It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Killing Is Art...Brainwashing Is Free Speech.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 08:46 PM
link   
I have put much thought into this post, and before you freedom of speech activists start yelling and foaming at the mouth while cussing me out through your posts let me please state my point of view, and please read the whole post before passing judgment.

I have stated this before but not in so many words. I believe that abuse of the freedom of speech statute and freedom to express any thought no matter how much damage it may cause to others under the art clause is doing massive harm to America.

You might be aware of the criminal case against a man who was selling pornography/fetish videos to the tune of $30,000 a month.

These videos featured the most aberrant behavior like beasteality, violent rape, and other things I don't even want to mention.

I'm quite sure many of the people who bought the videos were just wanting to see some very shocking videos, but some of the people who bought them, actually have some kind of sick attraction to the particular fetish.

Let me ask you a question, if someone were to make an "art exhibit" that featured pieces of human bodies placed so as to make a strange sculpture
and someone who already had a mental illness were to see those pieces of art & then go out and try to imitate that art by inviting you and your friends over for say a night of gore/torture movies and you and your buds ended up as one of his exhibits who would be to blame?

I mean was it his illness that was to blame, or his response to the shocking "art" stimulus he had seen that gave him the idea and broke down all his inhibitions, because after all it was just art right?

If any idea such as torture/gore is paraded as freedom of speech/art yet it causes some who have mental illness to commit the same shocking crimes because the voice said to, who is to blame?

And how much more violence is caused by the violent shocking movies that are being churned out on a regular basis. I remember when I first watched a very good but very violent movie how I felt turned on to go out and imitate the actions I had just witnessed, but because I'm normal (I think) I of course didn't go out and do what I had been stimulated to imitate.

Perhaps you have heard of all the kids getting paralyzed by imitating the moves of their favorite wrestling star. Who is to blame for that? I heard someone in charge say I don't give a %#$& what the kids are doing, where are the parents? Well, the parents are down the street getting high off the 'cheese' recipe they pulled off the internet. These kids are in the formative stages, and any stimulus if viewed over and over WILL affect them just the way the person who is brainwashed is affected by their programming.

I mean without the visual violent stimulus we are exposed to day in and day out and the breaking down of a sense of wrong, and violence becoming the accepted norm, would we have so much violence in our society? I don't think so.

Violence or the urge to destroy comes from a total lack of sense of wrong. There are no rules to live by, so thus the human psyche is broken down to its most elemental animal form. If it feels good do it. If you can harm someone and control them by that harm it is good. You obey only those who have the ability to harm or kill you, but you secretly loathe them, and would jump at any chance to become master over them by killing or maiming them.

This is portrayed in so many movies today that it has become commonplace to wear t-shirts glorifying the destructive violent characters who are worshiped as heroes.

I submit that those who are promoting these violent ideas or stimulus to the general population are enemy #1 and if we continue to glamorize this self defeating stimulus, America will fall not at the hands of the terrorists, but by the hands of its own people.




posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 10:19 PM
link   
I have to totally disagree with you, yes violent images do stir something up in us as does sexually explicit material, but it does not drive people to go out and do commit crimes, you either have in you or not to go out and rape someone, being exposed to hardcore porn will not change that, seeing a exhibit where a body is dissected and put on display will not make you go psychotic and kill a person to create a display of your own.
The point that you’re trying to make has been attempted before and it didn’t work. When porn movies started to be shown publicly there was a strong reaction with people saying it will lead to rapes, it didn’t. Movies have grown to be more graphic in nature and detail but violence in society has gone down.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Mr Mxyztplk
 


Whatever, but you cant deny that this type of art is sick and only indicative of the DE-volution of mankind.
Any obsession with violence is clearly a reflection of a perturbed psyche.
To call that type of thing art is to indeed promote and maybe even invoke violence.

Freedom of speech is a crock of crap if it is used to justify excesses.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Mr Mxyztplk
 


I agree with both of you to an extent. I agree that some people do abuse freedom of speech to justify their means sometimes and the ends aren't always morally right. However, freedom of speech is freedom of speech plain and simple. You can't hold bias and say freedom of speech is okay here, but its not okay in this situation. If it doesn't harm another persons constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness then it's not unconstitutional. The guy that was distributing porno may have been morally wrong in the eyes of many, but it is still his constitutional right to express himself in any way he feels and that is the beauty of America. If urine and beastiality porn is his thing, then thats what it is. I'm not saying this type of thing is normal or even acceptable. If I had kids I wouldn't let them watch it and I wouldn't watch that kind of crap myself. But it is his right to do it. What offends you or I may not offend someone else. I don't think he meant for kids to see it, and if kids did see it then it's not his fault, it is the parents fault for not knowing what their child is doing.

As far as violence goes, I've been playing Grand Theft Auto since I was in elementary school. I haven't killed anyone so far in my life or had the urge. I think a disposition to kill is predetermined in someones mind and if they are going to be a killer then it has to do with much more than video games or movies. People know that movie violence isn't real. You get two completely different feelings when you see Keanu Reeves shooting people in The Matrix and when you see a gristly murder on the news. I don't think all the murders and genocide in Africa has anything to do with movies for example. Killing has to do with much more than whats on television and theirs proof of that outside of America. I personally believe our murder rate here is much lower than other parts of the world where they don't even have TV or movies. Just my opinion on all this though.

If you want to argue a point about murder in America you should take it in the direction of, should we be allowed to carry handguns, versus, should we glorify violence on television. And I'm not arguing the second amendment here, because theres a difference between owning a shotgun in your home for protection and carrying a loaded pistol in your pants at all times.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by dervishmadwhirler
Whatever, but you cant deny that this type of art is sick and only indicative of the DE-volution of mankind.
Any obsession with violence is clearly a reflection of a perturbed psyche.

Most males are to one extent or an other fascinated by violence, through out our history the male role has been to go out on long treks to kill animals to eat, fight other tribes for stored goods in times of need or to go and raid villages for women. Keep in mind that all these things go today regularly.
It’s not a case of de-evolution but us coming to terms with the fact that we aren’t all that we thought we were.


To call that type of thing art is to indeed promote and maybe even invoke violence.

But it is, the goal of a good artist is to get a emotional reaction out of the people that view the art, you started an account on a web site be cause your reaction was that strong, meaning the artist did their job.

Freedom of speech is a crock of crap if it is used to justify excesses.

Going by that logic what about marketing? The purpose of adds is to get someone who doesn’t need something to go out and buy it.



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join