MovieChat Forums > cyguration
cyguration (3843)
Posts
First Half Was Terrible, Second-Half Was Awesome; Iris Was Miscast
Let's be honest, most average women would love to be Choi's slave...
Why Was Wu Jing Depicted As Such A Beta Male In This?
Anyone feel John Cena and his subplot was more engaging than the main story?
Why Do Driving Movies Front-Load The Movie With The Best Chase Scene?
A surrealistic prequel to Falling Down....
Quintessentially 90s But Extremely Prescient
Started so strong but kind of petered out....
Fascinating film about the MPLA but it felt fractured...
Actual espionage...
View all posts >
Replies
<blockquote>No reason to believe this.</blockquote>
Definitely linked plenty of reasons.
<blockquote>And they were not topless.</blockquote>
The people in BDSM gear definitely wear.
<blockquote>You spoke of an "erosion of cultural standards" as if you think the BBFC should be denying modern material.</blockquote>
It's about the change in pattern -- the BBFC used to have strict standards, and now they do not.
<blockquote>I am referring to the UK, not California. </blockquote>
You linked to an American poll; but voting patterns from the populace proved the poll wrong.
<blockquote>In terms of the USA, by 2015 gay marriage already had popular support: </blockquote>
That was after the Supreme Court had already forced the issue against the popular vote.
<blockquote>And what vote is this?</blockquote>
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-18/queen-gives-assent-to-british-gay-marriage-law/4827308
Even though it had support from less than half the constituents of the parliamentary.
<blockquote>Both had much more support combined compared to nothing. And who "voted against it"? What referendums are you even referring to in the UK?</blockquote>
Polls and religious institutions in the U.K; in America, propositions.
<blockquote>The decline of Rome was over a much, much longer period dude.</blockquote>
The West is on a speed run.
<blockquote>Right, so you can't provide a single precedent for this.</blockquote>
When did toplessness become legal in the U.k.?
<blockquote>Name me some things you think the BBFC should refuse. What is being permitted, right now, that should not be legally?</blockquote>
Who said what was being permitted should not be legal? I simply pointed out that before the BBFC was rather strict before and used to ban quite regularly, but not anymore, as it's not as if movies have become less gratuitous. In fact, even news media have admitted that there are more genitals on-screen than ever before:
https://news.yahoo.com/more-penises-appearing-tv-film-122823229.html
<blockquote>Evidence please.</blockquote>
https://www.euronews.com/culture/2023/03/29/culture-re-view-gay-marriage-is-legalised-in-the-uk
Despite having LESS than half the support from the populace for it.
<blockquote>This is just a lie</blockquote>
Nope, people literally voted in America against it in prop 8, and prop 8 passed. The Supreme Court overruled prop 8 and the voters to legalise same-sex marriage:
https://www.courts.ca.gov/6465.htm
Similar thing happened in the U.K.
<blockquote>Only a much smaller minority opposed either.</blockquote>
Nope. Most people would have been okay with civil partnerships, but were not on board with gay marriage, hence them voting against it rather aggressively for years.
<blockquote>No, plenty of modern countries have gone or are into a natural economic decline for various reasons and there's no reason to assume they will collapse and become failed states. </blockquote>
There is... it's called history, and we've seen it happen many times in the recent past. Typically they suffered the exact same symptoms before collapse.
<blockquote>Show me an example of someone arrested for this.</blockquote>
Pushing the goal posts. No one said anything about pokies through a shirt, but about toplessness and the appearance of obscenity in the public space.
<blockquote>And what are you calling "recently", exactly?</blockquote>
The parades within the last few years -- because they were getting to be sexually uncouth.
<blockquote>So how does one objectively determine what is "artistic" enough to outweight the obscenity?</blockquote>
It's usually down to the cultural standards, but if those standards keep eroding, then nothing will be viewed as obscene.
<blockquote>The last example was in 2007.</blockquote>
Which proves my point about the erosion of cultural standards in the West.
<blockquote>Chicken and egg. How do you know that attitudes towards LGBT people weren't naturally changing due to cultural changes, which then pressured for lawmakers to pass legislation to reflect that? [...] Do you think that number is anywhere near a majority of UK citizens?</blockquote>
It was definitely parliament (chicken) forcing the culture (egg) to adapt. Remember, just over a decade ago less than half of the populace thought same-sex marriage should be allowed; the rulings were forced through regardless of what the majority wanted. Now it's closer to 80% that supports a mandated societal change. It's social contagion:
https://yougov.co.uk/society/articles/45868-record-number-britons-support-same-sex-marriage-10
I was actually hoping for the same thing! Having Cage's Superman help Barry defeat Zod would have been epic. And you're right, the movie was already over the top, so it wouldn't have changed anything, but definitely would have added to the entertainment factors.
<blockquote>Decline isn't the same as collapse of the state.</blockquote>
Decline leads to collapse, that's exactly what preceded the collapse of Rome; the decline in moral standards, the seizure of property by the elites, the dissolution of societal infrastructure, and the collapse of the army. Sound familiar?
<blockquote>People can and do wear shirts where their nipples show in the UK. Show me an example of someone arrested for this.</blockquote>
Disingenuous comparison. They do not wear blatantly see-through shirts with nothing underneath.
<blockquote>So how does one objectively determine what is "artistic" enough to outweight the obscenity? </blockquote>
In the case of Pride - up until recently (where they began enforcing the rules to abide by the standards of the OPA ) -- they simply labeled the obscenity as political activism.
<blockquote>We also, by the way, do not ban porn.</blockquote>
Yes, but many films have been denied distribution by the BBFC for obscenity.
<blockquote>His history being contradictory to it.</blockquote>
No, his history is simply a tool you're using a weapon to condemn him, all while denying him his truth.
<blockquote> That they weren't really doing anything in the name of christianity. </blockquote>
Glad we agree.
<blockquote>I await evidence that the "system" has contributed to the changing attitudes of the UK public.</blockquote>
It's being taught at earlier and earlier ages, and parents are politically handcuffed from doing much about it:
https://www.stonewall.org.uk/lgbtq-inclusive-education-everything-you-need-know
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/630932
<blockquote>Your claim was that a small % of people are having exponentionally more sex. [...] but your initial claim wasn't about gender imbalance but simply that everyone is having less sex compared to the 00s, 10s etc.
</blockquote>
Correlative heuristics. Only a small portion of men are having a disproportionate amount of sex with many women.
<blockquote> but there's zero reason to assume any western nation is on the brink of becoming a failed state.</blockquote>
If the migrant and infrastructure crisis hasn't convinced you, then I suppose nothing will.
<blockquote>It's a very tight shirt. Find me an example of someone in the UK arrested for that.</blockquote>
You aren't allowed to go around wearing a shirt that's completely see-through.
<blockquote>You know British TV has had many raunchy and sexualised and violent TV series and films, right?</blockquote>
Yes, and they were deemed by critics and the general public to be "artistic" enough so as not to be seen as obscene. Though, your mileage may vary.
<blockquote>So you have none then. Zero evidence. </blockquote>
And you have nothing to disprove his claims.
<blockquote>And how would their failure to meet them mean they weren't sincere in their motives?</blockquote>
They can be sincere in their motives, doesn't mean that they are righteous in their standards. Two completely different things. Or are you of the mind then that someone claiming to be gay and shooting up a club can represent LGBT communities just by saying their of that community?
<blockquote>Read and weep when you look at the polling.</blockquote>
That corroborates my point -- that the system is further indulging in prurient behaviours that is resulting in the corruption of the youth.
<blockquote>Your second link is from the USA.</blockquote>
Yes, but the point still stands.
<blockquote>It says nothing about what has happened since then. </blockquote>
We already see what's happening since then:
https://archive.is/wip/pkp3H
Trends are not good:
https://archive.is/dS3CG
Yeah the baby stuff at the beginning was cringe-inducing, and the Batfleck thing tried to mirror Nolan hard, but it was so impractical and implausible. The gadgets and stuff were cool, but it made no sense how Batman couldn't just stop them... like wtf? If they had been in a tank or something, it could have made more sense, but they just needed something to draw out the scene so they could get Wonder Woman involved. It acted like some kind of last minute script change. Should have been cut altogether.
But yeah, the brief multi-verse glimpse with Nicholas Cage and Christopher Reeve with Helen Slater was awesome. You're right that they were waay too CGI looking, and it would have benefited from some AI deepfakes. Cage actually looked surprisingly good, and it would have been awesome had his Superman been the one in the film a bit more, would have been kind of mind-blowing.
Keaton really stole the show for the most part, as he looked and acted just like Burton's Batman but in the multi-verse. A shame how he was taken out but he still went out fighting and it's all we really could have asked for.
<blockquote>Crime exists. So what? This is not evidence of civilisational collapse.</blockquote>
Mounting geopolitical unrest + infrastructural collapse = civilisation collapse. You cannot have a functioning epicentre consisting of an urban populace if the subways, housing, and streets are riddled with crime, poop, and dysfunctionality.
<blockquote>Can literally see where the shirt begins.</blockquote>
So it's a completely see-through shirt? Same difference as being topless.
<blockquote>This is literally about films and music, dude. It doesn't even mention or reference bondage.</blockquote>
That's because the OPA hasn't been updated properly, but it applies to public displays or acts, as it also references theatre. It's about public conduct, but they use entertainment as an example for exceptions.
<blockquote>Where is the evidence of any involvement from him in any LGBT culture or even just via internet search history?</blockquote>
He could have been on an anonymous LGBT board. How do you know he was not?
<blockquote> How would it mean they weren't sincere even if they failed to meet the standards you set out here?</blockquote>
It's not about my standards, it's whether their actions adhered to the principles set forth by the Bible.
<blockquote>I mean it was withdrawn at the time, and at the complaint of the schools minister at the time.</blockquote>
They haven't stopped:
https://www.ntd.com/parents-protest-against-extreme-sex-ed-content_941793.html
And the results are as I feared:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/parents-protest-school-after-first-graders-allegedly-force-girl-perform-sex-act-record-it-ipad
<blockquote>It doesn't outline any historical trends that I can see.</blockquote>
It's more startling than that: it's showing that things were bad seven years ago, and have only become worse.
<blockquote>Whether or not WW3 looms due to dysfunctional foreign policy has nothing to do with domestic issues causing civilisational collapse on their own, which is what you were claiming prior.
</blockquote>
It's both:
https://youtu.be/GZ-sA69hPo0
https://youtu.be/MAcHTp4YmBk
<blockquote>That looks like a very tight shirt.</blockquote>
Nope; she's topless.
<blockquote>I'm also not sure that just dressing up in bondage gear in itself is "obscene" per UK law.</blockquote>
Only if it can be proved to be of good use to the broader public, including but not limited to scientific, artistic, or literary merit, of which sexual bondage gear applies to none of those:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/7-8/66/section/4
<blockquote>So do we have anyone whatsoever that corroborates his claims for being associated with the LGBT culture and movement prior to his rampage?</blockquote>
Are you saying his truth is only determined by corroboration of the public?
<blockquote>His own actions contradict his claims. </blockquote>
Framing. None of that says he or his website directly advocated for the harm of LGBT members, nor can you prove that the content on the sites were highlighting the dangers that the community faced. Try again.
<blockquote>And your own interpretation is always correct?</blockquote>
No interpretation needed. The principles are clear as day.
<blockquote>This is a completely different article from over 10 years ago. It has no relevance to the other articles you've linked.</blockquote>
Which is why it's more relevant than ever to the point: that pornographic material has been used in sexual education for over a decade now.
<blockquote>what data you're drawing from that somehow demonstrates that we're having obscene amounts of sex and obscene amounts of teenage pregnancies.</blockquote>
That's what the data shows -- a large portion of people not having any sex, and yet the people who are happen to be doing so at alarming rates.
<blockquote>No reason given to believe this.</blockquote>
WW3 looms on several fronts due to kakistocracies, while the migrant crisis is proving to cause economic and social collapse, and the birthing crisis is well below replacement levels, which will cause massive infrastructural problems within the next generation.
<blockquote>They aren't topless. How is this obscene?</blockquote>
The one in the middle absolutely is topless. Plus the other photos of the people in the bondage gear absolutely is obscene.
<blockquote>His actual history contradicts his claims. </blockquote>
No, select people claim that their brief experience with him contradicts his claims. So are you saying you believe others instead of the actual person and his proclaimed truth? Does that also mean everyone who says men can't be women are true and the trans who are born men that claim to be women are then lying? Can't have it both ways.
<blockquote>How do you know, in this circumstance, that your interpretation of christian doctrine isn't wrong? </blockquote>
Because it's in the Bible.
<blockquote>The OP calls it pornography, but it's not necessarily the same thing.</blockquote>
It is when everyone who witnessed sex ed films like this one called it explicit and it actually had to be pulled:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2173755/Channel-4-sex-education-film-schools-withdrawn-parents-protest.html
<blockquote>I have no idea how you'd even pretend to know this. Got any data that backs this up at all?</blockquote>
Sure:
https://lifehacker.com/here-s-how-much-sex-everybody-is-having-1795561168
https://www.healthdata.org/news-events/newsroom/news-releases/lancet-dramatic-declines-global-fertility-rates-set-transform
View all replies >