Lionsgate Respond to Ender's Game Boycott

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

Axolotl:

Bentusi16:
My point is that prior to a certain point there was no difference between a 'civil union' and a 'marriage' because there wasn't any real difference between 'the state' and 'the church'. When you got married in england you were being married into the church of England, the formally recognized religion of the English and the one that the crown backed and that backed the crown, since the king/queen was the head of the english church. The same goes for almost every other country in western europe, where we derive many of our definitions for.

Marriage was and is a religious institution because the religious institutions were the ones who took care of it.

It is not until you get a clear separation between church and state that marriage becomes a tricky issue. Previously, the state and the church having been essentially one entity meant that all those marriages under the church laws about 'what it means to be married' WERE marriage. Then suddenly you have countries popping up that don't HAVE a state religion, or who put walls up. So while the religions are still marrying people under their laws, now the secular authority ALSO has to approve said marriage. Hence the birth of 'civil unions'. The civil (or secular) government confirms a 'marriage' between two people with or without a religions approval. 'Marriage' remained the common word for it because it's hard to change what you call something after 1700+ years of calling it something.

This argument doesn't work because marriage existed before state religion (or even organised religion as we understand it) and exists in countries that have never had organised religious institutions backed by the state.

Well, I'd certainly love to see a list of countries that at some point in their history didn't have an organized and state backed religion that existed before the 1700's. And proof that marriage existed before organized religion. Because it'd be really fucking interesting to know what your definition of marriage is. Is me killing my enemy tribes males and raping his women 'marriage' because that how it worked for quite awhile.

Also, I'm sure a lot of things were done before we had written language. Are you sggesting they take precedence over the 3000 or so years of written history we DO have access to?

I want everyone to have the right to have the right of civil unions aka marriage, but you have to understand why using the term marriage is a huge fucking misnomer compared to what you are actually doing.

Bentusi16:

Axolotl:

Bentusi16:
My point is that prior to a certain point there was no difference between a 'civil union' and a 'marriage' because there wasn't any real difference between 'the state' and 'the church'. When you got married in england you were being married into the church of England, the formally recognized religion of the English and the one that the crown backed and that backed the crown, since the king/queen was the head of the english church. The same goes for almost every other country in western europe, where we derive many of our definitions for.

Marriage was and is a religious institution because the religious institutions were the ones who took care of it.

It is not until you get a clear separation between church and state that marriage becomes a tricky issue. Previously, the state and the church having been essentially one entity meant that all those marriages under the church laws about 'what it means to be married' WERE marriage. Then suddenly you have countries popping up that don't HAVE a state religion, or who put walls up. So while the religions are still marrying people under their laws, now the secular authority ALSO has to approve said marriage. Hence the birth of 'civil unions'. The civil (or secular) government confirms a 'marriage' between two people with or without a religions approval. 'Marriage' remained the common word for it because it's hard to change what you call something after 1700+ years of calling it something.

This argument doesn't work because marriage existed before state religion (or even organised religion as we understand it) and exists in countries that have never had organised religious institutions backed by the state.

Well, I'd certainly love to see a list of countries that at some point in their history didn't have an organized and state backed religion that existed before the 1700's.

Almost all of them? I mean organised religion is not that old an invention and being backed by the state is even less new. Hell to my know ledge China has never had popular organised religion never mind a state backed one.

And proof that marriage existed before organized religion.

Look at almost any classical text. The Greeks for example got married long before they had organised religion. Most countries I can think of that we have records for that predate organised religion had marriage Just of the top of my head Rome and Japan spring to mind.

Because it'd be really fucking interesting to know what your definition of marriage is. Is me killing my enemy tribes males and raping his women 'marriage' because that how it worked for quite awhile.

You should know what marriage means if you speak English at all. It's not a difficult concept. Giving a strict definition is pointless since there's always examples that fall outside it or the definition ends up being so complex it strangles itself.

Also, I'm sure a lot of things were done before we had written language. Are you sggesting they take precedence over the 3000 or so years of written history we DO have access to?

What? What does this have to do with what I said?

I want everyone to have the right to have the right of civil unions aka marriage, but you have to understand why using the term marriage is a huge fucking misnomer compared to what you are actually doing.

And I want you to understand that what you're saying about the history of marriage simply is not true.

Looks like they are saying what I have already said, that it is stupid to boycott a movie because of the beliefs of its creator, specifically when none of those beliefs are reflected in the movie.

As for the boycott crowd, I wonder if they realize how ridiculous they sound. They think Card is a despicable human being that thinks homosexuals are sub-human. The problem is that, by their crazy logic, that assertion of Card also applies to every actor in the film, every worker who played any part in making the film, anyone who has ever read/purchased the book, anyone who will buy a ticket for the movie, and anyone who purchases any merchandise.

Also included in the list of despicable human beings; anyone who has ever purchased any product or service that was in any part produced by an individual who did not fully support same sex marriage. That means if you buy a product form a company; that company, along with every single employee and every private contractor ever used, must all support same sex marriage, or you are a despicable person.

cthulhuspawn82:
Looks like they are saying what I have already said, that it is stupid to boycott a movie because of the beliefs of its creator, specifically when none of those beliefs are reflected in the movie.

As for the boycott crowd, I wonder if they realize how ridiculous they sound. They think Card is a despicable human being that thinks homosexuals are sub-human. The problem is that, by their crazy logic, that assertion of Card also applies to every actor in the film, every worker who played any part in making the film, anyone who has ever read/purchased the book, anyone who will buy a ticket for the movie, and anyone who purchases any merchandise.

Also included in the list of despicable human beings; anyone who has ever purchased any product or service that was in any part produced by an individual who did not fully support same sex marriage. That means if you buy a product form a company; that company, along with every single employee and every private contractor ever used, must all support same sex marriage, or you are a despicable person.

Do you know what a Non sequitur is?

Now nobody is saying that anyone except Card is a despicable person and it doesn't follow from that that the people who oppose Card think that any of the people you list are despicable people.

Now you say "it is stupid to boycott a movie because of the beliefs of its creator, specifically when none of those beliefs are reflected in the movie." Now lets take this and apply it to another cause lets say Bobby Fischer, now imagine if he were still alive and stayed sane long enough to make a film about his chess career. Would you really think it stupid to not see that film because he'd send the proceeds from it to Neo-Nazi hate groups? Or even worse he decided to up his ideological support for Al-Qaeda to include financial support? would you really think people stupid if they didn't see the film because of this?

Axolotl:

cthulhuspawn82:
Looks like they are saying what I have already said, that it is stupid to boycott a movie because of the beliefs of its creator, specifically when none of those beliefs are reflected in the movie.

As for the boycott crowd, I wonder if they realize how ridiculous they sound. They think Card is a despicable human being that thinks homosexuals are sub-human. The problem is that, by their crazy logic, that assertion of Card also applies to every actor in the film, every worker who played any part in making the film, anyone who has ever read/purchased the book, anyone who will buy a ticket for the movie, and anyone who purchases any merchandise.

Also included in the list of despicable human beings; anyone who has ever purchased any product or service that was in any part produced by an individual who did not fully support same sex marriage. That means if you buy a product form a company; that company, along with every single employee and every private contractor ever used, must all support same sex marriage, or you are a despicable person.

Do you know what a Non sequitur is?

Now nobody is saying that anyone except Card is a despicable person and it doesn't follow from that that the people who oppose Card think that any of the people you list are despicable people.

Its the obvious conclusion of the logic. Card is a despicable person because of his political beliefs. Going to see his movie, or buying his book is equivalent to supporting and/or funding those beliefs. It seems pretty clear that the logic denounces anyone who sees the movie or facilitates in its production.

I would pose the question to anyone boycotting the film, "Why do you not want to see this movie". Lets say the response was something like, "I don't support the despicable beliefs of the creator". That response implies that anyone who sees the movie does support such beliefs.

If we were having a gaming discussion and I said, "I don't play FPS games because I'm not a brainless 14 year old" wouldn't any logical person take that to be an insult to anyone who does play FPS games?

cthulhuspawn82:

Axolotl:

cthulhuspawn82:
Looks like they are saying what I have already said, that it is stupid to boycott a movie because of the beliefs of its creator, specifically when none of those beliefs are reflected in the movie.

As for the boycott crowd, I wonder if they realize how ridiculous they sound. They think Card is a despicable human being that thinks homosexuals are sub-human. The problem is that, by their crazy logic, that assertion of Card also applies to every actor in the film, every worker who played any part in making the film, anyone who has ever read/purchased the book, anyone who will buy a ticket for the movie, and anyone who purchases any merchandise.

Also included in the list of despicable human beings; anyone who has ever purchased any product or service that was in any part produced by an individual who did not fully support same sex marriage. That means if you buy a product form a company; that company, along with every single employee and every private contractor ever used, must all support same sex marriage, or you are a despicable person.

Do you know what a Non sequitur is?

Now nobody is saying that anyone except Card is a despicable person and it doesn't follow from that that the people who oppose Card think that any of the people you list are despicable people.

Its the obvious conclusion of the logic. Card is a despicable person because of his political beliefs. Going to see his movie, or buying his book is equivalent to supporting and/or funding those beliefs. It seems pretty clear that the logic denounces anyone who sees the movie or facilitates in its production.

I would pose the question to anyone boycotting the film, "Why do you not want to see this movie". Lets say the response was something like, "I don't support the despicable beliefs of the creator". That response implies that anyone who sees the movie does support such beliefs.

If we were having a gaming discussion and I said, "I don't play FPS games because I'm not a brainless 14 year old" wouldn't any logical person take that to be an insult to anyone who does play FPS games?

I don't know about you, but in my worldview can support people doing things I don't approve of but still being, you know, sort of okay people.
There is however a point (and that one is almost completely subjective) at which doing things I don't approve of becomes such a major part of the person, so that I judge the person in general in the same way I judge their individual actions. From the point of view of the boycotters Card has reached that point, people who go to see the film haven't even though they make a decision that's "wrong" when viewed in isolation.

Bentusi16:
My point is that prior to a certain point there was no difference between a 'civil union' and a 'marriage' because there wasn't any real difference between 'the state' and 'the church'. When you got married in england you were being married into the church of England, the formally recognized religion of the English and the one that the crown backed and that backed the crown, since the king/queen was the head of the english church. The same goes for almost every other country in western europe, where we derive many of our definitions for.

Marriage was and is a religious institution because the religious institutions were the ones who took care of it.

It is not until you get a clear separation between church and state that marriage becomes a tricky issue. Previously, the state and the church having been essentially one entity meant that all those marriages under the church laws about 'what it means to be married' WERE marriage. Then suddenly you have countries popping up that don't HAVE a state religion, or who put walls up. So while the religions are still marrying people under their laws, now the secular authority ALSO has to approve said marriage. Hence the birth of 'civil unions'. The civil (or secular) government confirms a 'marriage' between two people with or without a religions approval. 'Marriage' remained the common word for it because it's hard to change what you call something after 1700+ years of calling it something.

Marriage is religious in nature, and is completely and utterly unimportant to the civil authority. What they want is a civil union confirmed by the civil authority. Hence why my marriage to my thirteen brides within the Church of Example doesn't mean diddly squat because theirs no marriage license.\

To put it another simpler way: Everyone who is married legally is in a civil union. Not everyone who is in a civil union is married.

I disagree. This would only apply if marriages outside that religion were not considered valid. Now, despite the supremacy of one religion or another in one place or another, they all had to acknowledge, and at times, not be in open conflict with other faiths.

Now, certainly, there were times when one religion would utterly repudiate all others, but times when they would not, and be forced to tolerate, at least to an extent, others.

thaluikhain:

Bentusi16:
My point is that prior to a certain point there was no difference between a 'civil union' and a 'marriage' because there wasn't any real difference between 'the state' and 'the church'. When you got married in england you were being married into the church of England, the formally recognized religion of the English and the one that the crown backed and that backed the crown, since the king/queen was the head of the english church. The same goes for almost every other country in western europe, where we derive many of our definitions for.

Marriage was and is a religious institution because the religious institutions were the ones who took care of it.

It is not until you get a clear separation between church and state that marriage becomes a tricky issue. Previously, the state and the church having been essentially one entity meant that all those marriages under the church laws about 'what it means to be married' WERE marriage. Then suddenly you have countries popping up that don't HAVE a state religion, or who put walls up. So while the religions are still marrying people under their laws, now the secular authority ALSO has to approve said marriage. Hence the birth of 'civil unions'. The civil (or secular) government confirms a 'marriage' between two people with or without a religions approval. 'Marriage' remained the common word for it because it's hard to change what you call something after 1700+ years of calling it something.

Marriage is religious in nature, and is completely and utterly unimportant to the civil authority. What they want is a civil union confirmed by the civil authority. Hence why my marriage to my thirteen brides within the Church of Example doesn't mean diddly squat because theirs no marriage license.\

To put it another simpler way: Everyone who is married legally is in a civil union. Not everyone who is in a civil union is married.

I disagree. This would only apply if marriages outside that religion were not considered valid. Now, despite the supremacy of one religion or another in one place or another, they all had to acknowledge, and at times, not be in open conflict with other faiths.

Now, certainly, there were times when one religion would utterly repudiate all others, but times when they would not, and be forced to tolerate, at least to an extent, others.

True, but in a historical context, again up until the enlightenment, toleration was seen as a failure.

Again, let us look at England.

Whoops hit the button to soon.

Toleration is what you do when you cannot beat, bribe, kill, assimilate, or otherwise remove an opposing view for a vast majority of history.

So England, during the reign of Henry the VIII, breaks off from the catholic church for a variety of reasons, but here are some of the things that come of it:

1. Catholics are not allowed to vote
2. Catholics cannot hold any high office.
3. Catholics must pay a church tax or tithe to the church of england.
4. Catholics are not allowed to worship openly
5. Catholic ceremonies are not recognized and are in fact illegal.

At the time, your marriage 'before god and king' would only be recognized through the Anglican church, which also handled all the marriage licensee stuff. Foreigners were treated slightly differently, but this is within the society itself. Englishmen v englishmen.

Now, to further my statements earlier a bit, anyone not married by a religion of some sort is not married. Marriage has always tradiationally been a religious (I'm just going to come out and say NOT CHRISTIAN, but religious) ceremony designed to do some sort of mystic stuff with the joining of two souls (or two souls and a harem or several souls). That includes straight couples, as my parents exampled earlier. They are not married, they are in a 'civil union'. They have every right and privilege of a 'married' couple, and so should any homosexuals who enter such a union. And any homosexuals who find a church that will actually 'marry' them under the churches banner would be truly 'married.'

That this is not the case is the biggest issue; the law should be equal for homosexual couples as it is for heterosexual.

In fact, much genealogy we have is possible because the churches of the world record marriages, they record deaths, and they record births. The civil authority usually gets a copy of this, but the originals are almost always in the religious records.

Imperator_DK:
Somewhere in the long chain from raw material to share holder payout, a person whose views and actions one find disagreeable will nigh-inevitably profit from any purchase made. So the simple reason of avoiding hypocrisy keep people from boycotting, since actually living up to the standard it entails would require them to drop practically all purchases, certainly those non-essential to their survival.

No standard need be entailed by a boycott. It can be as little as an expression of a group's preferences-- not some kind of ethical requirement or anything like that.

Seanchaidh:

Imperator_DK:
Somewhere in the long chain from raw material to share holder payout, a person whose views and actions one find disagreeable will nigh-inevitably profit from any purchase made. So the simple reason of avoiding hypocrisy keep people from boycotting, since actually living up to the standard it entails would require them to drop practically all purchases, certainly those non-essential to their survival.

No standard need be entailed by a boycott. It can be as little as an expression of a group's preferences-- not some kind of ethical requirement or anything like that.

Provided of course that the participants don't claim the boycott has anything to do with ethics. Few groups tend to frame their boycotts as a personal preferences thing.

Also, I'd find it doubtful whether the word "boycott" can even apply to not purchasing something because you don't feel like doing so. If your reason don't extend beyond your own personal preferences, then you're hardly doing anything unusual. And you consider your reasoning founded in external factors - such as principles or ethics - then it is no longer personal, but must be consistent with these external factors in their entirety.

What about you? Has it changed your opinion at all?

Their response below makes me think less of them.

Lionsgate will continue its longstanding commitment to the LGBT community by exploring new ways we can support LGBT causes

Does Lionsgate actually have a longstanding commitment,whatever that's supposed to mean, to the LGBT community and why are they saying that when it's homosexuals who are upset?
Do they have longstanding commitments to any other groups? Goths,midgets,retards,tramps,retarded tramps?

Bentusi16:

Now, to further my statements earlier a bit, anyone not married by a religion of some sort is not married. Marriage has always tradiationally been a religious (I'm just going to come out and say NOT CHRISTIAN, but religious) ceremony designed to do some sort of mystic stuff with the joining of two souls (or two souls and a harem or several souls). That includes straight couples, as my parents exampled earlier. They are not married, they are in a 'civil union'. They have every right and privilege of a 'married' couple, and so should any homosexuals who enter such a union. And any homosexuals who find a church that will actually 'marry' them under the churches banner would be truly 'married.'

Considering the dictionary disagrees with you, by what principle are you deciding what 'marriage' means? Words change. Being absurdly conservative in word changes isn't an argument, it's just a failing to recognize how the language changes.

ninjaRiv:
Harrison Ford has also responded.

http://spinoff.comicbookresources.com/2013/07/18/sdcc-harrison-ford-addresses-orson-scott-card-enders-game-controversy/

TBH, what do you expect him to say

"Actually, yeah, nobody should watch this new movie I'm in"?

thaluikhain:

ninjaRiv:
Harrison Ford has also responded.

http://spinoff.comicbookresources.com/2013/07/18/sdcc-harrison-ford-addresses-orson-scott-card-enders-game-controversy/

TBH, what do you expect him to say

"Actually, yeah, nobody should watch this new movie I'm in"?

True, but does that make him wrong or right? I know that ford pretty much defends every movie he's in but that doesn't mean he's not giving an honest opinion.

ninjaRiv:
True, but does that make him wrong or right? I know that ford pretty much defends every movie he's in but that doesn't mean he's not giving an honest opinion.

Not wrong or right, merely irrelevant. He might as well dress up as a chicken on weekends, has no bearing on this issue.

thaluikhain:

ninjaRiv:
True, but does that make him wrong or right? I know that ford pretty much defends every movie he's in but that doesn't mean he's not giving an honest opinion.

Not wrong or right, merely irrelevant. He might as well dress up as a chicken on weekends, has no bearing on this issue.

... I'd pay to see that film...

I think to some it's important because some have the same view.

ninjaRiv:
I know that ford pretty much defends every movie he's in but that doesn't mean he's not giving an honest opinion.

Not necessarily. However, it makes speculation about the honesty of his opinion completely irrelevant.

If you find his argument convincing, then fine. But you can't put any particular weight on it because he said it, because it may well not actually be what he believes. He has stated in the past that he feels a professional obligation to support the films he has been involved in, so it stands to reason that that's what he's going to do, at least until it no longer matters.

And given that Ford is in his 70s now, we may never get to that stage.

evilthecat:

ninjaRiv:
I know that ford pretty much defends every movie he's in but that doesn't mean he's not giving an honest opinion.

Not necessarily. However, it makes speculation about the honesty of his opinion completely irrelevant.

If you find his argument convincing, then fine. But you can't put any particular weight on it because he said it, because it may well not actually be what he believes. He has stated in the past that he feels a professional obligation to support the films he has been involved in, so it stands to reason that that's what he's going to do, at least until it no longer matters.

And given that Ford is in his 70s now, we may never get to that stage.

... I simply posted this link because it's relevant and I agree with it. I wasn't saying "Ford said I'm right, we can all go home now."

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked