MovieChat Forums > Bad Words (2014) Discussion > so...we're all okay now with f-words...

so...we're all okay now with f-words...

posted 10 years ago by emncaity
175 replies | jump to latest

...and nudity in front of children, right? I mean, as long as it's funny? As long as get our yuks?

I am absolutely not opposed to crudity, anti-PC humor, the whole nine yards, as long as it's all kept between adults and adult characters where it belongs. Sometimes crude and vulgar can be hysterically funny (although the mere fact of something being crude and vulgar isn't necessarily funny, which a lot of writers and directors seem not to know).

But are we really OK with child actors getting "f@#k" and "sh$%" and various other kinds of profanity hurled at them, or even with having the words in their own lines? Or with an adult woman baring breasts in front of a 10-year-old? This has gotten to be a habit so common as to be both banal and tremendously inappropriate at the same time.

Yes, there are ways you can shoot around it without the child actor actually being exposed to it (although substituting near-profanity and dubbing later is just a cop-out, since the kid "hears" the word he knows is supposed to be there). And I suppose there's a difference between creating the illusion that a younger child is being subjected to this stuff while not actually subjecting the child actor to it, versus having a real person (the child actor) in the middle of it.

But even then, how far can you go with it? Or not "can," but "should"? If you depict an adult woman making sexual advances to an 11-year-old character, is that alright as long as you don't actually make the child actor do it -- if you use various techniques to put it on screen for audience consumption? Point is, either way, isn't there something more than a little bit wrong with using the shock value of children in situations like this to get our entertainment jollies?

And before anybody starts with the "parents were OK with it" argument, that's not an argument that washes. At all. If a parent is OK with a 10-year-old having sex or simulating sex on camera, should we be alright with that? I seriously wonder whether something like baring breasts in front of a 10-year-old for humor and entertainment value isn't illegal under some law. But whether it is or not, have we really gotten to the point where we'll sacrifice anything for another laugh? What is the limit?

And as for the "people freak out about nudity too much" and "films get an R rating for nudity but PG or PG-13 with heads being chopped off," I agree. But the alternative to freaking out about nudity is not to have a child actor staring at the bare breasts of an adult woman who is only a co-worker. If you're OK with nudity in the home and nothing weird is going on, your business. But in the workplace, to be depicted on film and put up on huge screens in front of millions of people? Come on. You know there's a difference.

I mean, am I crazy here? Don't think so.

[–] SmokeyTheGreat 10 years ago

It's up to the kid's parents to worry about that. Not us the consumers.

[–] emncaity 10 years ago

Right. So if some sick parents were willing to have their 10-year-old actually do a sex scene on camera, that's their business, not ours. Or maybe a 5-year-old who knife-murders somebody. Right?

If your answer is "no," then you think you're talking about an argument of kind, but really you're talking about an argument of degree.

[–] Howlin Wolf 8 years ago

So if some sick parents were willing to have their 10-year-old actually do a sex scene on camera, that's their business, not ours. Or maybe a 5-year-old who knife-murders somebody. Right?

That isn't the same thing, because those things would be illegal, but this isn't.

It's none of our business if a parent allows their child to do something which is legal. The law decides the degree of severity, and until now, this has been deemed permissable, whatever people may think.



"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!"

[–] emncaity 8 years ago

I think you're getting the legal-v-moral question reversed, and also mixing the two. For one thing, nobody has to take legality as the final word on moral or ethical behavior. Some things that are legal are clearly immoral or unethical; some things that are illegal are not. The question I posed had to do with the articulated standard of a previous comment ("it's up to the kid's parents to worry about that"), which is approximately "anything the kid's parents don't worry about should not be a concern to anybody else." But this is demonstrably not a standard that any rational and moral person would want to adhere to, in many cases. Jumping tracks to the question of legality only muddies the issue.

Also, it absolutely is the business of the public what a parent allows his/her child to do, if the child is in the public media. Of course nobody outside that relationship can forcibly interfere, if nothing illegal is going on. But certainly there's nothing wrong with having an opinion on a moral or ethical issue. If you've put your decision out to the mass media for everybody to see, it's not reasonable to hide under the "nobody be a hater" rock.

[–] Howlin Wolf 8 years ago

For one thing, nobody has to take legality as the final word on moral or ethical behavior.

I know nobody *has* to - but I am.

Also, it absolutely is the business of the public what a parent allows his/her child to do, if the child is in the public media.

You can have an opinion on whether you would do it (for this film, I'm not sure I would... ) but it's deeply unfair to question their decision, when you don't know either them or their kid... By questioning whether such a thing should even be allowed (I think it should, even though I personally wouldn't do it) then you are in effect judging their decision to undertake such a course. You aren't in possession of the information they are, so it's a foolish thing to do.



"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!"

[–] doggie_rodriguez 8 years ago

Agreed. And did you notice how the person you responded to had to take what you said (about this situation) and make it about EVERY SITUATION EVER?

People do that when they are losing.

[–] xstrym 10 years ago

am I

a

f@#$ing moron

Yes

Defend whatever proposition you think justifies this kind of thing

Why? You have already made up your mind before coming here to rant about it. Is there ANYTHING that we can say that will change that for you? I don't think so... because you ARE sanctimonious. Do you think you are going to change Hollywood because you beat up on a bunch of people in an internet forum that could care NOTHING about your opinion? And you were right, your opinion does NOT belong "out there".

You are a self righteous jerk that shouts at the rain and expects it to mean something. The guys with big nets need to find, and catch you before you potentially hurt yourself, or others. Let me ask you this... ever been fitted for a straight jacket? It's a legitimate question based on the discourse of this thread. Since you so easily participate in the course language that you are so much in opposition to within this very thread. So my final question before you go on my "blocked" list is, What is wrong with you? (no need to answer me because you are a "troll" and I won't be able to read your reply. )

______________
"Your wife's on my Wham-O"

[–] emncaity 10 years ago

You're the troll, troll. I'm asking a legitimate question, and you can't be bothered to answer it. Duly recorded.

[–] emncaity 10 years ago

By the way, I am answering this person, regardless of his/her exit, because it's part of the ongoing thread. Whether he/she answers or not is his (or her) own business. Seems obvious to me that anybody who bugs out like this has already commented on the validity of his or her own argument.

To answer a couple of questions, though:

1. Offhand, I can't think of anything specific that would change my mind, but I am always open to correction. I'm just looking for a good argument, not a mere declaration of "you're a f@#$king moronic prude because you asked the question at all" kind of thing. Declaring a fervently-held opposite position without bothering to defend it isn't discourse, it's just...shouting at the rain, as this jerk would say. And I'm not the one who's doing it. I'm offering reasons for what I think, and I'm looking for oppositional arguments that make sense. For some reason, that infuriates people like this. That is a commentary on those people's mental state, not mine.

2. There is nothing "self-righteous" about what I'm saying. I'm asking a moral question. Have we gotten to the point where asking any moral question at all has to be met with yelping and whining like we see here (and in other posts)?

3. As for "participating in the coarse language," etc.: Once again, for the benefit of people like xtrym who find it difficult to understand plain English, I am not only not opposed to "coarse language" but also think that some really vulgar humor (not all) is hysterically funny. The question is limited only to what is done with child actors, and secondarily, what is done with the storyline involving child characters (there's a subtle difference, but it's mostly the same question). How can I make it any clearer?

The rest of this response isn't worth replying to. Hope the door didn't hit the writer too hard on the way out.

[–] acdc363 10 years ago

Yup I'm fine with it. That's why I saw the film.

[–] emncaity 10 years ago

Okay. Obviously you're entitled. But you do understand why somebody would at least ask the question, no?

You actually don't think you have any need to justify the idea that f-words and adult breasts in front of 10-year-olds are just fine? I just want to make sure I understand you correctly.

[–] campusqueen57 10 years ago

walked out, trashy movie, too much swearing ... and ketchup on the seat? Like no one could smell it? I agree all in front of kids, that are also using same language?
Too much like how my Ex and his fam talks in front of my kids .... disappointing for sure

"You're watching too much Sopranos, when you give your kids their allowance in envelopes"

[–] emncaity 10 years ago

Kind of my point, yeah. And I don't think it makes a person "prudish" to have this kind of concern. Doesn't make a person a "troll," either.

[–] campusqueen57 10 years ago

There was already research done on whether or not child actors should be subject to sexual and horror movies ... my kids would not be involved in these movies, maybe that kid's parents dont care or they CGI him in where they needed him
My son just turned 18 and I told him not to bother -- whatever, to each his own, but this movie went over the line

"You're watching too much Sopranos, when you give your kids their allowance in envelopes"

[–] emncaity 10 years ago

Yeah, but even CGI or other forms of editing still create a problem, since you're depicting the child character as doing whatever it is (or being spoken to or acted on in those ways).

But I'm curious -- what's the research you're referring to? Do you happen to have the source handy?

[–] Jack2979 10 years ago

And before anybody starts with the "parents were OK with it" argument, that's not an argument that washes. At all. If a parent is OK with a 10-year-old having sex or simulating sex on camera, should we be alright with that?

I hate to break it to you, but you are going to have to be alright with that. It isn't your kid, and if you are so against it don't see movies like this - period.

Even if you are against it what will that do if you rally up a posse of people that feel the same way? Will you all meet online to complain like you are here, or will you take it to the streets and boycott the movie studios?

I seriously wonder whether something like baring breasts in front of a 10-year-old for humor and entertainment value isn't illegal under some law. But whether it is or not, have we really gotten to the point where we'll sacrifice anything for another laugh? What is the limit?

You stated earlier that camera tricks are used so the kids aren't exposed to what we see in the final cut, so what is so terrifying about a kid seeing a pair of tits but not really seeing them? I just don't understand - you are an adult, how come you can't handle this knowing full well that it isn't really happening? When a guy gets his head cut off in a movie are you appalled that they are pretending to cut his head off for the movies sake?

It is frat boy humor, if you don't find it funny then don't watch the movie. I know you weren't looking for that response, but sorry buddy, that is the way it is.

Breasts are a part of the human body, they aren't dirty pillows, so chill out.

I really like your car Mrs. Larusso!

[–] emncaity 10 years ago

I hate to break it to you, but you are going to have to be alright with that. It isn't your kid, and if you are so against it don't see movies like this - period.

So you'd say the same, for instance, if sick parents who let their children be sexually or physically abused on camera (and there are some who would) were okay with it. Nobody outside the film or the family would have anything to say about it. If you don't like it, don't see it. Something like that?

Even if you are against it what will that do if you rally up a posse of people that feel the same way? Will you all meet online to complain like you are here, or will you take it to the streets and boycott the movie studios?

I'm not rallying up any posses. I'm not even talking about prior censorship. Boycotting isn't my thing, but I do think it's relatively legit, since it involves no censorship but only a publicly identifiable refusal to put money where you don't want to support something. I guess you're struggling with the same question as everybody else seems to be infuriated by here: It's a moral and ethical question. Nothing more, nothing less. Everything else -- boycotts, laws, changes in studio behavior, etc. -- proceeds from that.

You stated earlier that camera tricks are used so the kids aren't exposed to what we see in the final cut, so what is so terrifying about a kid seeing a pair of tits but not really seeing them? I just don't understand - you are an adult, how come you can't handle this knowing full well that it isn't really happening? When a guy gets his head cut off in a movie are you appalled that they are pretending to cut his head off for the movies sake?

I stated no such thing earlier. I said that this happens in some films. I have no idea whether it happened in this film. If it does, then it changes the question only slightly; or rather, there are two questions that overlap heavily in significance. One is what happens to child actors. The other is what happens to child characters in the story.

Let's see if, as an adult, you can handle this: An adult character, using sophomoric frat-boy humor, dangles his genitals in front of a 10-year-old. It's done digitally. Is it funny? If not, why not? How about if it's a 4-year-old? Come on. You're an adult. You know it's not really happening. The child actor only had to act out the reaction separately, perhaps being told it was something else. Or even perhaps not, since it's not "really happening." So what's the problem? Or how about, in a drama or horror film, you have the graphic depiction of the torture and murder of a child. How about then?

If you're trying to separate the question of whether anybody should have a problem with scenes like this as long as the child is acting only his end of the shot, I understand the point. I just don't think it's as separable as you're making it. There is still this moral and/or ethical question: Is there anything too extreme to depict a child character as doing or experiencing in a film? Then the question splits into two possibilities, again (IMHO) with heavy overlap:

1. What if the child actor is directly involved and sees and hears everything? Or,

2. What if the child actor isn't directly involved, but these things are depicted as happening to a child character? And even possibly...

3. What if you have, say, an adult playing a child -- an 18-year-old playing 16, for instance? (That seems like a second version of #1 to me, really.)

As for your examples of heads being cut off, etc., they just aren't on-point, because they don't involve children. That is the only question (or series of related questions) I'm addressing. I don't know how to make that any clearer than I have. I'm not talking about whether things happen in films that aren't actually real, or whether profanity is always morally wrong (I sure as sh%# hope not, at least not as a serious moral infraction), or whether breasts are beautiful (please).

I'm talking about whether it's right or wrong that kids should be involved, whether as actors (real people) or characters (not real, but depicted as real). Are there any lines, ever? By your standard, I don't think so. But I'll bet you wouldn't support a literally anything-goes standard, if it's stated that way. If that's true, it tells me that -- as somebody who's actually trying to treat this question at least somewhat seriously and intelligently -- you probably have a different standard or rationale that you're not aware of.

Try this, one, for instance: So the female breast is a beautiful thing. Natural. So is actual sex, right? Beautiful. Natural. Even fundamentalists think so, when it's in the right context. So why not show 10-year-olds having (simulated-and-edited) sex? If not, why not? I mean, if it's beautiful and natural and all? What if it's only simulated and edited in? What if it's done for comic effect, and the child actors never know what it's supposed to be about? (Of course, it'll be shown to millions of people. But hey, it's comedy. And it didn't really happen.)

What, that's too outrageous, right? Sick? Shocking? Utterly inappropriate? Of course it is.

Which is why I don't actually think we're arguing about whether there is a line, or whether the fact that what happens in fictional films is "not real" obviates the need for that line entirely. I think we're really talking about where the line should be. As in, you don't think profanity and breasts in front of a 10-year-old are a moral problem. A lot of people do. Some don't. But you're setting up an absolutist rationale that can't possibly be carried through to a logical conclusion.

It is frat boy humor, if you don't find it funny then don't watch the movie. I know you weren't looking for that response, but sorry buddy, that is the way it is.

I mean, you're just wrong. Frat-boy humor can be hilarious. Frat-boy humor does not necessarily involve underage children. This is an issue of whether children should be involved, not whether frat-boy humor done well is funny (it is, sometimes).

Breasts are a part of the human body, they aren't dirty pillows, so chill out.

Oh, for f@#$ sake, knock it off with the false dichotomy already. It's off-point and stupid. Nobody said breasts were "dirty" in any way, or that they shouldn't be shown on film ever ever ever, or anything of the kind. The point is the potential sexualizing of a 10-year-old child by the exposure of adult breasts, with the intent of vulgar humor, for money, and whether such a thing ought to make anybody wonder if we've gone too far. I'm fairly sure you know that.

[–] doggie_rodriguez 9 years ago

You stated earlier that camera tricks are used so the kids aren't exposed to what we see in the final cut, so what is so terrifying about a kid seeing a pair of tits but not really seeing them? I just don't understand - you are an adult, how come you can't handle this knowing full well that it isn't really happening?

On the DVD there is a featurette about the movie. In it Jason Bateman says that the kid was not exposed to the breasts.

So the child actor was not exposed to it.

The fictional character, however, was. Emncaity should be okay with that since he said this earlier...

But the kids in a Stephen King novel aren't real. They're not actors. They're completely fictional.

Which is where his argument caves in on itself. If the difference is that fictional characters from a book weren't filmed and weren't subjected to it, but the child actor from the film also wasn't subjected to it (b/c of the way it was shot/edited) then the fictional character from the book and the child actor were both not subjected to it.

Then he whines about swearing in front of kids and calls people BLEEPING idiots every post on a board that is probably visited by minors. (He has no idea who here is a minor and who isn't).

His kids learned those words from him, but I'm sure he'll probably blame the movies, school, or Obama.

[–] shellshock-6 10 years ago

The only reason anyone ever started caring about these things in the first place is that it caused them to feel embarrassed in social situations. It never once had one single thing to do with raising a better human being. It was always 100% self-serving with respect to the parent and him alone and whether other parents might judge them. Your insecurities about what people think of you are the only things you're "protecting".

So obviously some people in society have thicker skins than you. So they're not "sacrificing everything", you just think you would be if you were in their situation.

I have a long-overdue wake-up call for you. We no longer spend our entire lives at royal courts trying to impress wealthier families so they'll let us marry into them. As for the descendents of these heroes of taste and morality, the aristocracy, when's the last time you bumped into one?

[–] emncaity 10 years ago

The only reason anyone ever started caring about these things in the first place is that it caused them to feel embarrassed in social situations. It never once had one single thing to do with raising a better human being. It was always 100% self-serving with respect to the parent and him alone and whether other parents might judge them. Your insecurities about what people think of you are the only things you're "protecting".

Really? So there is literally nothing that you think would be inappropriate or wrong to do with or to children either as child actors (real people) or as child characters in a story?

Also: What is the "sacrificing everything" comment you're quoting?

And: Is an infinitely "thick skin" a virtue?

It's an interesting theory you have about impressing aristocracy and so forth. Are you saying that's the source of all notions of human morality and ethics?

[–] runforthesun 10 years ago

It's a brave new world, emncaity.

A brave new world that has such people in it.

[–] HumanFundRecipient 10 years ago

The OP ought the see the movie Birds of America, something I saw on Showtime a couple of years back. To answer one of the questions he has asked in the affirmative, there is a scene in that movie that fully explains the predicament that the Ben Foster character is in. In my opinion, it is slightly humourous. Whether his character deserved what happened to him could be up for debate.

I encourage you from time to time, and always in a respectful manner, to question my logic.

[–] emncaity 10 years ago

Well, it's a bit of a mystery, with no more info than this, but I'll check it when I can. Just from the plot summaries in a couple of reviews -- which I went to because of your post -- it seems to me the film is about suburban convention, breaking out of a stifling sort of life, that sort of thing. I don't see any references to depictions of children using or listening to strong profanity or adult nudity. So what specifically do you think is relevant here?

[–] emncaity 10 years ago

The brave new world also has child molesters in it. Should we depict that graphically on film too, with child actors, maybe? Or if you want something less severe, I'm sure you're aware that in the real world out there, younger kids are sexually active. So why not depict it, if it's out there in the brave new world and all?

Again, you're articulating a principle that simply doesn't apply in the way you want it to apply. You think you're talking about kind, but really you're talking about degree -- which brings it right back to the legitimacy of the original question I asked about whether this kind of thing is over the line.

[–] runforthesun 10 years ago

Hello Emncaity - just for the record, the brave new world quote was referencing Aldous Huxley's futuristic novel, and as such, you should be aware that my quoting it was NOT an expression of approval for the current state of affairs re: your topic - when the character said that line in the book, quoting Shakespeare, "O brave new world that has such people in it," he was saying that line in despair over how far the world had fallen - so, sorry I wasn't clear, but actually, I agree with everything you're saying and am in your camp on this one, it's just bewildering to me.

[–] emncaity 10 years ago

Whoa, sorry I missed. We'll just attribute it to my slowness at the time I read it. Apologies...

But yeah, I do find it hard to get used to. As much a cusser as I tend to be, and as OK as I am with adult elements in films intended for adults, I really don't like the progressive coarsening of mass culture when it comes to children particularly. It's a real cesspool, and mostly it exists because it sells. The reason 13-year-olds are oversexualized by mass-culture elements like lyrics, TV shows, films, etc., is not that somebody somewhere has made a principled moral decision that 13-year-olds should be oversexualized, that this is the "right" thing to do. It's because it makes money. Period. And the question I posed in the original post of this thread is aimed at a version of that. In this instance, it's a matter of using children for shock value in a comedy film. Is there any line at all? If we're not at it or past it now, what is it?

I had the same questions about the Wes Anderson film Moonrise Kingdom (a film I really thought was very good overall), in a scene where one young barely-adolescent male character touches the breast (in a sexual way, not accidentally) of a barely-adolescent female character. That struck me as wrong to depict on film, both because the child actors were underage and because the characters were as well. It also struck me as potentially illegal, which -- according to the state statutes of Rhode Island -- it actually was, because it was a matter of depicting the sexual activity of underage children on film, to be propagated to an audience for entertainment. Ew. I wasn't advocating that anybody be prosecuted, and I don't think anybody would've been no matter what anybody said about it. Clearly there was some kind of artistic intent behind it. But then, could "artistic intent" be used to defend any act by any child actor and/or character that any director chose to put on film? And if the argument is that it wasn't such a big deal, would it have been a big deal if it were your daughter or your son? How about if it had involved nudity, or more than just a lingering touch? It gets really weird and uncomfortable really quickly, at least for most people, I think. Certainly it does for me. Point is, I thought the scene even as it was, with only that lingering touch in a sexual context, crossed the line for what a filmmaker should do.

At any rate, the legal question was by far the least important aspect, as far as I was concerned, same as in Bad Words. And to be clear, the scene in Moonrise wasn't in a vulgar context at all. But all the same arguments got thrown up: It happens in real life. Get over it. Kids have sex all the time. And so forth. And the same counterarguments applied: If kids have sex all the time, then why not depict that on film? Why not explicitly, if it "happens in real life"? I mean, if that's the principle you're articulating, it applies all the way through, right? Believe it or not, one or two of the responders said "sure, why not?", even though the obvious point was to show just how unbearably wrong such an idea would be. Mostly I just got a whole lot of the usual "you're an idiot." That's how you know people can't answer questions on the actual substance. They think it's OK, but they know if they tried to defend it, they couldn't. So you're just...an idiot. And a prude. And a f@#kface. And so forth.

I'm just amazed that we're at that point, where so many people think nearly anything depicted on film involving children is alright. Of course, I guess you have to remember that respondents on a comment thread are self-selected, and you might tend to get a preponderance of people who really hate your subject line and are just dying to let you have it. But I wonder if it's because at least some people have lost the ability to understand that these are real people, real young actors. Or maybe it's that people are becoming so isolated and nonempathetic that they just don't care what's happening to another person, even a child, as long as they get the entertainment they paid for. The yuks and so forth. And they get furious if you ask whether they don't think something is wrong with this.

What amazes me is to be called a "prude" over such a thing. I'm a "prude" because I think extreme profanity in front of a young child, and adult nudity too, might be (or are) wrong? Really? Because I'd even ask the question at all? It's unbelievable. I guess if I thought all forms of off-color humor were wrong, and I told everybody they were going straight to hell for not believing what I believe, and I thought the human body was a disgusting thing and the sooner we're rid of it and in our heavenly-floating-around spirit body (or whatever) the better, and everything about sexuality was dirty, then I guess I could be called a "prude." But even after making it clear that I seriously believe I could probably outcuss anybody on this board if you catch me at the right moment, and that there is nothing at all ugly or wrong about the human body (well, some bodies more than others ;-)) or with swinging-from-the-chandeliers, bang-your-socks-off sex in the right context, you've still got people just absolutely flaming furious over the fact that I could even ask the original question. I suppose in that regard, it was a useful exercise in assessing the state of things, at least among the people who inhabit the comment lists.

[–] shellshock-6 10 years ago

assessing the state of things

Yeah that generally tends to be the primary benefit of asking a question and having it answered

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ifembot 10 years ago

You seem to be one of the only people on here that understands children should be children for as long as they can and it isn't up to adults to speed up that process for their own sick gratification. I was so disgusted by the prostitute scene I stopped watching.

[–] ender342 8 years ago

"I had the same questions about the Wes Anderson film Moonrise Kingdom (a film I really thought was very good overall), in a scene where one young barely-adolescent male character touches the breast (in a sexual way, not accidentally) of a barely-adolescent female character. That struck me as wrong to depict on film, both because the child actors were underage and because the characters were as well."

This reply deals solely with the fact of what did or didn't appear on the film. Questions of appropriateness can be dealt with elsewhere.

I have seen Moonrise Kingdom online three times. I did not see a scene in which the boy touched the girl's breast deliberately or otherwise. Might it have been deleted from the print displayed online? I suppose so but... there _was_ a scene on the beach where the two embraced each other, the boy realized that the girl could feel his erection and apologized. and the girl replied that she liked it.

I was surprised by that bit of dialogue and I'm fairly sure you would say it 'crossed the line'. Once I recovered from my surprise I realized that it was a realistic depiction of an inadvertent physical reaction. Even though the pair spent the night together in the tent there was no hint that anything further occurred there. (The self-restraint implied is perhaps less realistic but we are clearly expected to believe it.)

As I said this post deals only with what did or did not appear on the screen. I will try to deal with questions of what should or should not be depicted in such situations in a later post.

[–] ender342 8 years ago

Correction: I didn't see the film 'online'. I saw it on one of the cable channels, maybe HBO. But the film might still have been edited. I don't know how cable channels deal with such matters.

[–] dennisrafkin 10 years ago

Yeah, you're crazy. And stupid.

[–] emncaity 10 years ago

Right. Not brilliant like a guy who just posts a declarative statement like that without a shred of evidence or argument. So valuable. Keep living a worthwhile life.

[–] dennisrafkin 10 years ago

Just because I didn't elaborate doesn't mean you're not being a gigantic pussy about this whole thing.

[–] emncaity 10 years ago

Just because you can call a person a "gigantic pussy" from a safe internet distance doesn't mean you have a clue what you're talking about, any valid arguments, or any value in what you're saying. (In fact, it pretty much implies the opposite.) It does mean you're acting like a jackass, though. So there has been some meaning in this exchange, at least.

[–] dennisrafkin 10 years ago

This isn't an argument. Just because you said a lot of stuff doesn't mean YOU have any "valid arguments". This entire thread is based around your opinion, an opinion that makes you look like a gigantic pussy.

[–] DrChrisCooper 10 years ago

"If you're offended by any word, in any language, it's probably because your parents were unfit to raise a child."

America is all about speed. Hot, nasty, badass speed. -Eleanor Roosevelt, 1936

[–] emncaity 10 years ago

And this quote is from whom, exactly? And why are we obligated to take a quote as received truth?

Judging by this standard, there are many millions of unfit parents in the world who are unfit for no reason other than their belief that there is such a thing as profanity that ought to be avoided in front of children.

[–] ender342 8 years ago

I seriously doubt that Eleanor ever used the term 'badass'. In fact I doubt the term even existed in 1936. It sounds way too .... post-war.

[–] emncaity 10 years ago

If anybody's a pussy, it's you, pussy. Yapping away at somebody from a safe internet distance. Worthless dime-a-dozen POS.

I mean, please, just keep talking. You obviously don't have a clue what an argument actually is or how an opinion on a moral/ethical issue relates to it. And your unwarranted hostility and continued personal insults only emphasize the emptiness of your yapping mouth.

So yeah...just keep showing yourself. You're doing great.

[–] dennisrafkin 10 years ago

All I hear is "Blah blah blah I'm a giant pussy who thinks anonymous internet message boards will shame someone somehow".

[–] emncaity 10 years ago

Good questions. So:

If a child already knows a "bad word" so well that he will know when it's replaced, then HOW is it "wrong" to "expose" the child to something he or she is already familiar with and apparently has no problem with?

If one were to answer this question "it's not wrong, since the kid already knows the word," that conclusion would be based on the principle that if a child knows about something, it can't be wrong to say it or do it in front of her or to her (sorry, I'm picking a gender so I don't have to do the "him/her" thing every time). But would you really argue for that? If a child knows that parents argue with loud profanity, does the fact that the child know this make it OK for the parents to argue in front of him? What if a child knows there is such a thing as molestation or bestiality, and you're doing a fictional film about it?

Ridiculous. I agree. Nobody but a few of the trolls and miscreants who float around these boards would say that's okay. But I'm saying, push the underlying "the child already knows it exists" warrant far enough, and you'll see it's not really defensible. I'm betting five bucks your own logical chain went straight to that fact, because then your next question is immediately this:

Do you really think "bad words" cause actual physical harm or emotional damage?

...which is a way of shifting the rationale (in a good way) to the question of degree rather than kind. So now we're not on the "anything a child knows about is OK to do in front of him or to him" rationale, but on the "some things are OK to do" rationale. As in, profanity just isn't that bad a thing to worry about.

Now this is admittedly a tough one. Either you think saying "f$ck" in front of a child for comic effect is acceptable or you don't, I guess. It strikes me as wrong. Of course it's self-evident that this doesn't cause physical harm (that's the only bad part of your questions). Emotional damage? Probably not, in this context, since you're not cursing "at" the child or demeaning him. I suppose to someone who doesn't think there's anything wrong with encroaching coarseness in the culture, to the point where (for instance) somebody might think a Funny or Die video featuring a young child, a toddler really, using extreme profanity is just ultra-hilarious. Or a film where a kid has both strong profanity and adult nudity in his face. How would one explain the idea that it seems wrong to do this sort of thing, and to see it done more every passing year? That's a good question. Moral and ethical sense, I guess, the same sense we all have about something. I'll bet you have it. Do you hold to any ideas of right and wrong where you couldn't prove (or even credibly allege) physical or emotional damage if that idea or standard were violated? I'm asking because I think we have to arrive at an idea of what would make a thing "wrong," without the likelihood of "damage."

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] doggie_rodriguez 9 years ago

I find it to be a shame that you spent so much time on this intelligent, well thought out post and he didn't even touch it. I'm noticing a theme, I also made a post that showed how hypocritical and illogical he was being and he avoided that one like the plague as well.

[–] ender342 8 years ago

I posted this in reply to another poster who mentioned being a fan of 'The Sound of Music' but it was really directed mostly at you, emncity. So I will repost it here for your attention - if you are still paying any.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't want to get too deeply involved in this debate but I do object to the terms 'moral' and 'ethical' being applied to the utterance of 'the seven words you can't use on radio or TV.' I contend there is nothing immoral in any words that do not incite panic (falsely crying "Fire!" in a crowded theater) or massacre ("Hep!" to start a pogrom).

Vocabulary standards change with the seasons. Recall the huge fight the makers of 'Gone With The Wind' had to put up in order to get the studio to allow the famous final line, "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." That was in an era when kiddies would say "H-E- double-toothpicks" to avoid uttering the terrible term "Hell.' ("Heck" and "Gosh" were considered tolerable euphemisms for juvenile utterance and are still occasionally used for comic effect: "Heck is where people go who don't believe in Gosh.") But today no one outside of a restrictive religious sect would make much of a fuss at a child who says "damn." The point being that words are just that: words.
Sticks and stones etc.

So let's talk about real immorality in films and in life. By this standard 'The Sound of Music' is one of the most immoral films ever made. It depicts a family joyously singing and dancing in a world and in a country where children as innocent as those portrayed are being shoveled into gas chambers. Of course the innocents in the film are unaware of the horror being perpetrated around them but the filmmakers certainly were not. Perhaps 'The Boy in the Striped Pajamas' and his little German friend should have been depicted gaily dancing as they undressed for their final shower. But perhaps that would be considered 'moral' as long as they didn't say any naughty words on the way.