4 ms·

I’d prefer less violence. It’s crazy that showing one breast will immediately make something pg13, but showing guns, people dying and all sorts of violence is c

by nico 3y ago

I’d prefer less violence. It’s crazy that showing one breast will immediately make something pg13, but showing guns, people dying and all sorts of violence is considered appropriate for all ages

mcpackieh 3y ago
There's no real consistency in any of it. Sometimes breasts are PG-13 (Titanic) but usually any breasts are an automatic R (most other modern movies, except for those with sufficient "art cred"). In movies from the 1980s or earlier, breasts could be in a PG movie (Airplane, Logan's Run.) The PG-13 rating was created in response to violence in PG movies (somebody getting their heart ripped out in Temple of Doom), not nudity.
gosub100 3y ago
or worse, showing people getting shot/stabbed and keep going like they only stepped on a lego. That contributes to people having cavalier attitudes towards guns, instead of deadly weapons that can make you turn limp before you even hit the ground.
- lamontcg 3y ago
  That's actually somewhat accurate, shoot someone with a single 9mm and there's a good chance they'll keep coming like they only stepped on a lego. Depends on if you hit something vital or not, but a whole lot of the human body isn't that immediately vital. But really this is why guns are only for killing people and why you'd empty the magazine if you do it. You can't rely on crippling someone by shooting their leg like in a video game (or sometimes in the movies).
  - gosub100 3y ago
    > there's a good chance I don't see "good chance" on my scientific calculator, or wolfram alpha, or any of my math textbooks. Care to enlighten me on its definition? I have seen hundreds of videos (in the seedy corners of the net) of people being shot, and I can't recall a single one where the victim kept approaching after being fired upon.
    - lamontcg 3y ago
      Here's one: https://www.tasnimnews.com/en/news/2021/02/08/2448815/maryland-deputy-sheriff-opens-fire-at-stick-swinging-assailant-s-chest-video https://www.tasnimnews.com/en/news/2021/02/08/2448815/maryla...
      - gosub100 3y ago
        so "good chance" == 1? That's a meaningless argument. If the value = 1, then we're talking about a value less than the number of people who have been hit by falling space rocks. People don't change the way they act based on 1 incident.
        lamontcg 3y ago
        You said you hadn't seen one and I quickly found you one. No, I don't know how to quantify it, but if you'd like to continue to disagree with me I think you'll have to do the research on it, since you seem to be very engaged with the problem, and I have other things to do.
- nradov 3y ago
  I certainly don't endorse a cavalier attitude towards firearms safely, but the reality is that the majority of people who are shot do survive. It is extremely rare for people to "turn limp" and fall to the ground. Real life isn't like a James Bond movie.

by nico 3y ago

I’d prefer less violence. It’s crazy that showing one breast will immediately make something pg13, but showing guns, people dying and all sorts of violence is considered appropriate for all ages

mcpackieh 3y ago

There's no real consistency in any of it. Sometimes breasts are PG-13 (Titanic) but usually any breasts are an automatic R (most other modern movies, except for those with sufficient "art cred"). In movies from the 1980s or earlier, breasts could be in a PG movie (Airplane, Logan's Run.) The PG-13 rating was created in response to violence in PG movies (somebody getting their heart ripped out in Temple of Doom), not nudity.

gosub100 3y ago

or worse, showing people getting shot/stabbed and keep going like they only stepped on a lego. That contributes to people having cavalier attitudes towards guns, instead of deadly weapons that can make you turn limp before you even hit the ground.

lamontcg 3y ago
That's actually somewhat accurate, shoot someone with a single 9mm and there's a good chance they'll keep coming like they only stepped on a lego. Depends on if you hit something vital or not, but a whole lot of the human body isn't that immediately vital. But really this is why guns are only for killing people and why you'd empty the magazine if you do it. You can't rely on crippling someone by shooting their leg like in a video game (or sometimes in the movies).
- gosub100 3y ago
  > there's a good chance I don't see "good chance" on my scientific calculator, or wolfram alpha, or any of my math textbooks. Care to enlighten me on its definition? I have seen hundreds of videos (in the seedy corners of the net) of people being shot, and I can't recall a single one where the victim kept approaching after being fired upon.
  - lamontcg 3y ago
    Here's one: https://www.tasnimnews.com/en/news/2021/02/08/2448815/maryland-deputy-sheriff-opens-fire-at-stick-swinging-assailant-s-chest-video https://www.tasnimnews.com/en/news/2021/02/08/2448815/maryla...
    - gosub100 3y ago
      so "good chance" == 1? That's a meaningless argument. If the value = 1, then we're talking about a value less than the number of people who have been hit by falling space rocks. People don't change the way they act based on 1 incident.
      - lamontcg 3y ago
        You said you hadn't seen one and I quickly found you one. No, I don't know how to quantify it, but if you'd like to continue to disagree with me I think you'll have to do the research on it, since you seem to be very engaged with the problem, and I have other things to do.
nradov 3y ago
I certainly don't endorse a cavalier attitude towards firearms safely, but the reality is that the majority of people who are shot do survive. It is extremely rare for people to "turn limp" and fall to the ground. Real life isn't like a James Bond movie.