Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

*bird
Posts: 136
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 6:14 pm UTC

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby *bird » Tue Jun 22, 2010 9:33 pm UTC

BlackSails wrote:
meatyochre wrote:I don't like passing judgment on the culture of others.


Why not? If a culture is backwards and sexist, I will judge it accordingly.


Ehh. Sexist, fine (though you'll have to be careful that you don't ignore feminists in those countries - yes they exist)

Backwards? 90% of the time that's a euphemism for "not like the West". Things like condemning dog meat but ignoring fois gras or even factory farming.

poxic wrote:According to my roommate, the incoming government hired all the poorest people as their morality police (or something like it), promising them that they would become the new rulers or summat.


This is true. A lot of the time, rulers will proxy "fake power" or promise them power if they enforce the existing policy, while at the same time guaranteeing that they won't have any substantial power.

Anyways, this is a silly policy and basically amounts to control under the guise of religion. The gist of what I'm saying is that we should condemn it, but at the same time making sure we aren't like "we know better than you so let's just install our system into yours".

T-Form
Posts: 240
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 11:16 pm UTC

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby T-Form » Tue Jun 22, 2010 9:35 pm UTC

yoni45 wrote:
T-Form wrote:There still doesn't seem to be any objective basis by which female breasts could be considered sexual to a greater degree than the corresponding male anatomy.


Yet, they are. I never said there was an objective basis to it. There likely was some reason for why it developed as it did, but whether or not there was such an objective basis to it, it did.

Okay, but the objective basis is pretty important if limiting people's freedom is to be justified. Especially when those limits are applied unequally to one group over another, and membership of said groups isn't generally by choice.

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby yoni45 » Tue Jun 22, 2010 9:38 pm UTC

T-Form wrote:Okay, but the objective basis is pretty important if limiting people's freedom is to be justified. Especially when those limits are applied unequally to one group over another, and membership of said groups isn't generally by choice.


True, but the relevant objective basis here is that it is objectively true that society largely considers those particular actions to be offensive.

You can argue as to why this was initially the case, but that's really a different story altogether.

(gotta run for now, will expand later)
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3989
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby Dauric » Tue Jun 22, 2010 9:49 pm UTC

Problem is that it's most likely a case of:

Image

....Breasts are not commonly exposed, and they are associated with sex, and "behind closed doors", so the society (in the U.S. heavily based on the puritanical ideas about the failings of anything physical) declared that breasts had to be covered, which means that people as a whole do not get regular exposure to viewing said body parts except in intimate or intentionally arousing situations, reinforces the association of exposed breasts with sex and intimacy and because....
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5933
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby Angua » Tue Jun 22, 2010 10:06 pm UTC

meatyochre wrote:
Angua wrote:The only reason I can think of for society deciding (back in the mists of time) to cover up female breasts is for support (I personally find it uncomfortable just half jogging up stairs, and mine are relatively small). It should be noted that not all societies cover them up (I see to remember pictures of some tribes with the women bare-chested but I can't remember who they were).

This isn't universal. I stopped wearing a bra 2 years or so ago. I have 1 sports bra for when I work out (and this is only in consideration that I know other people don't want to see me without a bra in a tank top), and 1 nice bra for special occasions like weddings.

Mine are mid-sized, about a B-plus or C-minus. I prefer the lack of support. I find that bras are incredibly constricting and uncomfortable. Taking one off at the end of a day, back when I wore one daily, was the biggest point of relief I could possibly experience. The only problem is the boob sweat, and I always layer a tank top under my top shirt so I can tuck it up there. Problem solved!
Fair enough, maybe it is different for different people? As I said, it was the only one I could think of from personal experience. ymmv
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

G.v.K
Posts: 410
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 11:09 pm UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby G.v.K » Tue Jun 22, 2010 10:46 pm UTC

Argency wrote:Why is it that you believe there is no moral fact of the matter?


in this very thread we have seen appeals to 'objectivity'. but there is nothing objective about any cultural practice. it is just the way things are. it is one contingency heaped upon another over thousands of years. Socrates tried his best to be objective about it all and was killed for his troubles.

there's been plenty of times when i've been in moral disagreement with another person. but the resolution of that was not an agreement on facts but an agreement on each other's viewpoint. we did not learn some new fact about the world. but each of us learned the other's viewpoint and agreed to accept it (or not to accept it).

Iceman
Posts: 667
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 1:41 am UTC

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby Iceman » Tue Jun 22, 2010 11:06 pm UTC

yoni45 wrote:
Iceman wrote:Saying 'its their culture, let them figure it out' wouldn't fly to me if they were still using slaves or committing genocide...and It doesn't fly to me when it's about oppressing women.

The key argument for the burquas chest covering is that the women choose to wear them to disallow female indecent exposure...which I still don't buy...but if they must be legally forced to wear them, then that's simply outright oppression and we can't be allowing it.

This type of 'culture' will have to be eliminated at some point, I think its counterproductive to pretend it's acceptable behaviour just because we're scared of being offensive.


(edits mine)

The above can be applied directly to the United States.


I'm from Ontario, it is legal for women to go topless....they don't, but it's legal. I think it should be legal, so It's fine with me if that argument applies to the US as well, though I think the Iranian oppression is a little more serious.
Surely a culture from 50 years in the future would tell us about all the horrible things we're doing wrong, and they'd be right to tell us.

AtlasDrugged
Posts: 121
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 3:11 pm UTC

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby AtlasDrugged » Tue Jun 22, 2010 11:11 pm UTC

in this very thread we have seen appeals to 'objectivity'. but there is nothing objective about any cultural practice. it is just the way things are. it is one contingency heaped upon another over thousands of years. Socrates tried his best to be objective about it all and was killed for his troubles.

there's been plenty of times when i've been in moral disagreement with another person. but the resolution of that was not an agreement on facts but an agreement on each other's viewpoint. we did not learn some new fact about the world. but each of us learned the other's viewpoint and agreed to accept it (or not to accept it).


But morality is not dependent on cultural practices. Cultural practices aspire to moral truths, but that doesn't mean that they themselves constitute those truths. Since it's related to the topic, consider the Islamic practice of wanting women to wear burqas. Why did this practice come about if not because those trying to impose it felt that they were upholding some form of moral truth? Why do you even have a viewpoint on an issue if you don't feel that your opinion is, if not definitely correct, the most reasonable on the basis of available evidence?

Also, why do you assume that truth is dependent upon what people say about it? As someone who knows nothing about science I can attempt to formulate theories about physics, but that doesn't mean my views are as equally valid as those with PhD's in the subject.

G.v.K
Posts: 410
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 11:09 pm UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby G.v.K » Tue Jun 22, 2010 11:35 pm UTC

AtlasDrugged wrote:But morality is not dependent on cultural practices. Cultural practices aspire to moral truths, but that doesn't mean that they themselves constitute those truths. Since it's related to the topic, consider the Islamic practice of wanting women to wear burqas. Why did this practice come about if not because those trying to impose it felt that they were upholding some form of moral truth? Why do you even have a viewpoint on an issue if you don't feel that your opinion is, if not definitely correct, the most reasonable on the basis of available evidence?


things which once upon a time had a justification and a reason later on become just the way things get done. the whole point of philosophy is to enquire into the 'reasons' but most people don't do philosophy, they just act. most morality is just monkey see, monkey do. in that way, morality is actually dependent on cultural practices.

AtlasDrugged wrote:Also, why do you assume that truth is dependent upon what people say about it? As someone who knows nothing about science I can attempt to formulate theories about physics, but that doesn't mean my views are as equally valid as those with PhD's in the subject.


if there were no people, would there still be morality? actually, i think moral truths are dependent on people. no people - no morality. that is the big difference between morality and science.

AtlasDrugged
Posts: 121
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 3:11 pm UTC

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby AtlasDrugged » Tue Jun 22, 2010 11:57 pm UTC

things which once upon a time had a justification and a reason later on become just the way things get done. the whole point of philosophy is to enquire into the 'reasons' but most people don't do philosophy, they just act. most morality is just monkey see, monkey do. in that way, morality is actually dependent on cultural practices.


...can you rephrase this? Try as I might I can't discern an actual point about morality from it.

if there were no people, would there still be morality? actually, i think moral truths are dependent on people. no people - no morality. that is the big difference between morality and science


Of course not, but that's not what I was talking about. If there were no people there would be no truths to be known about human nutrition or reproduction, but that doesn't mean that someone who says that an all-fat diet is healthy or that humans have a 3-year gestation period is correct. The fact that morality is dependent upon the existence of people does not mean that all statements that people might make about it are equally worthy of our time.

User avatar
Argency
Posts: 203
Joined: Wed May 19, 2010 12:43 am UTC
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby Argency » Wed Jun 23, 2010 12:07 am UTC

G.v.K wrote:
Argency wrote:Why is it that you believe there is no moral fact of the matter?


in this very thread we have seen appeals to 'objectivity'. but there is nothing objective about any cultural practice. it is just the way things are. it is one contingency heaped upon another over thousands of years. Socrates tried his best to be objective about it all and was killed for his troubles.

there's been plenty of times when i've been in moral disagreement with another person. but the resolution of that was not an agreement on facts but an agreement on each other's viewpoint. we did not learn some new fact about the world. but each of us learned the other's viewpoint and agreed to accept it (or not to accept it).


But that's just begging the question. There being no correct cultural fact of the matter presupposes there being no moral fact of the matter. I disagree with you, I think some parts of culture are objective, just like I think some morals are objective. Humans need cultural drives because they make it easier to survive. Survival makes it easier to be happy, happiness is by definition a good thing. A cultural drive that acts against overall happiness is a bad thing. Bam, cultural morals. This drive to put women in cages made of cloth is therefore a bad thing, whereas I think it's justifiable that the breast thing is a good thing. Or at the very least, so minimally bad as to be irrelevant. Sometimes, if there's a gnat on your foot it's not worth the effort of bending down to swat it. Here's where I think the breast thing is justified:

T-Form wrote:
yoni45 wrote:They're (that is, the breasts are) bigger on a female. I have no clue why this difference would lead early societies to require women to cover them up, but given that that's the major difference, it seems like it did.

Edit: actually, perhaps it wasn't the size, but it's function for feeding babies. Either way...

Feeding babies isn't a sexual activity, though. In fact, breastfeeding is often specifically excluded from Western "indecency" laws. So that can't be it. The breast size thing doesn't look too promising, either - if size alone was the determinant, then male shoulders would surely be indecent if left uncovered. So if size is involved, it's got to be in tandem with some other aspect. Female breast size comes mostly from the mammary glands and from fat, but, again, fat isn't inherently sexual. There still doesn't seem to be any objective basis by which female breasts could be considered sexual to a greater degree than the corresponding male anatomy.


But there totally is an objective basis. Firstly, women's breasts are in general more erogenously active than men's. Not only are they significantly more sensitive on average, stimulating them triggers a tidal wave of hormones and arousal reflexes. Men get a similar (but much less significant) reaction for the same reason we have nipples at all. The zygote is female, so men need to have an analogue of everything women have. There's another, more important difference, though, and it's not about how breasts are put together. It's about how brains are put together. Our brains are hard-wired to link women's breasts to sex - people are hard-wired to recognise that healthy breasts normally make for a good mother, which means healthy babies, which makes sex a good idea. Healthy breasts are inherently sexy because of facts about sexiness, not facts about breasts.

Since sex is important, its good that breasts are sexy. (So you could even argue that it's important to keep them at least a bit mysterious) But since sex is obstructive to a bunch of other cultural imperatives, its important that we find ways to restrict sexual displays to socially appropriate moments. Hence - clothes.
Gonna be a blank slate, gonna wear a white cape.

G.v.K
Posts: 410
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 11:09 pm UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby G.v.K » Wed Jun 23, 2010 12:22 am UTC

AtlasDrugged wrote:
things which once upon a time had a justification and a reason later on become just the way things get done. the whole point of philosophy is to enquire into the 'reasons' but most people don't do philosophy, they just act. most morality is just monkey see, monkey do. in that way, morality is actually dependent on cultural practices.


...can you rephrase this? Try as I might I can't discern an actual point about morality from it.


you said 'morality is not dependent on cultural practices'. i think it's not so simple. i think, you're correct to say 'cultural practices aspire to moral truths'. but only for some people. in order for that statement to apply, individual people must have first considered what 'the truths' are that they aspire to.

i'm making the empirical claim that most people do not do that. most people judge right and wrong just based on whatever context they grew up in. in that way, cultural practices cause morality.

AtlasDrugged wrote:
if there were no people, would there still be morality? actually, i think moral truths are dependent on people. no people - no morality. that is the big difference between morality and science


Of course not, but that's not what I was talking about. If there were no people there would be no truths to be known about human nutrition or reproduction, but that doesn't mean that someone who says that an all-fat diet is healthy or that humans have a 3-year gestation period is correct. The fact that morality is dependent upon the existence of people does not mean that all statements that people might make about it are equally worthy of our time.


agreed.

User avatar
EsotericWombat
Colorful Orator
Posts: 2567
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:36 pm UTC
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby EsotericWombat » Wed Jun 23, 2010 12:40 am UTC

Another note: Laws forbidding women from exposing their chests often don't apply if the woman in question happens to have a penis. One could say that shemale-boobs aren't sexual and cisfemale-boobs are, but that person would be a complete fucking moron.

That having been said, I'm still facepalming pretty hard at this idea that boobs are for sex and therefore ought to be covered up. I guess my fingers and tongue are off-limits too, eh?
Image

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby yoni45 » Wed Jun 23, 2010 12:59 am UTC

EsotericWombat wrote:Another note: Laws forbidding women from exposing their chests often don't apply if the woman in question happens to have a penis. One could say that shemale-boobs aren't sexual and cisfemale-boobs are, but that person would be a complete fucking moron.


Or, one could simply say that the law hasn't been refined to a point at which it can properly deal with such issues.

But, I guess that's not as good of a straw-man.


Dauric wrote:Problem is that it's most likely a case of:

(Circular Reasoning)

....Breasts are not commonly exposed, and they are associated with sex, and "behind closed doors", so the society (in the U.S. heavily based on the puritanical ideas about the failings of anything physical) declared that breasts had to be covered, which means that people as a whole do not get regular exposure to viewing said body parts except in intimate or intentionally arousing situations, reinforces the association of exposed breasts with sex and intimacy and because....


That's not at all circular reasoning -- if anything, it's a self-perpetuating cycle.

But I wouldn't say that's true either -- as society further develops, I think it's pretty clear that with time, people are becoming more and more comfortable with exposed skin.
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

AtlasDrugged
Posts: 121
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 3:11 pm UTC

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby AtlasDrugged » Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:07 am UTC

you said 'morality is not dependent on cultural practices'. i think it's not so simple. i think, you're correct to say 'cultural practices aspire to moral truths'. but only for some people. in order for that statement to apply, individual people must have first considered what 'the truths' are that they aspire to.

i'm making the empirical claim that most people do not do that. most people judge right and wrong just based on whatever context they grew up in. in that way, cultural practices cause morality.


I think you're working from a circular definition of morality: cultural practices will of course 'cause' morality if morality is defined as what people do (since the statement reduces to 'what people do is what people do', which is tautologically true), but moral statements are normative rather than descriptive and imply that, if true, we have a duty to follow them. I entirely agree with you that most people don't justify their actions in entirely abstract moral terms, but why should that mean that morality is not objective? If we define 'morality' as 'what we should do' (which I'd suggest we have to do for the concept to be coherent), then moral questions have answers, and we can be wrong about them.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Wed Jun 23, 2010 3:41 am UTC

yoni45 wrote:
TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:Phew, yeah, thank Hitler society is allowed to suppress things that it finds offensive.


Um, no, that's been around for long before Hitler.

If you're going to Godwin yourself out, you may as well make it good.

Oh, no, I meant it in the "thank God" sense, but I was deliberately picking an alternative that many people would find objectionable (deifying Hitler) but would not ban. Because, really? You really think "society finds this offensive" is a good reason to ban something?
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby yoni45 » Wed Jun 23, 2010 4:09 am UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:Because, really? You really think "society finds this offensive" is a good reason to ban something?


Of course it is -- the purpose of a society is to advance the interests of its members.

Of course, the weight of said offense needs to be balanced against the weight of whatever else is going to be curtailed. In other words, it's absolutely a good reason, just not always necessarily always a good enough reason.
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

User avatar
aleflamedyud
wants your cookies
Posts: 3307
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:50 pm UTC
Location: The Central Bureaucracy

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby aleflamedyud » Wed Jun 23, 2010 4:10 am UTC

meatyochre wrote:I don't like passing judgment on the culture of others. Since I'm from America, I'm fairly liberal. I think it should be OK for women to go out topless (since men can, here). But I wonder if it isn't more appropriate to draw an analogy between allowing women out without burquas in Iran to allowing women out topless in America, as opposed to trying to impose American rules of behavior on the Iranian people (which fyi never works). The cultural dress norm in America is that female boobs must be covered. The cultural dress norm in Iran is that female everything-but-the-eyes must be covered. A woman who goes out in America without anything covering her boobs is going to be arrested for indecent exposure. So doesn't it make sense to arrest a female without a burqua in Iran?

I just think it's more fair to allow a culture to determine its own level of acceptable cover or lack thereof. I do privately roll my eyes at both inequities (boobs and burquas), but it's nothing I have the power or will to change. Let different people be different, unless they want change. If a large number want change, we could help give them the power to do so. But until then, passing judgment is arrogant and culture-centric.

You're misunderstanding here. The cultural dress norm in Iran is something that we Westerners would find quite recognizable, if rather old-fashioned and modest. The government's imposition is that females must be covered from head to toe.

Especially in light of that, the submission to religious fanaticism here displayed in the name of a disgustingly relativist form of cultural tolerance is ironic at least.
"With kindness comes naïveté. Courage becomes foolhardiness. And dedication has no reward. If you can't accept any of that, you are not fit to be a graduate student."

User avatar
EsotericWombat
Colorful Orator
Posts: 2567
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:36 pm UTC
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby EsotericWombat » Wed Jun 23, 2010 3:32 pm UTC

You don't have the right to not be offended. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something
Image

User avatar
Gellert1984
Posts: 588
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 10:07 pm UTC
Location: South Wales UK

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby Gellert1984 » Wed Jun 23, 2010 4:11 pm UTC

yoni45 wrote:
TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:Because, really? You really think "society finds this offensive" is a good reason to ban something?


Of course it is -- the purpose of a society is to advance the interests of its members.

Of course, the weight of said offense needs to be balanced against the weight of whatever else is going to be curtailed. In other words, it's absolutely a good reason, just not always necessarily always a good enough reason.


Well damn there goes rock music, video games and porn.
The only time I question the right to Free Speech is when I watch Fox News, probably due to the fact that I don't think they really believe in it. -Elisa Scaldaferri

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby yoni45 » Wed Jun 23, 2010 5:16 pm UTC

Gellert1984 wrote:Well damn there goes rock music, video games and porn.


Funny, I don't particularly remember society considering rock music or video games to be inherently offensive.

And while this may come as a surprise to you, porn *is* banned from most public places.
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3989
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby Dauric » Wed Jun 23, 2010 5:27 pm UTC

yoni45 wrote:
Gellert1984 wrote:Well damn there goes rock music, video games and porn.


Funny, I don't particularly remember society considering rock music or video games to be inherently offensive.

And while this may come as a surprise to you, porn *is* banned from most public places.


Try doing some research on the Beatles and Elvis. There was actually quite a lot of decrying rock music as being the devils' work, with all that sinful pelvic gyration, sexual innuendo, and not respecting traditions and elders (IE: not being the status quo).

Even after that age/genre of rock became accepted there were similar issues about (at the time) Heavy Metal (now classified as "Hard Rock", and "Heavy Metal" is the classification of a more 'extreme' sound).

Video games haven't suffered from a majority outrage, but there are numbskull parents that buy M-rated games for their pre-teens (because apparently they can't say "no" to their children) and then go screaming to the media that their precious innocent darling is beating up hookers for cash on the Video Games Machine.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

The Reaper
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Contact:

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby The Reaper » Wed Jun 23, 2010 5:32 pm UTC

Dauric wrote:Video games haven't suffered from a majority outrage, but there are numbskull parents that buy M-rated games for their pre-teens (because apparently they can't say "no" to their children) and then go screaming to the media that their precious innocent darling is beating up hookers for cash on the Video Games Machine.

Sometimes M rated teens are raised by I (idiot or immature, take your pick) rated parents.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3989
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby Dauric » Wed Jun 23, 2010 5:39 pm UTC

The Reaper wrote:
Dauric wrote:Video games haven't suffered from a majority outrage, but there are numbskull parents that buy M-rated games for their pre-teens (because apparently they can't say "no" to their children) and then go screaming to the media that their precious innocent darling is beating up hookers for cash on the Video Games Machine.

Sometimes M rated teens are raised by I (idiot or immature, take your pick) rated parents.


It's old news now, but I'm still blown away by the parent that bought "Grand Theft Auto: Vice City" for her ten-year old, and then complained about it on-camera. Forget the ESRB rating, what part of the NAME OF THE GAME didn't she understand was inappropriate for her child?!?!
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
EsotericWombat
Colorful Orator
Posts: 2567
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:36 pm UTC
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby EsotericWombat » Wed Jun 23, 2010 5:39 pm UTC

Video games get censored at a far higher level than movies. Witness Hot Coffee, where a nudity-free depiction of sex got the game an AO rating, despite the fact that such things are found abundantly in R (and even PG-13) movies. And yet OH MY GOD THINK OF THE CHILDREN
Image

General_Norris
Posts: 1399
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:10 pm UTC

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby General_Norris » Wed Jun 23, 2010 5:48 pm UTC

EsotericWombat wrote:Video games get censored at a far higher level than movies. Witness Hot Coffee, where a nudity-free depiction of sex got the game an AO rating, despite the fact that such things are found abundantly in R (and even PG-13) movies. And yet OH MY GOD THINK OF THE CHILDREN

No, no. An unfinished only obtainable through hacking depiction of sex gave it an AO rating. It's even worse.

User avatar
EsotericWombat
Colorful Orator
Posts: 2567
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:36 pm UTC
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby EsotericWombat » Wed Jun 23, 2010 5:56 pm UTC

I understand that, but honestly I can somewhat understand if something genuinely objectionable was included in the software but locked off, because for the entirety of video game history, every single bit of stray code inevitably gets hacked out. But there was nothing about Hot Coffee that wouldn't be found in an R movie.
Image

General_Norris
Posts: 1399
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:10 pm UTC

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby General_Norris » Wed Jun 23, 2010 8:24 pm UTC

^It's like showing gay people. Or that movie who got rated NC-17 for showing what it took for a movie to be NC-17. Yeah, I feel lost too because it doesn't make any sense.

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby yoni45 » Wed Jun 23, 2010 9:22 pm UTC

Dauric wrote:Try doing some research on the Beatles and Elvis. There was actually quite a lot of decrying rock music as being the devils' work, with all that sinful pelvic gyration, sexual innuendo, and not respecting traditions and elders (IE: not being the status quo)...


You can't actually tell me that the proportion of people who would consider the beatles offensive is anywhere close to the proportion of people who would consider public indecency to be offensive...?
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

User avatar
Gellert1984
Posts: 588
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 10:07 pm UTC
Location: South Wales UK

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby Gellert1984 » Wed Jun 23, 2010 9:37 pm UTC

yoni45 wrote:
Dauric wrote:Try doing some research on the Beatles and Elvis. There was actually quite a lot of decrying rock music as being the devils' work, with all that sinful pelvic gyration, sexual innuendo, and not respecting traditions and elders (IE: not being the status quo)...


You can't actually tell me that the proportion of people who would consider the beatles offensive is anywhere close to the proportion of people who would consider public indecency to be offensive...?


perhaps not now but back in the day rock n roll was 'satans music'
The only time I question the right to Free Speech is when I watch Fox News, probably due to the fact that I don't think they really believe in it. -Elisa Scaldaferri

Prefanity
Posts: 280
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 10:28 am UTC
Location: Reno, NV

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby Prefanity » Wed Jun 23, 2010 9:41 pm UTC

General_Norris wrote:^It's like showing gay people. Or that movie who got rated NC-17 for showing what it took for a movie to be NC-17. Yeah, I feel lost too because it doesn't make any sense.


Actually, due to MPAA's rule that movies cannot be edited after they've been submitted for rating, the movie reflected its title quite well. Pedantic aside well aside, the previous edit was totally rated NC-17.

Gellert1984 wrote:
yoni45 wrote:
Dauric wrote:Try doing some research on the Beatles and Elvis. There was actually quite a lot of decrying rock music as being the devils' work, with all that sinful pelvic gyration, sexual innuendo, and not respecting traditions and elders (IE: not being the status quo)...


You can't actually tell me that the proportion of people who would consider the beatles offensive is anywhere close to the proportion of people who would consider public indecency to be offensive...?


perhaps not now but back in the day rock n roll was 'satans music'


And apparently this was widespread enough that even Joan Baez thought as much.

G.v.K
Posts: 410
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 11:09 pm UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby G.v.K » Wed Jun 23, 2010 10:44 pm UTC

AtlasDrugged wrote:
you said 'morality is not dependent on cultural practices'. i think it's not so simple. i think, you're correct to say 'cultural practices aspire to moral truths'. but only for some people. in order for that statement to apply, individual people must have first considered what 'the truths' are that they aspire to.

i'm making the empirical claim that most people do not do that. most people judge right and wrong just based on whatever context they grew up in. in that way, cultural practices cause morality.


I think you're working from a circular definition of morality: cultural practices will of course 'cause' morality if morality is defined as what people do (since the statement reduces to 'what people do is what people do', which is tautologically true), but moral statements are normative rather than descriptive and imply that, if true, we have a duty to follow them. I entirely agree with you that most people don't justify their actions in entirely abstract moral terms, but why should that mean that morality is not objective? If we define 'morality' as 'what we should do' (which I'd suggest we have to do for the concept to be coherent), then moral questions have answers, and we can be wrong about them.


but there is an inherent circularity.

let's pretend we can start at point in time 0 with a list 'what-should-be-dones'.

people follow the list and at point in time 10 you have a big list of 'what-we-dids'. in other words, cultural practice.

User avatar
Sockmonkey
Posts: 1214
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 11:30 pm UTC

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby Sockmonkey » Wed Jun 23, 2010 11:44 pm UTC

Idiots still think of video games as a kid thing even though most of us know someone over 25 who plays them.

User avatar
Rinsaikeru
Pawn, soon to be a Queen
Posts: 2166
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 5:26 am UTC
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby Rinsaikeru » Wed Jun 23, 2010 11:58 pm UTC

This thread is veering off topic right now. Remember the topic? Back to that, video games in and of themselves are not on topic.
Rice Puddin.

User avatar
EsotericWombat
Colorful Orator
Posts: 2567
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:36 pm UTC
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby EsotericWombat » Thu Jun 24, 2010 3:17 am UTC

yoni45 wrote:You can't actually tell me that the proportion of people who would consider the beatles offensive is anywhere close to the proportion of people who would consider public indecency to be offensive...?


I'm pretty sure that anyone you'd ask would tell you that public indecency was offensive. They might have rather different opinions about what constitutes public indecency.

But in the end, it doesn't matter what your neighbors think. In a free society, you control your body and what you choose to do with it is your call, unless it infringes upon the rights of another person.

Any legal regime that doesn't meet that standard doesn't belong in a free country.
Image

User avatar
styrofoam
Posts: 256
Joined: Sat May 08, 2010 3:28 am UTC

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby styrofoam » Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:02 am UTC

EsotericWombat wrote:In a free society, you control your body and what you choose to do with it is your call, unless it infringes upon the rights of another person.

Do you just draw the line somewhat differently than someone else? Do you believe it should be people's legal right to walk around in public with their genitals visible?
aadams wrote:I am a very nice whatever it is I am.

User avatar
EsotericWombat
Colorful Orator
Posts: 2567
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:36 pm UTC
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby EsotericWombat » Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:07 am UTC

There are significant public health issues raised by walking around with our lower halves uncovered that don't pertain at all to toplessness.
Image

Kyrn
Posts: 937
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 3:55 pm UTC
Location: The Internet

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby Kyrn » Thu Jun 24, 2010 5:12 am UTC

EsotericWombat wrote:There are significant public health issues raised by walking around with our lower halves uncovered that don't pertain at all to toplessness.


If there's any, I haven't heard of it affecting places where full nudity is not discouraged (like nude beaches). Any chance of references?
I am NOT a snake.

Opinions discussed are not necessarily the opinions of the people discussing them.

User avatar
EsotericWombat
Colorful Orator
Posts: 2567
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:36 pm UTC
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby EsotericWombat » Thu Jun 24, 2010 6:04 am UTC

Ok, I may have been talking out of my ass on that one as I can't seem to find anything that supports it, but the places where public nudity is currently legal tend not to be as crowded as say, a subway, or a city street. I don't think it's unreasonable to want to be able to walk in, say, Times Square without people's junk rubbing all over me.
Image

Kyrn
Posts: 937
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 3:55 pm UTC
Location: The Internet

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby Kyrn » Thu Jun 24, 2010 8:02 am UTC

EsotericWombat wrote:Ok, I may have been talking out of my ass on that one as I can't seem to find anything that supports it, but the places where public nudity is currently legal tend not to be as crowded as say, a subway, or a city street. I don't think it's unreasonable to want to be able to walk in, say, Times Square without people's junk rubbing all over me.


Therein lies the issue. Sometimes differences in culture cannot be avoided. But when you think about it, it's similar to cooties, or aversion to people of other races. Or in short, an irrational sense of fear or discomfort based on cultural bias.
I am NOT a snake.

Opinions discussed are not necessarily the opinions of the people discussing them.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests