Stargate and Nudity

[aretood2]

I acknowledge ykickamoocow's points.

However, one thing..or two things

By using that logic you should show no skin in sunlight at all as you might get cancer. You can limited the risks of skin cancer by wearing sunblock. As for the cold there is nothing harmful about wearing no cloths in cold conditions (unless your talking about really cold temperatures where frostbite can occur).

Taking things to an extreme cam be dangerous, so no. But you shouldn't welcome the danger of revealing too much. The less, the better. But too much is just not needed.

Instead of treating the audience like children they should have just shown the nudity.

And I would be OK if they didn't offend the audience by showing nudity.

[Pandora's_Box]

And I would be OK if they didn't offend the audience by showing nudity.

They're bound to offend someone whatever they do. Show it or not show it. This applies to everything.

Can't live your life or alter your creative vision based solely what other people expect or what other people deem appropriate, can you?

[aretood2]

They're bound to offend someone whatever they do. Show it or not show it. This applies to everything.

Can't live your life or alter your creative vision based solely what other people expect or what other people deem appropriate, can you?

Exactly! Brad Wright opposed Nudity in COtG!
So why should he change his ways just cause some want to get rid of that annoying hidden nudity thing?

Besides, I'd hardly call those that are offended by nudity a minority by any stretch of the imagination.

[rlr149]

I think that I stated that I won't care, NO.

so why do you care about stargate then?!?!? considering you said this about the hypothetical show

It picked its audience from the beginning.

the nudity was in the first show, the precedent is set for more, the fact you didn't see it(like i did) doesn't mean you can say "they shouldn't add nudity"(as if nudity wasn't in the show before), because you now like it but don't agree with nudity.

Our about losing an audience thus losing sponsors for a commission that will last a limited time for a show that might jump ship to another channel...Is really worth it? This is off topic.

its related to the topic when you say the channel do things for your reasons, they don't, they do it for financial reasons that coincide with your reasons, yaaaay lucky you in this instance. does not mean it should always be that way.

That would be why it is wrong not to do this, it is dangerous to one's heath. Self inflected harm is wrong as well, thus He helped us by giving an answer as to why nudity is wrong.

no, it would be wrong not to wear the clothing when entering a situation requiring it, wearing it at all times when not partaking in the situation requiring it would be pointless.

Not wearing cloths can be harmful for those do to the Sun or cold or blood thirsty pests, thus it too is wrong.

its stupid i'll grant you, wrong is the, well, wrong word to use

I would guess the side that is against yours.

that was directed at womble,............ we have history(check out the bible accuracy confirmed again thread if your interested)

[Pandora's_Box]

that was directed at womble,............ we have history(check out the bible accuracy confirmed again thread if your interested)

There's a thread for that?! Holy....smokes!

:: rushes out to check it out :: :: rushes back in ::

Where?

[aretood2]

so why do you care about stargate then?!?!? considering you said this about the hypothetical show
the nudity was in the first show, the precedent is set for more, the fact you didn't see it(like i did) doesn't mean you can say "they shouldn't add nudity"(as if nudity wasn't in the show before), because you now like it but don't agree with nudity.

The difference is that they should have kept it. The difference is that I have been watching this show for a long long long time with the impression that it would not show such things as nudity. The difference is that the show itself did not
I repeat
Did not want nudity in the first place.

that was directed at womble,............ we have history(check out the bible accuracy confirmed again thread if your interested)

I'll pay a memorial visit...

Everything else is a matter of opinion, regarding your response.
You say Tomato, I say Tomato...er..it doesn't work that well when typed...

[rlr149]

The difference is that they should have kept it. The difference is that I have been watching this show for a long long long time with the impression that it would not show such things as nudity. The difference is that the show itself did not
I repeat
Did not want nudity in the first place.

brad wright is not the show and he was obviously willing to compromise his deeply held beliefs to get the money he needed to make the show.............. what a 'stand up' guy.........

I'll pay a memorial visit...

Everything else is a matter of opinion, regarding your response.
You say Tomato, I say Tomato...er..it doesn't work that well when typed...

[aretood2]

I didn't say that the guy was a saint...nor the show for that matter. give me evidence that others in its making liked the nudity and hated giving it up, and I will give you 50% of a point...I will not give up my Stargate!!

[ykickamoocow]

I didn't say that the guy was a saint...nor the show for that matter. give me evidence that others in its making liked the nudity and hated giving it up, and I will give you 50% of a point...I will not give up my Stargate!!

Maybe you should provide evidence that the other writers/directors/producers didnt like the nudity.

The real question should be, if the Stargate Atlantis writers were suddenly allowed to show nudity on screen, would they?

On a slightly different topic if Stargate Atlantis were allowed to show nudity then it would be more realistic as im sure we can all agree that if the Stargate was real and there were humans on other planets then it is reasonable to assume that some of those humans would be like the tribes in Africa who wear little to no clothing.

[rlr149]

I didn't say that the guy was a saint...nor the show for that matter. give me evidence that others in its making liked the nudity and hated giving it up, and I will give you 50% of a point...I will not give up my Stargate!!

if the people paying for it apparently 'forced' it in as has been said in the thread, then theres your proof,

they pay for it, they are the makers.

[aretood2]

What if we out pay you?

[LostCityGuardian]

Maybe you should provide evidence that the other writers/directors/producers didnt like the nudity.

The real question should be, if the Stargate Atlantis writers were suddenly allowed to show nudity on screen, would they?

I would like to think not right away, because that would suggest they were just forcing it into scripts already written, rather than waiting until new scripts could be written with nudity included only when necessary. But if they saw it as a commercially effective decision in terms of drawing male viewers in the 18-35 demographic (like me), we do the have the Carson precedent of commercial motivation...

[rlr149]

What if we out pay you?

keep going with that line of thought and you may happen upon the point i was trying to make with the hypothetical show question

[Womble]

so your saying that clothes aren't just for hiding nudity but are in fact also for protection............... therefor it cannot be said that because people wore clothes in the past it was for definite moral reasons

whose side are you arguing for again?

Your reading comprehension is as lousy as ever, I see. It's amazing how incapable some people are of handling views that don't follow the usual stereotypes.

There you go. Try again.

That is an interesting call, Womble. You aren't trying to say that in order to be civilised you need to be rich, are you?

The other way round. Being more civilized tends to make a society richer; and as a consequence, more clothed.

I have been to Equatorial Africa. I have seen tribal people in varying states of undress depending on the activities of the day and what their particular tribal customs dictate. And yes, what the environment dictates.

And no....the ones that go about half-dressed don't simply do so because they have no other choice.

You won't see many tribal people engaging in strenuous physical activities in the middle of the day when the sun is at its highest point and the day is at its hottest temperature.

Often the least dressed are the women and children. Women because they often remain close to or in the main village where they perform less strenuous tasks and often within any sort of shade available. And children because they don't really need too much clothing to run around, play, and assist in the simple village chores.

What you don't seem to realize is that traditions grow around de-facto practices and not the other way round. Much of what you are describing has its source in the simple shortage of clean water. Children's clothes get dirty the moment they put them on, and household chores, which in those societies are the woman's job, are a very efficient way to get dust and/or grime all over you. When a society lives in conditions of poverty and hasn't the luxury of abundant water, it eventually gets fused into their customs that women should be naked when at home and that children don't need to be clothed. But show me a similar attitude in any society where water is abundant. Show me a similar attitude in a society which grows cotton or linen and therefore has affordable clothes-suitable materials in a plentiful supply.

This isn't to say that they go about fully naked. Often what is worn is a simple loincloth to cover the genitalia.

Men, when hunting or herding, do wear more clothing as a form of protection from both the elements and nature. Othertimes (and depending on the tribe) they will simply be dressed in a loincloth..

They cover the genitalia??? Why would that be?

Obvioulsy not all tribes are the same. There are some that wear clothing all the time and some that only wear more covering clothing during traditional cermenoies. There are some African tribes that wear very little clothing to the point of being completely nude in some ceremonies (in the case of the men this is done to attract potential brides).

Truth be told, there are so many tribes in Africa that it is impossible to generalize a standardized practice with regards to nudity.

Impossible to generalize? You don't say! What, pray tell, shall we do with your previous post in light of this groundbreaking confession?

Interesting definition of "civilized" you're using.

Tell me. Have you ever been to Africa? Spoken to any of these people? Judged their "civility" for yourself? Have you asked any of them about their families or their lives? Seen the way they live and how they treat each other?

Because let me tell you, I have. And I can say, without a doubt, that some of those people are more civilized without having - and without even needing - half of what us "richer" and more "civilized" people have, then most of the Western World will ever be.

They value life, they value nature, and they value each other. That's civilized in my book.

There comes the noble savage cliche, complete with the mix-up of "civility" and "civilization". They are as good a people as any other, but civilized they are definitely not. Their social structure is stuck way back in the stone age and their life span is a whole lot shorter due to starvation, water shortage, diseases and parasites. Their attitude to clothes is a part of that unfortunate package, which will inevitably lead them to extinction.

[ykickamoocow]

The other way round. Being more civilized tends to make a society richer; and as a consequence, more clothed.

There comes the noble savage cliche, complete with the mix-up of "civility" and "civilization". They are as good a people as any other, but civilized they are definitely not. Their social structure is stuck way back in the stone age and their life span is a whole lot shorter due to starvation, water shortage, diseases and parasites. Their attitude to clothes is a part of that unfortunate package, which will inevitably lead them to extinction.

I guess we have different views on the word "civilised". I personally find the death penalty to very very uncivilised aswell as attitudes such as homophobia and racism. Civilised in my opinion is more about attitudes than technology.