Stargate and Nudity

[Pandora's_Box]

I guess people have different views on what pornography is. For many people any nudity at all, is viewed to create sexual arousal and therefore porn.

Then that's erotica. For something to be considered pornography, there has to be an explicit sexual act shown. Images of nudity is not pornography by definition regardless of people's views on it.

That is the main problem with this kind of stuff, is that you have these sick people out there, and this kind of stuff adds fuel to the flame for them.

That's true. But you have people of every sort out there that find different things erotic and different things repulsive. It's impossible to avoid that. So forcing artists to censor thmselves, or forcing censorship upon them, because a small minority of people are perverted is wrong in my mind.

You can't live your life, act in certain ways, say certain things, based on how others percieve those actions or how they'll react to them. You can only try to offend as few people as possible (if your goal is to live pleasantly) or just say screw it and do whatever the hell you please.

The issue with child porography recently is that it's such a hot topic and so many people are snesitive to it (as they should be) that, as with any sensitive issue, people are becoming hypersensitive to the issue. Whereas before something like this may have been frowned upon, protested against (as is within people's rights), but not censored, now there is massive public outrage to the point where a man with absolutely no prior incidents of the sort and no other evidence to prove that he is an avid fan of child pornography (to the best of my knowledge) is facing possible criminal charges.

I can't say definitively what the truth is one way or the other, but part of me thinks that this may have been blown out of proportion.

[GateMan2000]

Children of the Gods was the best episode ever!

[Gregorius]

I guess people have different views on what pornography is. For many people any nudity at all, is viewed to create sexual arousal and therefore porn.

I agree on the first and disagree on the second statement. It's only a small very vocal minority, especially in the USA, that finds all forms of nudity to be porn. A far larger group doesn't mind nudity but since they're not as vocal they aren't heard.

Take Nipplegate for example, the vocal minorities in the US were outrached while a far larger group, especially in Europe, found it utterly amusing.

Now compare that to a Dutch prime time television show, Mooi weer de Leeuw, where a vegan streaker was completely nude after the host took away the thong, while a 6 y/o was on the phone and watching the show, and there was no media spectacle the day afterwards etc...just because most people there don't care about it.

Anyway, to get on topic, in my opinion nudity on television shouldn't be a big deal as it doesn't damage people (I dare say that by the twisted logic those vocal minorities use children are more damaged by going to the beach than they are by watching telly), but it should be portrayed respectfully.

[LostCityGuardian]

maybe we should form an 'angry mob', pitchforks, flaming torchs, the whole shebang!!!

Hang on, I meant the other thing,
"waiting till the evidence is in" or at least getting the whole story.

If this was a legal situation, then yes, I would keep an open mind and see if any criminal charges could be proven beyond reasonable doubt before I said firmly that I disagreed. But this is only a morally dubious situation. In that case I think you can be slightly more relaxed than in a legal context. Meaning I think its fair to make some judgement without having examined every possible piece of information.

Granted, perhaps I should have said that it had similarities to child pornography, rather than a generalisation that it was. But exploiting children makes me angry, and I reacted.

[Womble]

How about you lose the condecending attitude and simply make your point.

I have made my point. You may have noticed that this statement was not directed at you. rlr has a systematic problem of comprehending people's posts whenever their arguments do not follow the predictable lines of thought. I gave him a link to a short and clear summary of my opinion on the issue of nudity in the hope of at least denting that brick wall he maintains around his mind.

You are completely negating all other factors that contribute to why people wear clothes. You can't just ignore those and say that A (civilization) leads to B (wealth) and therefore must lead to C (clothing).

These other factors are, as a rule, a function of either A or B.

Beyond wealth and civilization, the Western world (or the majority of it) lends itself to certain sets of values and mindsets that dictate the morallity of nudity and the neccessity of clothing.

Should I understand that you include Central Asian, Far Eastern and the vast majority of the pre-Columbian Native American populations to be a part of the "Western world"? Because that's how universal these "certain sets of values and mindsets" actually are.

You'd have to ask the ones that bother. Some don't.

Yet they are very clearly exceptions rather than the rule; even the tribes that neglect the rest of the clothes usually wear loincloths or penis sheaths. If there is one truly iniversal cultural element among humanity, it is that it is proper to keep one's privates private.

I never claimed they all walked around nude all the time. I try not to generalize as a rule. And I don't appreciate the condescension...again.

In that case, it is puzzling why you would even bring them up as examples. Rare and bizarre exceptions do not disprove the general tendency.

The mix up of "civilized", and therefore "civility", with "civilization" was on your end in the previous post you made and continues on this post apparantly.

"Civilized" and therefore civility? I fail to see anything in that post that would justify the "therefore".

"Civility" and "civilization" are two very different things - at least by conventional standards because there are other definitions for "civilization" - and can not be used interchangeably.

Which is why I did not use the word "civility", in light of its total irrelevance to the subject of discussion. I said, and I quote, "the more civilized (and therefore richer) people are, the more clothed they tend to be". There is no mention of "civility" in that statement. The confusion is all yours.

The term "civilized" can be used to denote a group or society of people as having "civilization". But "civilized" is not a derivative of "civilization" but of "civility".

On the contrary. "Civility" derives from "civilized". It refers to interpersonal behavior that conforms to the foundational principles of society and law- Western society and law, as the idea of civic virtue is primarily Western in origin. It was expanded during the colonialist era to incorporate the self-flattering assumption that technologically and culturally superior civilizations are also (or should also be) superior morally. In your attempt to grant primitive tribes stuck in the Stone Age culture the status of "civilized", you are following that assumption in its modern rendition. It is obvious, as you defend it by claiming that they possess that which is regarded as universal virtues in the modern Western society- including, most ironically, the currently fashionable virtue of "environmental awareness". This is "civilized in your book"- which, may I remind you, is a Western book.

Do you honestly believe that these people would qualify as "civilized in your book" if ALL of their culture was to be considered from the same angle? Do you believe their ideas of gender equality are sufficiently egalitarian? Does their idea of raising children conform to your understanding of civilized upbringing? What of their hygiene? Do you honestly think that when they hunt an antelope, they stop to ask themselves if these species are endangered? Do you think they value life the way you understand valuing life? And if they do, why do they not adopt a Western lifestyle that could double their life span and give their children a far better chance of making it to adulthood? Doesn't it conflict with the "they value life" part?

So here again. Pick a definition of "civilized" previously you used it to refer to a pre-inductrialized group of people. Now I assume you're using it in reference to a group of people you deem to be morally stunted.

That part was not directed at you either. I took Lost City Guardian's suggested definition of "civilized" and ran with it to demonstrate its absurdity. This does not mean I accepted the definition itself.

They love their children and their families. They work hard to do what they can to maintain those families in the best situations attainable by the resources made available to them. They respect each other and what nature gives them. They don't walk around destroying the very Earth that keeps them alive.

None of this has anything to do with being civilized.

And if they "don't walk around destroying the very Earth that keeps them alive", it is because they couldn't if they wanted to. Don't beautify their backwardness; it's not a virtue but a tragedy, the price of which is paid with human lives. Anyone still harboring the delusions of "being in touch with nature" should google "malaria".

[Womble]

So am I far off the mark in saying that tax is theft and welfare is dole bludging?

To a degree, it is. There is a certain threshhold that is not to be passed- and in the societies you are talking about, it has been passed. It also causes these societies to become economically and demographically unsustainable, but I won't go into this or related issues here.

Come on, Womble. Are you seriously trying to suggest that its a good way of life to live off government handouts? That you can be rich off welfare? You can't be.

Rich as in millionaire? No. But you can have a comfortable, pleasurable life, tons of free time on your hands (which is the greatest of luxuries these days) and enough money to pay for food, shelter, clothing and an occasional trip abroad. For one who is sufficiently lazy and hedonistic, it will often suffice.

One family is not a good example, anyhow. What are their circumstances? Do they have any disabilities that prevent them from working? Do they drive Lamborghinis, since they are sucking the rich dry?

It's not "one family". It's a very widespread phenomenon, especially among immigrants. People come from a poor country and suddenly discover that they can get more money for sitting at home watching TV than they ever did back home for working their behind off, so they decide they're done working until the next reincarnation and they'll just go on enjoying life. Ten years of welfare for people in their thirties without any disabilities are not uncommon. I've met people for whom it is a lifestyle. They don't drive Lamborghinis, but they are not that ambitious. They have very liveable flats, cable TV, Internet, a steady supply of beer in the fridge and usually a part-time "black" income of which the welfare authorities are blissfully unaware- which means they de-facto earn more money than they could at some legit jobs.

I would suggest that social development would involve a recognition that business and commerce is not the end target of society.

In what society, pray tell, has it been declared the end target? Business and commerce are always a means to an end. The real question is what you position as the paramount value. The Common law countries such as the US tend to prefer liberty, hence the tendency towards self-reliance and opposition to systems that infringe upon the individual. The civil law-based European societies tend to be more concerned with social equality at the expense of liberty. Both attitudes are legitimate, but both can be devastatingly harmful when taken too far. Neither is an indication of being more civilized, advanced or civil.

[LostCityGuardian]

In what society, pray tell, has it been declared the end target? Business and commerce are always a means to an end. The real question is what you position as the paramount value. The Common law countries such as the US tend to prefer liberty, hence the tendency towards self-reliance and opposition to systems that infringe upon the individual. The civil law-based European societies tend to be more concerned with social equality at the expense of liberty. Both attitudes are legitimate, but both can be devastatingly harmful when taken too far. Neither is an indication of being more civilized, advanced or civil.

I think there is a better way to phrase this contrast. I would tend away from using the term "liberty" as a way to describe Western countries in the neoliberal tradition (US, UK, Australia, NZ) since it is a very vague and amorphous concept. I would frame the argument more in terms of efficiency v equity (this, incidientally, is the way I was taught to frame the argument in economics). I would suggest that Western neoliberal countries tend more towards efficiency than equity, with the US at the outer extreme due to efforts that reduce progressive taxation and income redistribution during the Bush administration, and NZ tending towards a more balanced, but still efficiency focussed approach, due to the Labour government's centrist policies over the last 9 years. Northern Europe tends towards a more equitable position, with greater redistribution efforts at the cost of reducing efficiency through more restrained markets.

[Womble]

I think there is a better way to phrase this contrast. I would tend away from using the term "liberty" as a way to describe Western countries in the neoliberal tradition (US, UK, Australia, NZ) since it is a very vague and amorphous concept. I would frame the argument more in terms of efficiency v equity (this, incidientally, is the way I was taught to frame the argument in economics). I would suggest that Western neoliberal countries tend more towards efficiency than equity, with the US at the outer extreme due to efforts that reduce progressive taxation and income redistribution during the Bush administration, and NZ tending towards a more balanced, but still efficiency focussed approach, due to the Labour government's centrist policies over the last 9 years. Northern Europe tends towards a more equitable position, with greater redistribution efforts at the cost of reducing efficiency through more restrained markets.

I am not sure that "efficiency" is the right term here. It may explain the economics, but we are talking about a far wider-reaching attitude. The American society's attitudes are not reducible to being gain or efficiency-oriented; the adamant insistence on gun rights, for example, hasn't much to do with either, yet it is part of the same package, as is the fundamentally different attitude to Holocaust denial and hate speech in general or the (admittedly peculiar) phenomenon of "survivalism". I would suggest that the Americans value Capitalism not as much because it makes one rich as because it makes one self-reliant, and distrust welfare and public healthcare because they are a form of dependency. They see honor in earning one's own living, and they see wealth as a form of liberation from dependency.

[ykickamoocow]

Womble you havent addressed my earlier post.

This civilised arguement is completely pointless anyway as countries in Western Europe and Northern Europe have extremely high levels of standard of livings (considerably higher than the USA) and they are far more accepting of nudity on television. Using the HDI (Human Development Index) the 10 most civilised countries in the world are

1. Iceland
2. Norway
3. Australia
4. Canada
5. Ireland
6. Sweden
7. Switzerland
8. Japan
9. Netherlands
10. France

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index

So if we are going to used civilised as the benchmark for nudity on television then nudity should be allowed as most of thse 10 countries all have reasonably relaxed laws towards nudity.

[rlr149]

But I guess that you can only respect things if they meat your criteria for rational belief, meaning that anything based on religions, like Monotheism, is irrational and unworthy of respect.

i'm going to say straight away that i have in no way misled anyone as to my level of respect for your particular beliefs. and i'll say it again, its pretty low but that does not mean i don't respect your right to believe in whatever you wishhad to make that clear believe in what you want, gods/fairies/moons made of cheese/men in black/vampires/santa/the great green arklseizure/nudity in context is worse than fake killing for entertainment......... whatever!!

'its no skin off my nose' for want of a better expression, and thats the point!!! its not my problem what you are offended by or what you believe in, that is your lookout/choice, not mine and i don't have a say in it, nor do i want one. its your choice to have a tv, its your choice to watch stargate, no one EVER held a gun to your head and said, "watch it, or we'll blow your efing head off!!!!"
theres no law in your country, that states :-
'everyone must on pain of execution, or subject to life imprisonment, watch a tv show and not be offended by any parts of it'

is there? i think you'll find thats a big fat no

But you are not truly offended because it you were, you would no longer be watching. You are now reducing those that are offended to the role of children witch adds on to the level of offensive nature that I am receiving. I started watching it on Sci Fi, with no nudity at all. If the show wishes to change to a porn channel to show all the nudity it wants, then I have nothing against it. But it changed to Sci Fi with no nudity. How many times must I repeat my point before you learn that I well be offended were you would just be annoyed by something you consider trivial and not offensive. You can't just simply start making up things to be offended by in order to reduce those that are honestly offended to the role of winning children. That is disrespectful and I actually expected better from you.

thats a lot of I's, and i really don't mean offense by this but the only other people i hear talk like that are the under 12's........."I want an ice cream/i don't want to go to bed/ i want his toy/i dont like those/my turn/its not fair"

I don't expect stargate to add more nudity because i think so.
i don't expect stargate to remove nudity because you think so.
i expect stargate to be what it is, despite me and despite you

and if i don't like it, i'll find something else, not expect it to change because of me, because that would be arrogant, would it not?

i can't put it clearer than that tbh

[Womble]

Womble you havent addressed my earlier post.

HDI is not exactly an index of civilizational advancement; it is an index of quality of life. The two are related, but not synonymous; technology and culture, for example, are not taken into account.

Besides, I question your claim that the countries listed all share a liberal attitude to nudity. I know for a fact Japan does not; I even seem to recall a scandal or two very much along American lines. I am not sure about Switzerland, too; it is a surprisingly conservative place, and some of their cantons did not even have universal suffrage until 1990-s. France... Yeah yeah, we all know the stereotype, and yet miss France 2007 was disqualified over leaked private photos of her floating topless in a pool. I'd say your argument doesn't hold.

P.S. In New Zealand, apparently, public nudity is considered inappropriate as well.

[rlr149]

I have made my point. You may have noticed that this statement was not directed at you. rlr has a systematic problem of comprehending people's posts whenever their arguments do not follow the predictable lines of thought. I gave him a link to a short and clear summary of my opinion on the issue of nudity in the hope of at least denting that brick wall he maintains around his mind.

thats a bit better than calling people 'chimpy' or 'junior' i suppose still not great though

back to insulting school for you i'm afraid........... junior

and my english degree tutor would disagree with you as to my comprehension skills, he did say my punctuation can be crappy though, if you need to feel superior in some respect that is

[LostCityGuardian]

I am not sure that "efficiency" is the right term here. It may explain the economics, but we are talking about a far wider-reaching attitude. The American society's attitudes are not reducible to being gain or efficiency-oriented; the adamant insistence on gun rights, for example, hasn't much to do with either, yet it is part of the same package, as is the fundamentally different attitude to Holocaust denial and hate speech in general or the (admittedly peculiar) phenomenon of "survivalism". I would suggest that the Americans value Capitalism not as much because it makes one rich as because it makes one self-reliant, and distrust welfare and public healthcare because they are a form of dependency. They see honor in earning one's own living, and they see wealth as a form of liberation from dependency.

I guess that's fair enough. The problem I have with the word "liberty" is the wide range of concepts that it covers, but I see your point.

P.S. In New Zealand, apparently, public nudity is considered inappropriate as well.

I guess its a question of context. Normally in New Zealand, I would agree, but this parade for example, was well-attended. I was there, and I can assure you that the crowd was huge.

[Gregorius]

This civilised arguement is completely pointless anyway as countries in Western Europe and Northern Europe have extremely high levels of standard of livings (considerably higher than the USA) and they are far more accepting of nudity on television. Using the HDI (Human Development Index) the 10 most civilised countries in the world are

[snip]

So if we are going to used civilised as the benchmark for nudity on television then nudity should be allowed as most of thse 10 countries all have reasonably relaxed laws towards nudity.

I believe all those countries except for Japan have relaxed laws and I'll support your statement with a few examples:

I know for a fact that the Netherlands has had quite a stirr in february of this years when two of the public (Government sponsored) tv broadcasters decided to show a porn movie on a public channel (It was to be expected with earlier shows on public channels such as "Spuiten en slikken", which translates as "Shot, squirt and swallow, and "Neuken doe je zo", which translates as "This is how you ****"). It was quite amusing to see how certain politicians tried to have it removed from broadcast but failed because of the law and a majority of parliament not supporting them.

Also, recently, in Sweden a protest group was formed advocating for the right of women to bathe topless in swimming pools. Read more about it here.

And to quote a person in that article: "We're used to naked people. Nobody cares".

[Madeleine]

I guess people have different views on what pornography is. For many people any nudity at all, is viewed to create sexual arousal and therefore porn.

For many people, if a woman wears a skirt which shows her calves it's sexually alluring, and if she doesn't cover her hair she's a wanton hussy encouraging licentious thoughts. For yet others, a woman who fails to keep her face veiled is generating lust.

In each case, the problem is not in what is being seen, but in the mind of the person who sees.