AIDS Conference

[betsy]

Not only do we see those in movies.....but now, it's normal to see promiscuity on prime time tv!

I haven't seen "Desperate Housewives"...but I remember someone was complaining about it in this forum.

[betsy]

The policy was criticized because it was not a multi-pronged approach. If one anti-smoking policy didn't work, why would one anti-sexually transmitted disease policy work?

And just who is it that decides it was not a "multi-pronged approach"....so therefore, scrap it?

Who is it that decides what will....and what will not work? Have they tried it?

Who makes this brilliant decision for mankind?

EVEN IF IT HAS ONLY ONE, SINGLE PRONG... AND MAKE IT A SHORT PRONG AT THAT.....IT CAN STILL SKEWER. One-prong mixed with other prongs...make a multi-prong in the end!

They criticized it and rejected it because of one simple reason: the plan came from BUSH! And Absitinence is a Christian value! (so make it two reasons).

[Hicksey]

That is semantics and politics and doesn't address the question at hand. That doesn't erase that at least 75% of environmentalists are liberals. I never made the assertion that every environmentalist was a liberal. Refer to the bolded text above.

Someone pollutes the earth with material that makes it into the drinking water supply and makes people sick and ultimately die, and someone who pollutes the minds of society with ideas and attitudes that are likely to contribute to their contracting AIDS and eventually their death -- are no different.

Why shouldn't both be forced to pay for their wrongs, and be forced to bear the cost and consequences of fixing the problems they have caused?

I've never seen that figure of 75% before.

As far as the media goes, what would you like removed. Some people felt The Passion of the Christ was too violent.

I would like Hollywood to stop making every lead character a sensationalism over every bad habit there is.

Everyone knows smoking kills, so why then does Hollywood need make every lead character a smoker that pains himself to look cool and tough while taking a drag? Why then are teens on television practically and casually walking walking around in clothing that could be classed in lingerie? Why is sex so sensationalized on television?

Its not like they refuse to portray things as positive that they agree with. When is the last time you saw a crusader for homosexuality or environmentalism portaryed badly? Or an opponent of Bush?

Its obvious they are capable of supporting and portraying concepts they see as good for society in a good light, so why do they continue to pollute and bastardize society?

Polluters are held resposible for their actions. So again I ask why should Hollywood be able to target and pollute the minds of young, impressionable teenagers with habits and attitudes that are likely to kill them before their time? Why should they not be forced to pay to clean up the consequences of their actions?

[Drea]

Abstinance may sound like a good idea but it will never fly in today's western society.

Sexuality is much too pervasive to ever get rid of so our best bet is to educate our young people. Telling them no you can't have sex simply won't work like it did in the 50s.

When I was young there was no way I would have agreed to abstinance -- I always figured yah gotta try on the shoe before you buy it! I tried on alot of shoes before I the right fit

Hollywood will not take promiscuity or violence out of movies because sex and violence sell movies.

[Hicksey]

Abstinance may sound like a good idea but it will never fly in today's western society.

Sexuality is much too pervasive to ever get rid of so our best bet is to educate our young people. Telling them no you can't have sex simply won't work like it did in the 50s.

When I was young there was no way I would have agreed to abstinance -- I always figured yah gotta try on the shoe before you buy it! I tried on alot of shoes before I the right fit

Hollywood will not take promiscuity or violence out of movies because sex and violence sell movies.

Obviously we cannot outlaw or forbid promiscuity. I'm not looking to. But it also should not be endorsed or sensationalized either. The Hollywierd bunch teaches them through their TV and movies that if you're not screwing everything with a heartbeat you're not cool. That attitude about sex is going to either get them VD or killed. When's the last time you saw a character in a pop movie ask a partner to test themselves for AIDS before they have sex with them? or demand to get to know them? -- or even mention a condom? Have sex, just be smart about it. Their characters promote sex up front and center, and then they go out and promote safe, smart sex as an also ran.

[jdobbin]

Oh puhleeez. That's just quite a lame stab at the one thing Hollywood is determined to dis-credit and tear apart at every opportunity it gets: Christianity.

I wonder why. It couldn't be because it stands in the way of promiscuous lifestyle, eh?

So what do I want remove? ENDORSEMENT OF PROMISCUITY!

Let's go back to Hicksey's question:

"Why shouldn't both be forced to pay for their wrongs, and be forced to bear the cost and consequences of fixing the problems they have caused?"

The Conservatives have been in power in the U.S. for some time now. What have they done to combat promiscuity in Hollywood?

And I wasn't attacking the Christian theme of Passion of the Christ, just pointing out that it was violent.

To answer the question: Nothing stops them from being forced to pay. But as I have pointed out, conservatives have been in charge for 6 years in the States and mostly likely will be in charge for two more. If legislation is to come from somewhere, it will have to come from those elected officials.

So my question is, what are those elected officials doing about it? What are you personally doing about it?

[jdobbin]

Liberals....AND NDPs.

There may be some Christian conservatives....but most activists come from the liberal thinkers.

Alberta has seen a huge increase in conservative environmentalists. Christian evangelical enviornmentalist to be exact. This is a trend that Bush has run into the United States as well.

If you don't believe that, do a simple search of the Internet.

Do you as a Christian not have some concerns about the environment or do you let Liberals and NDP worry about that for you?

[jdobbin]

Not only do we see those in movies.....but now, it's normal to see promiscuity on prime time tv!

I haven't seen "Desperate Housewives"...but I remember someone was complaining about it in this forum.

What TV series and movies do you consider wholesome? Do you lobby Hollywood and Ottawa to make more of those series and movies?

[jdobbin]

And just who is it that decides it was not a "multi-pronged approach"....so therefore, scrap it?

Who is it that decides what will....and what will not work? Have they tried it?

Who makes this brilliant decision for mankind?

EVEN IF IT HAS ONLY ONE, SINGLE PRONG... AND MAKE IT A SHORT PRONG AT THAT.....IT CAN STILL SKEWER. One-prong mixed with other prongs...make a multi-prong in the end!

They criticized it and rejected it because of one simple reason: the plan came from BUSH! And Absitinence is a Christian value! (so make it two reasons).

No one mentioned anything about scrapping it. Like with smoking, no one tool works. If abstinence worked completely they wouldn't be talking about a multi-pronged approach.

[Hicksey]

Oh puhleeez. That's just quite a lame stab at the one thing Hollywood is determined to dis-credit and tear apart at every opportunity it gets: Christianity.

I wonder why. It couldn't be because it stands in the way of promiscuous lifestyle, eh?

So what do I want remove? ENDORSEMENT OF PROMISCUITY!

Let's go back to Hicksey's question:

"Why shouldn't both be forced to pay for their wrongs, and be forced to bear the cost and consequences of fixing the problems they have caused?"

The Conservatives have been in power in the U.S. for some time now. What have they done to combat promiscuity in Hollywood?

And I wasn't attacking the Christian theme of Passion of the Christ, just pointing out that it was violent.

To answer the question: Nothing stops them from being forced to pay. But as I have pointed out, conservatives have been in charge for 6 years in the States and mostly likely will be in charge for two more. If legislation is to come from somewhere, it will have to come from those elected officials.

So my question is, what are those elected officials doing about it? What are you personally doing about it?

The Bush administration are doing nothing. As a singular person I can do nothing. It wasn't the government I was mandating to do something. I was saying that we should take it to court as environmental groups have and force a large lunp sum that might have a real effect on AIDS research out of Hollywood, and set a precedent that they will be responsible for what they produce and the effects it might have on society.

I will admit that there is much blame to be passed around for not doing anything about what Hollywood produces. But like 9/11, though there is much blame to be passed around for not preventing it the guilty party is still the people that perpetrated it. All these questions are nice, but again the big question has not been answered.

Should Hollywood be held to account and made to pay for the results of polluting the minds of our young people with attitudes and ideals that are likely to cause harm to them? Why? Why not?

[jdobbin]

Polluters are held resposible for their actions. So again I ask why should Hollywood be able to target and pollute the minds of young, impressionable teenagers with habits and attitudes that are likely to kill them before their time? Why should they not be forced to pay to clean up the consequences of their actions?

Conservatives have been in power 6 years now in the U.S. where most of these films were made. What have they done to ensure content is not promiscuous? What do you do personally on the subject? Do you refuse to watch TV series like Grey's Anatomy, CSI, Desperate Housewives, E.R. and 24 ?

Didn't Laura Bush say that she watched Desperate Housewives? She certainly made a joke that she did at this years Press Dinner.

[jdobbin]

Obviously we cannot outlaw or forbid promiscuity. I'm not looking to. But it also should not be endorsed or sensationalized either. The Hollywierd bunch teaches them through their TV and movies that if you're not screwing everything with a heartbeat you're not cool. That attitude about sex is going to either get them VD or killed. When's the last time you saw a character in a pop movie ask a partner to test themselves for AIDS before they have sex with them? or demand to get to know them? -- or even mention a condom? Have sex, just be smart about it. Their characters promote sex up front and center, and then they go out and promote safe, smart sex as an also ran.

You don't see characters saying hello or goodbye on the phone either. Don't ask me why, they just don't.

The 40 Year Old Virgin showed the use of condoms. Lots of them. But then it added to the story.

Do you watch moral movies? Do you watch movies with no violence, no promiscuity? If the answer is no, then you are doing your part to hit them where it counts: the box office.

[betsy]

So my question is, what are those elected officials doing about it? What are you personally doing about it?

The ONES who SHOULD be doing something about this are those who are on the spotlight right now:

THE AIDS CONFERENCE!

They've got the ears of the public, don't they? They've got the publicity! They're the darling of the media!

Everybody's expecting a rational and truthful discussion....and planned actions from them...about how the WORLD will tackle this problem together!

So how come not even a slight rebuke come from any of these very prominent figures....or even positive suggestions......that Hollywood should try to play a big part in this campaign.

It wouldn't take much for Clinton to get Hollywood supporting him in this endeavor...they've supported him so well before! So why is he not using his "influence?"

[betsy]

Do you watch moral movies? Do you watch movies with no violence, no promiscuity? If the answer is no, then you are doing your part to hit them where it counts: the box office.

Were you in favor of banning smoking in bars and restaurants?

[jdobbin]

The ONES who SHOULD be doing something about this are those who are on the spotlight right now:

THE AIDS CONFERENCE!

They've got the ears of the public, don't they? They've got the publicity! They're the darling of the media!

Everybody's expecting a rational and truthful discussion....and planned actions from them...about how the WORLD will tackle this problem together!

So how come not even a slight rebuke come from any of these very prominent figures....or even positive suggestions......that Hollywood should try to play a big part in this campaign.

It wouldn't take much for Clinton to get Hollywood supporting him in this endeavor...they've supported him so well before! So why is he not using his "influence?"

What sort of message did you want them to tell Hollywood? Show more characters abstaining?

[jdobbin]

Were you in favor of banning smoking in bars and restaurants?

I thought the law was unconstitutional and as it turns out it was here in Manitoba. The law was thrown out this week because it was inconsistently applied.

[betsy]

What sort of message did you want them to tell Hollywood? Show more characters abstaining?

DO NOT ENDORSE PROMISCUITY!

They're a creative bunch. I'm sure they can come up with something.

[betsy]

Were you in favor of banning smoking in bars and restaurants?

I thought the law was unconstitutional and as it turns out it was here in Manitoba. The law was thrown out this week because it was inconsistently applied.

I didn't hear about that. Nonetheless, we still do not allow smoking in bars and restaurants.

Were you in favor of the ban?

[jdobbin]

DO NOT ENDORSE PROMISCUITY!

They're a creative bunch. I'm sure they can come up with something.

They've been increasing the amount of faith based movies. Perhaps this is the chance Canada and the U.S. can show that they believe in this investment by going to them.

[jdobbin]

I didn't hear about that. Nonetheless, we still do not allow smoking in bars and restaurants.

Were you in favor of the ban?

I thought it should have been voluntary. There was already a move by many restaurants to go smoke free on their own.

As for bars, I don't think they will ever be smoke-free. All it does is move to the front entrances.

[Hicksey]

Still no answer. Skirting all around the outside, but still no answer.

Here's another: Do you believe, as I do, that such sensonalization is akin to polluting the minds of our young people with dangerous habits and ideals? Why? Why not?

I have asked a substantive question that still remains unanswered.

[jdobbin]

Still no answer. Skirting all around the outside, but still no answer.

Here's another: Do you believe, as I do, that such sensonalization is akin to polluting the minds of our young people with dangerous habits and ideals? Why? Why not?

I have asked a substantive question that still remains unanswered.

What question are you referring to?

I think any type of sensationalism can affect someone's mind whether it be politics, media or religion. Do I think they should be regulated? No. Do I think there should be strong parenting? Yes. Better education? Yes.

[Hicksey]

Still no answer. Skirting all around the outside, but still no answer.

Here's another: Do you believe, as I do, that such sensonalization is akin to polluting the minds of our young people with dangerous habits and ideals? Why? Why not?

I have asked a substantive question that still remains unanswered.

What question are you referring to?

I think any type of sensationalism can affect someone's mind whether it be politics, media or religion. Do I think they should be regulated? No. Do I think there should be strong parenting? Yes. Better education? Yes.

This one

Should Hollywood be held to account and made to pay for the results of polluting the minds of our young people with attitudes and ideals that are likely to cause harm to them? Why? Why not?

And then this one.

Do you believe, as I do, that such sensonalization is akin to polluting the minds of our young people with dangerous habits and ideals? Why? Why not?

Strong parenting? What a joke! Kids listen to their Hollywood idols, but they largely ignore their parents during the years that matter the most. Kids already get taught all about sex, the methods of birth control in school these days and what could happen as a result of not taking proper precautions.

You list the "40 Year Old Virgin" as a movie that highlights the use of condoms. You forgot one thing. That movie is intended for adults and is rated R. How is that supposed to teach them anything?

[Charles Anthony]

Should Hollywood be held to account and made to pay for the results of polluting the minds of our young people with attitudes and ideals that are likely to cause harm to them? Why? Why not?

The answer to your question is simple: No. Everybody is making things too complicated.

The reason why a film-maker should NOT be held responsible for polluting anybody's mind is simply because nobody is forced to watch movies. Period. End of story.

Do you feel compelled to watch stupid movies??

Be practical:

Who the hell would police the censorship of movies??

Who the hell would preside over a judgment on Hollywood pollution??

I agree that there is filth in practically every single movie. I agree that it contributes to perversion and anti-social behavior. However, I disagree with laying blame on the film-makers. I will fight to the death their right to make their filth.

One of the most moving dialogues that I have ever found in a movie was in "The People VS Larry Flint" enacting a press conference. Flynt said something to the effect that because he produces the worst of the worst, defending his rights defends everybody else's freedom.

[jdobbin]

This one

Should Hollywood be held to account and made to pay for the results of polluting the minds of our young people with attitudes and ideals that are likely to cause harm to them? Why? Why not?

And then this one.

Do you believe, as I do, that such sensonalization is akin to polluting the minds of our young people with dangerous habits and ideals? Why? Why not?

Strong parenting? What a joke! Kids listen to their Hollywood idols, but they largely ignore their parents during the years that matter the most. Kids already get taught all about sex, the methods of birth control in school these days and what could happen as a result of not taking proper precautions.

You list the "40 Year Old Virgin" as a movie that highlights the use of condoms. You forgot one thing. That movie is intended for adults and is rated R. How is that supposed to teach them anything?

I listed that movie because I someone asked about a movie that showed condom use. I wasn't asked about one for kids. However, let's be clear: There are no restrictions on kids seeing these movies when they become DVDs or when they appear unedited on movie channels. The only thing stopping that would be a parent.

That's why I say strong parenting. Would you let your very young kids watch these movies? Would you not try to instill a message to them that shows your values in the face of the media, their peer group?

And Hollywood is held to account. They have a rating system. They don't let minors into films with adult content. They are criticized in various reports each year. They suffer at the box office for movies that cross the line.

There used to be a censors board. They used to say that you couldn't show a husband and wife in the same bed. They had to have two beds. Later on when they could show one bed, they had to ensure that one of the people had one foot on the floor.

Do you advocate going back to a censor board, one that cuts all swearing, violence, sexual content and controversial material out of film and TV?

So don't skirt the issue. Do you believe in blanket censorship on all those things to protect young and older minds alike?