or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment and Culture › Does anyone like Bill Maher?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Does anyone like Bill Maher? - Page 40

post #586 of 666
I suggest for your next project, you greenlight a movie based on The Professor and the Dominatrix. It should be a big hit among liberal, freethinking people. Just read those positive reviews on Amazon!
post #587 of 666
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hey Man View Post
Downloading is never going to stop and I can accept that, but the film and music industy could absolutely be doing more than there are. You do know that many filmmakers and musicians have actually encouraged downloading, because they think the film and music industry are fucked right? Let me give you a scenario. If a distributor drops the ball on a film that audiences want to see it and they can't find it anywhere - download away if that's the only way you can see it. Beyond that - films have been bootlegged for decades, it's not a new concept. The technology is just better. But the film and television industry (not so much the music industry) are still having record years financially. Obviously Avatar wasn't hurt by downloading and many films still make over a 100 million domestically and hundreds of millions of dollars worldwide. The next Batman and The Avengers for example are going to make a killing despite downloading. The bottom line is this - we can accept downloading, because even if we take a slight hit because of it, at the end of the day - we still make a ton of cash. I am not trying to sell CD's here. People still go to the movies, watch TV and buy DVD's into many billions of dollars.
You've sidestepped my question by saying you 'can accept it' without actually revealing whether you agree or disagree (whether you endorse it, or merely put up with it). But this isn't surprising and is exactly why I asked you the question, as it should prove to you that the maxim of consumerism is incompatible with the maxim of piracy. So why is this important? Simple, these incompatibilities exist with other freedoms too, for example you can't support the right to abortion as well as the right to live, as a mother's choice to abort impedes on the freedom of the fetus' life by completely removing it. Similarly by agreeing earlier that you would be OK with people selling their babies, you were supporting a right for a mother to choose the residence of a child, and thus you were impeding the child's freedom to choose his or her residence. Furthermore with respect to freedom of speech, if you give people the freedom to be publicly offensive, then you are impeding the freedom other people have to not be offended/mentally hurt by other people, particularly with intrusive mediums such as radio and television. One person's freedom can lead to another person's impediment. If you disagree with how I've put this, I suggest you look into Thomas Hobbe's Social Contract for a possible explanation of why people need to renounce certain rights in order for others to be allowed theirs and so live in harmony, and why ultimate freedom doesn't work.
post #588 of 666
Quote:
Originally Posted by XenoX101 View Post
You've sidestepped my question by saying you 'can accept it' without actually revealing whether you agree or disagree (whether you endorse it, or merely put up with it). But this isn't surprising and is exactly why I asked you the question, as it should prove to you that the maxim of consumerism is incompatible with the maxim of piracy.

So why is this important? Simple, these incompatibilities exist with other freedoms too, for example you can't support the right to abortion as well as the right to live, as a mother's choice to abort impedes on the freedom of the fetus' life by completely removing it. Similarly by agreeing earlier that you would be OK with people selling their babies, you were supporting a right for a mother to choose the residence of a child, and thus you were impeding the child's freedom to choose his or her residence. Furthermore with respect to freedom of speech, if you give people the freedom to be publicly offensive, then you are impeding the freedom other people have to not be offended/mentally hurt by other people, particularly with intrusive mediums such as radio and television. One person's freedom can lead to another person's impediment.

If you disagree with how I've put this, I suggest you look into Thomas Hobbe's Social Contract for a possible explanation of why people need to renounce certain rights for the betterment of society.

I download too, so I agree.
post #589 of 666
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hey Man View Post
You do know that many filmmakers and musicians have actually encouraged downloading, because they think the film and music industry are fucked right?
I'm a classical pianist (not famous or anything, and not even full time - quite amateur) and I encourage downloading of what few recordings I have, but that's a bit different than film. I encourage downloading of my music because if I can sell myself, I can exist professionally without records. When I'm done with school I can be a professor, actively concertize, give masterclasses, etc. If people download my music for free, it pays for itself in exposure to new audiences. Giving away my music isn't "free", it's hoping that I'll have a return on an investment of time and energy. A film-maker can't do any of those things, which creates the logical paradox you're stuck in. Films which are paid for are literally the entire point of your craft. I see what you're getting at, and it's one of your more reasonable arguments in the thread, but it's still a paradox in your situation.
post #590 of 666
Quote:
Originally Posted by computerpro3 View Post
I'm a classical pianist (not famous or anything, and not full time at this point) and I encourage downloading of what few recordings I have, but that's a bit different than film.

I encourage downloading of my music because I can exist professionally without records. When I'm done with school I can be a professor, actively concertize, give masterclasses, etc. If people download my music for free, it pays for itself in exposure to new audiences. Giving away my music isn't "free", it's hoping that I'll have a return on an investment of time and energy.

A film-maker can't do any of those things, which creates the logical paradox you're stuck in. Films which are paid for are literally the entire point of your craft. I see what you're getting at, and it's one of your more reasonable arguments in the thread, but it's still a paradox in your situation.

Many filmmakers - just like undiscovered musicians, want people to see their work even if it's for free. The internet and downloading has afforded them the ability to be discovered and build a fanbase that has turned into dollars down the line as some people will pay to see their next film. Even some high profile filmmakers have encouraged downloading for various reasons - like they felt they got fucked by the distributor.

Yes people download, but go to any film forum in the world and you will find countless discussions with movie enthusiasts who will not download or if they do, it's only to watch some film they wouldn't buy in the first place. Most film fans have and continue to build their impressive movie collections (which they are proud of) - not consisting of downloads, but offically released DVD's, etc.

I would love to hear your music and maybe even use it in a film or TV series.
post #591 of 666
You are exceptionally good at ignoring contentions, have you considered politics?
post #592 of 666
Quote:
Originally Posted by XenoX101 View Post
So why is this important? Simple, these incompatibilities exist with other freedoms too, for example you can't support the right to abortion as well as the right to live, as a mother's choice to abort impedes on the freedom of the fetus' life by completely removing it. Similarly by agreeing earlier that you would be OK with people selling their babies, you were supporting a right for a mother to choose the residence of a child, and thus you were impeding the child's freedom to choose his or her residence. Furthermore with respect to freedom of speech, if you give people the freedom to be publicly offensive, then you are impeding the freedom other people have to not be offended/mentally hurt by other people, particularly with intrusive mediums such as radio and television. One person's freedom can lead to another person's impediment. If you disagree with how I've put this, I suggest you look into Thomas Hobbe's Social Contract for a possible explanation of why people need to renounce certain rights in order for others to be allowed theirs and so live in harmony, and why ultimate freedom doesn't work.
It's good that you're putting in this effort, XenoX, but the Noowatheist cottage industry (whose business models involves suckering people of mediocre intelligence into believing that they're part of an intellectual elite) has flattered its followers with reasurrances that they are "Rationalists" by definition- such that they are left with no further motivation to actually behave or think rationally to secure this honor- and has loosed them on teh intrawebz to spread their gospel. It is a new Manicheanism, really, will the forces of good (science! enlightnment! reason! liberty! yay!) on one side, and the forces of evil (religion, conservatism, cOonNtrROollL) on the other. Scratch a little below the surface and you'll find those feel-good buzzwords "enlightenment" and "reason" are alarmingly absolutist in their connotations-- dangerously absolutist, in my opinion. But you'll never see them examine these terms critically; these are terms that can mean everything they want them to mean by virtue of the fact they mean nothing at all. They have fabricated an historical dialectic of Science vs. Religion, a belief system that says wherever religion has flourished human degradation followed, and that religion is such a universally corrupting force that its eradication would necessarily mean a utopia by default. Don't expect the noowatheist fanboi base to have given a whole lot of thought to what this utopia looks like, though (no, it's not the Netherlands); they're so culturally and historically blinkered that I fully believe they'd be perfectly willing to have us relive every horror of the 20th Century just so they can vindicate their neo-Victorian worldview. You can bring up philosophy, but it's unclear what if any use they have for philosophy. Apparently, all areas of human endeavour have to pair off Thunderdome style and battle to the death, and the natural sciences are expected to emerge victorious over religion. I would imagine a similar fate awaits philosophy, since, you know, all three serve the purpose of, like, explaining shit, and obviously there can only be one way of explaining shit.
post #593 of 666
But, but, it IS The Netherlands...
post #594 of 666
Quote:
Originally Posted by XenoX101 View Post
You are exceptionally good at ignoring contentions, have you considered politics?

You asked me if I approve of or just accept downloading. I answered that I approve of it and do it myself. No ignoring there.
post #595 of 666
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hey Man View Post
I am curious as to why you think I am a complete whore ethically? Because we don't share the same opinion or views on how things should be? Good thing I work in the film industry - everyone knows that we are all whores.

I thought I spelled it out fairly clearly? Go re-read what I said and then ask a pointed question.

Btw, you talking about "old men"? Hate to break this to you, but you're an old man.
post #596 of 666
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post
I thought I spelled it out fairly clearly? Go re-read what I said and then ask a pointed question.

Btw, you talking about "old men"? Hate to break this to you, but you're an old man.

At this point, I gotta tell you that I just skim your posts.

40 is the new 30. I have been talking about old men in their 60's and 70's.
post #597 of 666
Rollin' rollin' rollin' ... keep them doggies rollin'
post #598 of 666
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hey Man View Post
At this point, I gotta tell you that I just skim your posts. 40 is the new 30. I have been talking about old men in their 60's and 70's.
Yes, I can see where a two or three sentence post would be too much for you to digest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post
Your principles, that you have posted on and on and on and on about here, seem to mean very little to your IRL. Good thing you think prostitution should be legal, as ethically you're a complete whore.
Yeah, this post is so long. I can see where your attention would wander.
post #599 of 666
I don't like Bill Maher. However, this thread has been on the first page for so long, I figured I had to see what all the fuss was about.

Zero star thread. Would not read again.
post #600 of 666
OMG, move this to DT already. I came back after many days away and assumed this had moved onto something other than shooting hey man in a barrel. I was wrong. BORING.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Entertainment and Culture
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment and Culture › Does anyone like Bill Maher?