2x12 Twin Destinies

[SG-17]

It establishes a morality, not necessarily a moral one though. In fact some of it's 'moral' teaching are decidedly immoral.

Not even remotely true.

O'rly!?


I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. - 1 Timothy 2:12

Stone disobedient children - Deuteronomy 21:18-21

Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, Or a man that is brokenfooted [sic] , brokenhanded [sic], Or crookbackt [sic], or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken; No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the Lord made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God. - Leviticus 21:17-21

 

[AJ86]

I don't agree.
It's clearly to stimulate the audience otherwise it wouldn't need to be so explicit rather than suggestive. As a culture we've done suggestive for a long time.

Suggestive:Kirk putting his shirt on with a woman in the bed behind him.
Explicit: Kirk thrusting with a woman beneath him.

If the intent is to imitate the acts of sex in appearance then it's pornography because it doesn't serve any other purpose but to arrouse the audience...that's the entire reason why it's there.

Why imitate it when you can show it? The only reason you would hide it is to appease prudes in the audience. Like I've already suggested, if you genuinely think hat's it's there to arouse the audience then you have some serious problems.

The scene exists for two reasons, it succinctly manages to both establish the relationship between Scott and James, and it also speaks to Scott's character in that he has orders, but this is that was more important to him at the time. It exposes one of his flaws and thus fleshes him out as a character for the audience.

To suggest that the scene was there to turn the viewer on is frankly comical, the question isn't why didn't they hide it, the question is why on Earth would you? To mollycoddle the audience? I'd rather be treated as an adult, thanks.

Not even remotely true.

The Bible teaches sexism, homophobia and and eye or an eye, otherwise known as two wrongs do make a right.

It lead me to no confusion at all.

You misunderstand. You have your interpretation, other Christians would have a different one, so clearly there is some confusion there, as neither side can prove the other wrong. The text is muddled and ambiguous, and reeks of the fallibility of human invention.

You have knowledge and so you presume to have understanding but you're sitting in a pool of your own fallacy.

I know that the teachings existed before the a bronze-age mythology (Christianity) says they were inspired by a magical deity. It's only takes an ounce of common sense to make the connection. After all, the magical tales in Christian mythology carry no more factual weight than the ones in Egyptian or Norse mythology, or any other superstitious nonsense.

 

[Saquist]

I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. - 1 Timothy 2:12

Indeed establishing rules of the congregation and proper decorum in the congregation. The concept is headship, an easily identifiable proper order of authority. The head of the woman is the husband, The Head of the Congregation is Christ and the head of the Christ is God.

Stone disobedient children - Deuteronomy 21:18-21

Rules under the covenant for a nation, but it should be noted that this was not done lightly since children were inheritors and that is the system of the nation of Israel. Land was not bought and sold it was handed down to male heirs and therefore remained within the tribe and under the Sovereignty of Israel. It does establish that God holds Fathers and Mothers responsible for the actions of the children and gave them the power to enforce God's standards.

Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, Or a man that is brokenfooted [sic] , brokenhanded [sic], Or crookbackt [sic], or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken; No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the Lord made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God. - Leviticus 21:17-21

Aaron is of the Levites They are ministers or more accurately priest and will be representing the other tribes before God, these scripture identify unacceptable imperfections to be "go-betweens" between God and the People of Israel. This is the same concept that lead God to offer his Son as a Sacrifice. Jesus now acts as that "go between" or head priest. That's a concept of Holly or using a direct hebrew translation, emphasis upon Clean and perfection.

12 Consequently I entreat YOU by the compassions of God, brothers, to present YOUR bodies a sacrifice living, holy, acceptable to God, a sacred service with YOUR power of reason.

This is because these defects are manifestations of the original sin by rebellion of Adam and Eve, so it would be improper to make sacrifices for the people's sin with glaring imperfection or flaws since these flaws exist not because of God but because of what man thought he'd decided for himself what was right and wrong.

Why imitate it when you can show it? The only reason you would hide it is to appease prudes in the audience. Like I've already suggested, if you genuinely think hat's it's there to arouse the audience then you have some serious problems.

(shrug) I don't share your opinion, your morals or your discriptive "analysis". I know we differ and I'm okay with it. You're the one with the problem. You have a problem with my moral standards. I don't have a problem with yours. You make your own decisions, you apply the rules as you think it's appropriate and I do the same except instead I error on the side of caution because I respect myself and those people more than to pretend that these are casual acts. I respect my own spirituality and I know what enters into the eyes can become the desire of the heart. I don't intend to develop an appetite for it. I don't run around having sex with everything that moves, I don't feed myself a regular diet of sex and I practice abstinence. My objective isn't to have sex. My objective is to remain chaste and clean so that I can present "MY body a sacrifice living, holy, acceptable to God, a sacred service. "

The scene exists for two reasons, it succinctly manages to both establish the relationship between Scott and James, and it also speaks to Scott's character in that he has orders, but this is that was more important to him at the time. It exposes one of his flaws and thus fleshes him out as a character for the audience.

Yes, that's the excuse for it but it's not the reason.
The reason is for ratings Otherwise they wouldn't ask the actors to take these sort of awkward compromising positions of intimacy with people they wouldn't normally be intimate with. If they wanted to portray it they could just as easily do so suggestively rather than explicitly. BUT they go through such extra effort not for the purpose of the story but merely for the sake of being explicit.

I'd rather be treated as an adult, thanks.

And I would rather be respectful to the privacy of others even symbolically. I have no need to watch people have sex for my own entertainment. It's nothing more than morally despicable self indulgence IMHO. I am not a peeper, stalker or voyeur. And I don't intend to practice to get good at it by doing so with a TV.

The Bible teaches sexism, homophobia and and eye or an eye, otherwise known as two wrongs do make a right.

Only to those that have a surface understanding or have hard feelings toward Christians because of these moral standards.

The bible says:

YOU husbands, continue dwelling in like manner with them according to knowledge, assigning them honor as to a weaker vessel, the feminine one, since YOU are also heirs with them of the undeserved favor of life, in order for YOUR prayers not to be hindered.~ 1 Peter 3:7

28 In this way husbands ought to be loving their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself, 29 for no man ever hated his own flesh; but he feeds and cherishes it, as the Christ also does the congregation, 30 because we are members of his body~Ephesians 5:28

In reference to Homosexuality the Bible says to the congregation ..."this is what some of you were." Yet God loves them just the same but he doesn't compromise HIS standard representation of the proper marriage unit. He gives us the choice but he rewards those less selfish of their own desires and reason with themselves on the authority, his right as create and the proper use of our bodies.

You misunderstand. You have your interpretation, other Christians would have a different one, so clearly there is some confusion there, as neither side can prove the other wrong. The text is muddled and ambiguous, and reeks of the fallibility of human invention.

I didn't misunderstand. I just wasn't baited by the fallacy.
What's clear to you is often a fallacy of reasoning so far. In other words people have reasons to have different interpretations of the scriptures other than because of "confusion."

Can the scriptures be difficult to decipher? Yes. But this isn't one of them.

[/QUOTE]I know that the teachings existed before the a bronze-age mythology (Christianity) says they were inspired by a magical deity. It's only takes an ounce of common sense to make the connection. After all, the magical tales in Christian mythology carry no more factual weight than the ones in Egyptian or Norse mythology, or any other superstitious nonsense.[/QUOTE]

Yes, that would definition be the Fallacy of Post hoc ergo propter hoc. That means "after this therefore because of this" but language and cultures have a fluid nature. Just because we hear water splashing from the right doesn't mean that's where the water is. It could be echoes off the canyon walls. Follow that sound and you could get lost in the canyon looking for what sounds like a huge water fall but is really only a trickling stream.

 

[Rowan Sjet]

Oh yay, a Christianity debate within a SGU thread, I don't even have to visit TNZ today.

 

[AJ86]

Yes, that's the excuse for it but it's not the reason.

No, it's the reason. I'll take the word of the writers coupled with common sense over your desperate need to reduce the portrayal of sex or nudity into something smutty any day.

The reason is for ratings Otherwise they wouldn't ask the actors to take these sort of awkward compromising positions of intimacy with people they wouldn't normally be intimate with.

Why wouldn't they? Consider the possibility that just because you are embarrassed by this, that doesn't mean other people are, least of all an actor.

If they wanted to portray it they could just as easily do so suggestively rather than explicitly. BUT they go through such extra effort not for the purpose of the story but merely for the sake of being explicit.

That's ridiculous. It takes far more effort to contrive shooting angles order to hide something than it does to show it. The real effort would be in trying to hide it, without any good reason to.

This is just the typical backward reasoning people indulge in to try and rationalise why their reaction is a reasonable one, rather than if it is. Next you'll be using the old 'it's not necessary' chestnut.

And I would rather be respectful to the privacy of others even symbolically. I have no need to watch people have sex for my own entertainment. It's nothing more than morally despicable self indulgence IMHO. I am not a peeper, stalker or voyeur. And I don't intend to practice to get good at it by doing so with a TV.

You're watching to see a story unfold, not to watch a sex scene, a sex scene just happens to be pertinent to the story. It's really something trivial.

Only to those that have a surface understanding or have hard feelings toward Christians because of these moral standards.

False. The reason people have 'hard feelings' toward Christianity is because of these disgusting teachings in the first place.

The bible says:

YOU husbands, continue dwelling in like manner with them according to knowledge, assigning them honor as to a weaker vessel, the feminine one, since YOU are also heirs with them of the undeserved favor of life, in order for YOUR prayers not to be hindered.~ 1 Peter 3:7

28 In this way husbands ought to be loving their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself, 29 for no man ever hated his own flesh; but he feeds and cherishes it, as the Christ also does the congregation, 30 because we are members of his body~Ephesians 5:28

In reference to Homosexuality the Bible says to the congregation ..."this is what some of you were." Yet God loves them just the same but he doesn't compromise HIS standard representation of the proper marriage unit. He gives us the choice but he rewards those less selfish of their own desires and reason with themselves on the authority, his right as create and the proper use of our bodies.

Thus confirming my prior statements - sexist and homophobic. The Bible creates a hierarchy which puts men above women, and describes homosexuality as an abomination worthy of the death penalty. Disgraceful.

Can the scriptures be difficult to decipher? Yes. But this isn't one of them.

Repeating that doesn't prove it. Anotrher Christian could assert that you're wrong, and share their own interpretation as the right one, and neither claim would be falsifiable, there wouldn't be a single thing you could do to prove the other wrong.

Also, knowing that souls are at stake, why would a supposedly loving deity make passages difficult to decipher? Does he hate stupid people, or just not care? Again like I've seen, the scripture reeks of fallible human authors.

Yes, that would definition be the Fallacy of Post hoc ergo propter hoc. That means "after this therefore because of this" but language and cultures have a fluid nature.

I know what it means. I never claimed that all of the religions preaching the same teachings prior to Christianity were the source of them, only that they irrefutably existed before the Bible did, making it somewhat redundant.

If you'd like to talk about fallacies though, we could always talk about the circular reasoning which leads to belief in Bible 'truths' in the first place.

 

[Saquist]

No, it's the reason. I'll take the word of the writers coupled with common sense over your desperate need to reduce the portrayal of sex or nudity into something smutty any day.

I take no ones word for it.
I search and research first. I define for precision. And I don't project.

Why wouldn't they? Consider the possibility that just because you are embarrassed by this, that doesn't mean other people are, least of all an actor.

I'm sure after repeated acts they would get used it but it's still shameful behavior because it's salacious just for the sake of entertainment. Demeaning to themselves whether they know it or not.

That's ridiculous. It takes far more effort to contrive shooting angles order to hide something than it does to show it. The real effort would be in trying to hide it, without any good reason to.

What's ridiculous is that you think I meant to hide. No. you don't have to show the act at all and that takes zero effort.

You're watching to see a story unfold, not to watch a sex scene, a sex scene just happens to be pertinent to the story. It's really something trivial.

It's only entertainment. It's not pertinent.

False. The reason people have 'hard feelings' toward Christianity is because of these disgusting teachings in the first place.

Because they want to do what they want to do and they find other people's standards offensive. It's childish and intolerant and hypocritical.

Thus confirming my prior statements - sexist and homophobic. The Bible creates a hierarchy which puts men above women, and describes homosexuality as an abomination worthy of the death penalty. Disgraceful.

(shrug)
Discrimination is apart of every day life.
We chose between red and Blue
Men and Women don't use the same bath rooms publically.
They don't play on the same sports teams
Men only lodges are every where (shocking)
And there is a Black Entertainment Network separate (but equal) to all the others.
As long as the reasoning is sound for doing so I'm okay with it. God does't have to agree to our standards we have to agree to his. As creator it's just possible he knows what's best.

Repeating that doesn't prove it. Another Christian could assert that you're wrong, and share their own interpretation as the right one, and neither claim would be falsifiable, there wouldn't be a single thing you could do to prove the other wrong.

You didn't ask me to prove it and this is the wrong thread and forum for it anyway. I'm not concerned with other Chrisitans they have to make the choices they think are right. Neither do my choices have anything to do with them. That's is the freedom that is offered in America. Maybe that's not case where you come from.

Also, knowing that souls are at stake, why would a supposedly loving deity make passages difficult to decipher? Does he hate stupid people, or just not care? Again like I've seen, the scripture reeks of fallible human authors.

I don't think they are difficult to decipher. At least not the important stuff. That's laid out quite clearly. "Don't murder." Don't abandon the natural use of your body." "Love you Neighbor" , "Don't steal" You make it sound like brain surgery.

only that they irrefutably existed before the Bible did, making it somewhat redundant.

Which means nothing conclusive.
What's your point?

 

[AJ86]

I take no ones word for it.
I search and research first. I define for precision. And I don't project.

There's nothing you could possibly search and research beyond their word on the matter. Any conclusions you draw beyond that have come from your own imagination and guesswork.

I'm sure after repeated acts they would get used it but it's still shameful behavior because it's salacious just for the sake of entertainment. Demeaning to themselves whether they know it or not.

It's an art form, there's nothing demeaning about it. If anything is demeaning here, it's your desperate attempts to reduce this into something it isn't.

What's ridiculous is that you think I meant to hide. No. you don't have to show the act at all and that takes zero effort.

As I predicted, now you're questioning it's necessity. You're being disingenious here, as clearly your issue with the scene is it's sexual nature, not how necessary it is. Could the story be told without this very useful little scene? Yes, as with any scene the story could be contrived to circumvent it, but why would you? To satisfy the sensibilities of a few prudes in the audience? Not a good enough reason I'm afraid.

It's only entertainment. It's not pertinent.

Yes it is, I've already explained why.

Because they want to do what they want to do and they find other people's standards offensive. It's childish and intolerant and hypocritical.

It's not intolerant at all, I respect your right to believe whatever you like, that doesn't mean your beliefs deserve any respect from me, lease of all considering what you've exposed them to be.

Discrimination is apart of every day life.

No excuse.

As long as the reasoning is sound for doing so I'm okay with it.

The reasoning isn't sound though, that's the problem. Men aren't superior to woman, and there is nothing wrong with same-sex relationships.

God does't have to agree to our standards we have to agree to his. As creator it's just possible he knows what's best.

There is absolutely no good reason to assume either that a deity exists, or that the Bible was inspired by it. Using scripture to dictate your own morality is intellectual laziness in the extreme.

You didn't ask me to prove it and this is the wrong thread and forum for it anyway. I'm not concerned with other Chrisitans they have to make the choices they think are right. Neither do my choices have anything to do with them. That's is the freedom that is offered in America. Maybe that's not case where you come from.

No I never asked you to prove it, I was simply illustrating how weak the teachings are, how ambiguous and interpretational they are, and how ridiculous the idea is that an all-knowing, loving magical deity invented them was.

I don't think they are difficult to decipher. At least not the important stuff. That's laid out quite clearly. "Don't murder." Don't abandon the natural use of your body." "Love you Neighbor" , "Don't steal" You make it sound like brain surgery.

I think there is a lot of different interpretations of the scripture, and therefore misinterpretation, which seems strange given that an omniscience deity could have foreseen and avoided that if he wanted. It seems much more likely that the Bible is an invention of man, as I presume you believe the Qur'an to be.

What's your point?

 

[Mr. Adventure]

I side with the legal definition.
I also side with the Christian definition. (because I am a Christian)
Legally it has been established that: Pornography is the depiction of sexual behavior that is intended to arouse sexual excitement in its audience. That is a LEGAL precedent. Whether that pornography is obscene or explicit is a different consideration.

That's exactly the distinction I would have used too, meaning that the scene clearly wasn't pornographic.

That definition of pornographic comes with the following:

The Supreme Court established the basic legal standard for pornography in miller v. california, 413 U.S. 15, 93 S. Ct. 2607, 37 L. Ed. 2d 419 (1973). Chief Justice warren e. burger stated in Miller that pornographic material would be classified as obscene if it met three criteria: (1) the work, taken as a whole by an average person applying contemporary community standards, appeals to the prurient interest; (2) the work depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive way; and (3) the work, when taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Burger emphasized in Miller that only hardcore pornography could be designated as patently offensive. He listed examples of patently offensive descriptions or representations, including representations of "ultimate sex acts" and "masturbation, excretory functions, and lewd exhibition of the genitals."

What you call "clearly" not pornographic doesn't fit the offensively pornographic as he stipulates as hardcore.

Based on Miller, the law distinguishes between hard-core pornography and soft-core pornography, which involves depictions of nudity and limited and simulated sexual conduct. Because it is not as graphic or explicit as hard-core pornography, soft-core pornography is protected under the First Amendment.

And since it is on TV and it is limited and simulated sexual conduct and note the lack of distinction between literary concerns it is protected by the First Amendment as well.

B.O.T

TWIN DESTINIES

Slips bellow 1 million for the third time.
Lowest ratings to date.

Funny how you can completely ignore all three criteria in defending your viewpoint.

EDIT: Nevermind, I think I actually get the twisted point you're making (that it's still pornography just not obscene ), I should know better than to even go down this road.

 

[DWF]

Well I have to admit we've never had a review thread like this for SG1 or Atlantis and that I think is a good thing.

 

[Brent]

I tend not to get into political or religious discussions anymore about movies or tv shows, or otherwise, on forums, I find that people are pretty much hard set on what they believe, and no one is going to change their mind, so we all just end up going in circles, so its rather pointless. You believe what you believe, I believe what I believe, yadda yadda, so let's just move on.

 

[Saquist]

There's nothing you could possibly search and research beyond their word on the matter. Any conclusions you draw beyond that have come from your own imagination and guesswork.

On the contrary.
Already proven by sourced information that there is research to these particulars and there is more than a casual suggestion of validity by logic. Your assertions haven't held up which is why you've strayed to confidence statements. In fact contrary to your assertions other wise the network treats it as defined and placed it at the appropriate time slot...not in prime-time.

It's an art form, there's nothing demeaning about it. If anything is demeaning here, it's your desperate attempts to reduce this into something it isn't.

It's trash.
It's selling their bodies for your entertainment.
They have no respect for themselves.

As I predicted, now you're questioning it's necessity. You're being disingenious here, as clearly your issue with the scene is it's sexual nature, not how necessary it is. Could the story be told without this very useful little scene? Yes, as with any scene the story could be contrived to circumvent it, but why would you? To satisfy the sensibilities of a few prudes in the audience? Not a good enough reason I'm afraid.

Not for you but it is to me and those off us that have chasity and a Godly view of clean behavior. They don't have to conform to our morals but they will lose that part of their audience and they do suffer from the time slot they are forced to occupy because of the smut they offer not realizing a good story will never actually need to be explicit to depict intimacy. And it looks like under a million viewers, lowest ratings yet, and cancellation is about what it deserves too for not being able to appeal to everyone or at least more of their so called "target audience". But they made the choices that excluded me and others and it was just one exclusion too many it seems. I won't miss it.

Yes it is, I've already explained why.

It's not and you haven't.
Your rationalizations have been weak so far. You can't know what pertinent means if if suggest otherwise.
There is a target and they failed to reach it.

It's not intolerant at all, I respect your right to believe whatever you like, that doesn't mean your beliefs deserve any respect from me, lease of all considering what you've exposed them to be.

Why would I care?
I have to have reason to care. So far you're being hypocritical and dodgy. Clearly there are appropriate divisions in all things and just because you apply some subjective label to one of them, namely religion, only makes you look intolerant and provocative. (shurg) You've exposed yourself. So far you haven't been indulging in much reason just these series of confidence statements like an over worked prosecution.

No excuse.

Reality doesn't need an excuse and try your best to ignore it as you may but it remains a social precedent. And I assure you that precedent isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

The reasoning isn't sound though, that's the problem. Men aren't superior to woman, and there is nothing wrong with same-sex relationships.

Bible doesn't say men are superior.
That's fallacy you've created.
You're thinking in Fallacies of the confidence statements you've conjured for this diatribe. Sticking to the facts is too difficult and strict...too much of a challenge so you instinctively reach for the fallacy to fill the holes in your understanding...it's just like a prejudice. An emotional reaction.

And as long as the reason behind prohibiting same sex relationships is fair and logical then I'll stick to it.

There is absolutely no good reason to assume either that a deity exists, or that the Bible was inspired by it. Using scripture to dictate your own morality is intellectual laziness in the extreme.

There is plenty of good reason to assume that God exist and plenty of reason that suggest the bible was inspired by him. And since you can only presume from your narrow view of your beliefs of me without the underlying facts the laziness is yours to rush to discriminate.

No I never asked you to prove it, I was simply ...

...making statements of pure confidence. Yes. I know.
You're welcome to them but why are you telling me? So you're confident. So am I.

I think there is a lot of different interpretations of the scripture, and therefore misinterpretation, which seems strange given that an omniscience deity could have foreseen and avoided that if he wanted.

Sure, he could force the issue instead of giving you the choice to misinterpret the scripture for no reason. Rather he gives us time for those that want to search out the truth and time for those that wish to ignore it and time for those that would misinterpret for their own reasons but he lovingly gives the time to figure these things out to work through the bad situations and obstacles in life.

It seems much more likely that the Bible is an invention of man, as I presume you believe the Qur'an to be.

You'd presume wrong, but it hasn't stopped you so far.

What's your point?

[/QUOTE]

You said, "only that they irrefutably existed (moral code) before the Bible did, making it somewhat redundant."

What does this illustration have to do the preexistence of morals before written by the Hebrews?

 

[Saquist]

That's exactly the distinction I would have used too, meaning that the scene clearly wasn't pornographic.

That definition of pornographic comes with the following:

What you call "clearly" not pornographic doesn't fit the offensively pornographic as he stipulates as hardcore.

Based on Miller, the law distinguishes between hard-core pornography and soft-core pornography, which involves depictions of nudity and limited and simulated sexual conduct. Because it is not as graphic or explicit as hard-core pornography, soft-core pornography is protected under the First Amendment.

And since it is on TV and it is limited and simulated sexual conduct and note the lack of distinction between literary concerns it is protected by the First Amendment as well.

B.O.T

TWIN DESTINIES

Slips bellow 1 million for the third time.
Lowest ratings to date.

Funny how you can completely ignore all three criteria in defending your viewpoint.

EDIT: Nevermind, I think I actually get the twisted point you're making (that it's still pornography just not obscene ), I should know better than to even go down this road.

Bingo
That seems to be what it's saying.
It makes a distinction from pornography that which is obscene under 3 different critera which of course implies there is non obscene pornographic matterial that still simulates sexual acts...and of course there are such as what we see SGU because it's still for the purpose arousal.

I understand people don't like to be accused of looking at pornography but the inference is there...

 

[Mr. Adventure]

I understand people don't like to be accused of looking at pornography but the inference is there...

I think ultimately few actually believe that to be true regardless of whatever might be in an FCC guideline.

Let's say it's pornography, I mean what now? And one could look at Hathor, Anise, wet Replicarter and so on as appealing to prurient interests in the other series.

It's too bad you couldn't find anything to like in SGU, it is a different beast but it has its moments. It will be soon be gone anyway and you guys can enjoy the emptiness soon.

 

[Saquist]

I think ultimately few actually believe that to be true regardless of whatever might be in an FCC guideline.

Yeah, I know...

Let's say it's pornography, I mean what now? And one could look at Hathor, Anise, wet Replicarter and so on as appealing to prurient interests in the other series.

I don't know.
Any amount a skin can be considered arrousing, it's subjective to be certain because it depends on your exposure, what are you used to.

It's too bad you couldn't find anything to like in SGU, it is a different beast but it has its moments. It will be soon be gone anyway and you guys can enjoy the emptiness soon.[/QUOTE]

Maybe the Next Series will be a more primetime show like the ones before if it ever comes back. I just hope they don't decide to do more of this in some other version because if they force me to choose between my principles and their show, they'll lose ever time. It's nice to have something the whole family can enjoy. We seem to be loosing more an more of that quality every year.

 

[AJ86]

On the contrary.
Already proven by sourced information that there is research to these particulars and there is more than a casual suggestion of validity by logic. Your assertions haven't held up which is why you've strayed to confidence statements. In fact contrary to your assertions other wise the network treats it as defined and placed it at the appropriate time slot...not in prime-time.

That paragraph doesn't make any sense whatsoever. You haven't provided any sourced information to back up your argument, nor does the adult nature (and therefore scheduling) of the show have any bearing on the motives behind those scenes.

It's trash.
It's selling their bodies for your entertainment.
They have no respect for themselves.

It's not trash. You just have a bronze-age mentality toward sexuality and nudity. It's no more the 'selling of their bodies' than performing in any other scene. Not that there's anything necessarily wrong with selling your body anyway, of course.

Not for you but it is to me and those off us that have chasity and a Godly view of clean behavior. They don't have to conform to our morals but they will lose that part of their audience

Thankfully that audience is shrinking rapidly as people naturally become more liberal, more enlightened, and less superstitious.

and they do suffer from the time slot they are forced to occupy because of the smut they offer not realizing a good story will never actually need to be explicit to depict intimacy.

That's entirely dependant on the story you want to tell.

It's not and you haven't.
Your rationalizations have been weak so far. You can't know what pertinent means if if suggest otherwise.

The writers have explained why it was there, and their explanation makes perfect sense, plus the scene works too.

Why would I care? I have to have reason to care.

You criticised others criticism of your beliefs, so obviously you do care.

So far you're being hypocritical and dodgy. Clearly there are appropriate divisions in all things and just because you apply some subjective label to one of them, namely religion, only makes you look intolerant and provocative. (shurg) You've exposed yourself. So far you haven't been indulging in much reason just these series of confidence statements like an over worked prosecution.

I'm not entirely sure what this even means. You keep bleating about hypocrisy, but you're yet to explain what it is in relation to. If you don't want to be called out on some of the more bigoted beliefs you hold then using them to rationalise your criticisms of a TV show on an internet forum probably isn't the best of ideas.

Reality doesn't need an excuse and try your best to ignore it as you may but it remains a social precedent. And I assure you that precedent isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

Reality isn't in question, morality is. Teaching that women are second class citizens is wrong, teaching that homosexuality is an abomination is wrong.

Bible doesn't say men are superior.
That's fallacy you've created.
You're thinking in Fallacies of the confidence statements you've conjured for this diatribe. Sticking to the facts is too difficult and strict...too much of a challenge so you instinctively reach for the fallacy to fill the holes in your understanding...it's just like a prejudice. An emotional reaction.

The bible says men are the head of women, as Jesus is the head of man. It's a good as saying they're superior.

And as long as the reason behind prohibiting same sex relationships is fair and logical then I'll stick to it.

It isn't logical, it isn't fair. Same sex relationships don't hurt anyone, prohibiting them does no good whatsoever, in fact all it does it create hurt and misery and ruins lives.

There is plenty of good reason to assume that God exist and plenty of reason that suggest the bible was inspired by him.

It should be easy for you to provide some then.

Sure, he could force the issue instead of giving you the choice to misinterpret the scripture for no reason. Rather he gives us time for those that want to search out the truth and time for those that wish to ignore it and time for those that would misinterpret for their own reasons but he lovingly gives the time to figure these things out to work through the bad situations and obstacles in life.

What about stupid people, or mentally challenged people, or people who can't read? Do they deserve to burn in 'hell' for eternity? Apparently so. Unsurprising really, I can't think of a more evil fictional character than the god of the Bible.

You'd presume wrong, but it hasn't stopped you so far.

Who do you think wrote the Qur'an then?

What's your point?

You said, "only that they irrefutably existed (moral code) before the Bible did, making it somewhat redundant."

What does this illustration have to do the preexistence of morals before written by the Hebrews?

That was a mistake, I thought I was replying to a comment about the circular reasoning behind belief in 'God' and the Bible's authenticity.

 

[Saquist]

That paragraph doesn't make any sense whatsoever. You haven't provided any sourced information to back up your argument, nor does the adult nature (and therefore scheduling) of the show have any bearing on the motives behind those scenes.

Sense: a general conscious awareness;
Any amount of awareness or intellectual acuity could have discern the origin with the information with the tools we both have at our disposal. Except you couldn't

The time slot confirms their acknowledgment that the material is not for all viewers and thus avoids the prime-time slot. It's placed where most smut goes...in the shadows of night.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/pornography

It's not trash. You just have a bronze-age mentality toward sexuality and nudity. It's no more the 'selling of their bodies' than performing in any other scene. Not that there's anything necessarily wrong with selling your body anyway, of course.

It's trash. I don't care how you categorize your disagreement with the statement. These people have reduced themselves, they self deprecated themselves for money to offer private acts up for others entertainment.

Thankfully that audience is shrinking rapidly as people naturally become more liberal, more enlightened, and less superstitious.

Yes, it's true the world is becoming generally more militant and amoral, lacking self control but instead of becoming less superstitious the facts tend to show that they are becoming more superstitious and more ignorant despite the agencies of education at their disposal. This is largely due to the media.

That's entirely dependant on the story you want to tell.

It depends entirely on how explicit you wish to in telling that story. It has nothing to do with the story. It's not predicated on the story at all. It's actually a lazy factor that has been growing since TV writing in the last 10 years. Less story more visuals and emotion. SGU did exactly that in it's season 1.

The writers have explained why it was there, and their explanation makes perfect sense, plus the scene works too.

The scene was irrelevant. It didn't have to actually work with anything to be there and it didn't have to be explicit to be there either. The explanation is nothing more than a pretense at giving their work respectability. They wouldn't have said anything else.

You criticised others criticism of your beliefs, so obviously you do care.

And like I said you have a habit in speaking of fallacy. Many of your premises have any number of possible conclusions but you give an illogical emphasis upon the one your opinion has singled out.

I'm not entirely sure what this even means. You keep bleating about hypocrisy, but you're yet to explain what it is in relation to. If you don't want to be called out on some of the more bigoted beliefs you hold then using them to rationalise your criticisms of a TV show on an internet forum probably isn't the best of ideas.

The tern bigot actually means intolerant expressing animosity toward those of differing beliefs. It is a word that has been used ignorantly like those such as yourself in recent times as a negative by label. You've done it 3 times so far applying an aggressively weak interpretation of my beliefs under several those categories which imply that any other thinking than your own regardless of their reasons and like practical reasoning must be a prejudice. Not only is it wrong but it's a prejudice in of itself. It's emotionalism. It's a prejudice not because you think it's wrong but because you obstinately reject the reasons behind and instead misapply an emotional factor which hasn't even existed on my part in the conversation. Conversely it has existed on your part. You do fit that description aptly.

Reality isn't in question, morality is. Teaching that women are second class citizens is wrong, teaching that homosexuality is an abomination is wrong.

More fallacy.
The bible doesn't teache women are second class citizens. You're obstinately clinging to your own prejudices of how you think the bible portrays women. And homosexuality is an abomination for a Christian following God's authority. Your assertion otherwise is childish. Believe hat you want but a confidence stateme is not going to change my mind nor does it represent anything factual.

The bible says men are the head of women, as Jesus is the head of man. It's a good as saying they're superior.

An interpretation I do not share mostly because superior has to be implied. Thus superiority isn't a necessary quality of authority.

It isn't logical, it isn't fair. Same sex relationships don't hurt anyone, prohibiting them does no good whatsoever, in fact all it does it create hurt and misery and ruins lives.

A confidence statement.
My disagreement is on record.

It should be easy for you to provide some then.

Yes it is.

What about stupid people, or mentally challenged people, or people who can't read? Do they deserve to burn in 'hell' for eternity? Apparently so. Unsurprising really, I can't think of a more evil fictional character than the god of the Bible.

You're displaying a prejudice of my beliefs that doesn't not fit the reality of my beliefs. You're fighting yourself so it seems I have to barely lift a finger.

Who do you think wrote the Qur'an then?

Sorry, I'm not particularly inclined to discuss my interpretations of the other writings of antiquity in the face of this aggressive lack of acuity you're displaying. You have your own agenda and I have no interest in assisting it. Usually a request like this follows civil behavior and yours has lost any semblance of civility or a desire toward establishing a common frame of reference. You may continue your prosecution without my help.

That was a mistake, I thought I was replying to a comment about the circular reasoning behind belief in 'God' and the Bible's authenticity.

Understood.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Why are people seriously arguing with someone who claims SGU is pornographic? It's such a blatantly absurd position it's not even worth the effort to discredit.

 

[Brikar99]

So, my question about this episode, and maybe I missed it earlier in the thread... When Telford goes through the gate, it seems he gets sent to Earth, but a few hours back through time. So, shouldn't he have smacked pretty solidly into the iris barricading the gate? Does the SGC no longer shut that thing whenever an incoming wormhole pops open? He said they couldn't send a radio signal through, so I imagine they were going to allow it based on what seemed like a lot of tight scheduling. But if the wormhole opened hours earlier than it was supposed to...

Maybe I'm thinking in circles and I should just drop it. heh.

 

[Xerxus]

^
It is possible that Telford went through the gate initially without problems, and then he was transported in time ala 1969 when SG1 went back in time to a place without even a Stargate. If that makes any sense.

Another possible explanation is that 9-chevron addresses light up 9 chevron on the other side, so SGC knows that it is from Destiny.

 

[AJ86]

Why are people seriously arguing with someone who claims SGU is pornographic? It's such a blatantly absurd position it's not even worth the effort to discredit.

True, it's difficult to have a rational debate with someone who's only point of reference for morality or reason is an inherently immoral and irrational bronze-age scripture.

His last few comments have proven that the only points he'll actually contest are the ones he can reduce to something subjective, and simply 'his own opinion'. The problem of course being that these opinions stem from scripture, but when you question his belief in it, he either ignores obvious requests for the supposed 'good reasons' behind it, or else runs away from questions about his belief citing "aggressive lack of acuity", though only when it suits, of course.

I'm done. I think the original point about pornography has been easily refuted as the general consensus seems to be, I can do without the squabbling over mythology and the moral absolutes of fictional characters.