Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Actors get raped in movies, how dare they be against rape...

 Cheesecat wrote:
I've heard some interesting debates about violence in films some studies suggest that it increases violent tendencies in society but I've heard of other data saying that having some violence inflicted on the villain in children's films gives children a stronger sense of good and bad behaviour

as well as increasing obedience in the child.

Are you defending violent films? What are you, the NRA of the film industry or something?

 d-usa wrote:
Actors get raped in movies, how dare they be against rape...

You're in strong form today... keep it up.

 d-usa wrote:
Actors get raped in movies, how dare they be against rape...

Wish I never saw the Hills have Eyes 2.

I spit on your Grave was even worse.

 d-usa wrote:
Actors get raped in movies, how dare they be against rape...

Well, how do you know they're against rape? For all you know, Amy Poehler is into raping people, big-time.

 Ouze wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Actors get raped in movies, how dare they be against rape...

Well, how do you know they're against rape? For all you know, Amy Poehler is into raping people, big-time.

And where does this leave Roman Polanski? As far as I can think none of his movies have had rape in them, and yet in real life he seems pretty strongly pro-rape...

I wouldn't call them hypocrites so much as people who believe in a cause but not with any particular zeal. I, for one, dislike animal cruelty but I eat mainstream meat. The only thing that was offensive to me about the whole thing was how darn pretentious it was. Especially with the whole "A bunch of people say/repeat phrases to make up a sentence" angle, not to mention the b/w.

TheCustomLime wrote:
I wouldn't call them hypocrites so much as people who believe in a cause but not with any particular zeal. I, for one, dislike animal cruelty but I eat mainstream meat. The only thing that was offensive to me about the whole thing was how darn pretentious it was. Especially with the whole "A bunch of people say/repeat phrases to make up a sentence" angle, not to mention to b/w.

Yeah, but I mean... they're celebrity activists, can we expect anything other than pretension?

 sebster wrote:
And where does this leave Roman Polanski? As far as I can think none of his movies have had rape in them, and yet in real life he seems pretty strongly pro-rape...

As a quick aside, if I ran things, like, if I were somehow president: I'd order the CIA to kidnap Roman Polanski, and have them leave him tied up and handcuffed to a pole in front of the Hoover building, just like Batman. France isn't going to war with us over Roman Polanski. Not kidding, totally serious - it really burns me that he's not only eluded justice but he flaunts it, justing seeing his name sets my teeth on edge.

 Ouze wrote:

 sebster wrote:
And where does this leave Roman Polanski? As far as I can think none of his movies have had rape in them, and yet in real life he seems pretty strongly pro-rape...

As a quick aside, if I ran things, like, if I were somehow president: I'd order the CIA to kidnap Roman Polanski, and have them leave him tied up and handcuffed to a pole in front of the Hoover building, just like Batman. France isn't going to war with us over Roman Polanski. Not kidding, totally serious - it really burns me that he's not only eluded justice but he flaunts it, justing seeing his name sets my teeth on edge.

I don't know what's going on here but I find myself agreeing a lot more these days with you.

Piston Honda wrote:
A Celeb calling to ban guns why he or she himself owns a gun would be hypocritical.

You mean like Jane Fonda?

d-usa wrote:Actors get raped in movies, how dare they be against rape...

While a valid point on its own, rape is rarely used in movies, whereas there is an entire genre of movies centered around guns. How many actors and actresses are raped in a majority of thier filmography? Whereas there are plenty of faces in that movie that make (or made) thier living with a gun in thier hand. A comedian that uses a gun for a gag is one thing but for action movie stars or even those who are not strictly speaking action stars that repeatly profit in gun driven plots are properly labelled hypocrites.
Probably 2/3s of the actors in that clip are pretty exempt from any charge of hypocracy.

I wish, just for a short time, that the news people would stop reporting this type of gak.

Those are actors, they play characters that do things. Some of those things are quite evil by any standard, some aren't. Regardless, they are only actors. Its a friggin job, nothing more. Quite frankly, it can be an extremely boring job; ie. "stand here for 4 hours and don't eat, sit, drink or do anything until we call for you."

Who gives a hoot what their opinions on anything are?

Here's an idea for both sides of the American gun control debate: use real metrics and honest dialog instead of dumb straw man arguments. Use "soundbites" from people actually knowledgeable about guns and their usage in crime and self defense; or even soundbites from those actually knowledgeable about the second amendment to the US Constitution and the legal history around it.

But I guess that would lead to real answers instead of the perennial headlines to keep our eyes off actual issues.

clively wrote:
I wish, just for a short time, that the news people would stop reporting this type of gak.

Those are actors, they play characters that do things. Some of those things are quite evil by any standard, some aren't. Regardless, they are only actors. Its a friggin job, nothing more. Quite frankly, it can be an extremely boring job; ie. "stand here for 4 hours and don't eat, sit, drink or do anything until we call for you."

Who gives a hoot what their opinions on anything are?

Here's an idea for both sides of the American gun control debate: use real metrics and honest dialog instead of dumb straw man arguments. Use "soundbites" from people actually knowledgeable about guns and their usage in crime and self defense; or even soundbites from those actually knowledgeable about the second amendment to the US Constitution and the legal history around it.

But I guess that would lead to real answers instead of the perennial headlines to keep our eyes off actual issues.

Don't worry, comrade, soon the media will get bored of gun control and soon play up the crap out of another "crisis". And am I the only who thinks they are doing this for the publicity?

TheCustomLime wrote:
Don't worry, comrade, soon the media will get bored of gun control and soon play up the crap out of another "crisis". And am I the only who thinks they are doing this for the publicity?

If by publicity you mean ratings, then yes, of course. Also because, whether they realize it or not, they wish to push an agenda.

Quite a lot of people think the school massacre was faked by the Obama to provide an excuse for gun control.

http://boingboing.net/2013/01/09/internet-crackpots-believe-new.html

Yet out of despair comes hope, as another potential massacre is halted before it can progress.

http://boingboing.net/2013/01/10/report-yet-another-shooting-a.html

 Seaward wrote:

TheCustomLime wrote:
Don't worry, comrade, soon the media will get bored of gun control and soon play up the crap out of another "crisis". And am I the only who thinks they are doing this for the publicity?

If by publicity you mean ratings, then yes, of course. Also because, whether they realize it or not, they wish to push an agenda.

Forget the agenda, there's money to be made here!

 AustonT wrote:

Piston Honda wrote:
A Celeb calling to ban guns why he or she himself owns a gun would be hypocritical.

You mean like Jane Fonda?

.

Wouldn't know... would it be?

Don't really pay too much attention or go looking for celebs life styles or opinions. Only time I notice is when it get splattered everywhere. Like the whole Charlie Sheen issue.

more interested in sports stats.

 Frazzled wrote:

Its not erroneous. Many of these actors have come out for infringing everyone else's Second Amendment rights. yet they have full time ARMED security teams, and make their livings peddling violence.

Whats hypocritical about wanting to make it more difficult for certain people to acquire weapons, while also owning or employing people who own, weapons themselves? I mean, there's several very easy ways around any possible hypocrisy. The easiest being "Guns and guards are a necessary evil in a country where gun violence is a problem." A more complicated one would be "Making it more difficult to acquire guns doesn't imply that no one should have guns." And one which no one would ever accept, but would still not be hypocritical "Only I should be able to own guns."

As far as peddling violence in movies: what does that have to do with gun ownership at all?

It appears "hypocrite" is still being used as a catchall for "Lol, I don't agree with you!"

 dogma wrote:
It appears "hypocrite" is still being used as a catchall for "Lol, I don't agree with you!"

Well, in all fairness, taking that stance is a lot simpler and less challenging then dealing with a complex issue.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Quite a lot of people think the school massacre was faked by the Obama to provide an excuse for gun control.

http://boingboing.net/2013/01/09/internet-crackpots-believe-new.html

According to my Facebook, one of the gun manufacturers posted the Scientology list of "psych drugs caused these things". 2 days later he had a car accident and died. Wake up Sheeple!

Yet out of despair comes hope, as another potential massacre is halted before it can progress.

http://boingboing.net/2013/01/10/report-yet-another-shooting-a.html

And the teachers didn't even have to pull out their guns and shoot him.

 Ouze wrote:


Is it possible to show gunplay in a movie without glorifying guns?

I think that some of the James Bond movies could fit that bill, though I think we would realistically be hard pressed to find movies that have gunfights but don't "glorify" guns. Another one that comes to mind is Clint Eastwood's Man With No Name trilogy.. in it, each gunfight is much more focused on the tensions of the characters and their reactions, than they are on the guns.



Also, IIRC the last time there was a huge gun debate (mid-90s I think?) and the AR ban, etc. Rosie O'Donell was called out on her hypocrisy because she thought that no one should own guns, yet her and her children's bodyguards all had guns (and her kid's guards had those guns in the kids' schools, AFAIK) So far on this round of gun debates in the US, I haven't heard too much from her.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Also, IIRC the last time there was a huge gun debate (mid-90s I think?) and the AR ban, etc. Rosie O'Donell was called out on her hypocrisy because she thought that no one should own guns, yet her and her children's bodyguards all had guns (and her kid's guards had those guns in the kids' schools, AFAIK) So far on this round of gun debates in the US, I haven't heard too much from her.

That example is really a dumb argument though.

If there were no people with guns, she would not need people with guns to protect her from the other people with guns. So you can have the belief that guns shouldn't be allowed and still have bodyguards with guns until that belief becomes a reality.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yet out of despair comes hope, as another potential massacre is halted before it can progress.

http://boingboing.net/2013/01/10/report-yet-another-shooting-a.html

The kid apparently had two targets in mind, shot them both, then stopped.

He did it with a shotgun, too. Better ban shotguns.

 Seaward wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yet out of despair comes hope, as another potential massacre is halted before it can progress.

http://boingboing.net/2013/01/10/report-yet-another-shooting-a.html

The kid apparently had two targets in mind, shot them both, then stopped.

He did it with a shotgun, too. Better ban shotguns.

'twas probably an assault shotgun...

How many rounds did he have in his clip?

Shotguns don't generally use "clips".

They either have an internal magazine, or are the break-open two-shot side by side or upper/lower (or less frequently, have a removable box magazine.).

'Clip' and 'magazine' are not interchangeable terms.

 chromedog wrote:
Shotguns don't generally use "clips".

They either have an internal magazine, or are the break-open two-shot side by side or upper/lower (or less frequently, have a removable box magazine.).

'Clip' and 'magazine' are not interchangeable terms.

SEMANTICS!

I DON'T CARE IF SOMEBODY CALLS NAILS "LONG SHINY THINGS," I STILL WANT HIM WRITING MY BUILDING CODES!

But I like how listening to people talk about scary looking assault shotguns with high capacity clips. The only thing better than that is watching Seaward's eyes twitch when people talk about scary looking assault shotguns with high capacity clips.

There are in fact a few shotguns that use detachable box mags. This kid wasn't using one of those, though. Ten to one it was a Remington/Mossberg pump. Clearly, they all must be banned. And when that fails to make a dent, it's on to "semiautomatics." And when that fails to make a dent, it's on to revolvers.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Ouze wrote:


Is it possible to show gunplay in a movie without glorifying guns?

I think that some of the James Bond movies could fit that bill, though I think we would realistically be hard pressed to find movies that have gunfights but don't "glorify" guns. Another one that comes to mind is Clint Eastwood's Man With No Name trilogy.. in it, each gunfight is much more focused on the tensions of the characters and their reactions, than they are on the guns.

While I understand the idea you are trying to express, I will point out that using spaghetti westerns as your example is one of the poorest choices you could have made... the entire genre was arguably defined by its rampant violence.

Piston Honda wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

Piston Honda wrote:
A Celeb calling to ban guns why he or she himself owns a gun would be hypocritical.

You mean like Jane Fonda?

.

Wouldn't know... would it be?

Don't really pay too much attention or go looking for celebs life styles or opinions. Only time I notice is when it get splattered everywhere. Like the whole Charlie Sheen issue.

more interested in sports stats.

Jane Fonda wrote:Gun control? That’s for other people, not for us.

d-usa wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yet out of despair comes hope, as another potential massacre is halted before it can progress.

http://boingboing.net/2013/01/10/report-yet-another-shooting-a.html

The kid apparently had two targets in mind, shot them both, then stopped.

He did it with a shotgun, too. Better ban shotguns.

'twas probably an assault shotgun...

How many rounds did he have in his clip?

He must have had this "high capacity ammunition" I keep hearing about on TV.