Potentially dangerous movie

Just as I thought: you are being inconsistent. You like violent movies, therefore violent movies do not influence people to be violent nor do they inspire violence to such a degree that they are "dangerous". You are not into BDSM, therefore movies involving BDSM are a bad, dangerous influence. Let's look at the facts: After Woody Harrelson made a film in which a thief douses a NYC subway ticket booth attendant with gasoline and threatens to light him on fire if he isn't handed all the money (and lights the guy on fire at any rate), the same incident was copied in real life. And yet here you are arguing that just because you watch a violent movie doesn't mean that you will go and commit violence. Yes, some people confuse fantasy and reality. Yes, some people who have violent or perverse tendencies might be inspired to act in a manner similar to what they see in a movie. But some people are nutcases who will go off given any excuse, and if it isn't because of a movie, it will be because they read something in a book, or voices in their head told them to do it. If they don't see it in a movie, they'll think of some other way to release their violent tendencies. The guy who set that NYC subway booth on fire would have still likely committed a violent robbery, albeit in some other manner, if he hadn't seen that film. Someone could easily watch Karla and decide to kidnap girls or have their wives drug their little sisters. But do you object to that film? No. Because you liked it. And should that film be banned? No. Because the horrible reality is that men will kidnap and rape women at any rate and have done so throughout history, even men who have never read, watched a movie or listened to music, and the worst a film like Karla will do is cause people who are too lazy to look up the real facts of a case themselves and who ignorantly rely upon what Hollywood tells them to feel sympathy for a sociopathic monster and spread misinformation about the case to the dismay of the victims' families. When it comes to violence, I believe in addressing the real problems and not wasting my time picketing against Marilyn Manson or emo music, etc. What you're doing is not at all constructive. You are merely being selectively patronising because you confuse your own tastes with what should be imposed upon the rest of society. You are arguing that your taste in violent films makes you superior because you enjoy watching films in which all the violence isn't consensual. The violence in your movies is better because it involves death and dismemberment and murder instead of bruises and spanking and bondage. The violence in your films is better because it involves force instead of consensual role playing. The violence in your films is better because, in your opinion, all people who are into that sort of violence are more sane. Right.

Fight against poverty. Fight for education. Fight for mental health research and availability of care. Fight for good parenting (that would have saved the lives of those little kids who died in a sewer after watching Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles). Don't waste our time telling us that violent movies don't cause violence unless it happens to be a film you don't happen to like.

HAHAHAHA! Man you should be a psychiatrist! You have it all figured out, don't you? You should set up some interviews with serial killers to see what makes them tick. THAT would be interesting.

Your confused mental state is really starting to show here.

No offense, but you're buying into what people like that want you to believe. Control freaks never come out and say they want to run other people's lives; they always hide it behind "concern". Make no mistake, the world is full of people like Jonm, who would love nothing better than to "protect" everyone by enforcing their own personal agendas, whether those whom they would "protect" want it or not.


Woman is the Earth and Man is the Sky.

You should have replied to one of my posts. I only came across yours by chance.

Yes, I know people are entitled to their opinions. I am also entitled to mine.

You might note that the first thing I did in my posts was address the logic behind jonm's post. Jonm was not stating that something was his opinion. He was stating his opinion as objective fact, and in response I pointed out that he applied his logic inconsistently. Regardless of whether or not jonm presents his opinion as subjective opinion or objective fact, if he wants to post his opinion on a public forum he should be prepared for others to take an opposing point of view, express their own, and ask him to back up his point of view. He deliberately singled out a particular segment of the population for condemnation. He attempted to excuse this position through several arguments supposedly based upon fact. I made counterarguments and pointed out the utter irrelevance of all of his facts about serial killers (and his factual errors in some particular instances). That is legitimate debate. He could have responded in kind with more arguments based upon fact and logical reasoning. But instead of questioning my application of logic or fact, just as I did with his posts, Jonm instead decided to appeal to blind prejudice. He began arguing that a certain segment of the population (i.e. all those who practice any form of BDSM) are "evil". Yes, that is his opinion and nothing can be done about it. But if, as a result of his statements, I form the opinion that he is an illogical bigot, I am fully entitled to that opinion, and I am just as free to express that opinion as he is to spew his hatred for others on these boards.

If YOU do NOT feel it is harsh to call people who do no harm to others "evil", then that is your entitlement. I will then be entitled to point out to you that most people would disagree with you. If YOU feel it is harsh to point out that a person is being bigoted, that is your entitlement. I will then be entitled to point out to you that a bigot is a bigot, and, in my opinion, they deserve to have that pointed out to them. You might not have liked my posts, and you're entitled to that opinion, and you are free to point that out, but I am now entitled to point out that by coming onto this board and pretending to be a champion of one's right to freely express opinions no matter how bigoted they are, only to wind up arguing instead that another person is "harsh" for expressing his opinion, that you are being somewhat hypocritical. And you are also being hypocritical in arguing that one person's good intentions should be taken into account, then refusing to allow for another's intentions. Or do you truly believe that I called jonm an illogical bigot for evil reaons? Take my positions to be harsh if you want to, even if nothing I could say could possibly be as offensive as jonm's defense of Karla Homolka as an innocent victim. Ignore his rhetoric about how others who have different sexual habits than him are evil, or his need to treat women as weak if you want because he may have had "good intentions" (something with which the road to Hell is paved). Ignore the fact that he condemned others as perverts, while proving himself to be a sick pervert who finds females serial killers sexually exciting (you might want to read some of his posts in other threads). Sure, it's only my opinion that that IS sick. But I don't see you calling him harsh for condemning the sexuality of others. But that's my opinion in a nutshell. I now give you leave to come to my defense.