Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Libertarian Discussion Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mama Bear who wrote (2624)	5/6/1999 10:43:00 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 13056

Ah, making the scope clear caused a split between us! See....

To: Mama Bear who wrote (2624)	5/7/1999 8:15:00 PM
From: Dave Reed	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13056

My views are the same as what I understand Barb's to be on this issue. The act of creating these films is a violation of the rights of one or more individuals and it is legitimate for the public to intervene under these circumstances. Simulations (such as obscene drawings or horror movies), while reprehensible for what they portray, are not legitimate targets for suppression by the public. Dave

To: Mama Bear who wrote (2624)	5/11/1999 11:50:00 PM
From: MeDroogies	Respond to of 13056

Gotta side with you on this one. I've seen some damn funny animation that others would consider sick. I don't have a problem with it... Considering my favorite movie is "A Clockwork Orange", I often am considered a "sick" individual. That is because very few people (Burgess himself, I assume - though I might be wrong) really understood that movie/book. It isn't about violence. It isn't about a twisted person. It is about how life becomes when the gov't begins to take away our rights, then tries to help us live a "good" life by removing our ability to choose. Alex is a twisted person, but why? Because of his parents? Yes - they were mindless drones trying to live within a system, and assumed their child would be cared for properly by the state, as they had - what more did they really have to do? Because of the state? Yes - the state offered Alex little in the way of the ability to choose his life, so he chose a life that was extraordinary. When that was determined (after some violent acts) to be without merit (as it was), the state decided to take away his right to choose. The effects of which nearly killed him. However, to give him that right to choose back, they had to return to him the ability to become violent again - his right to choose. It is a greatly misunderstood story, and one worth reading/watching over again.