earn some sort of victory.
    I got my head around it fine thanks, you simply seemed unable to justify your proposition that anyone who would favour criminalising homophobic or racist speech would also favour the criminalising of anti-homophobic or anti-racist speech.
    K4t wrote: »
    You're just trying to win all the time and it's tiresome. I'm not playing. Please go away.
    There's nothing to win here; I'm simply questioning your assertions. You're quite entitled to not reply if you don't want to discuss what you said.


  • #191
    K4t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,362 ✭✭✭K4t


    Absolam wrote: »
    I got my head around it fine thanks, you simply seemed unable to justify your proposition that anyone who would favour criminalising homophobic or racist speech would also favour the criminalising of anti-homophobic or anti-racist speech.
    It doesn't need justifying. It's simply true. My Russia example was meant to explain why it is true, but I either didn't do a good job of it, you don't understand, or as I think myself, you are unwilling to understand.


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    K4t wrote: »
    It doesn't need justifying. It's simply true. My Russia example was meant to explain why it is true, but I either didn't do a good job of it, you don't understand, or as I think myself, you are unwilling to understand.
    If it's simply true, you can justify it. However, I don't believe it is true; as I said, if you're in favour of limiting homophobic or racist speech, you'd only be in favour of also limiting anti-homophobic or anti-racist speech because you also favour levelling the field of discussion or are in favour of limiting speech generally. If you are solely opposed to homophobic or racist speech (say on the basis of being opposed to homophobia or racism) you'll have no problem with speech that advances your position; to wit, anti-homophobic or anti-racist speech.
    So it is simply true that someone who is solely opposed to homophobic or racist speech would not necessarily favour the criminalising of anti-homophobic or anti-racist speech.

    Regardless, I'd suggest discussion of that particular point belongs in the thread where it originated rather than this one.


  • #193
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    K4t wrote: »
    I can't think of her name, but there's a great review by a lady in yesterday's Sunday Times of the movie. Basically she says she sat in the cinema at the end of the film feeling perplexed at the women crying, asking them why the hell they were crying after the way the lead female character was treated. Women are still victims of control and manipulation by men in western society, and any attempt to discuss it sees attacks and accusations of sexism, by not only men, but women themselves, as you see in some of the posts above. It reminds me of that picture of Stephanie Roche at the Ballon D'or, with Ronaldo and Messi staring at her. That became the story. One radio station posted the caption on facebook "We all know who Ronaldo and Messi wanted to win" and thousands of girls liked it, not realising how it was disrespectful towards Roche who was their on merit and deserved to win on merit, and insulting towards Ronaldo and Messi, and all men, that they would think a woman deserved to win because she was attractive or because she was a woman. Just a small thing, but an insight into our culture. And of course we all know what institution specialises in the control of people, especially of women.


    Well, the Sunday Times writer should not have been perplexed at the attitude of so many others in the cinema beside her, because it is an attitude that her paper, and the other papers in the criminal empire of Rupert the Dirty Digger, has done so much to foster (admittedly not as much as the Daily Heil has done, but nobody is as misogynist as D'acre). She knows full well that she is working for a deeply misogynist organisation, yet she still pretends suprise when she sees the results of misogynist propoganda. She is part of the problem, not the solution.


  • #194
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Links234 wrote: »
    So this brings us right back around again to my initial post on the subject, are you saying criticism and calls for boycotts are bad? Because you're offering absolutely nothing about why this is bad, no argument against the criticisms or why they're wrong, etc.
    So far as I can understand jank's post, you have to bear in mind two points of reference.

    Firstly, "liberals" (who, I believe, are fully synonymous with "lefties") should support all public expression, regardless of form or content; (b) "feminists" are fully synonymous with "liberals".

    In this context, it's therefore hypocritical for a "feminist" to protest "Fifty Shades of Gray" as doing so would amount to an abridgment of the unlimited license for public expression clause to which all the world's "liberal lefties" signed up as soon as they were able. Hell, as soon as they were born!

    This name-calling non-logic reminds me of Pauli's comment "Well, that's not even wrong".

    .


  • #195
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    A Letter to My Children About Fifty Shades of Grey - in which a mum writes a letter to her kids about the film. Can't say that I disagree too much with what she says (if what she says about the film is true), but it's ruined by the way in which she says it.

    http://www.bonbonbreak.com/letter-children-fifty-shades-grey/


  • #196
    Shrap
    Registered Users Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    robindch wrote: »
    A Letter to My Children About Fifty Shades of Grey - in which a mum writes a letter to her kids about the film. Can't say that I disagree too much with what she says (if what she says about the film is true), but it's ruined by the way in which she says it.

    http://www.bonbonbreak.com/letter-children-fifty-shades-grey/

    Yeah, agree totally with her. What's your take on the way she says it though?! Can't spot anything weird about it except the over-flowery stuff directed at her "precious darling children"....

    Oh, and btw, while I've not seen the film or read the book (life's too short and may be considerably shortened by the bile that would rise within me), I've read enough of the "book" reviews to know how shockingly badly written it is, how shallow/one dimensional the characters are and what a desperately bad message the story is to anyone, especially kids so I'm sure the review is pretty spot on.


  • #197
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Shrap wrote: »
    Yeah, agree totally with her. What's your take on the way she says it though?! Can't spot anything weird about it except the over-flowery stuff directed at her "precious darling children".
    Well, yeah, she's certainly a little unctuous about the whole thing which is off-putting. But if she's describing the film accurately, then yes, it sounds like it does depict an "abusive" relationship - the kind of thing which should be condemned or ridiculed. Haven't seen the film though and I'm not likely to :)

    The more serious point is - well, do women actually take relationship advice from films like this? Do people take travel advice from The Hobbit? If they do, then I think that's something which deserves condemnation or ridicule much more than the film itself.


  • #198
    Shrap
    Registered Users Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    robindch wrote: »
    The more serious point is - well, do women actually take relationship advice from films like this? Do people take travel advice from The Hobbit? If they do, then I think that's something which deserves condemnation or ridicule much more than the film itself.

    I suppose in the same way they take relationship advice from Mills and Boon or Cecilia Ahern. What can I say? There was a good article recently on the 50 shades phenomenon (wish I could remember where I saw it) which examined this female fantasy of being powerless and at the mercy of men's decision making (thereby absolving the woman from having to take any charge of herself and being entirely passive in her own sexuality).

    This element is present in all chicklit really, whether abusive relationships are being described or not. Think, the "tall, dark, handsome misunderstood one" who you first rejected turns out to be man of your dreams when you had followed your heart after one who turned out to be crapping all over you, but as it happens, the other guy was right about your needs all along.....and you can't be trusted to make good decisions for yourself.

    This "being whisked off your feet" by the moneyed, handsome guy is sold to us all from an early age as desirable. I can't tell you why we encourage this "ambition" but you see it in women's behaviour all the time - the overwhelming competitiveness to make yourself as sexually attractive as possible with the aim of "winning" your man (as if what you think or do has nothing to do with it). With the other side of the fantasy coin in the case of this book/film being that even the mousy, insecure virgins get to be picked up and "given" a life outside what she thought was best for her.

    Can't say I ever subscribed to it, but pick up ANY women's magazine for tips on how to compete in the game of giving your life to someone :(


  • #199
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Links234 wrote: »


    Anyway, to your point about Iona...

    You're asking me, what if a completely different bunch, called for the boycott of a completely different movie, for completely different reasons? Yes, I might consider that situation somewhat differently and my reaction to it might not be the same.

    So this brings us right back around again to my initial post on the subject, are you saying criticism and calls for boycotts are bad? Because you're offering absolutely nothing about why this is bad, no argument against the criticisms or why they're wrong, etc.

    Again, I have to reiterate, now for the 4th time that anyone is free to call for a boycott and critise any movie, book or play they wish. Nowhere did I say it was 'bad' nor did I say it was 'good' either. You are clever enough to know there are generally more than a binary choice on some object or human construct could be only good or only bad. Is cheese bad, well its tastes good, give me blue cheese and crackers any day of the week, but eating pounds of the stuff may not be good for your heart. So in essence this binary choice that people gravitate towards is all completely pointless.

    My initial post was not a reference to the moral or artistic quality of the movie or the books. My initial post was made in reference to the unlikely alliance of christen conservative asking people to not see the movie, (going so far as you cannot see the movie in small Donegal town because its 'peverted' http://www.thejournal.ie/buncrana-cinema-fifty-shades-1923084-Feb2015/) and self labeled feminists even though the target audience are adult women themselves. You will notice that men by and large are not bothered by this movie and are bemused by the hype surrounding it.

    In conclusion, if one cannot find the irony of this alliance nor indeed find the father ted references funny in taking the piss out of both sides, then I cannot do more to explain it to you as one is taking all this a tad too seriously.


  • #200
    Gbear
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,775 ✭✭✭✭Gbear


    http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/feb/23/academy-strange-relationship-with-race-on-display-oscars-2015

    An absolute shambles of an article from the Guardian, comparing one of the leftiest of lefties (Sean Penn) to a white supremacist and saying Neil Patrick Harris isn't gay enough.

    I think, when you see some of the articles on the Guardian that are trying to drum up controversy to funnel people towards their site, it's easy to forget that most people don't believe this ****e.

    That's the problem with the whole "PC gone mad" thing. There are clear examples of it in the media or a few fringe loonies, but it's easy to extrapolate that to mean it's pervasive in society, when most people aren't that silly.


  • #201
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    This is my personal pet peeve. I hate people referring to publications solely. List the journalist and publication responsible for the garbage. Journalists often freelance between multiple publications e.g

    "Stephen W Thrasher wrote this trash in the Guardian. "

    The reason being is that many publications have decent writers. Journalism itself is at such a low ebb singling out bad publications isn't going to help fix anything. People need to avoid the ****ty journalists. Of course, the irony here is that the ****ty articles will probably be shared more than the good ones. :( Still, it's best that folks are made aware of who the terrible writers are. Save their time. :)

    By the by just to give Mr Thrasher the benefit of the doubt. It's only if he's a frequent contributor of nonsense should we avoid him. Every journalist is entitled to their barmy moments.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement