Break-ups are hard to do....

[quote name='onetrackmind']I never did understand why some people commit suicide over a failed relationship. Yeah it sucks most of the time when it happens and sometimes they take alittle while to get over but lets be realistic, in the whole scheme of things its not really that big of a deal. Which reminds me of something someone once said "women are like bus stops, there is one on every corner."[/QUOTE]

Well, love is essentially just a chemical imbalance in the brain, so occassional psychotic behavior is to be expected.
 
[quote name='jaykrue']That's bullshit. It aggravates me to think that people are still so uptight about nudity yet nonchalant about violence. A pair of boobs idealistically SHOULD be work safe and kid friendly unlike seeing someone blow his own brains out. I find it more appalling that the nation is more concerned about censoring Janet's boobs rather figuring out why our brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, cousins, uncles, aunts, mothers, and fathers are dying for a 'war' they may or may not necessarily support but do so anyway due to their loyalty. Sure boobs are nice to look at but the only reason why seeing such a sight is so taboo is that the US is a puritanical nation despite its claims of openmindedness. The more you hide something, the more someone will want to see it.[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying that breasts are offensive. My point pretty much agrees with what you're saying. I'm saying that something as unoffensive as breasts gets the same warnings as the ones JimmieMac put for this thread, which is why I think his warnings were insufficient. And I really don't think breasts (or any sort of nudity) is appropriate in the workplace and I don't see how it could be unless your job dealt with nudity. Just my opinion though.
 
[quote name='judyjudyjudy']I'm not saying that breasts are offensive. My point pretty much agrees with what you're saying. I'm saying that something as unoffensive as breasts gets the same warnings as the ones JimmieMac put for this thread, which is why I think his warnings were insufficient. And I really don't think breasts (or any sort of nudity) is appropriate in the workplace and I don't see how it could be unless your job dealt with nudity. Just my opinion though.[/QUOTE]

Ok, hostile attitude recanted. But I think you're still wrong about the warning. The word 'warning' itself implies something that must be highly and carefully considered - boobie shot or suicide notwithstanding. So nonetheless, given that it was a warning (attention calling to something that may not suit some peoples' tastes), you had full and ample attention given due to potentially hostile/unpleasant information. Since your attention was alerted, it is your own responsibility to accept or deny the information depending on your willingness to view it. If someone viewed this video despite the warning and bitches about how they weren't informed enough of the situation, that person lacks any willpower and can therefore not be taken seriously as he/she blatantly disregarded the aforementioned warning. Warnings are there for a reason. Just because it implies something doesn't lessen the weight of the warning. No one is forcing anyone to watch the video. In fact, the warning is there to ward off those whose sensibilities might be too fragile to view it.
 
[quote name='Brad906']Can someone tell me what goatse is? I don't want to google it...[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately, no one can be told what the goatse is. You have to see it for yourself.
 
[quote name='jmcc']Unfortunately, no one can be told what the goatse is. You have to see it for yourself.[/QUOTE]

You, sir, are an evil, evil man.:D
 
I watched the Breakups video the other day, and it was pretty shaq'd up. However, the more I think about it, the more I think it is a hoax.

WARNING THIS IS EXPLICIT AS WELL. THAT SHOULD BE A GOOD ENOUGH WARNING FOR THE SQUEAMISH.

For one, the first link says 'double suicide', yet there is no mention of anyone else killing themselves, or where . Two, why would a closed circuit video system... in the Bronx of all places... not be in black and white. Third, why isn't this all over the Internet? An incident like this should spread like wildfire. And finally, once you get past the initial shock, you'll realize that it is not graphic enough. The angle of exit would intersect with brain matter as well as bone, yet there is no evidence of such. I conclude that this is a hoax, although a very well laid out one.
 
[quote name='magilacudy']I watched the Breakups video the other day, and it was pretty shaq'd up. However, the more I think about it, the more I think it is a hoax.

WARNING THIS IS EXPLICIT AS WELL. THAT SHOULD BE A GOOD ENOUGH WARNING FOR THE SQUEAMISH.

For one, the first link says 'double suicide', yet there is no mention of anyone else killing themselves, or where . Two, why would a closed circuit video system... in the Bronx of all places... not be in black and white. Third, why isn't this all over the Internet? An incident like this should spread like wildfire. And finally, once you get past the initial shock, you'll realize that it is not graphic enough. The angle of exit would intersect with brain matter as well as bone, yet there is no evidence of such. I conclude that this is a hoax, although a very well laid out one.[/QUOTE]

All of your "not graphic enough" arguments get tossed out the window after viewing this link:

http://www.snopes.com/photos/gruesome/interrogate.asp

Like my grandfather once said "The less a man makes declarative statment the less apt he is to look foolish in retrospect"
 
[quote name='JimmieMac']All of your "not graphic enough" arguments get tossed out the window after viewing this link:

http://www.snopes.com/photos/gruesome/interrogate.asp
[/QUOTE]

Granted, I was hasty in concluding, but that clip has been confirmed and the one you originally posted hasn't... that doesn't necessarily validate the first video. That being said, I'll hold off on judging until there is more evidence to the contrary.

[quote name='JimmieMac']Like my grandfather once said "The less a man makes declarative statment the less apt he is to look foolish in retrospect"[/QUOTE]

Interesting, because my old grand daddy used to say the same thing.
 
[quote name='Brad906']Can someone tell me what goatse is? I don't want to google it...[/QUOTE]
I apparantly don't know the differences between my freak porn...
 
I think the second video is a little odd... The guy in the room was just arrested for shooting a cop. Firstly... how could they not have checked him? Secondly... The left him unattended in a room unhandcuffed. Perhaps what I find most offensive, the officer goes to get the criminal a bottle of water and hands it to him saying "here you are senoir." Why the fuck are you showing any sort of respect to someone that just shot a fellow officer TWICE? The guy is just sitting there acting like he's waiting at the mechanic. Does that just not add up for anyone else?
 
[quote name='Kayden']*goatse discription... you may not want to read....*


Uh... well... Imagine someone with diahrea laying on their shoulders and sticking their ass over their face... I'm sure you can take it from there.[/QUOTE]

That's tubgirl newb.
 
It's interesting that if someone mentions, say, ROMs, everyone jumps down the poster's throat about how this is CheapyD's livelyhood and publishers don't want their products associated with piracy discussion, but I guess linking to graphically-explicit videos of people killing themselves is okay. "NSFW" is generally accepted that you're going to see something like boobies, not people killing themselves. The OP should have indicated a little more clearly what the link was, but I think his intent was to trap people who were anticipating nudity. Whatever, it's sick and juvenile.

Oh, and I think the "goatse" description is actually referencing "tubgirl."
 
Some people seem to think not wanting to view this stuff is like screaming "oh, my virgin eyes!". But, for me, it is a conscious, moral decison not to want to make a spectacle out of someones death. To me it's wrong to view this stuff. If there was some informative or educational value that's one thing, this is just for kicks.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Some people seem to think not wanting to view this stuff is like screaming "oh, my virgin eyes!". But, for me, it is a conscious, moral decison not to want to make a spectacle out of someones death. To me it's wrong to view this stuff. If there was some informative or educational value that's one thing, this is just for kicks.[/QUOTE]

Seems pretty informative and educational to me. Now, if it had Bob Saget quipping over it, then it would be just for kicks. "Ooh, I've got a shooting pain in my head *slide whistle*"
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Some people seem to think not wanting to view this stuff is like screaming "oh, my virgin eyes!". But, for me, it is a conscious, moral decison not to want to make a spectacle out of someones death. To me it's wrong to view this stuff. If there was some informative or educational value that's one thing, this is just for kicks.[/QUOTE]

Now that's total bullshit. If you go by that argument, then every single movie involving a violent death (yes, including Passion of the Christ) would not be seen since on some level it is entertaining and it IS a spectacle. Don't give me that high moral ground BS since you are supposed to be rational human beings capable of making choices and thus are able to make choices about what you can or cannot see. The violent graphic death seen in Passion could've easily been told (and has been in the Bible). Yet, on some levels people found the movie informative (if you aren't Catholic) and entertaining. As I have kept on reiterating, if you feel that something is too shocking for you to see, simple, don't view it. You have eyes that can see in many directions. Avert them. Look someplace else.
 
[quote name='adamsappel']It's interesting that if someone mentions, say, ROMs, everyone jumps down the poster's throat about how this is CheapyD's livelyhood and publishers don't want their products associated with piracy discussion, but I guess linking to graphically-explicit videos of people killing themselves is okay. "NSFW" is generally accepted that you're going to see something like boobies, not people killing themselves. The OP should have indicated a little more clearly what the link was, but I think his intent was to trap people who were anticipating nudity. Whatever, it's sick and juvenile.

Oh, and I think the "goatse" description is actually referencing "tubgirl."[/QUOTE]

So, in your opinion, were you to go your place of business, where you are supposed to be doing work, that showing this clip to your cubicle buddies is more safe to view at work than a pair of tits? Methinks that is sick in of itself.
 
[quote name='jaykrue']Now that's total bullshit. If you go by that argument, then every single movie involving a violent death (yes, including Passion of the Christ) would not be seen since on some level it is entertaining and it IS a spectacle. Don't give me that high moral ground BS since you are supposed to be rational human beings capable of making choices and thus are able to make choices about what you can or cannot see. The violent graphic death seen in Passion could've easily been told (and has been in the Bible). Yet, on some levels people found the movie informative (if you aren't Catholic) and entertaining. As I have kept on reiterating, if you feel that something is too shocking for you to see, simple, don't view it. You have eyes that can see in many directions. Avert them. Look someplace else.[/QUOTE]

Big difference between a fake movie death and a real person really dying there pardner, BIG difference.
 
[quote name='evilmax17']Big difference between a fake movie death and a real person really dying there pardner, BIG difference.[/QUOTE]

So the fact that it's a character in a movie and he's beaten to a bloody pulp makes it less graphically violent than a real death. 2 words. B. S.
 
[quote name='jaykrue']Ok, hostile attitude recanted. But I think you're still wrong about the warning. The word 'warning' itself implies something that must be highly and carefully considered - boobie shot or suicide notwithstanding. So nonetheless, given that it was a warning (attention calling to something that may not suit some peoples' tastes), you had full and ample attention given due to potentially hostile/unpleasant information. Since your attention was alerted, it is your own responsibility to accept or deny the information depending on your willingness to view it. If someone viewed this video despite the warning and bitches about how they weren't informed enough of the situation, that person lacks any willpower and can therefore not be taken seriously as he/she blatantly disregarded the aforementioned warning. Warnings are there for a reason. Just because it implies something doesn't lessen the weight of the warning. No one is forcing anyone to watch the video. In fact, the warning is there to ward off those whose sensibilities might be too fragile to view it.[/QUOTE]

I don't see your logic here. Nothing about, NSFW, only 18+, etc. implies anything hostile or unpleasant. You are correct that NSFW is a warning, but it's a warning about what is appropriate for the workplace, NOT a warning that the content might horrify or disturb.

Your argument is a strawman argument, because by the same logic, one could say, "Well, no one's forcing you to use the internet; it's your own fault." The real point is that it's a courtesy to give a proper description or warning for a blind link, and that is what is being argued here.

The OP could have been far more courteous by actually saying "this content is graphic" or "this content may disturb you." NSFW is not an equivalent descriptor.

I personally am pretty desenitized to violence, and the link didn't distrub me. But I feel the need to point out the flaw in your argument:

It is your PERSONAL interpretation that NSFW also covers horrific/shock content. Many people have responded in this thread that the NSFW warning did not adequately warn them about the content. These two facts alone are proof positive that the OP was unintentionally vague in his description. If he had said, "graphic suicide," "horrific violence," etc., there is no question that it would have been a better description.
 
[quote name='spaceloaf']I don't see your logic here. Nothing about, NSFW, only 18+, etc. implies anything hostile or unpleasant. You are correct that NSFW is a warning, but it's a warning about what is appropriate for the workplace, NOT a warning that the content might horrify or disturb.

Your argument is a strawman argument, because by the same logic, one could say, "Well, no one's forcing you to use the internet; it's your own fault." The real point is that it's a courtesy to give a proper description or warning for a blind link, and that is what is being argued here.

The OP could have been far more courteous by actually saying "this content is graphic" or "this content may disturb you." NSFW is not an equivalent descriptor.

I personally am pretty desenitized to violence, and the link didn't distrub me. But I feel the need to point out the flaw in your argument:

It is your PERSONAL interpretation that NSFW also covers horrific/shock content. Many people have responded in this thread that the NSFW warning did not adequately warn them about the content. These two facts alone are proof positive that the OP was unintentionally vague in his description. If he had said, "graphic suicide," "horrific violence," etc., there is no question that it would have been a better description.[/QUOTE]

How is it my personal interpretation? NSFW means not safe for work. That's proof positive that this stuff shouldn't be viewed in a workplace nor is it something that is acceptable to view for persons under the age of 18. Even if the OP was vague, it was a warning and that's what everyone is missing. It is a warning - telling you to go away; you may not want to see this. See the conditions that apply. And how is that a strawman argument? The fact of the matter is, no one IS forcing you to use the internet. It IS your own fault for clicking the link despite the warning given. Everyone seems to think that NSFW means nudity. That's THEIR interpretation. If something is 'not safe for work', I do NOT see any sexual meaning in those words. They simply mean that it is not appropriate to view at work - sexually or otherwise. Fact of the matter is NSFW does NOT constitute nude images. There's no dictionary that says: not safe for work specifically refers to graphically nude images. That's only the socially accepted convention. Look at the words themselves: NOT. SAFE. FOR. WORK. Nowhere in those 4 words are the words nudity, boobs, tits, penis, cock, pussy and every other descriptor of a human sex organ listed. They are IMPLIED. Big difference from DECLARED parameters.
 
[quote name='jaykrue']How is it my personal interpretation?
...
Everyone seems to think that NSFW means nudity. That's THEIR interpretation. If something is 'not safe for work', I do NOT see any sexual meaning in those words. They simply mean that it is not appropriate to view at work - sexually or otherwise. Fact of the matter is NSFW does NOT constitute nude images.[/QUOTE]

You just answered your own question.
 
[quote name='jaykrue']So the fact that it's a character in a movie and he's beaten to a bloody pulp makes it less graphically violent than a real death. 2 words. B. S.[/QUOTE]

Because, as an adult, you should be able to distinguish between the two. This is why parents need to watch TV and play videogames with their children. You need to make sure that the child realizes that the violence portrayed in what they're watching isn't real.

You fail to recognize a difference in portrayed violence as compared to real violence? It's no wonder that today's society blames videogames for everything, and doesn't hesitate to send people to their deaths in Iraq. Real violence seems to have lost its meaning...
 
[quote name='jaykrue']Look at the words themselves: NOT. SAFE. FOR. WORK. Nowhere in those 4 words are the words nudity, boobs, tits, penis, cock, pussy and every other descriptor of a human sex organ listed. They are IMPLIED. Big difference from DECLARED parameters.[/QUOTE]

Whatever, I can see that it's pointless to argue with you, since you are incapable of listening to other points of view.

Language is about communicating ideas. NSFW does not mean anything in its self. What people assume is safe and not safe for work is based on personal interpretation. If you said NSFW 50 years ago, I bet it would mean something completely different.

It is precisely because of this fact that NSFW is NOT a valid descriptor for something of this nature. As you say yourself, it does not actually say anything concrete about the content. On the other hand, "graphic violence" does say something concrete. If you ask anyone which one is more descriptive, no one is going to argue.


Other people have chosen to interpret NSFW differently than you have. Yet you claim you're right despite saying in your own words, "Nowhere in those 4 words are the words nudity, boobs, tits, penis, cock, pussy and every other descriptor of a human sex organ listed."

Well guess what, nowhere does it say live suicide, graphic violence, disturbing content, etc., either. In fact the only thing it says is that somewhere, someone might find this offensive in some way. It could be sex related, it could be racial, it could be violent, it could contain explicit language, etc. There is NO information given at all by saying NSFW, by your own words. Last time I checked, that was the definition of non-descriptive.

At any rate, I'm done with this. The only one that you've convinced is yourself.
 
[quote name='evilmax17']Because, as an adult, you should be able to distinguish between the two. This is why parents need to watch TV and play videogames with their children. You need to make sure that the child realizes that the violence portrayed in what they're watching isn't real.

You fail to recognize a difference in portrayed violence as compared to real violence? It's no wonder that today's society blames videogames for everything, and doesn't hesitate to send people to their deaths in Iraq. Real violence seems to have lost its meaning...[/QUOTE]

I am able to distinguish the difference. If you reread my post, and I quote myself:

Don't give me that high moral ground BS since you are supposed to be rational human beings capable of making choices and thus are able to make choices about what you can or cannot see.

So your comment is moot. I already addressed the concern about choice. That's the crux of my argument. I make it a point that everyone has a choice to view the material. What I am bothered by is that everyone is up in arms because they feel they weren't given enough warning. I address the concern that the term NSFW = nudity. It doesn't. That's only the socially accepted convention. Doesn't mean it is correct. Only that it is widely accepted. The term stands for 'not safe for work'. This has no sexual connotation at all. There is nothing there in those 4 words that explicitly states 'watch out, nude graphic images ahead'. Simply put, it says that you shouldn't look at this because it may be of a nature that is inappropriate to view at your place of business. I think graphic vioence (real or imagined) and nudity BOTH fall under that qualification. Fact of the matter is, you SHOULDN'T be viewing violent graphic images (unless it is specifically required by your job like a doctor or cop) or nudity (once again, unless it is specifically required by your job). Barring specific jobs such as doctor, cop, strippers, most businesses would take particular offense to an employee, who, by all rights should be working, as opposed to watching nudity and/or violence.
 
[quote name='jaykrue']Uh, you missed the point of my post. I just said that. I know the warning was clear enough. I wasn't refuting that the warning was enough. I was clarifying that exact point to alonzo - I don't know why you had to tell me. Speaking to the choir.[/QUOTE]
i was agreeing with you. i used your quote to reiterate the point.
 
[quote name='spaceloaf']Whatever, I can see that it's pointless to argue with you, since you are incapable of listening to other points of view.[/QUOTE]

You haven't proven me wrong yet. I'm open to others' ideas... only when I don't feel I'm wrong.


[quote name='spaceloaf'] Language is about communicating ideas. NSFW does not mean anything in its self. What people assume is safe and not safe for work is based on personal interpretation. If you said NSFW 50 years ago, I bet it would mean something completely different.[/QUOTE]

Does it matter? The term STILL doesn't explicitly say nudity. Regardless of the time period. It still doesn't mean nudity.

[quote name='spaceloaf'] It is precisely because of this fact that NSFW is NOT a valid descriptor for something of this nature. As you say yourself, it does not actually say anything concrete about the content. On the other hand, "graphic violence" does say something concrete. If you ask anyone which one is more descriptive, no one is going to argue.[/QUOTE]

I won't refute that graphic violence is a more apt description. But the warning doesn't HAVE TO say anything concrete about the content. It was a warning for you not to view it if you fit into the prequalified conditions. If you don't meet any of those conditions (not working, are not under 18, not a kid, not friendly), then maybe, just MAYBE, you shouldn't be viewing it. Simple isn't it?

[quote name='spaceloaf']Other people have chosen to interpret NSFW differently than you have. Yet you claim you're right despite saying in your own words, "Nowhere in those 4 words are the words nudity, boobs, tits, penis, cock, pussy and every other descriptor of a human sex organ listed."

Well guess what, nowhere does it say live suicide, graphic violence, disturbing content, etc., either. In fact the only thing it says is that somewhere, someone might find this offensive in some way. It could be sex related, it could be racial, it could be violent, it could contain explicit language, etc. There is NO information given at all by saying NSFW, by your own words. Last time I checked, that was the definition of non-descriptive.[/QUOTE]

See above.

[quote name='spaceloaf'] At any rate, I'm done with this. The only one that you've convinced is yourself.[/QUOTE]

Why are you leaving? The awkward tension was just getting started.
 
Alright, then on the subject of "warning":

Sex/nudity = NSFW
Violence = NSFW
NSFW != Violence
NSFW != Sex/nudity

I'd draw a Venn diagram, but that'd be like 2 in a week at CAG, and that's too many circles for me.

I think there should've been clarification in the OP. That being said, I knew enough not to click it until there was clarification. I don't feel bad for the people that saw it without wanting to, they shouldn't randomly click links with ominous vague warnings.

In sumation, you're all idiots.
 
[quote name='evilmax17']Alright, then on the subject of "warning":

Sex/nudity = NSFW
Violence = NSFW
NSFW != Violence
NSFW != Sex/nudity

I'd draw a Venn diagram, but that'd be like 2 in a week at CAG, and that's too many circles for me.

I think there should've been clarification in the OP. That being said, I knew enough not to click it until there was clarification. I don't feel bad for the people that saw it without wanting to, they shouldn't randomly click links with ominous vague warnings.

In sumation, you're all idiots.[/QUOTE]

nice summary :applause::lol:
 
[quote name='jaykrue']Now that's total bullshit. If you go by that argument, then every single movie involving a violent death (yes, including Passion of the Christ) would not be seen since on some level it is entertaining and it IS a spectacle. Don't give me that high moral ground BS since you are supposed to be rational human beings capable of making choices and thus are able to make choices about what you can or cannot see. The violent graphic death seen in Passion could've easily been told (and has been in the Bible). Yet, on some levels people found the movie informative (if you aren't Catholic) and entertaining. As I have kept on reiterating, if you feel that something is too shocking for you to see, simple, don't view it. You have eyes that can see in many directions. Avert them. Look someplace else.[/QUOTE]

I figured most people could understand the difference between real and a movie. Guess I was wrong.
 
Yay! Snuff films....ya know, I had a room mate who would download death films every once in a while. he seemed like a normal guy to everyone, but the fact that he watched that crap told me otherwise. people who watch that stuff are messed up in the head, not in the funny "ha-ha you're crazy" way either.

[quote name='jaykrue']So the fact that it's a character in a movie and he's beaten to a bloody pulp makes it less graphically violent than a real death. 2 words. B. S.[/QUOTE]


That's not BS at all. the fact that it's real makes it worse to watch. I thought everyone understood these "little" differences between reality and fantasy.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I figured most people could understand the difference between real and a movie. Guess I was wrong.[/QUOTE]

See post #84.
 
[quote name='Apossum']Yay! Snuff films....ya know, I had a room mate who would download death films every once in a while. he seemed like a normal guy to everyone, but the fact that he watched that crap told me otherwise. people who watch that stuff are messed up in the head, not in the funny "ha-ha you're crazy" way either.




That's not BS at all. the fact that it's real makes it worse to watch. I thought everyone understood these "little" differences between reality and fantasy.[/QUOTE]

I'm not disputing the realism/fantasy of a movie. Seeing someone die as a form of entertainment (i.e. when someone gets impaled by a sword or gets their head blown off) vs. a suicide video (this is technically not a snuff film since the murderer is the same as the victim and he's not doing it out of pleasure) are both disturbing when you think about it. They both feature a person dying (sometimes in a brutal fashion). So what if it is real or fake? Does it salve your conscience that it's happening to a fictional character vs. someone killing themselves? They are both still dead (imaginary or otherwise) and it is nonetheless disturbing to watch. Anyway, that wasn't the point of my argument. The point I was trying to make, regardless of the real/fakeness of the video is that ppl were sufficiently warned.
 
[quote name='Brad906']Can someone tell me what goatse is? I don't want to google it...[/QUOTE]


Ok... I think I found the right one... Imagine this guy naked... and NOT holding a watermellon... Personally, I find tubgirl way more disturbing.

7606.jpg
 
[quote name='Kayden']Ok... I think I found the right one... Imagine this guy naked... and NOT holding a watermellon... Personally, I find tubgirl way more disturbing.

7606.jpg
[/QUOTE]

You think goatse is disturbing? Then don't google goatse girl... it's a whole lot worse. *shiver*
 
[quote name='Kayden']Ok... I think I found the right one... Imagine this guy naked... and NOT holding a watermellon... Personally, I find tubgirl way more disturbing.

7606.jpg
[/QUOTE]

I hate you. I had always assumed that I've never seen goatse or tubgirl, that picture made me remember what I think was goatse, meaning I actually have seen it (if the memory is correct). I succesfully blocked it out, why did you bring it back?
 
Pretty interesting that a post with a video of a guy shooting himself in the head will get posted up to the "new posts" section on CAG's main page, but say a negative comment about Our Leader George W Bush and it gets buried in the VS forum at the back of CAG.

It's nice living in the new America.
 
Does it salve your conscience that it's happening to a fictional character vs. someone killing themselves? They are both still dead (imaginary or otherwise) and it is nonetheless disturbing to watch. Anyway, that wasn't the point of my argument. The point I was trying to make, regardless of the real/fakeness of the video is that ppl were sufficiently warned.
Click to expand...

Maybe it does salve my conscience. it just doesn't register the same, since the death of a fictional character is more of a symbol. I can say to my self "yeah, that does happen in the world" acknowledge it or react to it in whatever context it holds in a movie or game. Most of the time in a movie or game they don't want you to see someone die and have you go into a meditative state where you reflect on it-- it's usually understood that it HAS to happen(like the predator killing people in the jungle, jackie chan taking out a group of guys who attack him, Leon shooting groups of possesed villagers in RE4 etc.) Sometimes it's just so dumb or poorly executed that it's laughable, i.e. Mortal Kombat or the Highlander.

The few times I've seen a death flick(thanks to aforementioned roomate tricking me into thinking I would see some funny porn) it was real different. There really weren't any words for seeing that, just that I didn't feel the same for a few days afterwards.

but yes, i agree people were sufficiently warned :D I could sord of tell the OP had a somber tone instead of "YAY BOOBIES!" tone :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top