Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

When does Renaissance sculpture become "pornography"? Discuss!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post

    Giving you the benefit of the doubt
    Amorality is generally defined as having no moral standards, restraints, or principles; unaware of or indifferent to questions of right or wrong. Anyone reading my posts would be aware that I do possess an awareness of right and wrong so you misused the term,

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Both portray nudity that is consumable by the public.
    And why is nudity in and of itself something you consider inappropriate for children of eleven or twelve years old?

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    So what? You said it couldnt be watched. Now move those goal posts yet again.
    The original is a novel. Dramatisations of novels are rarely faithful to the text .


    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post

    I don't need to explain ANY other parent's responsibility to you.
    You do not need to do so. However, to make comments and then refuse to support them makes you appear either [a] pusillanimous or [b] that your reasons are not overly coherent.

    "It ain't necessarily so
    The things that you're liable
    To read in the Bible
    It ain't necessarily so
    ."

    Sportin' Life
    Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

      One merely needs to investigate "social reproduction".
      One merely needs to read the chapter in Ringrose.


      "It ain't necessarily so
      The things that you're liable
      To read in the Bible
      It ain't necessarily so
      ."

      Sportin' Life
      Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
        One merely needs to read the chapter in Ringrose.

        To reiterate:


        You have yet to prove me incorrect. As always, you're taking something that I say and derailing the thread to that topic as you've only showed interest in exposing sixth graders nudity in art for the sake of showing nudity and of course the usurpation of the influence of parents on their children.
        P1) If , then I win.

        P2)

        C) I win.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

          One merely needs to investigate "social reproduction".
          Not in the context in which Ringrose applied it. You jumped to an erroneous conclusion [premised on your own biases] and based solely on two words.


          Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

          You have yet to prove me incorrect.
          I have done. I cited the opening paragraphs of the chapter and gave a brief overview of the ensuing section. If you do not want to accept what I wrote - find the text and read it for yourself.

          This exchange is now at an end.
          "It ain't necessarily so
          The things that you're liable
          To read in the Bible
          It ain't necessarily so
          ."

          Sportin' Life
          Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
            Amorality is generally defined as having no moral standards, restraints, or principles; unaware of or indifferent to questions of right or wrong. Anyone reading my posts would be aware that I do possess an awareness of right and wrong so you misused the term,
            Fine. You're a pervert. I was trying to be less crass. It's more charitable for me to say you have no restraints than you're just a nasty perverted person. But you couldn't leave your pedantic card in your pocket so here we are...

            And why is nudity in and of itself something you consider inappropriate for children of eleven or twelve years old?
            Because it is. But the beautiful thing about my position is that I am only enforcing my views where I am responsible. You are free to raise your kids however you want.

            The original is a novel. Dramatisations of novels are rarely faithful to the text .
            So what? You claimed no one could watch it. You are wrong. And too self absorbed to take your L like everyone can see.


            You do not need to do so. However, to make comments and then refuse to support them makes you appear either [a] pusillanimous or [b] that your reasons are not overly coherent.
            Or door #3... I don't owe you squat for explanations and I'd rather just snipe at you being a pervert. It's far more entertaining
            That's what
            - She

            Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
            - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

            I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
            - Stephen R. Donaldson

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

              Thank you for the suggestions but Bond films are not really my type of movie.

              I do recall an interesting film I watched many years ago that starred Connery entitled Five Days One Summer. He was also very good as William of Baskerville in The Name of the Rose, and did an amusing cameo as Agamemnon in Gilliam's Time Bandits.
              He was fantastic in The Name of the Rose and had only a bit part in Time Bandits. I don't think I saw the other film. Of course he also made the entirely forgettable Zardoz and while he hated the movie and retired as a result I liked him in The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Other movies he stood out in were The Man Who Would Be King, Robin and Marion, The Untouchables and The Hunt for Red October to name a few.

              I knew the Bond movies aren't your cup of tea, but figured if you ever found yourself in the position to watch one, those would be the best choices in order to get some of the flavor of the books as well.

              I'm always still in trouble again

              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                Not in the context in which Ringrose applied it. You jumped to an erroneous conclusion [premised on your own biases] and based solely on two words.


                I have done. I cited the opening paragraphs of the chapter and gave a brief overview of the ensuing section. If you do not want to accept what I wrote - find the text and read it for yourself.

                This exchange is now at an end.
                I find it interesting you failed to cite your source, nevertheless I've found what most likely was your source.
                P1) If , then I win.

                P2)

                C) I win.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                  How can a film be a sequel to a novel that has no sequel? This is part of this ludicrous tendency to write prequels and sequels for various works of literature, and often by authors who should know better
                  There has to be dozens of movies based from a book that had sequels made. Even in the instance of the James Bond movies, almost all of the ones since the mid 80s could be considered "sequels" since they weren't even basing them on book titles at this point.

                  I'm always still in trouble again

                  "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                  "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                  "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                    He was fantastic in The Name of the Rose and had only a bit part in Time Bandits. I don't think I saw the other film. Of course he also made the entirely forgettable Zardoz and while he hated the movie and retired as a result I liked him in The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Other movies he stood out in were The Man Who Would Be King, Robin and Marion, The Untouchables and The Hunt for Red October to name a few.

                    I knew the Bond movies aren't your cup of tea, but figured if you ever found yourself in the position to watch one, those would be the best choices in order to get some of the flavor of the books as well.
                    I remember him in Hitchcock's "Marnie", in Disney's "Darby O'Gill & The Little People", and he had a significant role in "The Untouchables."

                    I recall suffering through some sort of cheesy fantasy movie back in the 1980s and I was just about to shut it off when Connery appeared. For about 5-10 minutes that he was in the film, it was good. He had a screen presence that was noticeable. And once he left the movie it died again (it really was a piece of junk).

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                      Fair enough

                      OK

                      That quote from Proverbs does not make any sense given your first sentence in this reply.

                      If nakedness was part of what was good why was nakedness suddenly deemed shameful after obtaining the same knowledge as the deity? That implies that the deity knew nakedness was shameful. So how can it have been deemed "good"?

                      And where in <a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/preSearch.cfm?Criteria=Genesis+3&amp;t=NIV" target="BLB_NW" rel="NIV.Genesis.3" class="BLBST_a" style="white-space: nowrap;">Genesis 3</a> is there any mention of a loss of innocence?
                      That they lost their innocence is blindingly obvious from the text. First of all, they clearly disobeyed God, and second, innocent people don't hide and try to cover themselves when there is no one pursuing them. They were ashamed of their nakedness, not because it was shameful in and of itself, but because their loss of innocence made them feel they had something to hide.

                      Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                      You would need to provide exact quotes from me on those issues.
                      I don't need provide anything. You know what you've said.
                      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                      Than a fool in the eyes of God


                      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                        You would need to define "abuse".

                        Given your oft expressed antipathy towards various aspects of religious beliefs [particularly within Christianity] you might consider some of the more "rigid" or fundamentalist Christian upbringings to be abusive.
                        Not particularly. Parents are free to teach their children whatever religion they wish.

                        Now if that religious practice involves beating or torturing or sacrificing a child, that would be abuse.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post

                          Fine. You're a pervert.
                          Why? Because I do not share your notion that the naked human body is intrinsically "vulgar" or lewd?

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          Because it is.
                          That is an answer one would expect from a petulant seven year old.

                          What is interesting however, is that you made the mental jump from eleven and twelve year olds being shown a photograph of Michelangelo's David [or seeing other naked statuary along with paintings of naked human figures,excepting presumably the Christ-child] and you have compared all that with a pornographic film and film adaptions of a rather tedious novel, which I suspect give far more emphasis to the sex scenes than does the original work.

                          That suggests that you [like so many of your persuasion] automatically associate any nudity with sex.

                          Would you consider it lewd or perverted to permit young children to run around their garden naked on a warm summer day?

                          Do you consider those [including families] who frequent a naturist or [over here FKK] resort or beach, or who [again over here] sunbathe nude in designated sections of public parks to be perverts?

                          How do you feel about the risk of adult nudity that may be found in communal changing and bathing facilities? Are these all perverted because adults may risk seeing one another in a nude or semi nude state? Or is single sex adult-only nudity less perverted in your opinion?
                          "It ain't necessarily so
                          The things that you're liable
                          To read in the Bible
                          It ain't necessarily so
                          ."

                          Sportin' Life
                          Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                            He was fantastic in The Name of the Rose and had only a bit part in Time Bandits.
                            As I noted. Although the film of Eco's book, enjoyable although it undoubtedly is, barely touches the complexity of the book.

                            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                            I don't think I saw the other film.
                            I suspect it might not be your "cup of tea" either although you could not fail to enjoy the superb Swiss scenery.

                            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                            Of course he also made the entirely forgettable Zardoz and while he hated the movie and retired as a result I liked him in The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Other movies he stood out in were The Man Who Would Be King, Robin and Marion, The Untouchables and The Hunt for Red October to name a few.
                            I doubt there is an actor on the planet that has not regretted accepting roles in certain films. I recall reading of the late Alec Guinness' attempts to distance himself from the first Star Wars movie, although if anecdote is to be believed he did rather well financially from it.

                            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                            I knew the Bond movies aren't your cup of tea, but figured if you ever found yourself in the position to watch one, those would be the best choices in order to get some of the flavor of the books as well.
                            That was thoughtful of you.

                            "It ain't necessarily so
                            The things that you're liable
                            To read in the Bible
                            It ain't necessarily so
                            ."

                            Sportin' Life
                            Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                              There has to be dozens of movies based from a book that had sequels made. Even in the instance of the James Bond movies, almost all of the ones since the mid 80s could be considered "sequels" since they weren't even basing them on book titles at this point.
                              I was thinking more of literature and the irritating sequels and prequels that have been turned out [often by reputable authors in their own right] who should really have known better.

                              However, [from some online reading] with regard the later outputs of Bond films these appear have increasingly become an excuse for action movies replete with stunts and SFX and that simply utilise a literary figure as the main protagonist along with his literary role.
                              "It ain't necessarily so
                              The things that you're liable
                              To read in the Bible
                              It ain't necessarily so
                              ."

                              Sportin' Life
                              Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                                That they lost their innocence is blindingly obvious from the text. First of all, they clearly disobeyed God, and second, innocent people don't hide and try to cover themselves when there is no one pursuing them. They were ashamed of their nakedness, not because it was shameful in and of itself, but because their loss of innocence made them feel they had something to hide.
                                It is not "blindingly obvious from the text" at all . Their disobedience in eating the fruit was the sin.

                                In Genesis 2 the deity gives strict instructions to Adam "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.” There is no mention there of loss of innocence, only that the result of eating from the tree will lead to mortality.

                                That chapter ends with "And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed." In other words they did not know that nakedness was shameful. They only gained that knowledge after they had eaten the fruit. Yet there is no mention of shame in the deity's reaction to them eating the fruit. In chapter 3 God only asks "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?

                                From your explanation it follows that the deity must have known nakedness was shameful otherwise how could A&E deduce that they needed to cover up? They only made that deduction after they had eaten the fruit [which gave them the same awareness as the deity]. As the serpent tells Eve in Chapter 3 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God,[a]knowing good and evil".

                                Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                                I don't need provide anything. You know what you've said.
                                You are clearly confusing me with some other contributor[s].


                                [a] Or Gods
                                "It ain't necessarily so
                                The things that you're liable
                                To read in the Bible
                                It ain't necessarily so
                                ."

                                Sportin' Life
                                Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                157 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                373 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X