So, Adamantine Dragon, from now on, we have to run to the boards and publicly comment on every ethics-based decision we make everyday? And hope maybe, just maybe, it meets your criteria?
I am forced to conclude that in the hierarchy of moral failings, the consensus from members of this board is that supporting those who promote anti-homosexual behavior is a more heinous moral failing than supporting those who promote anally raping 14 year olds.
13, actually.
AD, why did you have to go there? No one on these boards has ever endorsed, never mind promoted, anything like that, anal or otherwise, no matter the age of recipient.
Nobody on these boards has ever endorsed, never mind promoted, anything like OSC is accused of either Hitdice. That's not the issue. The issue is that OSC is singled out for boycotting while Roman Polansky, Woody Allen and a host of their vocal, public supporters (including the Motion Picture Acadamy which NOMINATED POLANSKI FOR AN ACADEMY AWARD) get a pass.
I'm just pointing out that fact. Why are all of you so slobberingly, hysterically vocal about OSC, when I've never seen any of you attack Roman Polanski?
Of course I know the answer. But I wonder if you do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
13, actually.
8-year-olds, Dude.
So, Adamantine Dragon, from now on, we have to run to the boards and publicly comment on every ethics-based decision we make everyday? And hope maybe, just maybe, it meets your criteria?
No, but when you pick one social issue, you might want to explain why yours is actually the RIGHT one, when there are so many to choose from.
As for me, I'd prefer to boycott the pedophile anal rapist first. That's all.
Why are all of you so slobberingly, hysterically vocal...
Mirror, anyone?
Why are all of you so slobberingly, hysterically vocal...Mirror, anyone?
LOL, my comments have been calm, collected and rational, not to mention not personally attacking any individual.
Except maybe Roman Polanski.
As opposed to, for example, yours here.
Martin Scorsese, Roman Polanski, Woody Allen...man, it's so hard to keep up.
Anyway, it's been a while since I've mulled over the Soon-Yi stuff, and I found this article useful.
"He was outed as a pedophile by way of being caught by his aging girlfriend Mia Farrow having sex with his barely legal, Asian whore of a step-daughter. (It should be noted that Mia in her own winsome teen years stole elderly Mafioso Frank Sinatra from his wife Ava Gardner). Only the fact that Mia Farrow couldn't prove 100% that her adopted daughter was underage when Woody f!$!ed her saved Woody from utter ruin, though his career never recovered (Woody Allen on the other hand, has stated that the scandal didn't ruin his career, his s!$!ty movies from the 1990s did).
Mia Farrow also claimed that Allen had sexually abused Dylan, a gone-to-seed folk singer they had adopted in happier times. This claim was rejected by the courts as the sort of lie spiteful women are apt to tell when their men sleep with younger, prettier women or keep leaving the cap off the toothpaste."
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
AD, why did you have to go there? No one on these boards has ever endorsed, never mind promoted, anything like that, anal or otherwise, no matter the age of recipient.Nobody on these boards has ever endorsed, never mind promoted, anything like OSC is accused of either Hitdice. That's not the issue. The issue is that OSC is singled out for boycotting while Roman Polansky, Woody Allen and a host of their vocal, public supporters (including the Motion Picture Acadamy which NOMINATED POLANSKI FOR AN ACADEMY AWARD) get a pass.
I'm just pointing out that fact. Why are all of you so slobberingly, hysterically vocal about OSC, when I've never seen any of you attack Roman Polanski?
Of course I know the answer. But I wonder if you do.
Hey, Adamantine Dragon, I didn't get the memo that I had toclear everything with you. For the record, I don't watch Polanski or Woody Allen movies or Tom Cruise or Mel Gibson or Michael Bay or many others. While you seem to possess a Kang or Immortus mastery of Time and the omniscience of Uatu, I (and many others) unfortunately are bound to a linear timestream with concrete limits. I just can't publicly picket everyone at the same time.
Also, while I acknowledge your chastisement, I notice you yourself have not started a "Boycott Polanski" thread. If you have been sending psychic signals out, I'm sorry, but you know they don't get through my triple-ply foil tricorn.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, Adamantine Dragon, from now on, we have to run to the boards and publicly comment on every ethics-based decision we make everyday? And hope maybe, just maybe, it meets your criteria?No, but when you pick one social issue, you might want to explain why yours is actually the RIGHT one, when there are so many to choose from.
As for me, I'd prefer to boycott the pedophile anal rapist first. That's all.
So someone who boycotted both would get a double win?
Also, please link the posts where I've been "slobberingly, hysterically vocal about OSC."
LOL, my comments have been calm, collected and rational, not to mention not personally attacking any individual.Ah, so when you said said we all collectively condone pedophiles, that doesn't count as an attack? Good to know.
So, Adamantine Dragon, from now on, we have to run to the boards and publicly comment on every ethics-based decision we make everyday? And hope maybe, just maybe, it meets your criteria?No, but when you pick one social issue, you might want to explain why yours is actually the RIGHT one, when there are so many to choose from.
As for me, I'd prefer to boycott the pedophile anal rapist first. That's all.
Again, it's not zero sum or ranked in order-of-importance. I/We can boycott, or not watch, both.
Just as soon as we agree on what the definition of "is" is! Look, I get it, you've got a really big hard-on for everyone to go see this movie.
Why would I care? The movie is already coming out. I will go see it. No amount of misguided boycott will prevent that from happening. I don't really care how successful it is, since I don't think they'd produce a sequel even if it were a total blockbuster.
I just think the decision you're making here is a really poor one, and is a symptom of an equally poor personal philosophy. I've explained why, and I think it's a pretty compelling explanation. You obviously disagree, but that's more or less expected. I also think you're advocating a choice which tries to, as its primary goal, deal financial harm to a bunch of people who probably overwhelmingly support LGBT rights. (Don't give me some bull about "they've already been paid"; they're employees of the companies in question, and the companies' continued success is tied directly - and hey, that word actually applies here! - to their own personal success.)
Basically, I think you've given very little thought to your personal politics (as evidenced by the mental gymnastics we've seen over the last two pages), and I think that's sad. Your heart's in the right place, now you just need to get your thoughts and actions to follow suit.
But the lengths of the side-roads you're insisting on going down in order to try and make that point doesn't seem to be changing anyone's mind.
That's a shame.
On the other hand, I've already told you what would immediately change a lot of people's minds: providing credible evidence that OSC isn't getting royalties.
I doubt it would (we've seen people in the last page who have said they don't care if OSC doesn't receive any of the proceeds, they'd still boycott to punish the people responsible for making the movie), but we both know that's not something that I can just produce. It hasn't been disclosed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, please link the posts where I've been "slobberingly, hysterically vocal about OSC."
Not just you! "All of you."
Also, please link the posts where I've been "slobberingly, hysterically vocal about OSC."Not just you! "All of you."
"All of you" was a generic comment about the behavior on these boards and was INTENTIONALLY not singling out a single person.
Which I could have done. But chose not to.
I think we've clearly established the moral hysteria hierarchy in this thread. I will now let you all get back to patting yourselves on the back for your superior moral sensitivity.
we've seen people in the last page who have said they don't care if OSC doesn't receive any of the proceeds, they'd still boycott to punish the people responsible for making the movie
This isn't about punishing Lionsgate. It is about holding them accountable for their actions to support a man who pays money to fight LGBT equality, a man who worked to on the board of f!@*ing directors of a hate organization for years.
And if I want to support a progressive sci-fi film, I'll watch Upstream Color or Moon or something.
Also, please link the posts where I've been "slobberingly, hysterically vocal about OSC."Not just you! "All of you.""All of you" was a generic comment about the behavior on these boards and was INTENTIONALLY not singling out a single person.
Which I could have done. But chose not to.
I think we've clearly established the moral hysteria hierarchy in this thread. I will now let you all get back to patting yourselves on the back for your superior moral sensitivity.
I knew I shouldn't have talked about how awesome it was, watching tween-agers make out on a beach. :P
(Seriously, just like From Here to Eternity.)
People are forgetting an important detail about this particular boycott: The purpose of it is to blacklist Card personally and send a message to "fall in line or suffer the consequences." How much longer before expressing opposition to homosexual marriage becomes a crime?
Woah there. No one is advocating criminal punishment for people who express controversial political opinions. They're voting with their wallets. Not in a particularly intelligent way, mind you, but that's what's happening.
Businesses are already being told that not supporting and being an active participant of the cause is illegal.
Yeah, no. This is a pretty severe twisting of what is going on.
People are forgetting an important detail about this particular boycott: The purpose of it is to blacklist Card personally and send a message to "fall in line or suffer the consequences." How much longer before expressing opposition to homosexual marriage becomes a crime? Businesses are already being told that not supporting and being an active participant of the cause is illegal.
I would be against such attempts of cracking down on thoughtcrime even if I did not agree with Card.
It isn't about policing thought. It's about treating everyone with equality under the law.
The First Amendment protects everyone's right for free speech, including personal and religious (or irreligious) beliefs. It isn't about stopping Card from writing about certain subjects, or having religious beliefs that differ or are unpopular. But we as a society are also free to call people on wrongheaded or misinformed or hateful speech. We are not required to buy Card's products or donate to his church. He and his church are free not to conduct same-sex marriages, but we are free to remind them they cannot dictate the definition of marriage or equal rights for everyone else under the law.
What is the basis for your beliefs? Is there an objective standard by which you declare that yours is correct and mine is wrong?
I generally consider beliefs founded squarely in bigotry to be wrong, so let's say yes.
But that's not really important. I don't much care what you think of the way I classify the goodness of beliefs. Your position is unsupportable, morally bankrupt, and is, most importantly, losing. So making fun of you, while easy and enjoyable, wouldn't really do anything you're not already managing to do to yourself.
It must be terrifying, watching the world you feel comfortable in shrink around you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Enough with the Roman Polanski. I'm 40 and he was before my time for f&*ks sake. Why is he even relevant to the conversation at all? How is boycotting Polanski manditory for boycotting OSC?
Does anyone under 25 even know who he is??
Seriously Adamantine Dragon claiming people who disagree with you are ok with rape is beyond the pale. You should be ashamed.
-MD
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh! Scott found a dude to go after!
Fun's over for now I guess.
we've seen people in the last page who have said they don't care if OSC doesn't receive any of the proceeds, they'd still boycott to punish the people responsible for making the movieThis isn't about punishing Lionsgate. It is about holding them accountable for their actions to support a man who pays money to fight LGBT equality, a man who worked to on the board of f!*%ing directors of a hate organization for years.
And if I want to support a progressive sci-fi film, I'll watch Upstream Color or Moon or something.
AS, Have you seen The Quiet Earth? That s**t is nut-job like it was written by J.G.Ballard! (He didn't write the movie, so no boycott, please. :P)
AS, Have you seen The Quiet Earth? That s**t is nut-job like it was written by J.G.Ballard! (He didn't write the movie, so no boycott, please. :P)
I haven't seen it and I don't think I've read any J.G. Ballard. It seems I need to go get a new library card and catch up on both. Thanks. :)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just think the decision you're making here is a really poor one, and is a symptom of an equally poor personal philosophy. I've explained why, and I think it's a pretty compelling explanation. You obviously disagree, but that's more or less expected. I also think you're advocating a choice which tries to, as its primary goal, deal financial harm to a bunch of people who probably overwhelmingly support LGBT rights. (Don't give me some bull about "they've already been paid"; they're employees of the companies in question, and the companies' continued success is tied directly - and hey, that word actually applies here! - to their own personal success.)
And none of those people, not one of them, mean a damn thing compared to my sister in law, whose life has been made unnecessarily difficult by people like OSC and NOM. No marriage for her and her partner, lots of complications with respect to the three kids and property they have, and when the relationship finally broke down after 20 years of jackasses like OSC and NOM throwing obstacles and scorn in their way, no divorce law protection.
What does OSC's award winning novel mean to me in light of that? And the movie based on it? Less than nothing. Oh, you can go and support the work over the man, Scott, and feel like you're morally superior to the rest of us because you have a clear headed moral philosophy. But me, I won't do that to my sister in law because she matters more than some homophobe's book and she matters more to my wife and me and the rest of my family than all of the people who worked on the movie put together. You keep saying that there will be people hurt by the movie being boycotted, but I'm betting more people have been hurt (and will be hurt) by NOM than will ever be affected by Ender's Game having a budget partially written off by the studio.
And that's the last I'm going to say on this topic.
What is the basis for your beliefs? Is there an objective standard by which you declare that yours is correct and mine is wrong?
But yes, the belief that marriage is a right that should be shared equally is the correct belief. And the belief that marriage should be restricted to a man and a woman is the wrong belief.BTW, I really am impressed that we got 16 pages in before anyone actually started arguing for homophobia. As opposed to the pros and cons of various tactics of opposing it.
I guess that just proves how terrified everyone is of the homosexual thought police.
You mean gay agenda, right?
What is the basis for your beliefs? Is there an objective standard by which you declare that yours is correct and mine is wrong?
But yes, the belief that marriage is a right that should be shared equally is the correct belief. And the belief that marriage should be restricted to a man and a woman is the wrong belief.BTW, I really am impressed that we got 16 pages in before anyone actually started arguing for homophobia. As opposed to the pros and cons of various tactics of opposing it.
I guess that just proves how terrified everyone is of the homosexual thought police.
In case anyone was confused, the homosexual thought police are the thought police with the short shorts.
You know, I was gonna poke fun at "you liberals trying to out gay support each other" but it's just not fun anymore.
Once you see the right vs left hogwash for what it is, it ain't funny anymore. It's just sad.
It's like people arguing over which truck's water to use to put out a fire...
Meh.
Carry on.
You know, I was gonna poke fun at "you liberals trying to out gay support each other"
Yeah, man, look at those big dumb-heads, all having passion for what they believe in and stuff! Everyone knows that being fashionably cynical is way cooler.
And none of those people, not one of them, mean a damn thing compared to my sister in law, whose life has been made unnecessarily difficult by people like OSC and NOM. No marriage for her and her partner, lots of complications with respect to the three kids and property they have, and when the relationship finally broke down after 20 years of jackasses like OSC and NOM throwing obstacles and scorn in their way, no divorce law protection.
What does OSC's award winning novel mean to me in light of that? And the movie based on it? Less than nothing. Oh, you can go and support the work over the man, Scott, and feel like you're morally superior to the rest of us because you have a clear headed moral philosophy. But me, I won't do that to my sister in law because she matters more than some homophobe's book and she matters more to my wife and me and the rest of my family than all of the people who worked on the movie put together. You keep saying that there will be people hurt by the movie being boycotted, but I'm betting more people have been hurt (and will be hurt) by NOM than will ever be affected by Ender's Game having a budget partially written off by the studio.
Do you believe that you have a monopoly on having gay friends or relatives that you care about?
The point is that there are way more productive ways to go about expressing meaningful support for gay rights than to boycott a film over the political leanings of the author of the book it's based on on the off chance that one of your pennies might make its way into his bank account and from there to NOM. People have chosen the boycott not because it is actually a meaningful expression of support, but because it's an easy, reassuring, token expression of support. (I mean, come on - a boycott of a movie is how you show your sister in law that you care? Something that, by definition, requires literally zero action or effort on your part and at most deprives you of seeing a film that you probably weren't all that excited about to begin with?) They need to take care not to look too closely at it, because if they did they'd start to understand exactly how counter-productive it is in context.
Now, I will say this: if the boycott is so well-followed that the movie absolutely tanks, surpassing all possible predictions of how poorly it might fare, the studios will have no choice but to assume that its massive failure is due to the boycott. That will likely have a chilling effect on the creation of any movies that might imply an association with an anti-gay personality or cause. That would be a game changer.
And none of those people, not one of them, mean a damn thing compared to my sister in law, whose life has been made unnecessarily difficult by people like OSC and NOM. No marriage for her and her partner, lots of complications with respect to the three kids and property they have, and when the relationship finally broke down after 20 years of jackasses like OSC and NOM throwing obstacles and scorn in their way, no divorce law protection.
What does OSC's award winning novel mean to me in light of that? And the movie based on it? Less than nothing. Oh, you can go and support the work over the man, Scott, and feel like you're morally superior to the rest of us because you have a clear headed moral philosophy. But me, I won't do that to my sister in law because she matters more than some homophobe's book and she matters more to my wife and me and the rest of my family than all of the people who worked on the movie put together. You keep saying that there will be people hurt by the movie being boycotted, but I'm betting more people have been hurt (and will be hurt) by NOM than will ever be affected by Ender's Game having a budget partially written off by the studio.
Do you believe that you have a monopoly on having gay friends or relatives that you care about?
The point is that there are way more productive ways to go about expressing meaningful support for gay rights than to boycott a film over the political leanings of the author of the book it's based on on the off chance that one of your pennies might make its way into his bank account and from there to NOM. People have chosen the boycott not because it is actually a meaningful expression of support, but because it's an easy, reassuring, token expression of support. (I mean, come on - a boycott of a movie is how you show your sister in law that you care? Something that, by definition, requires literally zero action or effort on your part and at most deprives you of seeing a film that film that you probably weren't all that excited about to begin with?) They need to take care not to look too closely at it, because if they did they'd start to understand exactly how counter-productive it is in context.
Scott, I'm sure that Bill does more to support his sister besides skipping a single movie. Maybe in the grand scheme the boycott accomplishes nothing more than it has already, but even little seemingly inconsequential gestures help someone like her (and me).
And I'll buy the argument that the boycott is non-productive, if that's what you mean. But counter-productive? Sure, it'd be nice if everyone that believes in LGBT-equality donated time and effort to feet-on-the-ground coalition-building/lobbying groups or LGBT-friendly homeless or abuse shelters or persistantly bugging their elected officials about it. But I also know there are a lot of things I could instead be doing to work for environmental causes, cancer research, Alzheimer's research, animal cruelty, or keeping the Internet free, un-wiretapped, and uncensored or many other causes. But there is only so many hours in day, so much sacrificial cash, and finite energy in the human body to do it all. I have to believe that if each of us does as we are able to make the world better for all of us, in the end that's what matters.
You know, I was gonna poke fun at "you liberals trying to out gay support each other"Yeah, man, look at those big dumb-heads, all having passion for what they believe in and stuff! Everyone knows that being fashionably cynical is way cooler.
It would have been in jest, anyway. I believe the same thing where gay marriage is concerned.
I didn't know one could be fashionably cynical. Neat!
Berik just broke the 1st rule of "Punch children in the face club".
-MD
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
