Double standards, anyone? (76)

Sure, but it depends on the sport. In sports like boxing (and maybe ice hockey too), whilst injury is not strictly the aim, it *is* more or less inevitable.

However, although I see the difference, I'm still struggling to see the moral distinction. There seem to be three categories of distinction here:

• Deliberate / Accidental
• Real / Staged
• Non-consensual / Consensual

As far as I can see, in order for something to be morally wrong, it has to fall foul of all three criteria, i.e. it is real, deliberate and non-consensual.

You seem to be arguing that watching non-consensual harm for entertainment is acceptable as long as it's either accidental (e.g. sport), *or* it's not real (e.g. horror films), but that simply being consensual is not sufficient for it to be acceptable.

Could you possibly rationalise that for me, because I still don't see the problem.

ETA: You could argue that anything depicting deliberate harm is liable to be copied, and should therefore not be shown. However, that's still a contested issue, and by allowing staged, deliberate harm, you are effectively conceding that you do not subscribe to the 'copycat' school of thought.

"If you've got a date in Constantinople, she'll be waiting in Istanbul."

Edited 29 Jun 09, 3:56 PM by El_Presidente

Consensual escalating sensation play of all types, leading to mutual sexual fulfilment? You bet.

"Harm"? Nah.

The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation - Pierre Trudeau
A denizen of a right little, tight little island.

Edited 29 Jun 09, 3:52 PM by spirifer

One of the female characters is set alight. It doesn't change the fact that you're confusing representation with causation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality#Necessary...

They that love not Tobacco & Boies were fooles.

I don't believe that you can consent to being seriously injured. Which may upset a few people on here, but it's how I feel about it.

www.felicityfatale.co.uk ~ Fun Photography

No I'm not. I haven't said that seeing the film caused the murder. I have pointed out the apparent link between the killer seeing the film and the method of killing he and his friends chose to inflict on their victim.

The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation - Pierre Trudeau
A denizen of a right little, tight little island.

Thanks for making your position clear, at least.

I wouldn't like to speculate as to where the line for 'serious' is drawn in your book, but nevertheless, I do hope you're not on jury duty if there's ever a repeat of the Spanner case!

"If you've got a date in Constantinople, she'll be waiting in Istanbul."

I accept they no doubt took the idea from the film, but really just watching any immolation death could work as equal inspiration. They did much more to the guy than the film showed. I wouldn't say there's a direct link - as the term is used to mean that they got the idea to kill by the film. Instead, as they said, part of the method was inspired by the film.

At least that's what the term 'direct link' is being used as in the extreme porn argument (the idea that Graham only wanted to do breath play due to watching porn). If we use the looser direct link as you're doing, in the Coutts case; then it'll be saying that he already wanted to stop other people from breathing, and the porn only gave him a method of how to do this. Which wasn't ever claimed.

But that's irrelevant to the discussion - as I said before, the people who are against extreme porn (except the mother, as far as I know) are also against 'extreme' horror films. However, they have no chance right now of passing that section. If there was a really big set of media stories showing how horror films creates killers, then they would push that through as well. But the old argument of things like Texas Chainsaw being dangerous is destroyed by the fact it hasn't caused the downfall of society.

Also notice that this case only came into public knowledge only after they talked about the film connection. The problem is that such horrific crimes do happen reasonably regularly. Look at the case of the woman from here who was burned to death a few months ago. Apart from the hunt for that guy, there was virtually no media coverage.

Edited 29 Jun 09, 4:04 PM by mr_Hate

'Twosies beats onesies, but nothing beats three...'

Well, I was mostly arguing against the other posters who did say they should be banned. Part of the problem of linear forums, unfortunately!

I'm not sure what the Spanner case is tbh. We can't help our own viewpoints. I'd never campaign for "extreme porn" to be banned, but I was trying to say how it was different to horror movies.

www.felicityfatale.co.uk ~ Fun Photography