Star Wars Most Violent Movie Ever? 361
alphaparadigm writes: "Is Star Wars: A New Hope the most violent movie ever? What I mean is, does it have the highest body count of any movie ever? They blow up a planet full of people and then a death star full of people! I figured if anyone would know, it would be you guys."
That's a very good point. If violence is measured by number of sentient beings killed, then Star Wars Episode IV is going to be first on the chopping block when the Republicans come to censor our movies. And censor they will. Also there's the one episode of Star Trek: Voyager in which not just planets but entire species are wiped out, but then they crash Voyager into the time ship and the timeline reverts to the way it was so nobody ever really died ... or did they? Anyway these are the films, ladies and gentlemen, the mass-murdering films and TV shows, that John Ashcroft will ban, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition. Anyone standing up for them will be tarred as defending mass murder. Mark my words.
Great job slamming the republicans... (Score:2)
No. (Score:3)
Otherwise, something like The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy would win, because they go forward through time, when everyone is already dead...
Incidentally, some friends of mine tried to count bodies (literally) in Bubblegum Crisis. I think they came up with a number that was over one hundred, which is pretty impressive.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].
Return of Jedi far more violent (Score:2)
Good grief. The deathstar in Star Wars was manned by evil storm troopers of the imperial army. In Jedi it was still under construction and thus manned by Union contractors.
Obviously Jedi was a far more violent film. In Star Wars they deserved it, but in Jedi they were just innocent bystanders.
Not to mention the horrific depictions of ewoks dying by the dozens.
Hmm, but then again it does get more complicated when you look at things from the Republican perspective. Considering most of the deaths were these union contractors, they don't really count.
And of course all those cute ewoks... Well they were just getting in the way of fully utilizing the resources of the moon anyway. It's just those damn bleeding heart liberals like Vader who were moved by their deaths.
So I don't know... I guess maybe you were right. If the Republicans are going to ban one movie it will be Star Wars. While Jedi had far more violence, it was mostly justifiable. At least from the Republican perspective.
Re:It wasn't Republicans who passed the CDA (Score:2)
At least in the Senate, they voted 84-16 for the measure.
Granted President Clinton did sign it, but still...
It always amazes me how ignorant Republican supporters are. Instead of going around accusing liberals of anything and everything, maybe it would just be better if you concentrated on educating yourself.
Re:do liberals even HAVE brains? (Score:2)
One of the most amazing posts I've seen on
Re:Ashcroft and getting the whole story (Score:2)
This always seems to be the excuse of Republicans when they violate Constitutional rights.
Why is that?
Pro rights - Orin Hatch? (Score:2)
He comes out in favor of certain rights, but only because he is trying to harm the political power that Hollywood holds.
He has a clear ulterior motive, sheesh.
Re:Misunderstandings in politics (Score:2)
The Republicans don't believe in freedom, any more or less than the Democrats. They might say that in the campaigns, but they've been actively seeking to control your private live through acts of censorship, discrimination, etc. The fact that they've been actively working to repeal civil rights gains from 30 years ago should cause anyone concern.
This is not to say that the Democrats are saints, but they tend to try to protect the little guy from the big guys. It's the little guys who need the protection most often.
Another lie is that Republicans are for smaller government... This is factually untrue as the government has grown in size under every Republican administration.
Regulations are typically formulated by corporate lobbying groups and as such result in barriers to entry to the market, rather than restraint on existing entities.
Oh what else...
Oh yeah, your right. Not all Christians are in favor of censorship. But all right-wing Christians in favor of censorship are Republicans.
And yes, it's primarily the Southern Republicans who promote this evil. But that doesn't make the Northern Republicans less responsibile, since they are the ones kissing the south's butt for the petty votes.
I also disagree that Republicans believe in the free market, as they are the ones who frequently involve Government sticking their hands in to pick winners and losers in the marketplace. Look at how Bush is handling the economy today, the minute he get's into office he starts giving corporate welfare to all his patron companies. The Democratic approach, especially under Clinton, was far more Laissez-Faire.
As far as the Libertarians. Interesting philosophies, but they are definately anti-environment, as well as anti-safety. These are the people who believe that if you just leave everything alone, it'll all work out.
The Liberatarian idea of protecting the environment is to allow people to sue companies after hundreds of people have died from toxic waste dumped in the water system.
It's a reactive way of solving problems. Unfortunately it also has proven to be incredibly unsuccessful over our nations history. The fact that Libertarians cannot learn from past mistakes concerns me tremendously.
Re:Big Vs. Small Government (Score:2)
And Reagan submitted budgets which were far larger than anything Congress ever adopted from 1981-1988.
If Christianity wasn't the key issue to most republicans, they wouldn't be kissing Jerry Falwells fat ass.
Re:Big Vs. Small Government (Score:2)
Article I, Section 1. states: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
Pay particular attention to that last part. If you doubt the Senate was controlled by Republicans, go to www.senate.gov and look it up yourself.
All your morons are belong to us
Re:Ashcroft and getting the whole story (Score:2)
I was chiefly referring to who sponsored and presented the amendment which made this all possible. None other than Senator McCain.
It was passed 95-3, with 2 abstaining.
But of the 3 people voting against the amendment, they were all Democrats i.e. Senators Feingold, Kerrey, and Lautenberg.
Kerrey and Lautenberg are no longer in the Senate.
Re:Ashcroft and getting the whole story (Score:3)
Oh yeah... The Republicans.
BTW, the V-Chip and TV ratings gave responsibility to the parents to control content within their own homes. I can't see why you would attack this.
Re:3 points (Score:3)
Reagan only had a Democratic congress the last two years. By then the budget was already bloated out of control.
What's also interesting is that every proposed budget by Reagan was actually larger in size than the actual budgets passed by Congress.
As far as Waco. Again, this is more of an example of the Republican form of government as the even happened only a month after Clinton was in office.
Waco was directly the fault of FBI and BATF leaders who had been appointed by the Reagan and Bush administrations.
If it's any consoluation, both Reno and Clinton apologized for the incident, and fixed the problem by firing the Bush appointees and bringing in people such as Freeh to clean up the corruption within the agency.
If it's one thing I hate, it's people who try to distort history for their only mistaken agenda.
There is no "Magic Bullet" (Score:2)
We still manage 800 to 1100 morders per year for the last 1/2 decade. The total population is 2.7 million which makes this a huge anual slaughter.
Would we be worse off with less stringent gun laws ? 30 years ago we had 40 murders in the year before this law was enacted. We are curently in the top 3 cuntrys to get killed worldwide so it seams preposturus to claim no gun ban would have made us worse off.
All this proves is that there is more to the social order than simple things like "ban guns" or "remove violent movies and games".
Re:There is no "Magic Bullet" (Score:2)
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=01/04/01/00
at the risk of sounding inflamatory for bringing up the Nazi's, Gun Control, Germany, instituted in '38 or '39. and i'll bet every family minded person wanted there kid in that nice 'youth group.' (offtopic)
--
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound.
Republicans? (Score:2)
Just a thought.
The Million Penguinhead March (Score:2)
Though they probably won't ban it; after all, it's just violence; not like there's any sex there, is it?
Highest death count: any porn movie (Score:2)
"every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great..."
(yes I know what day it is)
Re:jamie... (Score:4)
No, YOU are a troll!
TROLL!
Jamie McCarthy
Dr Who: Logopolis ... enormous body count (Score:3)
of the plot is the collapse into entropy
of significant chunks of the universe, so this
is probably the upper limit for body count.
Since when... (Score:2)
... is the Republican party interested in censorship? I thought they were all about less government interference in peoples' lives.
Re:Since when... (Score:2)
I agree. The purpose of my post was to foster discussion of this (it worked :)
The Democrats are just as guilty of meddling though, both parties are full of hypocrites. Our founding fathers have been spinning in their graves for at least 100 years.
To be fair, there are people in both parties who are level headed, freedom loving citizens who are quite aware of the current sorry state of the union. Unfortunately, they are few and far between.
Re:Hopefully, they'll never read the Bible . . . (Score:2)
I especially like the part where King Solomon (I think, or maybe David) sends one of his officers off to the front of the war to die so he can sleep with his wife.
Classic.
Re:those wacky americans (Score:2)
Actually, there were no school shootings here 100 years ago when almost every boy over the age of 6 had a gun.
Of course, back then cavalry soldiers (in Canada too) who went to church every Sunday had no qualms about slaughtering Native American women and children, so the problem of violence is probably not related to movies, TV or music either.
The current problem (IMHO) is alienation and lack of moral education, not guns. People tend to ignore their children or assume that they know right from wrong; modern Americans are extremely self-centered. The culture is sick, but not in the way you think.
Re:Hopefully, they'll never read the Bible . . . (Score:2)
Well, no that wasn't my point, but I see yours.
Re:I am a Republican (Score:2)
How are guns more easily accessible? Guns are less accessible now than in any other time in American history. 100 years ago almost every boy over the age of 6 had a gun.
Cavalry soldiers who went to church every Sunday had no problem slaughtering Native American women and children, so how can you say it's media violence? They didn't have movies and TV. They did have a very bloodthirsty Old Testament, but I don't think that was the problem either.
You are oversimplifying. I agree with your point that someone (not necessarily the woman) should spend a lot more time with the kids than is currently the norm in this country. Children are growing up ignored and alienated. The divorce rate and lack of a strong family probably contributes more than anything else.
Re:Since when... (Score:2)
Read my reply to anonymous coward above before calling me "sheeple"... and buy yourself a dictionary.
Re:jamie... (Score:2)
Anybody who actually pays attention knows that, in general, it's liberals who want to censor violence plus anything that contradicts their ideologies, while it's conservatives who want to censor sex and anything that contradicts their ideologies.
Thus, Bob Dole attacked Hollywood for sex in 1996, but endorsed Independence Day, which blew up entire cities. And the Children's Defense Fund counts acts of violence committed in Bugs Bunny cartoons, but doesn't object to explicit sex education for first graders.
Steven E. Ehrbar
They ONLY censor sex. (Score:2)
Sexi s satisfaction and contentment. You can't sell contended people anything.
Re:Dr Who: Logopolis ... enormous body count (Score:2)
-
How to write an effective april fools' story. (Score:2)
---
Re:well now, I'm no republican... (Score:3)
this entire thread is a great example of journalistic embellishment. there are far too many people who know better than to let what you're discussing happen actually take place, imho of course.
please, try not to inflame the masses to further *your* cause. you're just like them if that's your goal. they inflame the masses with influence, you're inflaming the masses with knowledge. in the end, it's really the same tactic.
Peter
Re:Ban the Bible! (Score:2)
I presume that you're referring to Abraham and Isaac. Abraham was a righteous man who loved his son, perhaps a bit too much.
God told Abraham to sacrifice his son - this was to shape Abraham's character - so that Abraham would be clear on where the allegiance lies.
Where you get it wrong is that Abraham did NOT kill his son. He was obedient, even to the point of tying Isaac on the altar, and holding the knife over him - but just as he was ready to strike the fatal blow, God stopped Abraham, and showed him the ram (trapped in the bushes) to use as a sacrifice.
If you're going to bust on the Bible, for God's sake, get it right! (and I do mean for His sake)
The most violent act in the Bible is the one where God Himself steps down from heaven and lives as a man, and then is put to death by evil men - for the sins of each of us!!!!!
"God demonstrates his love for us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."
Anomaly
PS - God loves you and longs for relationship with you.
If you want to know more, please contact me at tom_cooper at bigfoot dot com
Re:Ban the Bible! (Score:2)
The ressurection is one of many ways that Christ differentiated himself from those others.
God loves you, too. If you want to know more about this, please contact me at tom_cooper at bigfoot dot com
Re:Ban the Bible! (Score:2)
The ressurection is one of many ways that Christ differentiated himself from those others.
God loves you, too. If you want to know more about this, please contact me at tom_cooper at bigfoot dot com
Re:Ban the Bible! (Score:2)
I'd be willing to be at least even money that you haven't.
Rejecting something that sounds implausible when you have never investigated it is really not a great idea.
If you are open minded enough to investigate this rather than simply rejecting it based on your religoius beliefs, please contact me at tom_cooper at bigfoot dot com
Re:If I could moderate stories, this would be a tr (Score:5)
Why the Democrats, of course....unless you are pregnant, homosexual, or of a minority religion. We don't need Christian churches taking over the governments social services, and we all know that "prayer in schools" means "Christian prayer in schools".
There is the Democratic Party, which bears no resemblence to its ancestors of two hundred years ago.
I for one am glad that the Democratic party is no longer the party of southern white slave owners, aren't you?
Which of the two parties has the philosophy of "Small Government"? If you think small government consists of just fewer government employees, then you're fooling yourself. Small Government is not just a policy, it is a philosophy.
Which in the end just means cutting programs they don't like. Thank god massive increases in military spending and forcing our country in to debt doesn't count (Reagen).
Perhaps you would like to tell me just how Right Wing Tipper Gore and Joseph Liberman are?
Whoop dee doo, there are a couple of Democrates who do favor censorship. Doesn't mean that the rest are gung ho for it as well.
Just to jog your memory, Democrats are the the people who believe in a "living" (IE changeable) Constitution.
Your point being what.
If you're hunting for "extremists" who plan to take away your freedoms, you would have done a better job at looking at our former Attourney General, a woman whose values are equally (if not more) extreme than Mr Ashcroft's.
Name some.
Unlike the author of this story, I broker my argument on logic, rather than ignorance and flailing emotionalism.
Sure, and you did a great job....until you got past the subject line and started ranting like everybody else.
Re:What you see (Score:2)
sincerely,
me
Re:If I could moderate stories, this would be a tr (Score:2)
If they hadn't allowed the constitution to be changed, I'm sure it would be gone by now. Someone would have come up with a knee-jerk issue (flag burning) and they'd have convinced everyone a document which DIDN'T forbid that, and didn't allow for changes, was a bad one. They'd have stricken it, and replaced it with a much different document.
But because it can be changed, even though it's hard, it's actually much more stable. It makes people realize that they have to have a good reason to change it, but that those good reasons might exist.
IMHO, that makes it more stable than if they weren't allowed to change it. Like the difference between telling a kid that they can never do something and to just forget about it... they'll do it right away. But, take the time to explain why the shouldn't do it, except in extraordinary circumstances and they'll be less likely to want to do it...
When the Republicans try to censor??? (Score:4)
Lets try Lieberman ("Friends is EVIL and should not be on prime time TV", McCain (he's trying to stop groups like EFF from having a voice in the political world by not allowing them to contribute to politicians who are pro-rights, like Orin Hatch - Republicans can't stand McCain) Al Gore, Mrs Al Gore (CD warning labels), Barbara Boxer, John D. Rockefeller (leaders of the anti-Hollywood movement in Congress along with Lieberman)
hell, Hollywood was warned not to back the Democrats because they are clearly out to censor movies [cnn.com]
And if i'm to listen to jamie, it appears that it was then Republican President Bill Clinton that started the most recent act of, essentially, putting a gun (if you'll pardon the expression) to the head of Hollywood? [cnn.com]
far be it from me to also bring up who are the ones that want to stop people from exercising their rights to talk about religious matters at every turn - oh yeah.. those darn Republicans...
Instead of just toting the line of HOW the media would like you to think, Jamie, why don't you open your mind and get a clue to who the true anti-1st Amendment legislators are...
On the contrary. (Score:3)
It's only the combination of violence and moral ambiguity that gets the Right all worked up
Kudos, Tentacle (Score:2)
You missed one very important point, though: when you said,
"I read an earlier post, whose main arguments against a conservative is that they are anti-women, anti-homosexual, and anti "minority-religion" (whatever that means). Honestly, I don't recall the last time a conservative suggested beating women, imprisoning homosexuals, or burning Wiccans at the stake.",
you should have mentioned that the *only* societies in the history of the world that have tolerated other religions as a policy are Christian.
Don't forget - it was the intensely Protestant & Puritan founding fathers that created the most tolerant culture in the history of the entire planet. I sometimes wonder if the Slashdot Socialists would even be capable of *reading* Jonathan Edwards without suffering from sever cognitive dissonance... (For those of you suffering as I was, from a public education, Jonathan Edwards is widely regarded even by many non-Christian historians as the most intelligent person ever to live in the Americas. And apparently, the insight and intelligence stayed in the family: A survey done in 1900 showed his descendants included 13 college presidents, 65 professors, 30 judges, 100 lawyers, a dean of a prestigious law school, 80 public office holders, nearly 100 missionairies, 3 mayors of large cities, 3 governors, 3 US senators, one US treasurer, and a US vice-president!)
If they're not afraid of the truth, the Slashdot Socialists should read Edwards at my friend Mark Trigsted's excellent site: www.jonathanedwards.com [jonathanedwards.com]. It's funny, isn't it, that Edwards was one of the most influential driving forces behind the mindset that created the uniquely tolerant American government?
Re:Nope - Red Dawn (Score:2)
Republicans = Democrats (Score:2)
Once upon a time someone said not to trust anyone over 30. They were right.
Lee Reynolds
Re:Big Vs. Small Government (Score:2)
Re:If I could moderate stories, this would be a tr (Score:3)
Ronald Reagan regularly confused reality with movies, he fell asleep during an audience with the pope!. The man alhzeimers disease!
religious bias and ignorance of facts (Score:2)
Granted, this is April Fool's Day, but c'mon, this is utter crap. Cutting on Christian organizations in such a brutely stupid manner, saying they'd try and get things like Star Trek and Star Wars sensored? Never mind that the gripe is carnal violence, not 'theoretical, unseen violence' such as that in Star Wars and ST... Heck, Looney Toons is more graphically violent than either.
This is stooping pretty low, even for April 1st.
-------
CAIMLAS
Re:Since when... (Score:2)
The Republican mainstream is all for freedom of religion - you can be any sort of Protestant you like! They'll even tolerate Catholics and Jews. (Atheists, though, are not really citizens because this is one nation under God. [skeptictank.org] And Wicca is not a religion [positiveatheism.org], so it's okay discriminate against Pagans.) And they respect your right to control your own body. (Excepting having an abortion, performing certain consenual sex acts, putting certain drugs into your body, and other such Satanic perversions.) And they repsect free speech and expression (so long as it's not UnAmerican, or obscene, or pornographic, or disrespectful to the flag).
Yep, under a Republican regime, straight white Judeo-Christian patriotic drug-free Americans who prefer the missionary position (of course, only in the confines of marriage) have nothing to fear.
(Note: none of the above it to be taken as an endorsement of the Republicans chief competitor for the hearts, minds, and votes of Americans, the Democratic Party; which has plenty of problems of its own.)
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Re:Republicans censor? (Score:2)
Where the heck have you been? Yes, of course they have a history of censorship. The Republican leadership have been the lap dogs of the Religious Right for years. Does the name "Ed Meese" mean anything to you? How about Henry Hyde?
According to this study of attitudes towards censorship in New York [siena.edu], while pro-censorship attitudes were disturbingly high among all groups, they were significantly more common amoung Republicans than Democrats.
I suggest you start paying attention to the antics of John Ashcroft, who supported the CDA, supported mandatory internet filtering, and supported a law that would have made it illegal to talk about how drugs are made.
"It's said that we shouldn't legislate morality," Ashcroft told Charisma magazine in December 1999. "Well, I disagree. I think all we should legislate is morality. We shouldn't legislate immorality." [zdnet.com]
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Total Recall (Score:2)
------------
CitizenC
jamie... (Score:4)
mod me to obvlivion if you want, but this is pathetic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5)
Misunderstandings in politics (Score:3)
Non all Christians believe strongly censhorship. Just like all groups, there are extremists whose views do not represent the whole. Parents of today remember WWI and WWII and haven't forgotten what we fought for. Christians believe that they are responsible as parents for controlling the moral ideas, and empowering their children with making those decisions for themselves. Maybe down south they have another idea of Christianity, but most people I know don't want to push religion-based censhorship onto the government.
Why was this article placed into "Your Rights Online?" Does Star Wars face censorship? There is no link in this article stating that. The quoted portion from alphaparadigm is just interested in body count in a Star Wars movie. How did this get to be a bash on Republicans? I don't recall John Ashcraft commenting about Star Wars or Star Trek (except in reference to the missle defense plan, ofcourse)
Most current congresspeople know nothing of internet, so naturally they fear it and want to regulate it. But nobody has proposed censoring books or movies recently at all. If you all are looking for a party that favors the environment, wants freedom from censorship and regulation, and is totally non-religious, I recommend learning more about the Libertarian party.
Score -1, Flamebait?
Tarring isn't so bad... (Score:2)
(da da dum...sorry)
republicans probably love star wars (Score:2)
1. It's a morality play (good vs. evil)
2. Has an nearly all white cast (barring Lando and any aliens)
3. No homosexuals (though bobba fett did hold that blaster kinda funny)
4. Religion (the force)
Double standards for bible (Score:2)
I think there some German lawyers tried to ban Bible in some schools (or kindergarten) last year or something, because it contained so much violence and sex that it clearly should be considered illegal. I don't know if they succeeded.
But that gives a neat idea, if some book or movie is censored, just create a religion around it, and it'll be uncensored in no-time. (Make it preferably a Christian sect, and success is guaranteed.)
But then, if you look at SciFi, I think Lexx is quite violent. Hey, Mantrid even destroyed the Universe! One of the main characters, Kai, has "killed countless people; men, women, old people, children, mothers with their babies in their wombs, heroes, scientists, and poets..." The other main character is the captain of Lexx, the most powerful weapon of two universes, and uses it to occasionally blow up planets, moons, and such. Lots of sex and all kinds of really sick combinations of sex and violence in the series too. Oh, I forgot to mention, Lexx is definitely the best TV-series around right now!
Voyager (Score:2)
Yeah, with the Krenim (sp?)... that was a fun episode. But look at it this way: Were they really killed in the first place? Reality was just altered so that they had never existed. (though to Janeway, it was the same thing)
Just playing devil's advocate. Temporal mechanics is headache-inducing at best.
-J
Re:No. -- an example (Score:2)
Interesting dramatic device anyways...
How about the bible? (Score:2)
Re:When the Republicans try to censor??? (Score:2)
Re:Not neccessary to eat meat. (Score:2)
Cows (which are just horses in black and white anyway) eat meat in the UK (hence BSE) and monkeys (whose DNA is not doubt 100% compatible with yours) taste good with a spicy sauce so therefore eating meat is compulsory.
Rich
What would Xenu do?
Re:Hopefully, they'll never read the Bible . . . (Score:2)
Rich
Re:Hopefully, they'll never read the Bible . . . (Score:2)
Rich
Re:Tarring isn't so bad... (Score:3)
Nope, it's the lzip [sourceforge.net] compression you really want to avoid.
--
Body Parts (Score:2)
The first terminator film had quite a high body count - likewise Rambo always used to polish off quite a few. But for maximum onscreen fatalities, I quite like Apocalypse Now mind you, a lot of people in this film are already dead when you get to see them (or parts of them)
Then of-course there is HotShots part deux which proclaims: Body Count:150,000 - Bloodiest Movie Ever (or something to that effect)
Star Wars IV (Score:2)
That was exactly my impression when I saw it the day it opened in 1978. I happened to have that day off, and saw it in midafternoon, with absolutely no idea what to expect other than that it was supposed to be a science fiction movie. With no preconceptions, it didn't seem that great. The production looked very good, comparable to a Bond film, but the plot seemed lame.
Republicans will not ban them (Score:3)
Maybe if there's a stalemate about the violent movies Vs gun availablility we can get to actually deciding what in the heck is allowing the violence to propogate in kids.
In all honesty, school violence is lower than it has been in decades, violence in general, in the US has been on the decline since about 1993 and both sides, liberal and conservative, know it.
John Ashcroft is about the LEAST of your worries about civil rights. You might want to take on the book banners, the 'the freedom of speech is for anyone who agrees with MY point of view' types within the liberal community and the 'I don't care what it says about the people, ban inanimate objects' types.
Maybe we can get to allowing parents to -er- parent and not require schools and other government bodies to do so.
DanH
Cav Pilot's Reference Page [cavalrypilot.com]
While most of you get all bent out of shape. . . (Score:2)
Just who determines what is, and is NOT violence. What standards will be used, and will they actually be applied fairly and without bias?
If Tom and Jerry, and The Three Stooges are violent why ISN'T Star Wars?
What, you didn't know that Tom and Jerry, and The Three Stooges are violent? They are at the TOP of the anti media violence hit parade.
Or conversely, if The Alamo starring John Wayne is not violent why IS Taxi Driver?
In Road Runner cartoons * noone dies*, but in Star Wars hundreds of millions do, some of them up close and personal. Road Runner is considered extremely violent by the people pushing this issue, and in Road Runner clearly * noone real even exists to be harmed.*
This is one of the deepest most provocative posts of a general interest that
KFG
Re:When the Republicans try to censor??? (Score:2)
Re:Total Recall (Score:2)
Re:indeed! (Score:3)
--
Now we'll know who to blame. (Score:5)
--
Whoa... we have even a bigger problem... (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:When the Republicans try to censor??? (Score:2)
Indeed. In fact, there is an article in this weeks TV Guide [tvguide.com] that talks about the new FCC chairman. A great article, but unfortunately I couldn't find it online. A quote, however: "New FCC chairman and champion of the free market Michael Powell says, 'There's a lot of garbage on TV,' and it's up to viewers--not government--to do something about it. That's a change from the Clinton days."
Another quote:
"But, he added: 'We have to be realistic about what government can do. We have a First Amendment in this country that prohibits, thankfully, people in my position from being national censors. Broadcasters shouldn't be dictated to by government."
In short, the Left loves to lie about the what the Republicans stand for. Yes, they have their share of the wackos (the religious right comes to mind), but on balance, freedom lives in the Republican party. I guess it's probably too much to ask for Jaime to learn something today, and shed some of his naivete.
[and no, the "real" home of freedom is not the Libertarians, although they and Republicans share a lot of ideology.]
--
Re:Hopefully, they'll never read the Bible . . . (Score:2)
It might be the same movie you saw.
Re:Republicans will not ban them (Score:2)
Alot of this freedom of speech stuff tends to vanish when you get folks outside the cultural norm of the group in question. Doesn't matter what the cultural norm is, and it tends to be amplified by folks with lack of experience as a cultural minority.
Living overseas, even just for a summer, in a place where you just cannot get your MTV and your Dew or Jolt, and you have to make do with what the locals do is educational, if you can get over being an ugly american.
That being said, there are times when you do not blow off the conditions you see because "that's how they do things there". But you got to REALLY understand what the folks are about.
It is one thing to go after MS because of shoddy coding technique, and quite another to go after them as a personality cult.
I can recall arguments that I had with folks where the other person destroyed every objection I made and proved convincingly that I was wrong in every respect, and therefore I had to believe what he said and agree with him. And all it did was leave me completely unconvinced and alienated from him. It took me weeks to spot the flaws in the argument. And it never made a friend or convinced me in any way.
The Big Stick method of debate is maybe a way to grab power, but ultimately it only makes more enemies. Which is not convenient when you can't kill them off utterly. Unfortunately, many in politics like to practice some version of the big stick method. Changing individual minds is much more difficult.
It is better done through other techniques, such as artisitic expression, because this forces people to think. A two edged sword if there ever was one.
Check out the Vinny the Vampire [eplugz.com] comic strip
Re:Now we'll know who to blame. (Score:2)
Wil Wheaton, of course.
Spoiler Warning (Score:2)
As a form of protest, I will be boycotting Slashdot, PT Cruisers, News, Nerds, Free Registration at the New York Times, Futurama (for shamelessly naming one of their characters after a SlashCode release), and Disney (What's a boycott if you don't include Disney?).
Furthermore, my boycott shall continue until one of the following conditions is met:
Ban the Bible! (Score:2)
The 'old testament' details a malicious omni-presence ' god ' who wipes out the entire population of the planet in a great flood. The book goes on in some detail about this "god" instructing a man to kill his own son, which he does.
There are stories about death, grotesque descriptions of torture at the hands of the antagonist ('the devil') abound throughout.
There are even sections that describe purposeful plagues, violent destruction all caused by 'god' to punish thousands of innocent people.
This 'bible' is a foul and dangerous book, i am afraid it may lead to another uprising of violence like it has in the past (the crusades, salem witch trials, etc etc etc).
I am here to appeal to the morals of this
The Bible should henceforth be banned, all works and organizations which serve to support and foster the horrible descriptions within should be abolished.
Re:those wacky americans (Score:2)
Lets not forget greedy, unabashedly selfish, myopic, ignorant and introverted.
It always amuses me when some teen runs rampaging with a gun and Americans think the problem is the media/video games or music videos - the problem is not pop culture, its a corrupt and vacant system, organized as such from top to bottom. Lets not even mention the over-consumption and the soulless, gluttonous search for satisfaction at the Local MegaMall. The problem is isolation, desolation, needless competition and antagonism. If America wants a healthy culture they should look to increase understanding, broaden perspectives, promote healthy dialogue, and end the fear/adversarial/unhealthy relationship with their government* and build a better community.... and no you cant 'vote with your dollars' to solve this problem - the 'vote with your dollars' meme - and the people who are selling the erronous concept - is the problem.. You cant replace community with capitalist market economics, and you cant expect to be anything outside oppressed if you organize yourselfves around 'capitalist wealth'.
*Read
Happy April Fools! (Score:2)
I can't be karma whoring - I've already hit 50!
Re:Now we'll know who to blame. (Score:2)
"Oh, is it now?"
I can't be karma whoring - I've already hit 50!
Re:If I could moderate stories, this would be a tr (Score:2)
Looks pretty much like a toss-up to me.
If you have been conditioned by the less informed, you would believe that these are both the same parties.
If you have been conditioned by the less informed, you judge political parties by their words rather than their actions. Yes, Republicans pay greater lip service to smaller government and personal freedom than Democrats. Any evidence of this from their actions is lacking, however.
Which of the two parties has the philosophy of "Small Government"? If you think small government consists of just fewer government employees, then you're fooling yourself. Small Government is not just a policy, it is a philosophy.
Name ONE SINGLE government program that W. proposed to cut during his campaign. You can't, because he didn't.
Why do you think Libertarians, who believe that government's only role is to maintain our roads build a military, typically vote Republican?
A blatant lie. Harry Browne reported that of the people he talked to who were supporting him in this election, about 1/3 traditionally voted Republican, 1/3 traditionally voted Democrat, and 1/3 considered themselves independents or didn't usually vote.
Unlike the author of this story, I broker my argument on logic, rather than ignorance and flailing emotionalism.
Perhaps so, but the flaw in your argument lies in judging Republicans by their words rather than their actions.
Re:Since when... (Score:2)
Real quick rhetoric check...
How is a being with its own genetic code and manifest as a whole human a part of the mother, or do you believe in a regressive psuedo-science to explain your views?
Ps. I am as far from a republican as you will likely get here on slashdot. Save for the nihilists, but who listens to them ;)
Re:Whoa... we have even a bigger problem... (Score:2)
Energy efficiency is the best reason, though. We grow enough food to feed 9 billion humans. Breeding is the principal reason for world hunger (along with capitalism which ensures only the wealthy will be able to eat).
New Edition of Star Wars (Score:3)
Obi-Wan will say "I felt a disturbance in the force as if a million souls cried out in pain and then vanished- but they had it coming to them just like Greedo did".
Bryguy
Star Trek: TOS? (Score:2)
Besides, every good ST:TOS episode had at least a couple of people dying in any possible way (exploding consoles being the number one cause, of course). Bu then they were mostly red shirts, so they don't really count.
Tongue-tied and twisted, just an earth-bound misfit, I
This Just In (Score:5)
It will come to naught however, when, at his Jedi graduation, the planet gets blown up beneath him.
Re:Since when... (Score:2)
What you see (Score:2)
Re:What you see (Score:2)
well now, I'm no republican... (Score:3)
Except that none of them are libertarians...
Stop the political crap, please! (Score:4)
Examples:
1) Tipper Gore and the whole music labeling thing,
2) The recent Brown University fiasco,
3) the Anti-Defamation league (granted they have points, but they still get things censored).
The list could go on forever.
I am not a republican (in fact I hate ALL political parties). It just bothers me to see a blanket statement against any group.
So, stick to technology/science/geekdom and leave politics out!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nope - Superman (Score:4)