Brokeback Propaganda

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]Professor X wrote:
makkun wrote:
Lorisco,
Lorisco wrote:

…

How is sexual preference a minority status? How would someone know to persecute them if they didn’t say they were gay? How the fucking hell can you compare people who have struggled in this country to be accepted as just being human to a sexual preference choice?

I can’t choose to be a different skin color or from a different race, by gays can and do choose their lifestyle preferences. Comparing the two is totally offensive. I would like you to go to any predominately Latino part of town and spout out that shit. Then explain to them what you just did to me as they are kicking the living shit out of you!

I think you misunderstand the term minority yourself: “a part of a population differing from others in some characteristics and often subjected to differential treatment”
http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=Minority

Anyone can be part of a minority (women, Christians, Texans, nomads, Martians), just depending on the socio-economic context. To state that gay people are not a minority is therefore a misinterpretation.

To state that homosexuality is a choice is problematic as well, as - I think ZEB has pointed that out in a huge thread on the topic once - this has not been proven; neither is it proven that it is purely biological. So that bit of your argument is weak as well, as you have cannot really verify your statement.

But the part of your argument that is really disappointing is that you do not seem to acknowledge that people have been persecuted for what they are - whether they had a choice in their otherness or not. Homosexuals have been subjected to violence, discrimination and were put into concentration camps just like jewish people (a religious choice, not a biological classification either). The fact that there were (are) enough assholes around them to make their lives miserable is what makes minority groups comparable - whether their otherness is based on choice or not.

So even if it were their choice, gay people have a right not to be prosecuted, which any true freedom-loving democratic humanist should defend.

Makkun

You obviously haven’t read his other posts.

That is all I will add to this thread at this point. Debating with Lorisco is a waste of energy and internet bandwidth.[/quote]

Ayyy…I forgot about the gay marriage thread, I already learned this lesson.

142

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Name two movies for me in the last 5 years that presented conservative values in a positive light from Hollywood?
[/quote]

Off the top of my head:
The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, it does have a very moralistic plot - noble people destroying the source of great evil
[i]Open Range[i]
The Patriot
Far From Heaven
Spider Man I and II
Cinderella Man
The Chronicles of Narnia
The Island
Black Hawk Down
Saving Private Ryan
Minority Report
The Great Raid
The Passion of the Christ
The Greatest Game Ever Played
Coach Carter

If you buy the South Park Conservatives argument, there have been some other films that might fall into the category of conservatively themed as well.

We, too, must also remember that many children’s movies have strong moralistic themes.

I do not know if I have hit upon your particular brand of conservativism (as there are many, just as it the case with liberalism).

If you still have your contention that hollywood has such a liberal bias, I would point out two facts to you.

First - Metropolitan markets account for a significant proportion of theatre revenue, and metropolitan populaces tend to be more liberal (as our two party system’s voting behavior suggests) than rural areas.

Second - Movies and subject matter are tested (both rough cuts test screened, and subject matter focus grouped) in middle America - specifically states such as Nebraska, the Nebraska tests have historically proven the most predictive of commercial success. If films test poorly they are re-edited or plotlines and subject matter reconsidered. The film industry is, after all, an industry and is as such focused on profits.

Hope that helps.

143

Just out of interest-

How many of you who are bagging on ‘Hollywood’ have ever been there? lived there? worked there? worked in the film industry?

144

[quote]makkun wrote:

I think you misunderstand the term minority yourself: “a part of a population differing from others in some characteristics and often subjected to differential treatment”
http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=Minority

Anyone can be part of a minority (women, Christians, Texans, nomads, Martians), just depending on the socio-economic context. To state that gay people are not a minority is therefore a misinterpretation.
[/quote]

Pay attention bro. We are talking about the legally protected minority in the US. They get things like first dibs on government contracts, preference in hiring and school applications, etc.

So sorry sport, gays don’t get first pick on jobs just because of who they like to screw! That is asinine!

There are a number, if not thousands of examples of people stating they were gay and changed to be straight, or visa versa. That in itself would indicate it is not biological, but a choice. For example: http://www.peoplecanchange.com/

But if someday it is proved to be biological, I will change my position.

Come on bro, gays in concentration camps? You are going to have to prove that, because my bullshit meter just went off the scale!

But again, we are talking about the benefits of the minority status in the USA. They should not get this status just because of sexual preference. That is what comes along with minority status in the US, or didn’t you know that? If that is the case, then I want special privileges because I like to screw brunettes and not blondes.

[quote]
So even if it were their choice, gay people have a right not to be prosecuted, which any true freedom-loving democratic humanist should defend.

Makkun[/quote]

Dude, don’t try and twist this issue. We are talking about receiving minority status, not about persecuting anyone (I think that is what you meant by “prosecuted”)… We don’t need to give gays minority status to uphold the hate crime laws. Two different things bro.

145

stellar_horizon wrote:[quote]
I put this article out there, cited my purpose from the get-go rather than hiding it (which is completely different from the defining characteristic of propaganda tactics vroom), didn’t mock anyone, refrained from voicing religious decrees on homosexuality, and continued in a peaceful spirit to intelligently debate the facts of the matter - that two men are heralded as heroes in our society simply because of their sexual preference despite the fact that they were yellow-bellied liars, adulterers, fornicators, dead-beats, and weaved a selfish web of deception which ultimately tore their families apart. That is proof enough that Brokeback Mountain is heavily loaded with propaganda.

When ethics and morality are usurped by sentimentality and emotions, clearly discernment has been flung out the window.

Maybe Hollywood will also create a movie about a farmer sodomizing his favorite goat Wilbur who’s also a whino who happens to beat the daylights out of his 11 year-old daughter and contracts the e-bola virus and dies with a dumbfounded nation cheering him for his bravery and love for Wilbur. Oh wait, beastiality isn’t cool (yet).[/quote]

How come everyone’s developing strawmen to side-step my arguments. Please address this post. I’m not here to debate homosexuality. I just want to entertain responses about how two characters sharing homosexual preferences are classified as heroes despite the fact that they partook in shameful and irreputable behaviors. Heterosexual characters would never have been awarded such praise according to today’s standards. Can’t anyone else see this double standard which is infecting our society?

146

[quote]Professor X wrote:
makkun wrote:
Lorisco,
Lorisco wrote:

…

How is sexual preference a minority status? How would someone know to persecute them if they didn’t say they were gay? How the fucking hell can you compare people who have struggled in this country to be accepted as just being human to a sexual preference choice?

I can’t choose to be a different skin color or from a different race, by gays can and do choose their lifestyle preferences. Comparing the two is totally offensive. I would like you to go to any predominately Latino part of town and spout out that shit. Then explain to them what you just did to me as they are kicking the living shit out of you!

I think you misunderstand the term minority yourself: “a part of a population differing from others in some characteristics and often subjected to differential treatment”
http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=Minority

Anyone can be part of a minority (women, Christians, Texans, nomads, Martians), just depending on the socio-economic context. To state that gay people are not a minority is therefore a misinterpretation.

To state that homosexuality is a choice is problematic as well, as - I think ZEB has pointed that out in a huge thread on the topic once - this has not been proven; neither is it proven that it is purely biological. So that bit of your argument is weak as well, as you have cannot really verify your statement.

But the part of your argument that is really disappointing is that you do not seem to acknowledge that people have been persecuted for what they are - whether they had a choice in their otherness or not. Homosexuals have been subjected to violence, discrimination and were put into concentration camps just like jewish people (a religious choice, not a biological classification either). The fact that there were (are) enough assholes around them to make their lives miserable is what makes minority groups comparable - whether their otherness is based on choice or not.

So even if it were their choice, gay people have a right not to be prosecuted, which any true freedom-loving democratic humanist should defend.

Makkun

You obviously haven’t read his other posts.

That is all I will add to this thread at this point. Debating with Lorisco is a waste of energy and internet bandwidth.[/quote]

Typical drive-by response from Pro X.

(See Zeb, I told you. It was just a matter of time)

147

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Funny, because that sounds a lot like Republicans.

How bout you leave gays alone, and leave Hollywood alone, and not worry about what people, be it real people or fictional characters, do in their bedroom.

There’s that thing, where no one really cares what you think of gays. Its not going to make gays stop being gays. So why bother? Condemn them all you want. Disagree with them all you want. The only person you are pissing off is yourself.

Once again, live and let live. I’m sure there’s some things that you do that people wouldn’t agree with. [/quote]

Come on bro, don’t attribute things to me that I don’t post. You are sounding like Pro X.

The only problem I have is letting someone have legal minority status just because of who they want to screw. In case you can’t figure it out, being gay only means your sexual preference. Nothing else. So allowing minority status for sexual preference is a put down to true minorities.

That is my only issue with gays.

148

[quote]BigPaul wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Name two movies for me in the last 5 years that presented conservative values in a positive light from Hollywood?

Off the top of my head:
The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, it does have a very moralistic plot - noble people destroying the source of great evil
[i]Open Range[i]
The Patriot
Far From Heaven
Spider Man I and II
Cinderella Man
The Chronicles of Narnia
The Island
Black Hawk Down
Saving Private Ryan
Minority Report
The Great Raid
The Passion of the Christ
The Greatest Game Ever Played
Coach Carter

If you buy the South Park Conservatives argument, there have been some other films that might fall into the category of conservatively themed as well.

We, too, must also remember that many children’s movies have strong moralistic themes.

I do not know if I have hit upon your particular brand of conservativism (as there are many, just as it the case with liberalism).

If you still have your contention that hollywood has such a liberal bias, I would point out two facts to you.

First - Metropolitan markets account for a significant proportion of theatre revenue, and metropolitan populaces tend to be more liberal (as our two party system’s voting behavior suggests) than rural areas.

Second - Movies and subject matter are tested (both rough cuts test screened, and subject matter focus grouped) in middle America - specifically states such as Nebraska, the Nebraska tests have historically proven the most predictive of commercial success. If films test poorly they are re-edited or plotlines and subject matter reconsidered. The film industry is, after all, an industry and is as such focused on profits.

Hope that helps.[/quote]

Are you saying that any movie with a moral point is conservative? Dam dude, even I will admit that morality is not confined to the conservative party. Also note that I stated nothing about the relative morality of being gay.

You guys are so brain washed you can’t even read. You want to attribute things to me that I didn’t say because it makes you feel better and fits in with the PC talking points. Pathetic. Grow a pair and think for yourselves!

149

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
stellar_horizon wrote:
I put this article out there, cited my purpose from the get-go rather than hiding it (which is completely different from the defining characteristic of propaganda tactics vroom), didn’t mock anyone, refrained from voicing religious decrees on homosexuality, and continued in a peaceful spirit to intelligently debate the facts of the matter - that two men are heralded as heroes in our society simply because of their sexual preference despite the fact that they were yellow-bellied liars, adulterers, fornicators, dead-beats, and weaved a selfish web of deception which ultimately tore their families apart. That is proof enough that Brokeback Mountain is heavily loaded with propaganda.

When ethics and morality are usurped by sentimentality and emotions, clearly discernment has been flung out the window.

Maybe Hollywood will also create a movie about a farmer sodomizing his favorite goat Wilbur who’s also a whino who happens to beat the daylights out of his 11 year-old daughter and contracts the e-bola virus and dies with a dumbfounded nation cheering him for his bravery and love for Wilbur. Oh wait, beastiality isn’t cool (yet).

How come everyone’s developing strawmen to side-step my arguments. Please address this post. I’m not here to debate homosexuality. I just want to entertain responses about how two characters sharing homosexual preferences are classified as heroes despite the fact that they partook in shameful and irreputable behaviors. Heterosexual characters would never have been awarded such praise according to today’s standards. Can’t anyone else see this double standard which is infecting our society?[/quote]

What part of my post didn’t you understand? There are tons of movies where disreputable people, criminals, etc. are idolized.

Ocean’s Eleven and Twelve.

Fight Club.

The Shawshank Redemption

The Boondock Saints

3000 miles to graceland.

Snatch.

The Italian Job.

Undisputed.

Bad Boys.

South Central.

On TV- The Shield, Rescue Me, Nip/Tuck, etc.

Should I go on? Once again, have you been living under a rock? Or do you just watch the religious channel all day? (Man those nuns are hot)

150

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
stellar_horizon wrote:
stellar_horizon wrote:
I put this article out there, cited my purpose from the get-go rather than hiding it (which is completely different from the defining characteristic of propaganda tactics vroom), didn’t mock anyone, refrained from voicing religious decrees on homosexuality, and continued in a peaceful spirit to intelligently debate the facts of the matter - that two men are heralded as heroes in our society simply because of their sexual preference despite the fact that they were yellow-bellied liars, adulterers, fornicators, dead-beats, and weaved a selfish web of deception which ultimately tore their families apart. That is proof enough that Brokeback Mountain is heavily loaded with propaganda.

When ethics and morality are usurped by sentimentality and emotions, clearly discernment has been flung out the window.

Maybe Hollywood will also create a movie about a farmer sodomizing his favorite goat Wilbur who’s also a whino who happens to beat the daylights out of his 11 year-old daughter and contracts the e-bola virus and dies with a dumbfounded nation cheering him for his bravery and love for Wilbur. Oh wait, beastiality isn’t cool (yet).

How come everyone’s developing strawmen to side-step my arguments. Please address this post. I’m not here to debate homosexuality. I just want to entertain responses about how two characters sharing homosexual preferences are classified as heroes despite the fact that they partook in shameful and irreputable behaviors. Heterosexual characters would never have been awarded such praise according to today’s standards. Can’t anyone else see this double standard which is infecting our society?

What part of my post didn’t you understand? There are tons of movies where disreputable people, criminals, etc. are idolized.

Ocean’s Eleven and Twelve.

Fight Club.

The Shawshank Redemption

The Boondock Saints

3000 miles to graceland.

Snatch.

The Italian Job.

Undisputed.

Bad Boys.

South Central.

On TV- The Shield, Rescue Me, Nip/Tuck, etc.

Should I go on? Once again, have you been living under a rock? Or do you just watch the religious channel all day? (Man those nuns are hot)[/quote]

Any of those movies win awards?

Do you think Brokeback would have won awards if it was about a guy and girl?

151

Lorisco,

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
makkun wrote:

[…]

Pay attention bro. We are talking about the legally protected minority in the US. They get things like first dibs on government contracts, preference in hiring and school applications, etc.

So sorry sport, gays don’t get first pick on jobs just because of who they like to screw! That is asinine![/quote]

[…]

No, you are talking about the legal minority status, even “positive” discrimination. Most other people here (including me) are just put off by your various quips like this one equating gay with “pedophiles, those who have sex with animals, etc. So just because they are deviant doesn’t mean that grants them minority status.” No one is asking for “positive” discrimination as hinted by you - we’re all just pretty tired of comparisons that equate gay people with sexual offenders.[quote]

[…]

There are a number, if not thousands of examples of people stating they were gay and changed to be straight, or visa versa. That in itself would indicate it is not biological, but a choice. For example: http://www.peoplecanchange.com/

But if someday it is proved to be biological, I will change my position.[/quote]

And there is the WHO, and every medical and psychological association in the western world which states it is not a sickness and does not need to be cured, and if you look for proper scientific sources:

“In 1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association developed and endorsed a statement reading: The most important fact about ‘reparative therapy,’ also sometimes known as ‘conversion’ therapy, is that it is based on an understanding of homosexuality that has been rejected by all the major health and mental health professions. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of Social Workers, together representing more than 477,000 health and mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus there is no need for a ‘cure.’ …health and mental health professional organizations do not support efforts to change young people’s sexual orientation through ‘reparative therapy’ and have raised serious concerns about its potential to do harm.”

Nuff said.

[…]

Then I hope you’re not a history teacher, as it is well documented:

[quote]But again, we are talking about the benefits of the minority status in the USA. They should not get this status just because of sexual preference. That is what comes along with minority status in the US, or didn’t you know that? If that is the case, then I want special privileges because I like to screw brunettes and not blondes.

[…]

Dude, don’t try and twist this issue. We are talking about receiving minority status, not about persecuting anyone (I think that is what you meant by “prosecuted”)… We don’t need to give gays minority status to uphold the hate crime laws. Two different things bro.
[/quote]

Wow, from Brokeback Mountain and an appeal by Vroom to understand people who have been put under pressure and persecution to minority status and hate crime laws. I think you are twisting the issue yourself a little bit. Again, I can’t really comment on your views of US legal policies - I just think that you are ill informed in basically all your views on homosexuality.

Makkun

152

[quote]Lorisco wrote:

[…]

Any of those movies win awards?

Do you think Brokeback would have won awards if it was about a guy and girl?

[/quote]

Just one thing here - Ang Lee is a specialist for movies about social pressures on matters of the heart, with a critical eye on the surrounding society (hell he even tried that in The Hulk).

Take for example “Sense and Sensibility” - t’is all about girls and boys and their woes in a society that doesn’t let them follow their feelings, and won an Oscar and loads of awards.

Makkun

153

Lorisco,

The gun in your avatar is obviously pointed in the wrong direction.

Perhaps, if you want to take the concept of being a minority and being discriminated against so personally, you should understand that other people also don’t like being discriminated against.

Whether or not you endorse the gay lifestyle is not what the discussion is about. Whether or not they should be granted “legal minority” status is completely besides the point.

What the hell are you smoking?

154

stellar_horizon wrote:[quote]
How come everyone’s developing strawmen to side-step my arguments. Please address this post. I’m not here to debate homosexuality. I just want to entertain responses about how two characters sharing homosexual preferences are classified as heroes despite the fact that they partook in shameful and irreputable behaviors.

Heterosexual characters would never have been awarded such praise according to today’s standards. Can’t anyone else see this double standard which is infecting our society?[/quote]

FightinIrish26 wrote:[quote]
What part of my post didn’t you understand? There are tons of movies where disreputable people, criminals, etc. are idolized.

Ocean’s Eleven and Twelve.

Fight Club.

The Shawshank Redemption

The Boondock Saints

3000 miles to graceland.

Snatch.

The Italian Job.

Undisputed.

Bad Boys.

South Central.

On TV- The Shield, Rescue Me, Nip/Tuck, etc.

Should I go on? Once again, have you been living under a rock? Or do you just watch the religious channel all day? (Man those nuns are hot)[/quote]

Thanks for addressing my post, but I strongly disagree. Those movies are in completely different genres and operate under different dynamics; keeping theater-goers pacified with action, thrills, and dangerous plots - these films are anything BUT marketed for their ethics or morals. Brokeback Mountain on the other hand, most definitely IS.

The epicenter of this film is made to revolve around the every day, mundane theme of true love, which isn’t even true in the film since one of the homosexuals went f*cking prostitutes in Mexico and fell into fornication with a woman other than his wife all because he couldn’t find his friend to fall into sodomy with.

Perhaps if there were no women for him to fornicate with, driven by sexual predation and passion he may have resorted to sodomizing sheep (since the movie reportedly conveys that sex is even more important than food).

Aside from this, there’s a different glamorization of characters in films like Ocean’s Eleven and the Italian Job. Who in their mature and civilized mind idolizes bank robbers or burglers? If a burgler was robbing your house, I don’t think you’d say, “You’re my hero! I idolize you for successfully stealing all my possessions and being so slick about it.”.

The films you listed expand upon human fantasy and rouse us to the excitement of day-dreams; dreams about being great fighters, or being filthy rich, or having a large posse of gun-toting bandits, or having the power to side-step the common laws of society and man.

Not that these dreams can’t precipitate into reality, but that a wild, more vivid, existence is possible if we choose to seek it. Practicality and discernment of’course, tends to keep our actions in check.

Watching characters in movies fulfilling such roles can be quite nostalgic, but we fight sentimentality with discernment in this regard. We go to our 9-5 jobs (pardon any cliches) instead of planning bank heists. We call the police if someone’s robbed us instead of buying mac-10’s to facilitate a drive-by in revenge. I don’t idolize or exalt any of the characters in the movies you mentioned. I don’t think any mature and civilized person would either.

I continue to assert, as Dr. Winfield has already, that society’s discernment is being eroded by sentimentality on a low yet dangerous level. Call it a sort of brainwashing if you prefer. The glorification of two derelicts in Brokeback Mountain is a perfect example of this.

Peace be with you.

155

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Are you saying that any movie with a moral point is conservative? Dam dude, even I will admit that morality is not confined to the conservative party. Also note that I stated nothing about the relative morality of being gay.
[/quote]
This is very true, however, the morality that is portrayed in these films is rather similar to that morality that is played out in the conservative realm of american politics.

I don’t believe that I have attributed anything to you, so please do not lump me in with everyone else who is blowing smoke up your ass.

156

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
How come everyone’s developing strawmen to side-step my arguments. Please address this post. I’m not here to debate homosexuality. I just want to entertain responses about how two characters sharing homosexual preferences are classified as heroes despite the fact that they partook in shameful and irreputable behaviors. Heterosexual characters would never have been awarded such praise according to today’s standards. Can’t anyone else see this double standard which is infecting our society?[/quote]

It is very difficult to say I’m not here to debate homosexuality and use the words shameful and irreputable behvaiors in the same breath

By the way, speaking of sidestepping:

WHO THE FUCK IS DR. WINFIELD AND WHERE DID YOU GET THE ARTICLE IN QUESTION

Time to grow a pair and answer the question.

157

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Do you think Brokeback would have won awards if it was about a guy and girl?
[/quote]
Exactly my point. You cut right to the heart of the matter with this one simple question.

158

stellar_horizon wrote:[quote]
How come everyone’s developing strawmen to side-step my arguments. Please address this post. I’m not here to debate homosexuality. I just want to entertain responses about how two characters sharing homosexual preferences are classified as heroes despite the fact that they partook in shameful and irreputable behaviors. Heterosexual characters would never have been awarded such praise according to today’s standards. Can’t anyone else see this double standard which is infecting our society?[/quote]

BigPaul wrote:[quote]
It is very difficult to say I’m not here to debate homosexuality and use the words shameful and irreputable behvaiors in the same breath

By the way, speaking of sidestepping:

WHO THE FUCK IS DR. WINFIELD AND WHERE DID YOU GET THE ARTICLE IN QUESTION

Time to grow a pair and answer the question.
[/quote]

I’m taking this quote from the Jerky Boyz, “open your f*cken ears jackass!” and relating it to your selective reading powers.

The shameful and irreputable behaviors I defined already were adultery, abandoning one’s children, lieing, being a coward, etc. Now I see why someone associated you with illiterate retards.

See? I can get nasty too so why don’t we both calm down and keep this dialogue civil…

About Dr. Winfield, I already posted like 3 pages ago that I was trying to find the url to his website “amazinglastdays.com” or something. I also personally sent out a few e-mails to try and locate him. Basically, I’m working on it. I should add that locating him isn’t a priority for me right now, but as soon as I get some info, I’ll relay it to you.

And by the way, why are you so focused on avoiding my posts only to keep asking, “who’s Dr. Winfield, who’s Dr. Winfield?” Does it really matter? He might be a Pulitzer Prize winner or some fellow falsifying his credentials who set up a phony webpage on the internet. Does that have any impact upon the facts he reported concerning the film and other trends infiltrating cultures like Japan with homosexual pornography directed at young and confused teenagers?

Over 150 f*cking posts and nobody’s denying that the two homosexuals in Brokeback Mountain cheated on their wives, held double lives, destroyed their families, abandoned their children, and that society keeps touting them as heroes.

Nice strawmen dude, really nice… I got the torches ready and lit for posts like yours.

159

Who’s touting them as heros? It’s a freaking movie.

Oh, you mean the actors personally or something? That’s real life, which is not the same thing as the movie.

Get with it man.

160

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:

Over 150 f*cking posts and nobody’s denying that the two homosexuals in Brokeback Mountain cheated on their wives, held double lives, destroyed their families, abandoned their children, and that society keeps touting them as heroes.[/quote]

Ever seen the movie Heat? They held double lives. They destroyed their families and abandoned their children. They even…GASP…lied. It was one really great movie. Every actor in it is considered a “decent” actor. I am not sure if it won awards or not, but it should have. You don’t have a point.

MANY movies are based on people of questionable backgrounds and many movies include characters that have many of the attributes you just listed. That is what makes the story intriguing because the characters are abnormal. Who would really find a movie interesting if there was no conflict? How retarded would it be if every movie released from now on needed to pass the approval of people like you?

No more bank robberies, sex out of wed lock…hell, sex period. No more people who cheat on their wives, no more grand thefts. No more bad guys who turn out to be the hero, no more Chronicles of Riddick. I am glad you are not in charge of this and I hope your crusade against liars in movies turns to shit. Some of the greatest movie characters have been those that weren’t the greatest people. It is just a movie…and everyone else realizes this, except you.