2aHawaii
General Topics => Off Topic => Topic started by: Flapp_Jackson on October 06, 2020, 02:39:33 PM
-
Netflix INDICTED By Texas Grand Jury,
Faces CRIMINAL CHARGES Over 'Cuties'
Film Exploitation
Netflix has been indicted in the conservative southern US state of Texas for screening the French film "Cuties,"
which has been accused of hypersexualizing young girls and depicting children in a lewd manner.
Statements by Republican lawmakers and an online campaign against the film have tapped into concern over
child sexual molestation, making the movie political leverage in the battle to re-elect Republican President Donald
Trump.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/texas-grand-jury-indicts-netflix-over-movie-cuties/ar-BB19LpBS
Interesting how MSN tries to spin this as a Conservative/Republican thing meant to help Trump's campaign! :rofl:
Watch this video. Netflix is losing subscribers in droves over this pedophile-targeted movie long before any indictment. This former subscribers can't all be Conservatives and Republicans.
Censorship is one thing. Breaking laws protecting underage teens and preteens from sexual exploitation is an entirely different thing.
I suppose at least one person on here believes in his one-sided viewpoint that Netflix and the filmmakers have the right to do this under the 1st amendment. F*ck the law and the harm pedophilia does to children! :wtf:
https://youtu.be/sXboCVqBBrQ
-
Hmmm, I am interested in how they would prove this case in court, seems like it would be quite the battle since prurient ends up being somewhat subjective.
-
Hmmm, I am interested in how they would prove this case in court, seems like it would be quite the battle since prurient ends up being somewhat subjective.
Have you watched the movie "Cuties" or seen any of the most relevant clips?
-
Ive never seen cuties. Only heard critiques bout it.
Still unaware if it is a movie or documentary? Lol
Edit: i see the post above, it says movie lol. Kinda messed up
I remember long time ago, in school, we were watching 20/20 and they did a sickening documentary, following a 11 or 12 year old. She was a prostitute and they pretty much filmed her for a week. With hidden cams and a body cam (like a button cam) that she knew about, but the guys didnt. It was in thailand or phillipines. Leaning towards phillipines. Well the last day of the documentary they said she was pregnant, needed to do an abortion so she could help her family with money. She was the eldest girl. And her baby sister was turning 6 or 8 and said she soon will be joining the business with her. Thats some fucked up shit.
People need to be executed for this type of crime, parents included if they condone such behavior. Just my opinion tho.
Needless to say, i know there were alot of americans (white people) who were filmed doing things to that poor girl for like 10 bucks usd. And they never even got arrested. On film atleast they never showed it.
-
Ive never seen cuties. Only heard critiques bout it.
Still unaware if it is a movie or documentary? Lol
Edit: i see the post above, it says movie lol. Kinda messed up
I remember long time ago, in school, we were watching 20/20 and they did a sickening documentary, following a 11 or 12 year old. She was a prostitute and they pretty much filmed her for a week. With hidden cams and a body cam (like a button cam) that she knew about, but the guys didnt. It was in thailand or phillipines. Leaning towards phillipines. Well the last day of the documentary they said she was pregnant, needed to do an abortion so she could help her family with money. She was the eldest girl. And her baby sister was turning 6 or 8 and said she soon will be joining the business with her. Thats some fucked up shit.
People need to be executed for this type of crime, parents included if they condone such behavior. Just my opinion tho.
Needless to say, i know there were alot of americans (white people) who were filmed doing things to that poor girl for like 10 bucks usd. And they never even got arrested. On film atleast they never showed it.
It's more like a "Reality TV Show." Documentaries would not air explicitly sexual scenes without at least blurring the faces and private areas of the minors.
If it was a documentary intended to show the practice detailed in the movie as "wrong", they never made that clear. Only after the movie was blasted did Netflix say it was INTENDED to do that.
Not buying the excuse when the movie DID NOT do that.
Netflix initially used sexually explicit "dance" scenes (with minors, or course) in a poster and streaming ads for the movie release. After catching flack for that, they apologized, saying the ads did not represent the content of the film.
We're deeply sorry for the inappropriate artwork that we used for Mignonnes/Cuties.
It was not OK, nor was it representative of this French film which won an award at
Sundance. We’ve now updated the pictures and description.
After release, it was obvious the ads used actual images/footage from the film. It was an exact representation!
Tulsi Gabbard:
.
@netflix child porn "Cuties" will certainly whet the
appetite of pedophiles & help fuel the child sex trafficking
trade. 1 in 4 victims of trafficking are children. It happened
to my friend's 13 year old daughter. Netflix, you are now
complicit. #CancelNetflix
https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1304587833584226305
-
Have you watched the movie "Cuties" or seen any of the most relevant clips?
Have not watched the movie but did see a clip with the girls dancing in a sexualized way. It was rather unsettling.
The issue I would foresee in court is for the prosecutor to draw a clear line and then prove that the movie crossed that line. If I were the defense attorney I would introduce many other dance styles and movies which can be traced or related to something sexual in nature blur any attempt by the prosecutor to draw such a line. And that is assuming that Texas law clearly defines prurient because if they don't the defense can also attack how subjective it could be to the jury.
Of course part of it would likely depend on the jury. Get a nice jury full of church-going mothers of young daughters and it might be easier to convince them.
It would be interesting to hear the arguments and questioning in the court room. Maybe Netflix will make a documentary covering it hehe
-
Ive never seen cuties. Only heard critiques bout it.
Still unaware if it is a movie or documentary? Lol
Edit: i see the post above, it says movie lol. Kinda messed up
I remember long time ago, in school, we were watching 20/20 and they did a sickening documentary, following a 11 or 12 year old. She was a prostitute and they pretty much filmed her for a week. With hidden cams and a body cam (like a button cam) that she knew about, but the guys didnt. It was in thailand or phillipines. Leaning towards phillipines. Well the last day of the documentary they said she was pregnant, needed to do an abortion so she could help her family with money. She was the eldest girl. And her baby sister was turning 6 or 8 and said she soon will be joining the business with her. Thats some fucked up shit.
People need to be executed for this type of crime, parents included if they condone such behavior. Just my opinion tho.
Needless to say, i know there were alot of americans (white people) who were filmed doing things to that poor girl for like 10 bucks usd. And they never even got arrested. On film atleast they never showed it.
It makes you wish there was a real life Punisher.
I wonder if there is a charity one could donate which goes around and executes people who manage, capture, keep, etc such minors for sex work.
-
Have not watched the movie but did see a clip with the girls dancing in a sexualized way. It was rather unsettling.
The issue I would foresee in court is for the prosecutor to draw a clear line and then prove that the movie crossed that line. If I were the defense attorney I would introduce many other dance styles and movies which can be traced or related to something sexual in nature blur any attempt by the prosecutor to draw such a line. And that is assuming that Texas law clearly defines prurient because if they don't the defense can also attack how subjective it could be to the jury.
Of course part of it would likely depend on the jury. Get a nice jury full of church-going mothers of young daughters and it might be easier to convince them.
It would be interesting to hear the arguments and questioning in the court room. Maybe Netflix will make a documentary covering it hehe
Never seems to be a shortage of Internet lawyers. :popcorn:
-
Never saw this show but as a hard-core freedom supporter unless it's like porn or illegal I think freedom of speech applies. It applies to almost everything you don't like but that's the whole point. Nazis, democrats, Republicans, conspiracy theorists, antifa, pedos, everyone.
-
It applies to almost everything you don't like but that's the whole point. Nazis, democrats, Republicans, conspiracy theorists, antifa, pedos, everyone.
FIFY
-
Never saw this show but as a hard-core freedom supporter unless it's like porn or illegal I think freedom of speech applies. It applies to almost everything you don't like but that's the whole point. Nazis, democrats, Republicans, conspiracy theorists, antifa, pedos, everyone.
I've been father, uncle, brother, and cousin to young girls. The clips I've seen
of that movie are disturbing. I'm pretty Libertarian, but when it comes to the lives
and well being of sexually immature kids, I'm your worst enemy. I don't give a fvck
about your rights, if those "rights" damages a kid and cheats them of what rights they
have to live a full and free life.
-
I've been father, uncle, brother, and cousin to young girls. The clips I've seen
of that movie are disturbing. I'm pretty Libertarian, but when it comes to the lives
and well being of sexually immature kids, I'm your worst enemy. I don't give a fvck
about your rights, if those "rights" damages a kid and cheats them of what rights they
have to live a full and free life.
Its a careful line to cross. If no kids were hurt in the filming and its not illegal, there should be no restrictions regardless on content. The second you start limiting speech or freedom is a slippery slope to no freedom or rights. Same logic can limit anything people don't like. Video game violence, abortion movies and whatever contentious topic you can think of. I doubt some shitty movie or show or whatever this is can harm kids or affect their rights to freedom and to live a good life.
-
Its a careful line to cross. If no kids were hurt in the filming and its not illegal, there should be no restrictions regardless on content. The second you start limiting speech or freedom is a slippery slope to no freedom or rights. Same logic can limit anything people don't like. Video game violence, abortion movies and whatever contentious topic you can think of. I doubt some shitty movie or show or whatever this is can harm kids or affect their rights to freedom and to live a good life.
Restricting glamorizing the sexuality of sexually immature kids, is not a "slippery slope.
It is not a matter of what I like or dislike, it is the kids rights.
I personally could care less if NBC, CBS, et al, suddenly has Pornhub.com non stop
video. Or if Louis Farakan took over BET channel and advocated another Holocaust.
But we are responsible to protect our kids. Once they are "mature" then they can , will
and hopefully not, do stupid. I'm sure you can agree with that.
I legally wandered around corn fields with a gun killing game when I was twelve, but I could not
buy a beer, drive a car, get married, or make any sorts of contracts eg buy a house.
Was that a slippery slope?
-
Restricting glamorizing the sexuality of sexually immature kids, is not a "slippery slope.
It is not a matter of what I like or dislike, it is the kids rights.
I personally could care less if NBC, CBS, et al, suddenly has Pornhub.com non stop
video. Or if Louis Farakan took over BET channel and advocated another Holocaust.
But we are responsible to protect our kids. Once they are "mature" then they can , will
and hopefully not, do stupid. I'm sure you can agree with that.
I legally wandered around corn fields with a gun killing game when I was twelve, but I could not
buy a beer, drive a car, get married, or make any sorts of contracts eg buy a house.
Was that a slippery slope?
Not a dig at you groveler, but when you become the voice of reason... 😳
-
Restricting glamorizing the sexuality of sexually immature kids, is not a "slippery slope.
It is not a matter of what I like or dislike, it is the kids rights.
I personally could care less if NBC, CBS, et al, suddenly has Pornhub.com non stop
video. Or if Louis Farakan took over BET channel and advocated another Holocaust.
But we are responsible to protect our kids. Once they are "mature" then they can , will
and hopefully not, do stupid. I'm sure you can agree with that.
I legally wandered around corn fields with a gun killing game when I was twelve, but I could not
buy a beer, drive a car, get married, or make any sorts of contracts eg buy a house.
Was that a slippery slope?
Yes I agree we should protect kids. But defying what harms them of something non tangible is hard. Some movie isn't going to directly harm them. You can be a pedo and never actually harm kids and they still got human rights. No one knows why they exist much like gay, trans, etc people. I have no plans to watch it so I really can't comment what exactly is this show. But I don't think we should be the thought police. People watch what they want. If the filming and creation harmed no people, then there are no victims.
-
Yes I agree we should protect kids. But defying what harms them of something non tangible is hard. Some movie isn't going to directly harm them. You can be a pedo and never actually harm kids and they still got human rights. No one knows why they exist much like gay, trans, etc people. I have no plans to watch it so I really can't comment what exactly is this show. But I don't think we should be the thought police. People watch what they want. If the filming and creation harmed no people, then there are no victims.
You seem dense.
It's not about whether kids are harmed watching a movie.
It's about the kids in the movie being taught to do sexually suggestive and lewd acts for the pleasure of the adults watching in the movie AND AT HOME.
Geesh!
-
Just when I think someone can’t possibly say something more idiotic... Omfg
That a pedo doesn’t harm anyone because it’s “non tangible”?
-
My question is what kind of parent would allow their child to participate in this kind of dance?
At least the kid who Michael touched parents were paid big bucks.
-
Just when I think someone can’t possibly say something more idiotic... Omfg
That a pedo doesn’t harm anyone because it’s “non tangible”?
One of these days, we'll find out OmniGrub was arrested for downloading child porn, and his defense will be, "It's my Constitutional right! I wasn't hurting children! intangible photos and videos aren't hurting anyone!"
Something tells me that's been tried already. :popcorn:
-
My question is what kind of parent would allow their child to participate in this kind of dance?
At least the kid who Michael touched parents were paid big bucks.
Being a biological parent doesn't magically make you a responsible parent.
There are parents who have sold their kids into prostitution for drugs or to pay off drug and gambling debts.
Never underestimate the evilness of self-centered animals in human form.
-
Being a biological parent doesn't magically make you a responsible parent.
There are parents who have sold their kids into prostitution for drugs or to pay off drug and gambling debts.
Never underestimate the evilness of self-centered animals in human form.
Or the ignorant who apparently thinks it’s ok.
-
One of these days, we'll find out OmniGrub was arrested for downloading child porn, and his defense will be, "It's my Constitutional right! I wasn't hurting children! intangible photos and videos aren't hurting anyone!"
Something tells me that's been tried already. :popcorn:
Umm no. That sick shit has real kids in it. Its hurt people...that's tangible. Sometimes I think you are getting a little more like biden and losing your mind.
-
Umm no. That sick shit has real kids in it. Its hurt people...that's tangible. Sometimes I think you are getting a little more like biden and losing your mind.
And you think the kids in the Cuties movie are what .... stunt kids? How are they not "real kids?"
-
Or the ignorant who apparently thinks it’s ok.
You and fapp are the most ignorant. Making slander up to put me down. Inventing words and phrases I have never said.
Lets get the record straight. IF ANY one is harmed in the making of anything. IT 100% should be banned. CP = 100% harm to a child and is sick.
If someone does anything to a child they should be jailed and punished.
If someone wants to make some documentary where no one was hurt in filming thats fine.
Sounds like you are the same people who think drawings are real and videogames cause violence and should be banned.
-
And you think the kids in the Cuties movie are what .... stunt kids? How are they not "real kids?"
I haven't watched it and refuse to but I assume it isnt porn. They are not being abused. It passed netflix lawyers so I doubt anything is illegal.
-
Yes I agree we should protect kids. But defying what harms them of something non tangible is hard. Some movie isn't going to directly harm them. You can be a pedo and never actually harm kids and they still got human rights. No one knows why they exist much like gay, trans, etc people. I have no plans to watch it so I really can't comment what exactly is this show. But I don't think we should be the thought police. People watch what they want. If the filming and creation harmed no people, then there are no victims.
Ok. I’m making slander? Or making slanderous comments? Roger. Then pls explain the bolded lines above.
Edit to add: inventing words or phrases? Moi? I believe you have the undisputed track record of that.
-
Ok. I’m making slander? Or making slanderous comments? Roger. Then pls explain the bolded lines above.
Are you trying to say a pedo isnt human? Do you advocate murder?
A pedo is a person, has all the American rights as any other American until they do something to lose those rights. And still has some human rights left. If not you might as well advocate killing them. Just because they were born fucked up doesn't make them not a person. They can still live a decent life if they don't act on their sick desires. Are you against gay people because they like the wrong person? Are they not people either? People can't change how they are born.
A non adult film in while no children were harmed there are no victims. Was a child actor hurt in the making of this? Were they abused? Were they raped or harmed in any way?
As someone who someone who reports to support freedom and rights I find this oddly hypocritical.
Say what you want of me being a democrat or liberal but DO NOT EVER try and make me seem like I condone child abuse. I find that beyond offensive. Children are innocent and the future and should be protected. Child abuse is sick and illegal.
-
Are you trying to say a pedo isnt human? Do you advocate murder?
A pedo is a person, has all the American rights as any other American until they do something to lose those rights. And still has some human rights left. If not you might as well advocate killing them. Just because they were born fucked up doesn't make them not a person. They can still live a decent life if they don't act on their sick desires. Are you against gay people because they like the wrong person? Are they not people either? People can't change how they are born.
A non adult film in while no children were harmed there are no victims. Was a child actor hurt in the making of this? Were they abused? Were they raped or harmed in any way?
As someone who someone who reports to support freedom and rights I find this oddly hypocritical.
I could not care less about any, but yeah, pedo still has rights. No, I don’t advocate just offing them.
That’s not the point. So only rape or physical abuse is tangible “harm”? So if no “tangible harm”, is that ok? I get you believe you’re for freedom, but is that what you think freedom is?
-
I could not care less about any, but yeah, pedo still has rights. No, I don’t advocate just offing them.
That’s not the point. So only rape or physical abuse is tangible “harm”? So if no “tangible harm”, is that ok? I get you believe you’re for freedom, but is that what you think freedom is?
*edited from last post
Say what you want of me being a democrat or liberal but DO NOT EVER try and make me seem like I condone child abuse. I find that beyond offensive. Children are innocent and the future and should be protected. Child abuse is sick and illegal.
Yes someone has to be harmed to be abused??? How can you even quantify harm otherwise? Thought police?
What do you mean that I think freedom is? What do you think freedom is?
-
A non adult film in while no children were harmed there are no victims. Was a child actor hurt in the making of this? Were they abused? Were they raped or harmed in any way?
Sexualizing children is abuse and encourages abusers to act out. You are literally condoning child abuse, and tacking on a "how dare you" disclaimer at the end does not automatically let you off the hook.
-
Sexualizing children is abuse and encourages abusers to act out. You are literally condoning child abuse, and tacking on a "how dare you" disclaimer at the end does not automatically let you off the hook.
Sexualizing children is wrong I agree with that. Encourages abusers, in not sure. Any abusers will face the full weight of the law and lose most of their rights for life if they do anything to a child. I probably shouldn't be commenting on something I never saw, probably getting me into trouble. I won't ever watch it. But I believe that netflix lawyers getting paid millions know what they are doing. Its supposed to be some documentary I don't even know the target audience. Perhaps I should just stop here because commenting on something I don't know isn't very wise I realize. But I still believe everyone has freedom and human rights regardless how they were born. That I can defend.
-
Sexualizing children is wrong I agree with that. Encourages abusers, in not sure. Any abusers will face the full weight of the law and lose most of their rights for life if they do anything to a child. I probably shouldn't be commenting on something I never saw, probably getting me into trouble. I won't ever watch it. But I believe that netflix lawyers getting paid millions know what they are doing. Its supposed to be some documentary I don't even know the target audience. Perhaps I should just stop here because commenting on something I don't know isn't very wise I realize. But I still believe everyone has freedom and human rights regardless how they were born. That I can defend.
What da ...???!!!
-
*edited from last post
Say what you want of me being a democrat or liberal but DO NOT EVER try and make me seem like I condone child abuse. I find that beyond offensive. Children are innocent and the future and should be protected. Child abuse is sick and illegal.
Yes someone has to be harmed to be abused??? How can you even quantify harm otherwise? Thought police?
What do you mean that I think freedom is? What do you think freedom is?
First, I couldn’t care less if you’re a democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative, etc. I’m commenting on your logic. Sheesh. Calm down.
I never said you were condoning it. I was trying to get you to see the point of “it’s not tangible, so no harm, so it’s all good”. There are non tangible threats, harm, etc. Then you went off the deep end on my about offing pedos, gays, etc. I never said an of that. You do way more of the “putting words in others”‘posts than anyone. So before you go all apeshit on people, take a look in the mirror. Me slanderous? When I pointed out what you said? Slow your roll.
-
commenting on something I don't know isn't very wise I realize
Bingo OG-San
-
What da ...???!!!
Climate Scientists
Covid-19 Scientists
Anonymous Sources
Joe Biden
Nancy Pelosi
Chuck Schumer
Adam Schiff
The MSM
The Chinese Communist Government
Might as well add "Netflix Lawyers" to the list of "People Liberals trust more than Trump"
-
Bingo OG-San
Yeah I will leave this thread don't think I can contribute to the discussion any further.
Climate Scientists
Covid-19 Scientists
Anonymous Sources
Joe Biden
Nancy Pelosi
Chuck Schumer
Adam Schiff
The MSM
The Chinese Communist Government
Might as well add "Netflix Lawyers" to the list of "People Liberals trust more than Trump"
A billion dollar company wouldn't release something as bad as you guys seem to say this is. Not getting passed all their lawyers and reviewing staff and releasing staff. But since I don't know I'm just going to leave this thread and move on with life plenty to argue elsewhere. Plenty of other things I can argue for freedom and rights that I know about.
-
Yeah I will leave this thread don't think I can contribute to the discussion any further.
A billion dollar company wouldn't release something as bad as you guys seem to say this is. Not getting passed all their lawyers and reviewing staff and releasing staff. But since I don't know I'm just going to leave this thread and move on with life plenty to argue elsewhere. Plenty of other things I can argue for freedom and rights that I know about.
An opinion
based on an assumption
couched in a false understanding
and mitigated by your own admission you don't know anything about it.
Yet, here you are, trying to defend Netflix and child porn ... again.
Just stop!
-
I wonder how many child molesters watched Cuties and were excited that Hollywood appears to have made an attempt at normalizing their crimes.
-
commenting on something I don't know isn't very wise I realize.
Quote from: omnigun on Today at 08:37:46 AM
" I AND I ALONE plan to vote for Biden this year. "
Congrats.
First time you've been right ! :rofl:
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=38320.msg341300#msg341300
WOW you're 2-4-2 :thumbsup:
-
I wonder how many child molesters watched Cuties and were excited that Hollywood appears to have made an attempt at normalizing their crimes.
What I've been wondering is, in all the distractions of the pandemic, whether OmniGrub remembered to send in his dues to NAMBLA.
He's probably on auto renewal...
-
Sexualizing children is wrong I agree with that. Encourages abusers, in not sure. Any abusers will face the full weight of the law and lose most of their rights for life if they do anything to a child. I probably shouldn't be commenting on something I never saw, probably getting me into trouble. I won't ever watch it. But I believe that netflix lawyers getting paid millions know what they are doing. Its supposed to be some documentary I don't even know the target audience. Perhaps I should just stop here because commenting on something I don't know isn't very wise I realize. But I still believe everyone has freedom and human rights regardless how they were born. That I can defend.
You're dumb. Explains why you are voting for Dumb Joe Biden.
-
You're dumb. Explains why you are voting for Dumb Joe Biden.
Haven't you kept up? He spent part of his lunch hour thinking, and now he wants to vote for a 3rd party candidate.
He must have seen a Cutie waving a 3rd party candidate's sign ...
-
Haven't you kept up? He spent part of his lunch hour thinking, and now he wants to vote for a 3rd party candidate.
He must have seen a Cutie waving a 3rd party candidate's sign ...
He does nothing for our 2a community. He collects guns but is oblivious to strengthening the 2a fight.
-
He does nothing for our 2a community. He collects guns but is oblivious to strengthening the 2a fight.
I've been to rallies, signed petitions, voted mostly for 2a candidates. I think I even donated before. Everyone who knows me in rl knows I am a massive 2a supporter. But believe what you want. I probably met many of you in real life. I have many views that don't line up like climate change and abortion, but that doesn't mean I don't support 2a.
And with that I'm off this thread, its a train wreck already don't intend to add to it anymore. Just getting called out and slandered several posts in a row I had to say something.
-
Bingo OG-San
too bad he will never learn...
-
I wonder how many child molesters watched Cuties and were excited that Hollywood appears to have made an attempt at normalizing their crimes.
facebook says pedophilia is just an alternate lifestyle...
-
Sexualizing children is wrong I agree with that. Encourages abusers, in not sure. Any abusers will face the full weight of the law and lose most of their rights for life if they do anything to a child. I probably shouldn't be commenting on something I never saw, probably getting me into trouble. I won't ever watch it. But I believe that netflix lawyers getting paid millions know what they are doing. Its supposed to be some documentary I don't even know the target audience. Perhaps I should just stop here because commenting on something I don't know isn't very wise I realize. But I still believe everyone has freedom and human rights regardless how they were born. That I can defend.
what?
-
I've been to rallies, signed petitions, voted mostly for 2a candidates. I think I even donated before. Everyone who knows me in rl knows I am a massive 2a supporter. But believe what you want. I probably met many of you in real life. I have many views that don't line up like climate change and abortion, but that doesn't mean I don't support 2a.
And with that I'm off this thread, its a train wreck already don't intend to add to it anymore. Just getting called out and slandered several posts in a row I had to say something.
i doubt that
they would have figured out who you were if they ever met you in IRL...
-
facebook says pedophilia is just an alternate lifestyle...
If that helps you feel accepted. . .
:rofl:
-
If that helps you feel accepted. . .
:rofl:
heads
-
I've been to rallies, signed petitions, voted mostly for 2a candidates. I think I even donated before. Everyone who knows me in rl knows I am a massive 2a supporter. But believe what you want. I probably met many of you in real life. I have many views that don't line up like climate change and abortion, but that doesn't mean I don't support 2a.
And with that I'm off this thread, its a train wreck already don't intend to add to it anymore. Just getting called out and slandered several posts in a row I had to say something.
Have you noticed it's mostly the threads you become obsessed over that get derailed and WAYYYY off topic?
There's a correlation, I think. :wave:
-
i doubt that
they would have figured out who you were if they ever met you in IRL...
He THINKS he MAY have donated to 2A groups. Most people are aware if they give someone money to support Constitutional Freedoms.
I guess he was too upset at Trump -- "ORANGE MAN BAD!"
-
facebook says pedophilia is just an alternate lifestyle...
I thought it was a bicyclist with a foot fetish? ???
:stopjack:
NetFlix Cuties Bad. :grrr:
-
He does nothing for our 2a community. He collects guns but is oblivious to strengthening the 2a fight.
He was at the hifico 2a rally b4 chyna virus hit.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
He was at the hifico 2a rally b4 chyna virus hit.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
don't care
-
Quote from: omnigun on Today at 08:37:46 AM
" I AND I ALONE plan to vote for Biden this year. "
Congrats.
First time you've been right ! :rofl:
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=38320.msg341300#msg341300
WOW you're 2-4-2 :thumbsup:
Mehbee I’m the dense one.
I read that as 2 wins, 4 losses, 2 draws... :facepalm:
:rofl:
-
Mehbee I’m the dense one.
I read that as 2 wins, 4 losses, 2 draws... :facepalm:
:rofl:
My bad.
To fur too
-
He was at the hifico 2a rally b4 chyna virus hit.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
he came late, stood outside the main group, and then left early IIRC...
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvFyhqSE51A
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvFyhqSE51A
"fake language, fake country" :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Author has not yet seen Cuties STFU :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Did we hear this before?
-
"fake language, fake country" :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Author has not yet seen Cuties STFU :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Did we hear this before?
Compulsive contrarianism
-
Has anybody seen it ?
Trailer looks like that old Dance Mom’s series.
P.S.
Oh yeah And on true pedos, those that act. Definitely just off ‘em.
-
Has anybody seen it ?
Trailer looks like that old Dance Mom’s series.
P.S.
Oh yeah And on true pedos, those that act. Definitely just off ‘em.
Nope. I can surmise that even defenders of this movie haven't seen it.
-
Nope. I can surmise that even defenders of this movie haven't seen it.
A good many subscribers canceled their Netflix subscriptions. I don't think they'll be watching. :geekdanc: :thumbsup:
As for me personally, I've read enough reviews to trust that the descriptions of certain scenes are accurate.
I don't have to watch someone get their head chopped off in real life with a machete to understand it's not something we need on an entertainment video site like Netflix. "Looking to serve the ISIS niche market."
-
“ But while “Cuties” is full of such inspired contrasts between the sacred and the secular, it’s also attuned to the similarities. Amy’s elders, notably a strict auntie (Mbissine Thérèse Diop) tasked with her education, are bent on molding her into an attractive marital prospect. Her dance routines aren’t that much more enlightened, insofar as they, too, cater explicitly to men’s desires. Clothing can be both beautiful and burdensome, whether it’s the traditional blue dress that Amy is expected to wear to her father’s wedding or the tight tank tops and other midriff-baring shirts she and her friends favor at school and on the stage.
That’s about as good a segue as I can muster to an unpleasant subject that I wish could be passed over without mention but which nonetheless illustrates why “Cuties” deserves a more thoughtful, intelligent audience than its own distributor seems to expect. Weeks ago, Netflix released a promotional image that sexualized the story’s young protagonists in a way that the movie itself scrupulously avoids doing. Self-styled internet moralists immediately jumped on the film (sight unseen, of course) and called for its removal, essentially likening “Cuties” to child pornography and spurring Netflix to yank the image and apologize for its mistake.”
Rotten Tomatoes rating is 86%
I haven’t seen it but probably will.
Sounds pretty complex.
Got Netflix indicted though.
-
Never seems to be a shortage of Internet lawyers. :popcorn:
Don't need to be a real lawyer to see this one has clear hurdles to overcome from the 1st amendment if they with to obtain any type of conviction.
For starters there is the 3 prong test from the Miller v. Calivornia case on obscene materials.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._California
However, the Court acknowledged "the inherent dangers of undertaking to regulate any form of expression", and said that "State statutes designed to regulate obscene materials must be carefully limited."[16] The Court, in an attempt to set such limits devised a set of three criteria which must be met for a work to be legitimately subject to state regulation:
1. whether the average person, applying contemporary "community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
2. whether the work depicts or describes, in an offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions, as specifically defined by applicable state law (the syllabus of the case mentions only sexual conduct, but excretory functions are explicitly mentioned on page 25 of the majority opinion); and
3. whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.[17]
I read a breakdown of the Texas law they were using and there were specific things in the statute which were not satisfied by anything in the film. Have to find the article again if you are interested.
-
Sexualizing children is abuse and encourages abusers to act out. You are literally condoning child abuse, and tacking on a "how dare you" disclaimer at the end does not automatically let you off the hook.
I have not seen the movie myself so I cannot verify this explanation but as I have read some say, the movie is supposed to show that it is wrong for children to be sexualized.
So let me pose this question, if a movie maker wants to make people think that sexualistic behavior (like sexual dancing) is wrong for children to do, how do they go about doing so effectively without showing us such things? If the film lacks the shock value will the audience still learn the same lessons from the film? Would the topic have gotten such attention if the movie were so tamed down? Can you effectively show someone how awful it is to sexualize a child without ever showing a representation of a sexualized child?
Take other movies that are graphic as a comparison. Would Schindler's list have been as powerful if it just faded to black when someone was going to be killed? Would it taught us the horrors of WW2 if the deaths weren't showed in such a shocking way?
-
The Professional was a borderline one.
Awesome movie, but hovers between father figure and seductive adolescent.
https://youtu.be/jawVxq1Iyl0
They say the whole point of the “Cuties” movie is kids do what they see as they transition between adolescence and adult hood.
https://youtu.be/Neqzp-ZLl8M
-
I have not seen the movie myself so I cannot verify this explanation but as I have read some say, the movie is supposed to show that it is wrong for children to be sexualized.
So let me pose this question, if a movie maker wants to make people think that sexualistic behavior (like sexual dancing) is wrong for children to do, how do they go about doing so effectively without showing us such things? If the film lacks the shock value will the audience still learn the same lessons from the film? Would the topic have gotten such attention if the movie were so tamed down? Can you effectively show someone how awful it is to sexualize a child without ever showing a representation of a sexualized child?
Take other movies that are graphic as a comparison. Would Schindler's list have been as powerful if it just faded to black when someone was going to be killed? Would it taught us the horrors of WW2 if the deaths weren't showed in such a shocking way?
Would you be ok if your daughter was in a movie that “sexualizes” 11 year olds?
Shock factor of Schindler’s list I can grasp. It happened and is a part of human history that I personally hope never happens again. Personally, I think relating that to Cuties is quite a stretch.
-
Would you be ok if your daughter was in a movie that “sexualizes” 11 year olds?
Shock factor of Schindler’s list I can grasp. It happened and is a part of human history that I personally hope never happens again. Personally, I think relating that to Cuties is quite a stretch.
No Jews were harmed in the making of the film Schinlder's List. It told a story that is historically and morally important.
Cuties victimized children in its making. It was not intended as a warning message to parents.
-
So let me pose this question, if a movie maker Firearms Instructor wants to make people think that sexualistic behavior poor fire arm handling (like sexual dancing) (like flagging self/others or leaving finger on trigger) is wrong for children anyone to do, how do they go about doing so effectively without showing us such things?
If the film ] instruction lacks the shock value will the audience student still learn the same lessons from the film class?
Would the topic have gotten such attention if the movie class were so is tamed down?
Can you effectively show someone how awful it is to sexualize point a gun at a child without ever showing a representation of a sexualized pointing a gun at a child?
:wacko:
-
The Professional was a borderline one.
Awesome movie, but hovers between father figure and seductive adolescent.
https://youtu.be/jawVxq1Iyl0
They say the whole point of the “Cuties” movie is kids do what they see as they transition between adolescence and adult hood.
https://youtu.be/Neqzp-ZLl8M
I agree. The Professional was a movie from the fake country with the fake langauge :rofl:
-
I agree. The Professional was a movie from the fake country with the fake langauge :rofl:
"Mathilda looks up to Léon and quickly develops a crush on him, often telling him she loves him, but he refuses to reciprocate."
That's a very typical scenario, especially after a traumatic life event (her family was murdered and the killers are now after her).
Many books and movies have been about a preteen girl thinking she was in love with a much older boy/man. Not the same as adults exploiting children for sexual entertainment.
I find it disturbing a few people on here can't draw a line between the natural affections of a young girl for an important person in her life versus sending a child to classes to learn how to arouse older men through lewd dancing and masterbation -- all caught on camera and publicly shown for the money it makes.
I'm surprised certain people haven't mentioned American Beauty. Even Kevin Spacey's character knew enough to stop before doing something he knew was wrong. That, after all the other wrong things he did in the movie leading up to the final night. He had an obsession over a young girl, but then, at the moment of satisfying his obsession, he realized if he followed through, he would be harming her for life.
It was a sick fantasy, but he stopped short of making it a reality. There are school teachers in prison who failed to draw that line with their students.
-
Would you be ok if your daughter was in a movie that “sexualizes” 11 year olds?
Shock factor of Schindler’s list I can grasp. It happened and is a part of human history that I personally hope never happens again. Personally, I think relating that to Cuties is quite a stretch.
Obviously we can't read the mind of the director who made the movie so it is hard to say whether it is some BS explanation or sincere but arguably misguided. The director is a female though which I would say reduces the chances that the movie was meant in a pedophilic way.
I do agree that I wouldn't want my daughter to play the role but if no one played the role, would we ever be shocked? The solution I thought up for this problem would be to use CGI to represent them dancing without actually making the actresses undertake that type of dancing. This doesn't solve all the moral dilemas raised by the movie but it solves the big one of not wanting young girls to dance like that.
Perhaps a drama was not the ideal way to address this issue. Some sort of documentary may be more appropriate yet still effective.
-
Obviously we can't read the mind of the director who made the movie so it is hard to say whether it is some BS explanation or sincere but arguably misguided. The director is a female though which I would say reduces the chances that the movie was meant in a pedophilic way.
I do agree that I wouldn't want my daughter to play the role but if no one played the role, would we ever be shocked? The solution I thought up for this problem would be to use CGI to represent them dancing without actually making the actresses undertake that type of dancing. This doesn't solve all the moral dilemas raised by the movie but it solves the big one of not wanting young girls to dance like that.
Perhaps a drama was not the ideal way to address this issue. Some sort of documentary may be more appropriate yet still effective.
So, based on your words, the INTENT of the director is more important than the OUTCOME of the
production,
casting,
storyline,
age of actors,
lessons being taught to children,
editing,
post production,
marketing,
and so on.
Intentions are whatever they say they are. Results are obvious. If you drive drunk, but didn't intend to kill a family of 5, I guess that mitigates the outcome.
-
So, based on your words, the INTENT of the director is more important than the OUTCOME of the
production,
casting,
storyline,
age of actors,
lessons being taught to children,
editing,
post production,
marketing,
and so on.
Intentions are whatever they say they are. Results are obvious. If you drive drunk, but didn't intend to kill a family of 5, I guess that mitigates the outcome.
When it comes to issues of artistic expression, intent matters, especially if you are trying to prove a criminal challenge.
-
When it comes to issues of artistic expression, intent matters, especially if you are trying to prove a criminal challenge.
Bullshit.
Putting a crucifix in a jar of urine has but one intent: offending a group of people for attention.
Nothing to do with "art".
-
Bullshit.
Putting a crucifix in a jar of urine has but one intent: offending a group of people for attention.
Nothing to do with "art".
Art is in the eye of the beholder though. Plus even if the intent was to be offensive, that still doesn't make it a crime.
-
Art is in the eye of the beholder though. Plus even if the intent was to be offensive, that still doesn't make it a crime.
Anyone can crap on the sidewalk and call it art, then. No laws broken.
When the results are ILLEGAL, then it's a CRIME. Kind of easy to see when the law broken and charged directly describes the film in question.
-
Anyone can crap on the sidewalk and call it art, then. No laws broken.
When the results are ILLEGAL, then it's a CRIME. Kind of easy to see when the law broken and charged directly describes the film in question.
Incorrect. Laws have states if mind attached to them. If you can't prove the requisite state of mind then you don't have a crime regardless of the outcome.
Here is the Texas law used to indict Cuties
https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-43-262.html
(b) A person commits an offense if the person knowingly possesses, accesses with intent to view, or promotes visual material that:
(1) depicts the lewd exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of an unclothed, partially clothed, or clothed child who is younger than 18 years of age at the time the visual material was created;
(2) appeals to the prurient interest in sex; and
(3) has no serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
The state of mind listed is knowingly and it has to apply to all three requirements.
1. Does the movie depict lewd exhibition of genitals or public area? I haven't seen the movie but I have read that it does not show this.
2. Appeal to the prurient interest? This is a fairly subjective question
3. Has no serious artistic value? Again fairly subjective and very debate-able.
So the prosecution would have to prove that the director, or production company knew that the film did all 3 of these things. #1 would probably be an easier argument to make if the film did it but good luck overcoming the freedom of speech issues associated with #2 and #3.
-
Incorrect. Laws have states if mind attached to them. If you can't prove the requisite state of mind then you don't have a crime regardless of the outcome.
Here is the Texas law used to indict Cuties
https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-43-262.html
(b) A person commits an offense if the person knowingly possesses, accesses with intent to view, or promotes visual material that:
(1) depicts the lewd exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of an unclothed, partially clothed, or clothed child who is younger than 18 years of age at the time the visual material was created;
(2) appeals to the prurient interest in sex; and
(3) has no serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
The state of mind listed is knowingly and it has to apply to all three requirements.
1. Does the movie depict lewd exhibition of genitals or public area? I haven't seen the movie but I have read that it does not show this.
2. Appeal to the prurient interest? This is a fairly subjective question
3. Has no serious artistic value? Again fairly subjective and very debate-able.
So the prosecution would have to prove that the director, or production company knew that the film did all 3 of these things. #1 would probably be an easier argument to make if the film did it but good luck overcoming the freedom of speech issues associated with #2 and #3.
Thus proclaimeth the Internet lawyer. :sleeping:
-
Thus proclaimeth the Internet lawyer. :sleeping:
Sounds like you are admitting defeat. :thumbsup:
-
Sounds like you are admitting defeat. :thumbsup:
So ,far, nothing you "think" was any basis in fact.
Don't confuse a Google search with having a law degree.
-
So ,far, nothing you "think" was any basis in fact.
Don't confuse a Google search with having a law degree.
I posted the law for you to read yourself and you didn't even bother to show how Cuties violated the law.
Plus the burden of proof is on the side making the claim that a crime was committed. It isn't my job to prove they didn't commit a crime. I just showed you how difficult an argument would be to make. And I don't need to be a lawyer to know the subjective nature of the words used to outline the offense. A basic understanding in the english language is all that is necessary
-
he came late, stood outside the main group, and then left early IIRC...
Lunchbreak
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
I posted the law for you to read yourself and you didn't even bother to show how Cuties violated the law.
Plus the burden of proof is on the side making the claim that a crime was committed. It isn't my job to prove they didn't commit a crime. I just showed you how difficult an argument would be to make. And I don't need to be a lawyer to know the subjective nature of the words used to outline the offense. A basic understanding in the english language is all that is necessary
And it's not my job to placate your little academic debate, especially when you don't understand the law you regurgitated.
Find another playmate. I'm busy.
-
And it's not my job to placate your little academic debate, especially when you don't understand the law you regurgitated.
Find another playmate. I'm busy.
I supported my argument, you have failed to support yours. Stop taking a position just to oppose me when you can't back up your own words.
By the way, I will be sure to remember that you insist we must be legal scholars before commenting on laws. I am sure you never comment on any laws, especially gun ones :wacko: :wacko: :wacko: :wacko: :wacko: :wacko: :wacko: :wacko: :wacko: