V FOR VENDETTA Is The Most Dangerous Film Of The Year - Page 6

I am always mystified by these sort of "when is it a person" arguments, coming from either side. We actually do know what separates a "fetus" from a "child". It is the same exact thing that separates a human being from any other sort of animal. It is the highly developed human neocortex or neopallium. This is where language and conscious thought come from. It is the part of our brains responsible for human culture. Of anything, the neocortex is the most uniquely human structure in our bodies. Oh, and the neocortex does not begin to develop until about the twentieth week of pregnancy.

Now, I do not like the idea of abortion at all, but it's clear to me that fighting over it in our courts and government is bad for our society. The best way to end abortion is to simply make it unnecessary. You do this by perfecting birth control for both men and women, an achievable goal.

If the Christians in this country really are intent on ending abortion, why have they not spent one dime to advance the science that could do so? Perhaps it is more valuable to them as a unifying, political device? Could it be that modern American Christianity depends and relies on abortion?

Should those with severe mental handicaps therefore be considered sub-human?

I agree, to an extent. Abortion would be much less common if there were fewer women living in poverty, if we had a male birth control pill, and if people were better educated about sex in general. Making abortion less necessary, however, doesn't change the fact that abortion in and of itself is wrong.

Well, on the one hand, some Christians are against contraceptives, too. That's primarily a Catholic thing, but I know a couple of Protestant families that are on kid eight or nine.

More to the point, though, while we don't really need abortion as a rallying point, it is a rallying point nonetheless, and one that tends to make people emotional, not logical. If people really sat down and looked at how to end abortion, they would come up with a comprehensive, gradual plan, including economics, political lobbying, counseling, and contraceptives. Abortion, though, tends to lead people into shouting matches, so instead of logical discussion, we get "keep you laws off my body, cheuvenist pig" and "you're going to hell, baby killer."

Read some of the books and articles written on the deliberations that took place during Roe V. Wade. What I said is actually correct: they decided to make abortion legal, and then concocted an interpretation of the constitution which would allow their intentions to be carried out. They did not carefully study the Constitution and relevant case law and come to the conclusion that abortion was an inalienable, God-given right, but decided that they wanted women to have this right, and invented an interpretation to support it. Even people that are pro-choice, if they consider the facts of the case objectively, will admit that Roe V. Wade is trerrible jurisprudence.

If V is a movie about abortion rights I guess I'm just going to skip it.

Which it is clearly not. See: search warrants.

A person with mental retardation doesn't really compare to a fetus that has only just begun to form cortical synapses. But in the case of a person with brain death like Terry Schiavo- where higher functions have ceased, then yes. Although you picked a loaded term, sub-human is accurate. In Schiavo's case, it was clear that nobody was home. She, the human being Terry Schiavo, was long dead. A beating heart does not a human being make. Any philosophy or religion that thinks it does is sick. There was a lot of sickness on display during that whole sad episode.

I was talking about perfected birth control; a pill or shot that need only be taken once a year- or maybe only once. It should be widely distributed for free. It would wipe out abortion as we know it. It could also drop poverty and crime rates significantly (as abortion itself has done). Then all these morality arguments would be moot.

It would be a mistake, I think, for them to assume that contraceptive use will always be voluntary. It's an interesting sort of ethical question. In a world as overpopulated as ours is, what is more immoral; having eight or nine children or seven abortions?

I pretty much agree with you; I know that I wouldn't want to be left in that condition, and I'd honestly rather not force them to dehydrate me to death, either.

That being said, what if her situation wasn't so hopeless? What if she lacked any higher brain function now, but nine months from now, she'd be perfectly healthy? Would nine months of invonvinience be worth preserving a life?

Well, you're tying to simplify it into analogies again. I can do that too. But your analogy is also weak because a fetus only has the potential to become a child -- it's not guaranteed.

Also, another difference is that a fetus cannot survive outside of the womb. It might be a living thing, but it's not a human.

You might as well ban the murder of all insects, animals and plants since they are all living things. You are trying to legislate morality. And you're being very selective about it.

And the hypocracy stinks even more when you consider the death penalty and war's collateral damage.

V FOR VENDETTA isn't The Most Dangerous Film Of The Year

The Most Dangerous Film Of 2006 is VALLEY OF THE WOLVES. (One of the most anti-US movie ever)

Fair enough. Let's say she had a 90% chance of being completely well in nine months. Or whatever the percentage is of births that are successfully carried to term. Would it be worth nine months of inconvinience to give her a 90% chance of life?

A brain dammaged person cannot survive without assistance, either. They need to be given shelter, nutrients, water, and in some cases, even oxygen... just like a fetus. My analogy holds.

No, I am trying to legislate morally. I truly wish people understood what the phrase "you can't legislate morality" means. It is not, as you seem to think, a claim that one cannot enfore laws simply because they are based on moral principle. In fact, that is really the only mandate law has. Rather, the purpose of that statement, made by conservative Judge Anton Bork, if memory serves, was that even enforcing moral laws would not change the fact that a person is, at heart, immoral. Their behavior could be changed, but not the content of their character.

Insects, animals, et al have no chance of ever meeting the level of cognition a human is capable of, and in the discussion I was having, that was set as the criteria for "human." The question I posed was, if a brain dammaged person would recover this ability in nine months, would it be worth providing them care for that time, in order for them to enjoy life as a human being? Most people will say yes. Now, extend that question to a fetus: in nine months, that organism will be a human being by anyone's definition. If you support giving the brain dammaged patient a chance to live, why not the fetus?

A fetus never killed anyone, so the death penalty argument is moot.

Colateral dammage is a stickier issue. What it boils down to is the lesser of two evils: will more innocents be hurt by doing nothing, or by fighting?

I'm going to butt in again, or did the other guy butt in, so I'm de-butting... whatever. I see what you're getting at now. I think, for the most part, it is a valid argument you're making. One thing I would point out though is that a fetus is not going to be 100% in 9 months like your hypothetical coma patient- it will be a child then, and require many years of care and investment.

There is also some difference, you must admit, between a person who was well, then injured, but will probably return to health, and a cluster of cells created in a night of indiscretion.

My problem with the typical pro-life stance is that it would force a woman to pay for one night's mistake with nine months of her life; and then childbirth, and then perhaps an emotionally painful adoption process. It's an awful lot to demand all in the name of a fetus that won't even start to grow a brain until the twentieth week.

The thing that gets me riled up is that the pro-lifers also tend to be against birth-control... for anyone! I have disagreements with many of the arguments coming from both sides of the issue, but being against abortion and birth control is pure insanity. It tells me that many in the pro-life side are not looking for any real solution to abortion. It makes me think they merely want their religious beliefs to be enshrined by law.

Fair enough, fair enough. I'm not going to attack your views -- certainly,we have different views. But I can respect yours because you do put together good arguments and strong reasoning.

Yet at the same time, (sorry if this is a straw man) I'm still finding a difference between the brain damaged person and the fetus. If we draw the line at conception, then your argument might work. But with your line of reasoning, we cannot accept the arbitrary line at conception. You'd have to go further and say it would be wrong to use birth control pills, and even further to say condoms are wrong. Because any form of birth control is destroying the possibility that life can be created. It may not be the same as a 90% chance of life, but it's still a chance.

But banning birth control would be wrong because we clearly have a compelling state interest in allowing birth control. Not only does birth control help the economy of the state, birth control helps prevent diseases and poverty.

Abortion might very well be evil -- I can accept that. BUt does that mean you have to take away a woman's choice in having that abortion. Perhaps...With this, we'd have to weigh the interests of the mother and the interests of the fetus, which has a greater chance at becoming a human. I don't want to have to be the judge of that.


Okay, I accept your analogy. But it has to be a hypothetical because in reality, brain damaged people do not have a chance of recovery at nine months. But I digress...

Okay, good distinction. Nice job invoking Judge Anton Bork, even if it was dicta. I used to drop Judge Learned Hand in conversation all the time.

Nor we do know if everyone on death row murdered someone. With the advent of DNA evidence, we are only beginning to discover people who have been convicted of crimes they did not committ. Can you measure the value of the innocent man or woman's life against the value of justice? The compelling state interest would have to be that the death penalty is a deterrent, but many studies have shown that the death penalty is an ineffective deterrent. With that, we cannot allow the chance of the irreversible miscarriages of justice. All of this is compatiable with your line of reasoning.


A means end test. But I would actually use a heightened scrutiny test and say that colateral damage is never justified because it violates so many people's right to life without due process. The justification of war is very tricky, but if we follow the Just War Doctrine, there are two acceptable ways to justify war -- self-defense and preemptive strikes, neither of which the United States has used in Iraq or Vietnam. If you don't have a justified war, then you cannot say that you gave the innocent victims of colateral damage their due process.

So say our patient will, in nine months, develop the mental abilities of a child. Would it be worth nine months of inconvenience to give her a 90% chance of life, plus the chance to recoup her mental facilities?

Yes, there is, but it isn't as drastic as one might think. The primary difference is that the injured individual has already displayed the potential within them. The fetus has not yet had that opportunity. One could argue, actually, that that makes the fetus more worthy of protection, rather than less. This is something of a "women and children first" argument.

In my eyes, abortion is often about a lack of personal responsibility. Proponents tout a woman's right to choose, but they ignore all the choices she made up to that point. She could choose to be celibate. She could choose to have her tubes tied. She could choose to have an Norplant injected under her skin. Condoms are more than ninety percent effective in preventing unwanted pregnancy. She could choose not to drink excessively, she could choose not to associate with men who will take advantage of her inebriated state. She could choose to put the child up for adoption. She could choose any of these things, yet she does not.

Of course, this largely ignores the man's role in all of this. Does the burden of an unwanted pregnancy fall more heavily on the woman? By far. Is this fair? Not at all. Should the man be required to support her? Absolutely. All that being said, however, we are still left with the fact that a woman has an entire array of choices before abortion, yet she chooses none of them.

Adoption is hard, but I have also seen the fruit that it bears. Two of the girls I dated in college were adopted. They are in their mid to late twenties now. By all rights, they shouldn't be. When I think of them, it puts the entire thing into stark contrast: I'm not talking about abstract philosophies or morality. I'm talking about my friends, who would be dead if their mothers hadn't made hard choices. One of the more powerful sermons I have heard was by a woman who's mother had tried to abort her; the procedure failed. The message of her sermon was that even though she was rejected by the very person that should have loved her the most, even though those who should have been protecting her were instead trying to end her life... she was not a mistake.

I hold that a child, even a fetus, is inherently valuable, regardless of its mental facilities. The child may not have a brain until twenty weeks, but it won't really be a productive member of society for twenty years. That doesn't make it less human, however, nor any les deserving of respect, love, and protection.

No, the conservative (in the sense of ecclesial conservatism, not political) Catholics tend to be against birth control. As I've said before, there are a few Protestants who also think this way, but for the most part, pro-lifers tout the benefits of birth control, and see it as a valid way of reducing the number of abortions each year.

There is, I will admit, a lot of insanity going on in regards to this issue. To be fair, though, there is insanity on both sides, or at least inconsistency. When RU486 came out, Planned Parenthood was against it, not for moral reasons, but economic; they couldn't make as much money off of the "morning after pill" as they could from procedural abortion. When they were called on this hypocrisy, they recanted, but it does show where their motives really lie.

I'm also tall, handsome, and fun at parties. Unfortuantly, I can't hold my booze. ;-)

I was actually thinking about that on the way home last night. What I came to was the conclusion that sperm and ovaries are not, in and of themselves, human, at least no more so than any other cell our bodies produce. When they meet, however, the fetus has all the qualities of "humanness" within it. It will, through no outside action, develope human blood, human tissue, a human skeleton, a human mind, etc, while a sprem or egg does not have this capability.

That is why I said there is no real dividing line between "fetus" and "child." According to a biologist's definition of life, a fetus is alive. It grows, it moves, it reacts, etc, showing all the characteristics a scientist expects of a lving thing. Furthermore, it doesn't suddenly change species at 3 months, or whatever arbitrary line one wants to draw. It was human all along, but extreemly under-developed.

And, for the record, that wasn't a straw man; a straw man is when you attempt to pass of a characture of your opponent's views as what they truly believe. For example, if I were to claim that abortion providers want every woman in America to have an abortion at least one, I would be constructing a (silly) straw man.

I agree.

It's that hard choices that are most important. In many, many things, common sense is enough. In the rest, however, we must apply logic and morality, and do the absolute best we can to ensure we have a just society.

You make a very good point. I will admit that on this, I actually do fall back to Scripture: if a man sheds another man's blood, by men shall his blood be shed. From an "eye for an eye" prespective, the just pentaly for murder is death.

From a more logical perspective, many studies have also shown that the death penalty is a deterrant, if it is actually enforced. Texas is a prime example.

Bu, you are correct... we have been guilty of tragedy, guilty, if you will, of state-sponsored murder, by executing the innocent.

I would redefine the Just War doctrine to include pre-emptive self defense, and pro-active self defense. Now, I would ask you to consider another possiblity of Just War: defense of another. This is in large part what we did when we went into Iraq the first time around.

If invading Iraq liberated thousands of people, if it saved lives that would have otherwise been extinguished for political reasons, was the war just? I would have to at least allow the possibility. From that perspective, my problem with the war was not so much that we went in, but that we went in with no clearly defined exit strategy.

Here's a start:
http://www.ru486.org/ru10.html

Best I can do with a quick Google.

Whether I agree with anything said here otherwise -- that's fucking hilarious.

And old -- I think that was posted like two days ago so it makes no sense...... blegh.


<+++++ Jackass :P

I'll concede the point; it was a toss-away comment on things I read years ago. The rest of my points will stand just fine without it.

Thats an incredibly harsh point of view. Don't drink heavily? Don't associate with men that may take advantage of her? Get implanted birth control? Removely her ability to reproduce permanently? So women should make all these hard choices that men don't have to make, simply because they were born with a different set of genitalia? Or do they deserve to become second-class citizens over such an issue?

And what about rape victims? Could they choose not to be raped?

Birth control fails. Fact. Maybe in your eyes anyone who gets pregnant is some "boozing slut", but the real world doesn't always conform your to condescending moralizing. Perfectly sober people on the pill or who employ condoms end up getting pregnant.

Furthermore, you could choose to not be a sexually repressed windbag who paints anybody who gets pregnant as some sort of trashy second-class citizen. Yet you do not.

That's awesome, Galvin. Could you possibly be more out of it?

You missed, conveniently enough, the condom, which is over 90 percent effective. How harsh; force a man to wear a rubber.

We aren't discussing pare victime, we're discussing abortion on demand.

And the fact that it fails in not enough of a reason to deny a child a chance at life.

Those comments were made after an individual suggested that abortion was an appropriate response to a "night of indiscretion." I was not the one who brought up alcohol, but when it was brought up, I responded in kind. Context is king; do try to remember that.

So you're saying that abortion is justified in certain circumstances then?

That's still an overly simplistic and puritanical list that doesn't take into account human behaviour in general.

My apparent dyslexia aside, to protect the life of the mother, obviously, and in cases of rape and incest.

What facets of the human condition am I overlooking? The sum of my arguments could be stated as "you actions have consequences, both for you and for others. Think before you act." The only thing that I am "overlooking," as it were, is the part of human nature that wants to be gratified without repercussion.

Huh? Perhaps you could point me to the mention of alcohol that Hot Black made that you were replying to, in "context." Here's the passage you replied to:

He only said that people who have sex sometimes have unintended pregnancies. But you brought up alcohol, irresponsible behaviour, and skeezy guys taking advantage of gals. I find it bizarre that you would immediately equate sex-just for pleasure, not for procreation-as something akin to a "Girls Gone Wild" video.

It's these kinds of statements that make people think the arguments put forward are based on black/white morality where anyone who has sex for any purpose other than procreation is somehow fundamentally evil. You've got some very good points in your posts, and seem quite level headed, but this particular point grates on me, and frankly smacks of the high-handed, superior attitude a lot of people have towards females who engage in sex. It's nothing to be ashamed, and an accidental pregnancy doesn't just happen to drunk floozies. Life and biology don't conform to such stark, juvenile moral dichotomies.

Look a little farther up in that same post:

That is what I was replying to, and that is why I mentioned alcohol, et al. I don't associate sex for pleasure with a Girls Gone Wild Video, but I do tend to associate "a night of indiscretion" with alcohol, or at least with a failure to use protection. In that context, saying that it would be a good idea to either use a condom or not drink is perfectly reasonable.

I am amused that you interpret my statements that sex should be done carefully with a statement that sex should be had only for procreation. If nothing else, my rather pointed suggestions that individuals use birth control would seem to give lie to that thought. When debating, it is good practice to reply to what your opponent actually says, and not what you assume he believes.

I feel the need to point out to galvin that every point of view is different on most every matter. The point of the constitutional rights we have been given is to make sure that the rights of individuals are not intruded on by the government or any other mass group that could possibly hold influence. A person in this country can be a neo-Nazi, if he feels so; it's his right to look at his own race as a master race -- but so long as he does not break the individual rights of another person (commiting a crime in some way shape or form), he is perfectly protected under law. Society may look down upon them, but they are allowed to live how they want. You suggest that abortion should not be allowed. That, to be honest, does intrude on other people's individual rights.

I agree that V for Vendetta is the best representation of anarchy and its thought processes as required for anarchy to work.

The ideal of anarchy is that everyone in society takes responsiblity for their role and performs it all the time. It's an ideal just like communism and for that reason will never work.

In fact, no government will ever be a true success that everyone agrees with for this very reason.


But as far as the book/movie goes, V is a great sympathetic character for anyone that feels truly hopeless and that one individual can't make a difference. While not real, this story does give the hope that idealism can work if understood properly.

euphanasia v. the act of killing a euphemism

I miss Grendel.

V For Vendetta is easily the best movie I've seen this year. It is not, however, the most dangerous, not by any stretch of the imagination.

One of the reason's Alan Moore's work receives such high praise is its ambiguity; the protagonist, V, is mired in ambiguity. He can be seen as both a hero and a villain, and both interpretations have very solid ground to stand on. This ambiguity is fully on display in the cinematic adaptation, and it is this ambiguity that prevents V from becoming the propaganda that some feared - and some hoped - it would be.

V himself is clearly the protagonist of the story, but is would be a stretch to say that he is the hero. When we first meet him, he is saving the life of a young woman, yet he immediately follows this up by detonating an historical British landmark. The way the story is presented, we aren't left cheering his heroism, but asking, much like Evey, "are you a crazy person?"

The answer to this question moves V even farther from the realm of heroism. His fits of laughter - giggles, really - the flowery apron worn over his fencer's regalia, his mock swordfight while watching his favorite swashbuckling movie, his reaction when Evey leaves the Shadow Gallery, and most telling of all, his explanation for his treatment of her - "I did what I had to do" - paint a portrait of a man who is emotionally immature and unstable, and quite insane.

What was done to V was, indeed monstrous, and his case for vengeance could be easily made. The government against which he fights is clearly evil, and the case for revolution could be made just as easily. Good eventually results from V's efforts, but in the end, this is more from happy accident than from planning.

I do not believe that this movie will spark any kind of political upheaval. To spark change, a story must put a person in the position of the character. They must be able to see themselves as being oppressed by their government, see themselves as being pushed to revolt. I do not believe that V will do this, primarily because of the nature of the government's victims. While it is brave to portray Muslims and homosexuals as victims in today's climate, I don't think it will find much resonance with audiences. As Martin Niemöller said:

First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.

The majority of people watching this are not Muslim, not homosexual, not political dissidents, and not the subject of science experiments. Because of this, I do not believe the average American will see today's America reflected in V's Brittain. Again, this is easily the best movie I have seen this year, but it is in no way the most dangerous.

so what was?

A trio of 21+ year old dudes exiting the theater when I saw it were in a serious discussion about whether "that tin could stop all those bullets".

Hey, and what film can promote it? MB it can be somekinda trigger - for any antisocial action but still it'll be formed not by a motion picture but with help of certain people (some leaders, elite or grey cardinals). Cinema is art not a weapon (okay, it really can be one, but not every person can understand it)

I'm overjoyed that its provoked discussion, but...

This movie was a major disappointment to me. I understand that every artist feels the need to deviate from the source material (which is why I completely understand why Alan Moore takes the position he does.) but this movie removed pacing, logic, and consistency from the source material, and replaced it with an even preachier and verbose version of V than the book. The introduction of V with that dreadful alliterative speech gave me a bad feeling, and I can't recall a movie that added dialogue to the source material, but removed the action setpieces. Everything is stripped away, instead of V being a step ahead of the authorities because he has access to the same computer system as they do, he's a step ahead of them because...he's a step ahead. All of the character/motivation sequences for the "villains" has been removed. The great John Hurt is reduced to bellowing into a giant screen. Natalie Portman uses an English accent so bad, it made Halle Berry's African accent in X-men seem like a Meryl Streep performance. Aren't there good young British actresses. The assassination in the end loses its irony, instead of the social forces transforming a middle class woman into a killer, John Hurt is betrayed and shot. Then in a mind-boggling sequence, V kills ten men before they reload. Technically, its a cool scene, and some much needed action. But...fourteen years from now, special forces troops in full body armor will only apparently carry six shot revolvers without speedloaders, and V will be able withstand roughly sixty shots from them without dying immediately. Incidentally, not one shot will hit him in the head, or hands or legs. They will all land on his body armored chest. This sort of forethought permeates the movie.

The shots did hit him in the head. That's why he had bullet marks on the mask.

Pacing in the comic was much worse as the comic was generated in fits and starts. Not originally presented as one whole piece, as the film was.

If nothing else, I thought the film rationalized (spoiler) the torturing Portman's character better than the book. Although I still don't "get" why she would come away with the experience wanting to fight on V's side.

Okay, and what do u think of Fighting Club, or Munich, or 1984 (movie)...Movies aren't dangerous, danger in interpretation...

http://blogs.suntimes.com/foreignc/2011/06/v-for-vendetta.html

 

Devin was right. Just in a different circumstance.

Another example of CHUD kismet!

 

I JUST rewatched this film on Monday after not having seen it for years.