Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 23 of 23

Thread: Desperate Housewifes

  1. #21


    Is this the wai leong from chillicrap? heh

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2003


    Quote Originally Posted by waileong
    Exactly right. That's why they have the 1st Amendment in the US, flag burning is allowed, anti-Bush messages ads are allowed, Michael Moore and Farenheit 911 is allowed, refusing to sing the National Anthem is allowed, begging is allowed, Church of Satan is allowed, etc. That's what freedom of expression means.

    It's a question of principles. Do you believe that you are entitled to human rights (one of which is the freedom of expression), just like all other humans? Or do you want the govt to censor what you read, see, hear and think? It's your choice.

    It's not specious to say that "Desperate Housewives" does not promote extramarital affairs. It's entertainment, that's all. To promote something is to drive an agenda. This programme has no agenda other than to get TV ratings. If every programme we saw "promoted" something, then CSI would be promoting the idea that forensics can solve every crime, Dilbert would be promoting goofing off at work, ghost movies would be promoting the idea that ghosts are real, Ocean's 11 would promote the idea that you can rip off a casino and get away with it, etc. C'mon-- if it's fiction, it's just a story, enjoy it.

    There are programmes to promote causes. Eg. educational programmes to promote healthy lifestyles, etc. Your example of a religious show to denigrate another religion would be another example, as there would be appeals or deliberate misinformation given to rally people to action. But a movie or documentary to show the cause of an actual or fictitious religious riot is different-- even if you think the movie is biased, it is still a story, and not a call to arms..

    I think its pretty obvious to most readers that you have tied the logical flow of your argument in a big knot in order to make your point. Your example about documentaries is specious (you watch the docu-drama about Hitler yesterday? Now tell me the tone of that promoted Nazism), your example about CSI is specious (How many people come into contact with a real crime scene or a crime lab staff, who is harmed by by a false conception of how CSI work?), and your example about Dilbert is also specious. As for Michael Moore and Farenheit 9-11, suffice to say it would not be allowed to happen here, and thank goodness for that.

    Quote Originally Posted by waileong
    We need to separate fact from fiction. You may think that seeing too many gangster movies leads to more violence, too much sex in movies leads to teenage pregnancies, but many people in developed countries would not agree with that kind of view.
    Really? Show me proof of your contention. Tell me why we have a movie rating system? Is it not because we believe that the young and impressionable will be harmed by viewing material of a mature manner?

  3. #23

    Default Hmmm...

    On topic:

    There is nothing specious about saying that a ficitional TV series about extramarital afairs does not condone extramarital affairs. The logic of an argument that any piece of fiction about any subject will condone its subject is untenable. You can think so if you wish, but I doubt the majority will agree with you. It cannot stand, else we would all be restricted only to approved moralistic TV programming. Stories are stories, people can differentiate that, and understand that (say) Godfather movies do not condone violence, they are just telling the stories of mafia wars. Etc.

    Off topic:

    I have major disagreements with censorship and restrictions of freedom of expression. Most people who have an understanding of human rights have that kind of feeling too, although to different degrees. I brought up the US examples to show what is meant by total freedom of expression. Not everyone can take that much, but that is fine. What is important is whether they are happy with what they have at this time. Some are, so are not. I am not. But this is off-topic and one man's meat is another's poison anyway, ie I will never agree with you, you'll never agree with me, so let it be. You mentioned that it's a great thing Michael Moore is not allowed here. That's exactly what freedom of expression means. Your most hated critic will be allowed to publicise his opinion in full, you can counter with your opinions and views, but you have no legal means get him to stop. You think Bush wouldn't want to put Moore in jail if he could? But not even the most powerful man in the world can do that, because the Constitution and the First Amendment is more powerful than any person. If you want freedom of expression, you got to respect other peoples' freedom of expression too. If you can't live with that idea, then you're not ready for it.

    I wait for the day when S'pore will have political cartoons and satires, late night shows making fun of the prime minister, where people can express their political opinions freely without fear of the ISA, where newspaper publishers don't need to get a licence to publish (and so there's no fear of losing the licence to publish to keep them in check).
    Last edited by waileong; 2nd February 2005 at 09:31 AM.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts