| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
|
Moomintroll
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
Posts: 1008
Location: Nottingham (UK)
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 7:12 pm |
 |
|
| ebisu wrote: | | Masamune Shirow's Dominion Tank Police banned? |
No. Dominion Tank Police evaluated and passed as okay. Try reading the article. |
| Back to top |
|
|
mistress_reebi
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
Posts: 736
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 7:20 pm |
|
|
| Satsujinki wrote: | | mistress_reebi wrote: | | We don't value glorifying a tramatic experience. |
I think it's presumptuous to say that a nation glorifies unlawful acts simply by allowing publications depicting them in some fictitious manner.
|
Rape porn is obscene. Porn is supposed to arouse the viewer, not make the viewer vomit. All forms of rape porn, whether it's fictional or real is banned in Canada.
| Satsujinki wrote: |
| mistress_reebi wrote: | | Compared to the US, Canadians are more liberal. |
Let's see... | Quote: | lib·er·al (lĭb'ər-əl, lĭb'rəl)
adj.
1
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
3. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation. |
Mind pointing it out? Because all I got from that statement and ones prior to yours from fellow Canadian posters were the exact opposite. |
We were one of first countries to legalise same-sex marriage. Soon, marijuana will be legalised. Also, we tolerate nudity on network television and when we rate movies lower than in the US. (ie. Most rated R movies in the US are rated 14A here in Canada) There is more to being liberal than a definition and there are different kinds of liberalism in the world. For example, being liberal in Afghanistan is different than being liberal in Belgium. |
| Back to top |
|
|
Porcupine
Joined: 21 Jul 2004
Posts: 1033
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 7:42 pm |
|
|
I've been temp-banned for this post.
(Not for the opinions it espoused, but for the obnoxious, trolling 1-liner manner in which they were expressed) |
| Back to top |
|
|
Satsujinki
Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 6
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 8:18 pm |
|
|
| mistress_reebi wrote: | | Rape porn is obscene. Porn is supposed to arouse the viewer, not make the viewer vomit. All forms of rape porn, whether it's fictional or real is banned in Canada. |
Since you've taken the time to quote me, please re-read what I said and notice how I was not holding contention as to whether or not rape in porn was obscene nor whether it was bannable in your neck of the woods; simply because, I know better and it's been driven into the ground many times over in this thread, so that's not debatable.
What was debatable was your specious argument claiming that a nation glorifies an unlawful act on the basis of it being a permissable publication. You might as well take what you say here; | mistress_reebi wrote: | | we tolerate nudity on network television |
and infer that because your country allows nudity on network TV that your country is full of obscene streakers that glorify nudity over humility.
You see how that works when I spell it out for you? I sincerely doubt that is the case in the same vein as when both places on the globe show violence in movies.
With respect to the legalization of same-sex marriages and marijuana, which in fact, politics in America are starting to give way to, I find it absolutely irreprehensible that what I would have sent to me through mail is pardoned by law to be thoroughly inspected and if decided, seized prior to arrival.
I also enjoy quite much not having so and so decide what I can and can't watch just because some people in particular impose their moral fiber upon its consumers. I think these couple of things are worthy of the definition I gave you. This wasn't a contest of "different kinds of liberalism", this was about you comparing Canada's politics to the US's as superior.
In the future, don't misquote me and pull up different arguments to fit your own agenda. Good game. |
| Back to top |
|
|
Ryokosha
Joined: 23 Feb 2008
Posts: 103
Location: North Eastern United States
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 10:54 pm |
|
|
| mistress_reebi wrote: |
We were one of first countries to legalise same-sex marriage. Soon, marijuana will be legalised. Also, we tolerate nudity on network television and when we rate movies lower than in the US. (ie. Most rated R movies in the US are rated 14A here in Canada) There is more to being liberal than a definition and there are different kinds of liberalism in the world. For example, being liberal in Afghanistan is different than being liberal in Belgium. |
If I may just add a thought possibly you are partly right, that is to say in one country allowing a girl to go outside without her face covered is liberal and in another being liberal is to allow her to go out dressed as a goth any time she feels like it without fear of being labeled as a deviant, but as a counter argument isn't the act of restricting access to a material, no matter how noble, in what name, or how just one chooses to call the cause, the opposite of being liberal by any definition of the term? Isn't that what Canada is doing?
I tend to agree with Satsujinki, there is something that just doesn't feel right on having someone else, again regardless of what they claim their cause to be, of someone else telling me what is and is not proper to be out there for me to read, watch or listen too, because of their feelings on the topic.
Someone once said about freedom of speech, that it protects the speech we loathe not the speech we love, it protects that which we fear, not that which we embrace, it protects that which disgusts us, not that which sates us, it protects those things from us, from ourselves and our notions, no matter how just or misguided, they might be on issues like this.
This is not meant to be a comment on any one country's or other groups choices on morality, just a comment to say I think this decision itself was a massive mistake. How long was that law in place too before they decided to act on these works? |
| Back to top |
|
|
Dramatis Personae
Joined: 23 Feb 2008
Posts: 88
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 11:19 pm |
|
|
| ginji-2007 wrote: | | Even the stuff that shows the brutal rape and or murder of women for sexual pleasure |
Because cartoons feel pain, am I right? I am sorry, but that's a flawed argument, especially since books produce the same content. It is hypocritical to restrict it only to Anime because it's a visual medium. |
| Back to top |
|
|
Goodpenguin
Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 457
Location: Hunt Valley, MD
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 11:37 pm |
|
|
Ryokosha wrote:
| Quote: | | ..no matter how noble, in what name, or how just one chooses to call the cause, the opposite of being liberal by any definition of the term? |
On a quick note, I'm not sure bringing in 'is this liberal?' is going to do much for keeping the issue on track. I spend whole undergraduate sessions hacking through this with students, and especially in context to a brief message board style conversation this line of arguing can toss up as many possible potholes as it fixes. The term 'Liberal' has so many historical/modern variants the conversation will feature lots of people speaking to cross purposes (especially when we have US citizens from a 'classic Liberal' understanding of speech rules, and European citizens with a throughly different usage of the term).
| Quote: | | Someone once said about freedom of speech, that it protects the speech we loathe not the speech we love, it protects that which we fear, not that which we embrace, it protects that which disgusts us, not that which sates us, it protects those things from us, from ourselves and our notions, no matter how just or misguided, they might be on issues like this. |
I understand your sentiment and I'd be classified as a pretty big defender of 'free speech' applications, but we do have to remember that no society exists in a theoretical vacuum. Speaking to a generality, every society will seek to define limits/accessibilities on the public display/commercial acceptability of various content. As a strong 'classical Liberal' booster I like to see the decision often come down on the side of the individual, rather then 'social protection' as I imagine you do from your posts (though we have to keep in mind that's not always going to find ready agree-ability from non-American posters who are used to a much stricter regulatory environment-witness Canada's recent 'Human Rights Commission' that's creating quite a stir). However, cultural forces will push in, and cultural forces will push out, this is a natural process; a society with no 'boundaries' isn't 'Liberal', it's 'Libertine'. The issue of concern to me isn't that nations/people explore what's 'taboo', it's how that decision is made and how it's enforced. In this Canadian case, it's seems a simple matter of legal round-about from a customs agency, and not relatively indicative of anything especially insidious (as opposed to the more troubling 'Human Rights Commission' activity previously noted). |
| Back to top |
|
|
Ryokosha
Joined: 23 Feb 2008
Posts: 103
Location: North Eastern United States
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 12:55 am |
|
|
| Goodpenguin wrote: | Ryokosha wrote:
| Quote: | | ..no matter how noble, in what name, or how just one chooses to call the cause, the opposite of being liberal by any definition of the term? |
On a quick note, I'm not sure bringing in 'is this liberal?' is going to do much for keeping the issue on track. I spend whole undergraduate sessions hacking through this with students, and especially in context to a brief message board style conversation this line of arguing can toss up as many possible potholes as it fixes. The term 'Liberal' has so many historical/modern variants the conversation will feature lots of people speaking to cross purposes (especially when we have US citizens from a 'classic Liberal' understanding of speech rules, and European citizens with a throughly different usage of the term). |
True, but on a quick note when you restrict something you have never been considered liberal any time in history as far as I know.
| Quote: | | I understand your sentiment and I'd be classified as a pretty big defender of 'free speech' applications, but we do have to remember that no society exists in a theoretical vacuum. Speaking to a generality, every society will seek to define limits/accessibilities on the public display/commercial acceptability of various content. As a strong 'classical Liberal' booster I like to see the decision often come down on the side of the individual, rather then 'social protection' as I imagine you do from your posts (though we have to keep in mind that's not always going to find ready agree-ability from non-American posters who are used to a much stricter regulatory environment-witness Canada's recent 'Human Rights Commission' that's creating quite a stir). However, cultural forces will push in, and cultural forces will push out, this is a natural process; a society with no 'boundaries' isn't 'Liberal', it's 'Libertine'. The issue of concern to me isn't that nations/people explore what's 'taboo', it's how that decision is made and how it's enforced. In this Canadian case, it's seems a simple matter of legal round-about from a customs agency, and not relatively indicative of anything especially insidious (as opposed to the more troubling 'Human Rights Commission' activity previously noted). |
Oh yes I've studied sociology and find the Humans Rights commission to be another HUAC by a different name. But to this topic no society does exist in a vacuum a study of sociology will tell anyone that much, but by the same token no society that allows any one group, be it appointed government, religious or elected body, to decide the morals for the whole of that society has found that to be successful or helpful to the welfare of society in the long run. What I see happening here is that one body that was elected or appointed is deciding for society as a whole if these things do or do not violate a law that same body likely created and I ask again, why now, even if that law has been on the books only for a few months to a year it won't take people a year to open one of those manga or watch some of that anime to conduct a study and say yes or no to it being within the purdence of the law to being allowed in or not, so once more why now?
Oh I never meant to nor do I now mean to infer it was or is an insidious act, just that I think it a mistake on many levels. |
| Back to top |
|
|
Moomintroll
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
Posts: 1008
Location: Nottingham (UK)
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 7:11 am |
|
|
| Ryokosha wrote: | | isn't the act of restricting access to a material, no matter how noble, in what name, or how just one chooses to call the cause, the opposite of being liberal by any definition of the term? |
In and of itself you may have a point (although as Goodpenguin has pointed out, the word "liberal" is commonly used in the USA in a way that has little resemblance to the historical use of the word in Europe) but societies have to be taken in the round and every relatively "liberal" nation in the world has some restrictions on free speech and other personal liberties.
Canadian customs are operating in exactly the same way as customs services in the vast majority of other democratic developed nations so whilst the specific activity itself may be illiberal it does not, in a wider context, suggest a relatively illiberal society.
Incidentally, it is perfectly normal for a country to tend towards greater social liberalism in some areas and towards less social liberalism in others.
The social democracies of Northern Europe, for example, are very (socially) liberal relative to the USA in some ways and very illiberal in others - and the same holds true for Canada. Which is right and which is wrong depends on whether or not you place the rights, wellbeing and expectations of the individual over the rights, wellbeing and expectations of broader society.
| Goodpenguin wrote: | | a society with no 'boundaries' isn't 'Liberal', it's 'Libertine'. The issue of concern to me isn't that nations/people explore what's 'taboo', it's how that decision is made and how it's enforced. |
Well said. |
| Back to top |
|
|
mistress_reebi
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
Posts: 736
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 7:19 pm |
|
|
| Satsujinki wrote: |
What was debatable was your specious argument claiming that a nation glorifies an unlawful act on the basis of it being a permissable publication. You might as well take what you say here; | mistress_reebi wrote: | | we tolerate nudity on network television |
and infer that because your country allows nudity on network TV that your country is full of obscene streakers that glorify nudity over humility.
You see how that works when I spell it out for you? I sincerely doubt that is the case in the same vein as when both places on the globe show violence in movies.
With respect to the legalization of same-sex marriages and marijuana, which in fact, politics in America are starting to give way to, I find it absolutely irreprehensible that what I would have sent to me through mail is pardoned by law to be thoroughly inspected and if decided, seized prior to arrival.
I also enjoy quite much not having so and so decide what I can and can't watch just because some people in particular impose their moral fiber upon its consumers. I think these couple of things are worthy of the definition I gave you. This wasn't a contest of "different kinds of liberalism", this was about you comparing Canada's politics to the US's as superior.
In the future, don't misquote me and pull up different arguments to fit your own agenda. Good game. |
lol, because you don't put words into my mouth? So, you base a countries political belief system on a few messages in an online forum? Since when did I say Canadian politics are superior? (Actually, in Canada we do have nudist communities.) As for the fiction being viewed as glorifying something: if porn is meant to arouse the viewer and the viewer is aroused at seeing someone being brutally murdered and raped for sexual satisfaction, it is glorifying rape. In a violent movie people don't get the same sadistic satisfaction. That's why it's different than a violent movie/game.
| Quote: | | True, but on a quick note when you restrict something you have never been considered liberal any time in history as far as I know. |
Somethings need to be restricted in order to preserve the rights of other. For example, if someone writes a book on how much they hate a particular group/religion, the particular group/religion's rights are taken away. So, the book is deemed hate material. As Satsujinki pointed out, being liberal is to be tolerant. So when intolerance is introduced, (writing hate material) it's deemed as ethically wrong. |
| Back to top |
|
|
tygerchickchibi
Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Posts: 795
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 9:29 pm |
|
|
| mistress_reebi wrote: |
Somethings need to be restricted in order to preserve the rights of other. For example, if someone writes a book on how much they hate a particular group/religion, the particular group/religion's rights are taken away. So, the book is deemed hate material. As Satsujinki pointed out, being liberal is to be tolerant. So when intolerance is introduced, (writing hate material) it's deemed as ethically wrong. |
Terrible example. Sorry, but there are still hate rallies that are still permitted in states and websites that promote hate overall. Even if it's ethically wrong, it's still tolerated to a certain extent.
Basically, you have the freedom to purchase the DVD, or keep it in the store and go your own way.
...ugh...everyone has their own issues. I think there are more things to be concerned about than Adult DVDs. |
| Back to top |
|
|
Goodpenguin
Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 457
Location: Hunt Valley, MD
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 11:32 pm |
|
|
| Quote: | | Somethings need to be restricted in order to preserve the rights of other. For example, if someone writes a book on how much they hate a particular group/religion, the particular group/religion's rights are taken away. So, the book is deemed hate material. As Satsujinki pointed out, being liberal is to be tolerant. So when intolerance is introduced, (writing hate material) it's deemed as ethically wrong. |
Not to take things to far off the beaten path, but this sentiment has popped up several times, and frankly, it's rather creepy. What 'rights' are taken away by someone publishing a foolish screed (assuming it's not advocating violence/injury against a party)? Is there now an important 'right' not to be offended? Importantly, who decides what's 'punishably offensive'? As I wrote above, it's the 'who and how' of censor decision thats important, and your illustration seems a rather troubling autocratic process.
Though I know this wasn't the intention, the subtext of your argument is an Orwellian 'Newspeak': "Liberal means Good. The Government decides what is Good. Intolerance will not be Tolerated." The Canadian government already is taking some heavy lumps for very questionable moves in this regard, I'm not sure codifying broad notions of 'not being offended' as a basic right is going to look to favorable in action. |
| Back to top |
|
|
Satsujinki
Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 6
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 6:13 pm |
|
|
| mistress_reebi wrote: | | lol, because you don't put words into my mouth? So, you base a countries political belief system on a few messages in an online forum? Since when did I say Canadian politics are superior? |
I'm going to point this out, hopefully for the last time: | mistress_reebi wrote: | | Compared to the US, Canadians are more liberal. |
If this wasn't a roundabout way of saying "my country is better than your country", then excuse me. Moving on... | mistress_reebi wrote: | | (Actually, in Canada we do have nudist communities.) |
I never said you didn't, I simply doubted that your entire country valued sexuality over humility under the premise of nudity being more commonplace on TV, in contrast to how you basically said that because the US allows publications depicting rape that they must glorify it. | mistress_reebi wrote: | | As for the fiction being viewed as glorifying something: if porn is meant to arouse the viewer and the viewer is aroused at seeing someone being brutally murdered and raped for sexual satisfaction, it is glorifying rape. In a violent movie people don't get the same sadistic satisfaction. That's why it's different than a violent movie/game. |
I have to admit, it took quite a bit of deliberation to respond to this in a way that wouldn't make me sound equally ridiculous. I almost want to hurl from how hackneyed this mentality is, and that's just one way of putting it. It's really no different than the claims made against video games like GTA and Mass Effect, etc etc.
Let me spell this out for you: you're a hivemind of people who want to push their ethics as fact upon others. I'm not even going to start on the last thing you wrote, you have other people pointing out how loopy your example is for me. |
| Back to top |
|
|
mistress_reebi
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
Posts: 736
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 12:54 am |
|
|
| Satsujinki wrote: | | mistress_reebi wrote: | | lol, because you don't put words into my mouth? So, you base a countries political belief system on a few messages in an online forum? Since when did I say Canadian politics are superior? |
I'm going to point this out, hopefully for the last time: | mistress_reebi wrote: | | Compared to the US, Canadians are more liberal. |
If this wasn't a roundabout way of saying "my country is better than your country", then excuse me. Moving on...
|
I said my country was more liberal, not superior. The Netherlands is one of the most liberal countries in the world but not the superior because it's very liberal.
| Satsujinki wrote: |
| mistress_reebi wrote: | | (Actually, in Canada we do have nudist communities.) |
I never said you didn't, I simply doubted that your entire country valued sexuality over humility under the premise of nudity being more commonplace on TV, in contrast to how you basically said that because the US allows publications depicting rape that they must glorify it. | mistress_reebi wrote: | | As for the fiction being viewed as glorifying something: if porn is meant to arouse the viewer and the viewer is aroused at seeing someone being brutally murdered and raped for sexual satisfaction, it is glorifying rape. In a violent movie people don't get the same sadistic satisfaction. That's why it's different than a violent movie/game. |
I have to admit, it took quite a bit of deliberation to respond to this in a way that wouldn't make me sound equally ridiculous. I almost want to hurl from how hackneyed this mentality is, and that's just one way of putting it. It's really no different than the claims made against video games like GTA and Mass Effect, etc etc.
Let me spell this out for you: you're a hivemind of people who want to push their ethics as fact upon others. I'm not even going to start on the last thing you wrote, you have other people pointing out how loopy your example is for me. |
And you aren't calling me an idiot who thinks the US is a bunch of rapists from misinterpreting my quotes? Complain to Canada why we won't allow rape porn, not a poster. We view it as obscene hence why we made it illegal. I'm not pushing my ethics, it's just what Canada believes in. |
| Back to top |
|
|
Psycho 101
 Subscriber
Joined: 14 Aug 2006
Posts: 5229
Location: In the Grumpmobile with Grumpyman fighting crime one pot of coffee at a time.
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 3:30 am |
|
|
| mistress_reebi wrote: |
Somethings need to be restricted in order to preserve the rights of other. For example, if someone writes a book on how much they hate a particular group/religion, the particular group/religion's rights are taken away. So, the book is deemed hate material. As Satsujinki pointed out, being liberal is to be tolerant. So when intolerance is introduced, (writing hate material) it's deemed as ethically wrong. |
I have to disagree with one comment. Simply writing a book of hateful material does NOT take the rights of the target group. Holding rallies to hate on group "X" does not take away group X's rights either. Only the ruling government can "take away" their rights. Not some hate filled ignorant idiots holding some stupid rally or writing a book. I also fail to see what being liberal has to do with tolerance. I mean being liberal, as in liberalism, emphasizes individual rights over power of government (very broad definition here). Simply thinking this way does not in itself mean you're more tolerant then anyone else. If you want to belong to something that really teaches tolerance then convert to Buddhism. I'm sorry but being "liberal" is more of a state of political opinion to me while being tolerant is a personal choice you make daily on how to act.
| mistress_reebi wrote: |
And you aren't calling me an idiot who thinks the US is a bunch of rapists from misinterpreting my quotes? Complain to Canada why we won't allow rape porn, not a poster. We view it as obscene hence why we made it illegal. I'm not pushing my ethics, it's just what Canada believes in. |
Is it what Canada believes in or what the ruling majority of the government believe in? I'm sure plenty of normal citizens would agree but I must say you seem very presumptuous in how you seem to be speaking for all of Canada in your post. |
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Anime Castle
Robert's Anime Corner Store
AAA Anime Distribution
Big Bad Toy Store
