Creationism vs Imax

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Vic
What's the point of this discussion?

I posted the thread because I thought the news story was an interesting indication of fundamentalist impact on modern American culture.

I think fundie protests of these IMAX films are ridiculously stupid, but how would you fix this "problem"? Pass a law forcing the theaters to show the films? Strap fundies into the seats with their eyelids strapped open? :roll:

Yes, A Clockwork Orange society is just what we need! (-;

Seriously, though, I think it's useful simply to be aware that such things are happening. Censorship from any source can be difficult to notice, especially if you never knew that you had a choice; I checked the history of what local IMAX had shown after reading the original article. It's impossible to act against a problem unless you're aware of it. I also think it could be useful to express your opinions if you live near one of these theatres.

Yaknow, you people b!tch about the stupidest things, and usually with nothing but hatred, prejudice, and bigotry in your words. No better than the fundie idiots you would condemn.

An interesting philosophical conundrum: what does it mean to be intolerant of intolerance or bigoted against bigotry?

Self reference always opens the door to nasty paradoxes, as Godel taught us almost a century ago. If it's wrong to be intolerant of intolerance, how do you ever deal with the problem of intolerance?

 

[Vic]

cquark, you are not being intolerant against intolerance, nor bigoted against bigots. That you think so should be your first clue, as you would then be painting all fundies in the same light, now wouldn't you? Just like many posters here think that all of Christianity is represented solely by the fundies, even though they know that that is entirely false. So while you may have just been trying to bring awareness to this situation (which I see as fine), for most of the posters in this thread it's just straight up prejudice and bigotry, no self-righteous paradox at all.

 

[jackschmittusa]

CycloWizard

Pretty sure the theater owners are the ones not showing the movie.

The fundies are the ones who raise hell when something is presented that they don't like and attempt to have it censored by various threats to the presenter (movies,TV, art museums, etc.). They threaten demonstrations, boycotts, etc.. Unfortunately, some people give in to them and it becomes unavailable to anyone.

Most people I know just avoid the things they don't like but are perfectly content to let others see it if they want.

Let's divide the country some more by supporting the fundies ideas that only they are qualified to determine what is right for the general public.

The media really needs to grow a pair and knock them off their high horses by pointing out just how selfish and arrogant they really are. Then, maybe fewer people would knuckle under to them, knowing they have some support.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
CycloWizard

Pretty sure the theater owners are the ones not showing the movie.

The fundies are the ones who raise hell when something is presented that they don't like and attempt to have it censored by various threats to the presenter (movies,TV, art museums, etc.). They threaten demonstrations, boycotts, etc.. Unfortunately, some people give in to them and it becomes unavailable to anyone.

Most people I know just avoid the things they don't like but are perfectly content to let others see it if they want.

Let's divide the country some more by supporting the fundies ideas that only they are qualified to determine what is right for the general public.

The media really needs to grow a pair and knock them off their high horses by pointing out just how selfish and arrogant they really are. Then, maybe fewer people would knuckle under to them, knowing they have some support.

Oh BS. If I was going to open a porn and sex shop, the first thing I would do is let all the evangelical churches in town know about it, hoping that they would picket my store. You can't buy that kind of advertising.
If these IMAX theaters are truly not running certain films for fear of fundie backlash, they need to grow a pair...

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
The fundies are the ones who raise hell when something is presented that they don't like and attempt to have it censored by various threats to the presenter (movies,TV, art museums, etc.). They threaten demonstrations, boycotts, etc.. Unfortunately, some people give in to them and it becomes unavailable to anyone.

Most people I know just avoid the things they don't like but are perfectly content to let others see it if they want.

Let's divide the country some more by supporting the fundies ideas that only they are qualified to determine what is right for the general public.

The media really needs to grow a pair and knock them off their high horses by pointing out just how selfish and arrogant they really are. Then, maybe fewer people would knuckle under to them, knowing they have some support.

So you're pissed because they stand up for what they believe in and take advantage of their right to peaceably assemble? Or are you pissed because, in a free market like ours, the consumer's money is controlled by the consumer, whether by boycotting or attending? What exactly is it about their actions that really gets your goat? I'm guessing it's not their actions, but their beliefs that you so vehemently disagree with, based on your last paragraph. That's what we call 'bigotry' or 'ignorant hatred' where I come from.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Vic
cquark, you are not being intolerant against intolerance, nor bigoted against bigots. That you think so should be your first clue, as you would then be painting all fundies in the same light, now wouldn't you?

How I am not being intolerant of intolerance by expressing my disagreement with fundamentalist intolerance of IMAX movies that have the slightest mention of the history of life or the universe? Isn't that being intolerant of intolerance by definition? I never made any generalizations about all fundamentalists.

 

[Cerb]

Man, this is tough. Why is it that I must live with crazies to get good boiled peanuts and Nu-Ways? If y'all yankees can pull off a Nu-Way, I'm headin' north!

 

[jackschmittusa]

CycloWizard

So you're pissed because they stand up for what they believe in and take advantage of their right to peaceably assemble? Or are you pissed because, in a free market like ours, the consumer's money is controlled by the consumer, whether by boycotting or attending? What exactly is it about their actions that really gets your goat? I'm guessing it's not their actions, but their beliefs that you so vehemently disagree with, based on your last paragraph. That's what we call 'bigotry' or 'ignorant hatred' where I come from.

I'm pissed because rather than simply not go to see it, they will work to make sure no one can see it. That's why I consider it selfish and arrogant. That they are fundies is completely beside the point except for the fact that, as a group, they do this consistantly. It is not just the money either. Politicions often exploit this and try to force the issue. New York is an example; Guiliani (sp?) tried to cut off funding to a museum because of a show that the fundies objected to.

I object to censorship by anybody. Peaceful assembly is fine and often an good vehicle to show the government how you stand. Most demonstrations by the fundies involve harrassing and ridiculing all who disagree with them. (Call it an observation of an obvious trend.) Their efforts are not designed around just withholding their money by not attending, they intend to censor.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Maybe I need to develop some anti-atheist names to throw around so I can play in the sand box with the rest of the third graders here.

If I were you I'd stay out of the sand so the cats won't bury you.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
So it's ok for the fundies to screw it up for everybody?

Pretty sure the theater owners are the ones not showing the movie. Why don't you go protest them not showing it if you care so much?

Who runs the theaters in this case, hmm?

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
So it's ok for the fundies to screw it up for everybody?

Pretty sure the theater owners are the ones not showing the movie. Why don't you go protest them not showing it if you care so much?

Who runs the theaters in this case, hmm?

The article said it was mostly museums, IIRC.

With more and more commercial product becoming available in the IMAX format theatre chains with IMAX houses are shifting over from the science related films and documentaries. That enables them to avoid this issue to a large degree. Though, even if that was not the case the chains would not be bullied nearly so easily.

A small aside about IMAX: All the technology to show IMAX films is leased, not owned. This means that your costs will only increase with time (exactly the opposite of a conventional theatre).

rant mode on

If the museums are being scared off by these screenings then they better let their licenses lapse and close the fvcking things because they will have little use for them other than an expensive money pit. They could transition to more commercial fare as well but what is the point? They originally built these things to provide a more engaging way to learn about science.

I find it laughable that people would even protest this and it is just another sign of the crazy time we live in. I'd love to show those people around the inside of a public library. Their heads would likely explode at the prospect of having to think for themselves.
(I don't intend this as a bash against all religious people, only those who are so certain of everything that any dissent from their line is considered blasphemous and seek to impose their beliefs on the rest of us.)

/rant mode off

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
I'm pissed because rather than simply not go to see it, they will work to make sure no one can see it. That's why I consider it selfish and arrogant. That they are fundies is completely beside the point except for the fact that, as a group, they do this consistantly. It is not just the money either. Politicions often exploit this and try to force the issue. New York is an example; Guiliani (sp?) tried to cut off funding to a museum because of a show that the fundies objected to.

I object to censorship by anybody. Peaceful assembly is fine and often an good vehicle to show the government how you stand. Most demonstrations by the fundies involve harrassing and ridiculing all who disagree with them. (Call it an observation of an obvious trend.) Their efforts are not designed around just withholding their money by not attending, they intend to censor.

So if IMAX was going to show your wife's secret sex video, would you protest? Would this make you selfish and arrogant? After all, you'd be making sure no one could see it, and you object to censorship by anybody. Your hatred for these people is revealed by your constant harangue against them:

That they are fundies is completely beside the point except for the fact that, as a group, they do this consistantly. Most demonstrations by the fundies involve harrassing and ridiculing all who disagree with them.

You make sweeping generalizations about a group that you can only refer to using a name with a negative connotation because you have such great distaste for them. You claim to support the rights that they are practicing, as long as THEY are not the group doing it. Like I said, if you really want to see the movie so badly, go protest at the theater. The free market will inevitably win out, and they will show it if you can get more people to protest in its favor than against, since this is automatically more money for them.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
I'm pissed because rather than simply not go to see it, they will work to make sure no one can see it. That's why I consider it selfish and arrogant. That they are fundies is completely beside the point except for the fact that, as a group, they do this consistantly. It is not just the money either. Politicions often exploit this and try to force the issue. New York is an example; Guiliani (sp?) tried to cut off funding to a museum because of a show that the fundies objected to.

I object to censorship by anybody. Peaceful assembly is fine and often an good vehicle to show the government how you stand. Most demonstrations by the fundies involve harrassing and ridiculing all who disagree with them. (Call it an observation of an obvious trend.) Their efforts are not designed around just withholding their money by not attending, they intend to censor.

So if IMAX was going to show your wife's secret sex video, would you protest? Would this make you selfish and arrogant? After all, you'd be making sure no one could see it, and you object to censorship by anybody.

What a BS argument and you know it.

Your hatred for these people is revealed by your constant harangue against them

Again, more BS. Could you be any more unoriginal in your lame retorts?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If I were you I'd stay out of the sand so the cats won't bury you.

Yeah, you're right. With the amount of bigotry thrown around in this forum, I'd definitely end up buried under a nice big pile of it.

Originally posted by: conjur
Who runs the theaters in this case, hmm?

I don't know. Why don't you tell me instead of making remarks that are completely useless?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: conjur
What a BS argument and you know it.

In context, it's a perfectly valid argument and you know it. He claims to oppose ALL forms of censorship by anyone. He claims that it is selfish for someone to block a film that someone else might want to see for any reason. Tell me, then, what makes this BS?

Again, more BS. Could you be any more unoriginal in your lame retorts?

You call BS twice in two lines, then call my retorts lame? I remember when you at least used to pretend to have something to add.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur
What a BS argument and you know it.

In context, it's a perfectly valid argument and you know it. He claims to oppose ALL forms of censorship by anyone. He claims that it is selfish for someone to block a film that someone else might want to see for any reason. Tell me, then, what makes this BS?

Because you are engaging in wild hyperbole. You proposed a situation that would never happen in order to pick a fight. IOW, you're flamebaiting.

Again, more BS. Could you be any more unoriginal in your lame retorts?

You call BS twice in two lines, then call my retorts lame? I remember when you at least used to pretend to have something to add.

Because I respond in kind.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: conjur
Because you are engaging in wild hyperbole. You proposed a situation that would never happen in order to pick a fight. IOW, you're flamebaiting.

It's a perfectly valid counter-example. Of course, it's a thought exercise which means you'd have to THINK to see the point of it. Obviously, you didn't. You could at least try.

Because I respond in kind.

Ah, so you're a troll. Next?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur
Because you are engaging in wild hyperbole. You proposed a situation that would never happen in order to pick a fight. IOW, you're flamebaiting.

It's a perfectly valid counter-example. Of course, it's a thought exercise which means you'd have to THINK to see the point of it. Obviously, you didn't. You could at least try.

Valid because you say so? Not in the least. You went WAY out on a limb and pulled some overexaggerated example out of your ass in order to pick a fight.

Because I respond in kind.

Ah, so you're a troll. Next?

Is that an admission that you are a troll? If so, I motion for a ban of your sorry ass.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: conjur
Valid because you say so? Not in the least. You went WAY out on a limb and pulled some overexaggerated example out of your ass in order to pick a fight.

Is that an admission that you are a troll? If so, I motion for a ban of your sorry ass.

You might as well just come out and admit it. The only reason you object to my argument is because it's devastating to your case. You try to divert attention away from it by using your childish blather and attacking me personally. You calling for a ban is just further evidence that you have no hope of refuting my argument. You have yet to answer any questions I've posed, or even the question that YOU posed. I'm pretty sure everyone here can figure out for themselves who the troll is.

If you don't even try to address the points I've made, then I'm done with you.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur
Valid because you say so? Not in the least. You went WAY out on a limb and pulled some overexaggerated example out of your ass in order to pick a fight.

Is that an admission that you are a troll? If so, I motion for a ban of your sorry ass.

You might as well just come out and admit it. The only reason you object to my argument is because it's devastating to your case. You try to divert attention away from it by using your childish blather and attacking me personally. You calling for a ban is just further evidence that you have no hope of refuting my argument. You have yet to answer any questions I've posed, or even the question that YOU posed. I'm pretty sure everyone here can figure out for themselves who the troll is.

If you don't even try to address the points I've made, then I'm done with you.

How can I refute your argument? You have NO argument, just pure hyperbole.

Begone with thee.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: conjur
How can I refute your argument? You have NO argument, just pure hyperbole.

Begone with thee.

Not to nit-pick or anything, but what I said isn't a hyperbole. It's a hypothetical situation, which are often used in thought exercises to determine just course of action in a given situation.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Unfortunately, your hypothetical situation is about as false an analogy as it gets. "Wife's sex tape"... can I get a what what?!

Let the ignorant stay that way. The world needs ditch diggers too.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Not to nit-pick or anything, but what I said isn't a hyperbole. It's a hypothetical situation, which are often used in thought exercises to determine just course of action in a given situation.

The example is both: it's a hyperbolic hypothetical.

Impossible or extremely improbable hypotheticals are more often used as impossible experiments in an attempt to invalidate moral principles that work well in the world of actual events, instead of being used to determine just courses of action in the real world.

Remembering our discussion of your communications problem on another thread, let me offer you some advice. If I look through your hyperbole, it seems to me that you may be attempting to point out a conflict between anti-censorship and privacy; however, your absurd hypothetical isn't an effective means of doing so and it's clearly getting in the way of communicating your thoughts to your audience if that's your goal.

 

[jackschmittusa]

CycloWizard

So fundie is now a derogatory term? Must have missed the announcement. I thought the derogatory terms were Jesus freaks and fundamentalist nut cases and such. Is the politically correct term fundamentalist Christian? Any others that are acceptable? In all fairness, I demand to be called a non-believer rather than atheist then since some people seem to use it as a demeaning term. Anyway, it occurs to me that this is just too silly to persue any further.

And if there is a secret sex video of my wife, I'll go watch it. It must have been from days long gone (she's an old lady now and sex drive is at a low ebb). It will be fun to reminisce. I don't find sex and nudity repulsive anyway.

And the free market has little to do with what the FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIANS effect is when they want something banned. They tend to make themselves such a pain in the ass that no one wants to deal with them. They drive off other patrons with their DEROGATORY remarks and slogans.They try to intimidate people. And please, don't try to deny it. I've seen many such demonstrations (some in person, many videos) and read too many accounts, so I know it is true. The last one I saw in person was against Planned Parenhood. They were discusting jerks (not my first choice of descriptive terms either, but I'm trying to be PC for you).


Hippys protested the war in Viet Nam while I was in uniform. Even though I disagreed with them at the time, I was never upset at a peaceful protest. I would have been very pissed though if they would have tried to get a movie banned.

While I agree that some level of restraint on content is advisable in such venues as broadcast TV, I am adamantly opposed to censoring those venues that require paid admission or at least require some consious effort on a person's part to be exposed to the material.

The FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIANS regularly try to ban books, movies, art, etc. that they don't like. Since I do not recognize their authority over what I can see or read, I am opposed to their actions. It has absolutely zip to do with religion from my perspective, and everything to do with it from theirs. I could not care less what someone's religious beliefs are so long as they don't try to run my life. It only stands to reason that if there is a recognizable group that does this frequently, then I will call that same group out frequently. That they are religeous has no bearing on it whatsoever. I fail to see how my stand marks me as intolorant or bigoted.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: cquark
Impossible or extremely improbable hypotheticals are more often used as impossible experiments in an attempt to invalidate moral principles that work well in the world of actual events, instead of being used to determine just courses of action in the real world.

Remembering our discussion of your communications problem on another thread, let me offer you some advice. If I look through your hyperbole, it seems to me that you may be attempting to point out a conflict between anti-censorship and privacy; however, your absurd hypothetical isn't an effective means of doing so and it's clearly getting in the way of communicating your thoughts to your audience if that's your goal.

You mean the thread you stopped responding to when I pointed out the ridiculousness of your position? The same thread where it was pretty clearly demonstrated that my point was clear all along but you were ignoring it because you couldn't refute it? I believe this is the thread you're referring to.

Invalidating moral principles and determining just course of action are often one and the same. By invalidating a moral principle, you suggest action to the contrary is just, at least in a relative sense. The purpose of my hypothetical scenario is to point out the that I sincerely doubt Jack is against all censorship for any reason, which is what he claimed. He's simply against censorship by groups other than himself. From the sound of his posts, not even groups in general, but funamentalist Christians, who he derides throughout his posts.