Stargate and Nudity

[Daedalus-304]

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.

The basic definition of Civilization is a society with permanent cities, a division of labor, and agriculture.

[LostCityGuardian]

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

And what is civilised? Is it Western capitalist ideals? Is it American neoliberal ideals? Because if it is, I would argue that a culture which glorifies greed and making oneself richer by grinding others into the ground is less civilised than, say, the more cooperative and socially oriented states of Northern Europe, for example.

[KindlyKeller]

This whole "civilized" argument is ludicrous. No, the savages aren't more "noble" than us because of their isolationism and simple lifestyles. But the notion that we are more "civilized" a people in anything beyond aesthetics as accepted by the industrialized world is also shaky at best. Womble seems to have interesting ways of defining things, though, so we're probably not even talking about the same thing.

[KindlyKeller]

And what is civilised? Is it Western capitalist ideals? Is it American neoliberal ideals? Because if it is, I would argue that a culture which glorifies greed and making oneself richer by grinding others into the ground is less civilised than, say, the more cooperative and socially oriented states of Northern Europe, for example.

There are many, many unfortunate and disgraceful things about America. And there are many, many unfortunate and disgraceful things about Northern Europe. And tribes in Africa. And Eastern Asia. And the Middle East. Etc. etc. etc.

I think it's a dicey proposition to start comparing civility, as if it's something that can be discerned with the naked eye.

[Womble]

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.

"Civilization" comes from the word "civilis"- Latin for "citizen" or "townsman", one who is governed by the law of his city. It describes a society that has attained a relatively advanced level of technological, economic and cultural complexity. Your use of "civilized" as a value judgement, as a straightforward synonym to "good" and "moral" is as common as it is silly. My relatives have a wonderfully good-natured dog who is exceedingly kind and has never as much as growled at anyone in his life, but by no means can he be called "civilized".

And what is civilised? Is it Western capitalist ideals? Is it American neoliberal ideals? Because if it is, I would argue that a culture which glorifies greed and making oneself richer by grinding others into the ground is less civilised than, say, the more cooperative and socially oriented states of Northern Europe, for example.

Northern European societies do not glorify greed? On the contrary; they seek to benefit from wealth they haven't earned by forcing the more successful members of society to pay so that others could live off government handouts for years without having to work (I know a Russian immigrant family in Northern Europe who's been living like that for fifteen years). "Socially oriented" is codespeak for "charity at gunpoint". Civilized? I think not.

So let us talk about what makes a society "civilized", and whether the primitive jungle tribes of Africa and Amazonian jungles qualify. Is infant mortality a factor in your definition of "civilized"? Death rates from preventable diseases? Hygiene? Gender equality? Food security? Literacy? Life expectancy?

[KindlyKeller]

And who judges "cultural complexity?" You?

[aretood2]

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

Oh, but you can force your morality on shows and it is OK.
sorry, but there is a word for that. Hypocrisy.
You see, you may not be a hypocrite, and I am not saying you are, but putting words in people's mouth does not lead to good things.

let me highlight the difference here. I have been watching Stargate for years. There has been no nudity for years. Thus it would not be fair to add nudity cause you are annoyed be the hidden nudity on the show where I would be OFFENDED, among others, of nudity it self.

And who judges "cultural complexity?" You?

for crying out load!
If you don't like a definition of a word then make up a new one.

Civilized does not, I repeat, does not mean GOOD. Uncivilized does not mean BAD. These African and South American tribes are based on a substance economy. It is the most basic and early economy and is also unable to sustain populations higher than 100. Many tribes barely even become a pastoral or horticultural society. This means that they have a smaller need of social institutions. The lack of social institutions makes that society simple and less complex. The higher level of economy equals higher level of population thus equals the need for more social institutions. This results in complex cultures. This is all based of sociobiology.

It doesn't mean that these tribes are sub human or "retarded", witch you seem to think womble's comments would suggest that, they don't.

[Womble]

And who judges "cultural complexity?" You?

Yes. And you. And anyone with a brain. European art has a greater range of genres than the Bushmen art. It's a fact. Chinese architecture is more sophisticated than the yurts of the Central Asian nomads. The social hierarchy and the system of government of the Roman society were more complex than that of the Mongol nomads. A society that can read and write is more culturally advanced than a society that can't. These things are very much measurable.

[GateMan2000]

I say let bygones be bygones and let the nudity flow

[Pandora's_Box]

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.

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

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

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.

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).

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

"Civilization" comes from the word "civilis"- Latin for "citizen" or "townsman", one who is governed by the law of his city. It describes a society that has attained a relatively advanced level of technological, economic and cultural complexity. Your use of "civilized" as a value judgement, as a straightforward synonym to "good" and "moral" is as common as it is silly. My relatives have a wonderfully good-natured dog who is exceedingly kind and has never as much as growled at anyone in his life, but by no means can he be called "civilized".

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. "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.

The basic, most standardized definition of a "civilization" is a human society or group characterised by the practice of agriculture, networks of cities, and advanced technology and urbanization.

Originating from the Latin "civilis in Ancient Rome, the Romans described a citizen as a man governed by the law of his city and a civilization as the application of justice by "civil" means. We've certainly come to consider societies as civilizations only when they demonstrate a certain amount of cultural and technological development.

There are other definitions and other considerations. Certain philosophers and some societies of people consider a "civilization" to have less to do with the technological trappings and urbanization, and more to do with the morallity of the people within the group and their civility towards eachother.

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".

"Civility" refers to the behaviour between people and groups that conforms to a social mode.

Social modes have changed over the hundreds of years since the Ancient Greeks and Romans first developed the notion of responsibility to ones citiy, accountability to its laws, and moral obligation to the fair treatment of other people. But the general essence of right and wrong haven't changed. The nature of good will, fair-treatment, and justice have remained marginally the same.

"Civility" is certainly a whole lot more of a subjective terms than "civilization". It stands to reason that not everyone has the same moral center or viewpoint although most right and wrongs remain the same regardless of religion, culture, or political affiliation.

Northern European societies do not glorify greed? On the contrary; they seek to benefit from wealth they haven't earned by forcing the more successful members of society to pay so that others could live off government handouts for years without having to work (I know a Russian immigrant family in Northern Europe who's been living like that for fifteen years). "Socially oriented" is codespeak for "charity at gunpoint". Civilized? I think not.

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.

I'll refrain from commenting on your very conservative views of social aid and instead recognize that civility is very subjective.

So let us talk about what makes a society "civilized", and whether the primitive jungle tribes of Africa and Amazonian jungles qualify. Is infant mortality a factor in your definition of "civilized"? Death rates from preventable diseases? Hygiene? Gender equality? Food security? Literacy? Life expectancy?

Are they "civilized" in the sense that their society conforms to the standard Western definition of a "civilization"? No.

But to define whether they are civil people, one must look beyond facts and figures and see the faces of people and recognize that a culture different from our own is neither worse than ours or better than. It simply is. And it is different.

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.

But I guess it all depends on your view on "civility" and what it entails.

The basic definition of Civilization is a society with permanent cities, a division of labor, and agriculture.

But not of "civility".

[rlr149]

Oh, but you can force your morality on shows and it is OK.

i was in no way consulted as to the morality on stargate, the nudity was in the first episode, i have not forced anything on anyone

sorry, but there is a word for that. Hypocrisy.

thats not the word at all

You see, you may not be a hypocrite, and I am not saying you are, but putting words in people's mouth does not lead to good things.

don't say things that can be misconstrued then

let me highlight the difference here. I have been watching Stargate for years.

i've certainly been watching it longer, i saw the first episode, on its first airing(with the nudity), does that make my opinion more valid...... by your rational.......yes

There has been no nudity for years.

irrelevant, it was there so hasn't been added

Thus it would not be fair to add nudity

cause you are annoyed be the hidden nudity on the show where I would be OFFENDED, among others, of nudity it self.

but i am offended by being treated like a 5 year old, i guess your respect for others beliefs is worth 'less' than the respect for your own............ thats hypocracy

[rlr149]

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.

pandora's_box said what i wanted to say

[Starrtom]

The asgard don't wear cloths, do you consider them not civilised?

[UNRE4L]

Think of the children.

[LostCityGuardian]

There are many, many unfortunate and disgraceful things about America. And there are many, many unfortunate and disgraceful things about Northern Europe. And tribes in Africa. And Eastern Asia. And the Middle East. Etc. etc. etc.

I think it's a dicey proposition to start comparing civility, as if it's something that can be discerned with the naked eye.

I guess that statement didn't make a lot of sense without the context of previous discussions I have had with Womble. It was more to draw a response than to actually try to suggest that one part of the world is more civilised than another.

Northern European societies do not glorify greed? On the contrary; they seek to benefit from wealth they haven't earned by forcing the more successful members of society to pay so that others could live off government handouts for years without having to work (I know a Russian immigrant family in Northern Europe who's been living like that for fifteen years). "Socially oriented" is codespeak for "charity at gunpoint". Civilized? I think not.

So am I far off the mark in saying that tax is theft and welfare is dole bludging? 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. Are you that against any form of progressive taxation and income redistribution? Would you prefer to see no welfare, and if people die in the gutters from starvation, that's the market in action? 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?

So let us talk about what makes a society "civilized", and whether the primitive jungle tribes of Africa and Amazonian jungles qualify. Is infant mortality a factor in your definition of "civilized"? Death rates from preventable diseases? Hygiene? Gender equality? Food security? Literacy? Life expectancy?

All of the above, which contribute to quality of life, plus one more. The Collins English Dictionary defines civilised as:

having a high state of culture and social development

I would suggest that social development would involve a recognition that business and commerce is not the end target of society. I have seen a diagram in Capitalism as if the world matters by Jonathan Porritt (I couldn't find a picture to post, but its right at the start of the book) that shows the economy as a subset of society, rather than the reason behind society's existence. I think this neatly sums up that business and markets are present in society to benefit society, not to be the purpose of society's existence. I think this is demonstrated by, for example, friendlier welfare systems, policies that encourage work-life balance and so on. I would suggest that this is a higher form of social development than a cutthroat, business oriented approach that puts the market on a pedestal present in Western countries with a neoliberal tradition, like the US, UK, Australia and New Zealand (where I live). I would suggest that this social development is an indicator of a higher level of civility, indicating that a society has reached a point where they recognize that the point of human interactions in society is to make things better for everyone, rather than a select few who have an advantage because of huge wealth and policies that allow them to maintain this wealth and accumulate more at the expense of others. I'm sure you'll disagree.