Texsox

QUOTE(NUKE @ Jan 26, 2007 -> 07:42 PM) Yeah, they should shut their traps and get their own house in order. Who benefits when they shut their traps? Who are you defending here? Sorry if someone preaching that abusing kids, or simulating the abuse of children, is a bad thing. One of the mistakes the Catholic Church committed was not being public, not speaking out, Now they are and you're complaining. Again I ask, who benefits when an organization with over one billion members worldwide is told to shut their traps and not speak about this? Shouldn't they be telling their members? Who is it hurting when they speak out against this? Bob, setting this particular movie aside. Is there a point when the limit can't be tested anymore? Is there a point when people say, we are not going that far? And who is to decide? The lowest common denominator?

QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ Jan 26, 2007 -> 02:53 PM) So let me get this straight, any Catholic or Catholic-based organization should not ever speak out against rape, under-aged rape, or even the depiction of rape because it's too "ironic" and "hypocritical" for many of you?? Right they should "do something" as long as it isn't being critical of anyone. QUOTE(BobDylan @ Jan 26, 2007 -> 02:24 PM) Tex, you have to take art in context. The movie is more than just the rape. It's a story. The rape is only a part of it. The characters will develop, grow and learn in some way from it. It'll also propose more questions once you actually see the story instead of judging it before hand. For instance, in Taxi Driver, DeNiro's character had to kill people to get the 14 year old prostitute back home. Is that heroic? Is it not? And so on. The boundry isn't just depicting rape...it's putting it out there so other artists can use it in different ways so they can put some other amount of awareness out there. So they can pose more questions for the general public about the atrocity in child rape. This is why breaking boundries in art is important. The point I was poorly making is if one buys into the breaking down barriers argument, there is some goal, something that the artist or audience is heading to. So what is the goal in this? What couldn't be shown in 1990 that is being shown here? And, more importantly, what will be shown in 2020 because of this? I understand the testing of limits, but only if there actually are limits and when they are reached, they are kept.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 26, 2007 -> 05:04 PM) All snakes and almost all lizards have two penises, technically referred to as hemepenes. The alternate between them during successive mating events. The very primitive and highly endangered New Zealand tuatara, the last surviving member of the relict sphenodontid family of lizards, is the exception to the two penis rule. It has no penis, instead using a muscular cloacal opening as a primitive intromittant organ. Boy lizard junk is strang stuff. Not as strange as boy marsupial junk. In marsupials the testes are posiyioned anterior to the penis in all living representatives except the bandicoot. In laymans terms that means that the marsupial nutsack is teabagging the penis during copulation. This has been another exciting edition of Ask Mr. Animal Sex. I was actually following all that

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Jan 26, 2007 -> 02:13 PM) I believe that parole should be a process that exists, and I do believe in rehabilitation the idea, but I can't understand how anyone can believe that a man who slit a five year old's throat can be "rehabilated" or deserves a "second chance." There's just a certain evil inherent in killing a defenseless person that makes denial of parole and life in prison a no-brainer. Exactly (with edit) It just sickens me that anyone could harm a child.

I never really stopped to consider that. I assume most cities are like that. This is what really interested me:

I can't understand the point of view that these boundaries in how child abuse is depicted in movies should come down. Why anyone would want to see more or that, and in greater detail, sickens me. I understand pushing some limits, but not in child abuse. Someone tell me just how much violence and abuse against children they want to see in movies? Is there really that great of a demand to see young children abused? Isn't it possible we have reached a limit? Maybe Taxi Driver was the edge?

It is not hypocritical for someone, or some organization, to make a mistake, learn from it, and speak out against it. A drunk driver who later joins MADD and speaks about the dangers of drunk driving is not a hypocrite. The person who has abused drugs who now speaks to kids about their dangers, should not be labeled a hypocrite. The Catholic Church is over ONE BILLION people world wide. Of that over one billion, at least a billion did not abuse nor cover up child abuse. To call today's Catholics hypocrites for speaking out against something that should be universally despise, because of the acts of a few, is wrong. Part of my job is teaching youth protection to non-profit youth serving agencies. The Catholic Church has adopted some of the most stringent guidelines of any youth serving agency. They have learned from their mistakes and continue to be diligent it never happens again. But as we all know, no system is fool proof. Banks get robbed, identities get stolen, and sadly kids are abused. If there was a way to stop crimes, we wouldn't be building prisons. Pedophiles are attracted to kids and will join those activities that place them in close contact with children. They will coach sports, join the Church youth group, be Scout leaders, 4H leaders, a Big Brother or Big Sister, become teachers, day care workers, etc. They are probably heterosexual with a family and children of their own. They go anywhere they think they can find their next victim. When a child is abused, everyone in that organization feels the pain and outrage. Everyone. If in that outrage and pain, they speak out, loudly, against it, they aren't being hypocrites, they are being good, decent people. At some point the entertainment industry hits limits, or at least should. Talk about barriers coming down, what is the goal? How much of this do you want to see? If striking down barriers is a good thing, think about how much graphic violence, graphic sexual assaults our grandchildren will get to see. Maybe a four year old prostitute getting gang raped by prison guards. Whoo Whoo that's art! That's pushing boundaries. That's where our society needs to go. At some point we need to say enough is enough. You've pushed the boundaries as far as you need to.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Jan 25, 2007 -> 02:07 PM) This is crap. I deserve to be a primadonna that is mentioned on Forbes. God damn it, thats it, I'm closing the site. Maybe with the site gone, they'll realize just how well known I was. They must not have known about the Rally Crede magic you unleashed . . .

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Jan 25, 2007 -> 02:59 PM) Thanks for mischaracterizing my comments completely and absolutely. Let's re-read: I sure did mention teachers, and doctors, policemen and politicians, and I sure did forbid them from commenting on the matter. (Green green, above.) Yeah, that's exactly what I'm doing. Let's go to you now, and we'll come right back to me: First off, I never said they shouldn't take a stand. I was pointing out the hypocrisy inherent in the Church' criticism of this film. By all means, if they want to speak out, the Church should, but I'd prefer to see real moves within their organization to stop their priests from touching altar boys before they take the moral highground they don't have against a film that they likely haven't seen and wouldn't understand if they did. Which is a reference to the often-times archaeic nature of the Church. What if I said I think you're standing up for pedophiles? I mean, simply making that allegation without textual support makes it true, right? Really now. I've had issues with interpretations, and other people's comments to me, plenty of times on this board, but I've never been accused of supporting pedophilia and "making it easy" on pedophiles. Makes me glad we had this discussion. Who benefits when you silence the Church on this issue? The Church is people like me. Why would you silence me on this issue? Teachers have abused children, still do. Shall educators be called hypocrits for speaking out? Tell schools to clean up themselves before speaking. Political leaders have abused, shall we tell them to clean up their house before talking out? Non church goers have abused children, shall we tell them to clean up their house before talking out? What actions do you want to see? The Catholic Churches are requring and doing background and criminal checks on everyone who comes in contact with youth. They have installed protection guidelines and are teaching the youth, parents, and Clergy to spot abuse and to report. Perhaps your Church isn't being that proactive, volunteer for the committee. QUOTE(BobDylan @ Jan 25, 2007 -> 02:30 PM) Tex, if I recall correctly, we've had arguments about art before. You've said you don't understand the arts. So how can you possibly justify "to say it's art is wrong"? I agree that if the only interest is money, it's wrong. But with a lot of art, you have to test the limits. You have to go out on a limb and you have to accept people's reactions. Art is a debate, it's a grey area. It's not mathematics where there are proven answers. This subject may be "new" to art, but it's certainly not the only time somebody has pushed the limitations further than people were ready for. The Graduate showed nipples. Truman Capote back stabbed a murderer in the name of his book In Cold Blood. Hell, there's even a movie out at the same Sundance Festival called Zoo about beastiality. Art is about taking risks. It's not about making sure nobody is offended in the process or with the final project. If there were no risks involved, it'd never progress. Test the limits? OK I totally agree with that. But too many people, and it seems you are in that camp, are not ok with testing the limits. By agreeing to test the limits, one has to agree there are limits. So far, that doesn't seem to be the case. Some are accepting that the simulation of raping a child is within the limits. Some are not. Where in "testing the limits" is the understanding that the limit has been reached and needs to be reeled back in?

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Jan 25, 2007 -> 10:50 AM) Go stop the pedophiles in your church before you talk about a big work of total fiction. So teachers can't talk about abuse. Doctors can't talk about abuse. Police and politicans can't talk about abuse. So kids have no advocates in your world. How sad. Nice of you to stick up for pedophiles by stopping those who talk against them. We wouldn't want anyone to mention how abuse of children is wrong. That would be a terrible idea. The good people in every organization need to stand up for what is right. If the good people in the Church, those that didn't abuse children or cover it up can't f***ing talk about it being wrong, how f***ed up is the situation? Since some pervert abused a kid in 1952 I can't speak out against child abuse. f*** you all. By telling the Catholic Church not to take a stand against Child Abuse, you make it a little nicer for pedophiles, how nice and charitable. Who does it hurt when the Church takes this stand and speaks out? I can't believe people here are sick enough to side with pedophiles and against anyone who speaks out against them. We have to protect pedophiles from the Catholic Church.

He's even mentioned here Same here, I only recorgnized a couple sites.

How can Jason not be on this list?? WTF No respect I'm telling you, no f***ing respect for Da Man.

Linked

That would make a great movie with graphic sex scenes and all

QUOTE(NUKE @ Jan 24, 2007 -> 09:17 PM) Trouble is, they're not speaking out about actual child abuse ( no children were harmed in the making of this movie ) but against a depiction of it. When something of this nature becomes "entertainment" we start to accept it. To say it's ok because it's "art" or because someone is making money off it, is wrong. Some will try and justify anything in the name of "art". We can go all the way back and discuss feeding people to lions as "art". It is bad when we become more and more desensitized to something as perverse as the exploitation of children.

QUOTE(NUKE @ Jan 24, 2007 -> 07:22 PM) My big thing here is that I'm a firm believer in having your own ducks in a row before being critical of someone else. How can an outfit that allowed similar behavior to go on for decades all of a sudden pipe up against a movie while the real thing is going on within its own ranks. The real thing is going on in schools, on sports teams, in after school programs, in families, and yes, in all Churches. What is the benefit in any of these groups in staying silent? Tens of millions of Catholics did NOT abuse or look the other way. At most, thousands may have. Tens of thousands of Catholic Churches worldwide did not abuse or hide abuse. So because .000001 percent of the organization did something wrong, they shouldn't talk about child abuse?? Every decent person on the planet should talk against child abuse. It's like saying the US Military can't comment because of the prisoner abuse. Teachers have been reassigned rather than face punishment, so schools can't comment. Doctors have been kept their licenses, so the medical community can't speak? That's silly. Whose going to speak up for kids? I am wondering why anyone would attack someone for speaking out against child abuse. I can see justification in criticizing an organization for not speaking out, but for speaking out? Are you worried it will hurt sex offender's feelings?

Is the Catholic Church, or anyone for that matter denouncing this "entertainment" a good or bad thing? Perhaps if you can explain how silence would help children, I can see your point.

Linked for your pleasure.

QUOTE(Balance @ Jan 24, 2007 -> 05:12 PM) Hey! Those are centimeters! Must have been an Aggie

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jan 24, 2007 -> 05:15 PM) The thing is that Donahue and the Catholic Church sit on high telling others how to live their lives with their aura of legitimacy. I don't say one thing and do another. It is called consistency. And I believe it was the Bible that told people to take the timber out of their eye before going after the splinter in another's. Good to see Holy Mother Church learning that lesson well. Millions and millions of Catholics world wide, yet they can't speak because dozens or even hundreds committed crimes or covered them up? Child abusers have come from all walks of life and have been ignored and covered up by husbands, wives, brothers, and sisters. Applying your logic, no one could talk against child abuse. Not Doctors, not teachers, not coaches, not social workers. Of course if the Catholic Church didn't say something some people would be saying A Ha! We told you they were a bunch of child molesting sickos, they are keeping quiet because they like that stuff. The role of every person should be to stand up for children. To quiet hundreds of millions over the actions or inactions of a few, is wrong.

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 24, 2007 -> 04:49 PM) Well right. Levee systems I guess I'll give you. But I was meaning the homes and neighborhoods, commercial districts, etc. You look at pictures from the last month and it looks like nothing has changed. Entire neighborhoods look like a tornado just ran through them. This, to me, is a failure of the local and state government. Nagen is too busy gaining sympathy (and face time on national tv) than fixing his city. That's how I see it. I don't think it is possible, or wise, to try and rebuild everything at once. It will be a neighborhood by neighborhood project, The state and local governments aren't doing the actual home construction, that is private industry. I am also starting to wonder what the best response is. We've never had to rebuild a city of this magnitude. Is the best role of the feds to be sitting on the side lines? I could be convinced that mobilizing all available resources, federal to private, is the best approach.

The Army Corp of Engineers