Brokeback Mountain

Have you seen the American "movie of the year"? (we'll see if the Oscars finish the sweep).

This movie is so polarizing... some people don't want to see the movie on principle... some defend it as a classic love story... some guys claim they don't "get" it but that they are allowed to be what they are... liberal stereotypes versus conservative stereotypes... gay guys saying the movie isn't really a gay movie... the movie does make people think or discuss it.

The movie is subtle, makes the viewer "fill in the blanks" in whatever manner they like at times, but then at crucial points is anything but subtle

• why do these guys even "like" each other, there are very few scenes of any chemistry between them. just seems like the filmmaker is saying it a natural passion between them because that is their nature

• the Jake guy with the funny eyes does seem to be at least gay curious from the start, or at least implied by the filmmaker... the first scene of passion, do we assume that both guys are experienced at gay sex and have just been waiting for the opportunity? or that this buggery is just a natural spontanious act of passion? both guys seem to know what to do, who to do what. this doesnt strike me as realistic but the director wants to emphasize the natural aspect of the act, set the gayness as a natural behavior. isn't there a learning curve with buggery, or isn't that I didn't score high enough on the gay test to understand, or am I in denial?

• Heath is sick after saying goodbye to Jake for the first time... isn't this a bit too much?

• when they meet again for the second time, they are obviously happy to see each other, very understandable... but not very subtle since Ang has them kiss in passion so Heath's wife can see. would this really happen like this? wouldn't it be better to make it a little more subtle and just have the wife be jealous of how Heath prefers to be with Jake?

• when Heath has his wife do it doggy style, this isn't subtle at all... kinda funny actually

• Jake cries when Heath will not commit to him after his divorce... I think everybody can connect with this, your hopes dashed when somebody lets you down by turning you down

• is Heath a failure because society will not let him marry Jake? is Ang Lee saying Heath would he be a success in life if he was allowed to live with Jake?

• the sentimental end with Heath smelling the clothes... makes you cry or way too much?

Ang Lee tries so hard to make this passion seem a natural part of their natures, his theme

but the scenery is beautful, and the pace is a refereshing change of pace from most modern movies

Brokeback Mountain is touching. But if you don't like the subject matter, hey, that's the greatest thing about films. You can decide not to see them.

That being said, the writers said that the film was a statement that love doesn't come with guarantees that it will be easy to love.

And the fact that it has two men as opposed to a man and a woman or even two women doesn't bother me in the slightest.

There is hardly any controversy about Imagine Me and You, and yet that explores a similar theme but in a lesbian context.

The short story, which inspired Brokeback Mountain, ROCKS!

I really do not care for movies that glorify adultery. For the same reason I avoided the English Patient. Do not label me a homophobe, I saw the George Clooney Batman movie.

Ok ok I confess. I purchased the Chinese bootleg of Brokeback Mountain--Crouching Cowboy, Hidden Sausage.

Jake cries when Heath will not commit to him after his divorce... I think everybody can connect with this, your hopes dashed when somebody lets you down by turning you down

he had just driven 14 hours to see him!

pumped full of drugs wrote: Heath is sick after saying goodbye to Jake for the first time... isn't this a bit too much?

not really. he thought he'd never see jake again and it hit him that he was potentially losing the love of his life--yet he couldn't express it in words. and that made him sick.

great film, although not as good as crash.

he thought he'd never see jake again and it hit him that he was potentially losing the love of his life--yet he couldn't express it in words

Is this scene more heart breaking than in The English Patient when Feines returns to the cave to find her dead? Or in The Razor's Edge when Bill Murray's love interest ODs?

I saw it a few weeks ago. It was okay didn't love it or hate it. It was better than it appeared in the trailer they keep showing. The "I can't quit you" line is very corny taken out of context.

So let me get this straight (no pun intended), one of the guys is married??? And this is a "great" love story??? I've never understood this concept of Hollywood movies. The love story that has a true faithful spouse/companion that has been with them for years, but the one that happens to show up and sparks "passion" is their true love??? Seems like the opposite to a love story if you ask me. Here are some good examples of this:

Titanic: She's engaged, has a fling with some peasant dude on the ship and her fiance' is seen as an asshole because he's trying to "control" her. I think he was jealous and was trying everything he could to make her happy. . .whatever.

An Affair to Remember: Considered one of the greatest love films in history. Where there is a guy that has been faithful and true, sends his love on a cruise as a prewedding present, for her to have a fling with, again, some dude on the ship. How is this romantic, the one guy wasted 8 years of his life on that bitch?????

Anyways, not sure how unfaithfulness equals "great love story", anyone have any clues on this???

JHC

AgentWood wrote:

pumped full of drugs wrote: Heath is sick after saying goodbye to Jake for the first time... isn't this a bit too much?

not really. he thought he'd never see jake again and it hit him that he was potentially losing the love of his life--yet he couldn't express it in words. and that made him sick.

so why does the viewer assume that this summer sex was "true love"? the only scene with any hint of friendship is when Randy Quaid is looking thru his binoculars and seeing them play around. is it love just because Heath is retching? just because they had sex? guys have sex all the time with other guys or girls and it's not always romantic love, sometimes it is just people using each other for sex, fucking...

and both guys got married to women... and both ended poorly, Jake got gay bashed and killed presumably while cruising for sex in Texas, while Heath ended up a poor loser. the implication is that both would have been more successful in life if society had allowed them to live together as a loving couple... i guess it is a romantic movie...

68 Pontiac wrote: So let me get this straight (no pun intended), one of the guys is married??? And this is a "great" love story??? I've never understood this concept of Hollywood movies. The love story that has a true faithful spouse/companion that has been with them for years, but the one that happens to show up and sparks "passion" is their true love??? Seems like the opposite to a love story if you ask me. Here are some good examples of this:

Titanic: She's engaged, has a fling with some peasant dude on the ship and her fiance' is seen as an asshole because he's trying to "control" her. I think he was jealous and was trying everything he could to make her happy. . .whatever.

An Affair to Remember: Considered one of the greatest love films in history. Where there is a guy that has been faithful and true, sends his love on a cruise as a prewedding present, for her to have a fling with, again, some dude on the ship. How is this romantic, the one guy wasted 8 years of his life on that bitch?????

Anyways, not sure how unfaithfulness equals "great love story", anyone have any clues on this???

JHC

For somebody who takes the position that life isn't all black and white when it comes to military action, you sure are seeing black and white now. Examples:

1. "The love story that has a true faithful spouse/companion that has been with them for years, but the one that happens to show up and sparks "passion" is their true love??? "

Aren't you assuming things here? How do you know that the spouse has been faithful/true? How do you know that the spouse has been "present" in the marriage? How do you know that the marriage wasn't a mistake in the first place?

2. "Titanic: She's engaged, has a fling with some peasant dude on the ship and her fiance' is seen as an asshole because he's trying to "control" her. I think he was jealous and was trying everything he could to make her happy. . .whatever."

Her fiance is an asshole because, well, he's an asshole. Case in point: How does he get on the lifeboat in the end? Now, why is she engaged to him in the first place? Because her mother-- old money who's run out of money-- pressured her into the marriage for the financial benefits. The asshole, for lack of a better descriptor, is not the right guy for her. Jack-- a penniless artist-- is the right guy. So you're saying that because the asshole bought her a ring, she's obligated to marry him, even though she knows it's a mistake? How does that equate to true love?

3. "An Affair to Remember: Considered one of the greatest love films in history. Where there is a guy that has been faithful and true, sends his love on a cruise as a prewedding present, for her to have a fling with, again, some dude on the ship. How is this romantic, the one guy wasted 8 years of his life on that bitch?????"

Haven't seen it. BUT...again, she's engaged to some guy, who apparently is not the right guy, and on the strength of an nothing more than an engagement you think she should spend the rest of her life with the wrong guy? How is that true love?

Comrade,

My point is that many Hollywood movies portray a quick fling as romantic love.

-If the marriage is so terrible, they should have made a better choice before doing so. Since they are married, they need to WORK to keep it together. This goes for any marriage. What these stories show me are people that are selfish, more involved in themselves, then trying to put the hard work to keep their marriage going. Does this go for ALL marriages, of course not, but Hollywood normally shows normal discourse that happens in a regular marriage.

-Watch Titanic again, but looking through the fiance's point of view, you might understand what I'm talking about. The camerawork and music make the guy seem like an asshole, but if you unbiasedly watch the movie he isn't as bad as he's portrayed. Granted he isn't a Prince Charming, but he's not the controling asshole the movie portrays either.

-I watched Walk the Line last night, and again the same thing happened. The husband and wife weren't working WITH each other. Johnny going around cheating, in love with another woman, while he already has a wife and children.

Filandering is seen as "romantic", and I see it differently.

JHC

68 Pontiac wrote:

-I watched Walk the Line last night, and again the same thing happened. The husband and wife weren't working WITH each other. Johnny going around cheating, in love with another woman, while he already has a wife and children.

Filandering is seen as "romantic", and I see it differently.

JHC

but in Walk the Line the first marriage was sort of a quick marriage of kids, chance to get married so they took it... the love with June Carter took almost 20 years to reach fruition... maybe getting stuck in a marriage that was made in a poor decision... so all divorce is bad because people don't have the balls to go thru and be miserable to make a point?

68 Pontiac wrote: Comrade,

My point is that many Hollywood movies portray a quick fling as romantic love.

-If the marriage is so terrible, they should have made a better choice before doing so. Since they are married, they need to WORK to keep it together. This goes for any marriage. What these stories show me are people that are selfish, more involved in themselves, then trying to put the hard work to keep their marriage going. Does this go for ALL marriages, of course not, but Hollywood normally shows normal discourse that happens in a regular marriage.

I agree entirely about making better choices, and I also agree that people should make the effort to make their marriages work. I think what these stories are showing is that people sometimes realize that they made a mistake when the right person comes along. My point was that things aren;t all black and white-- there may be reasons why somebody decides to walk away from a marriage years later, and those reasons aren't necessarily explored in a film.

-Watch Titanic again, but looking through the fiance's point of view, you might understand what I'm talking about. The camerawork and music make the guy seem like an asshole, but if you unbiasedly watch the movie he isn't as bad as he's portrayed. Granted he isn't a Prince Charming, but he's not the controling asshole the movie portrays either.

Sorry, any guy who "rescues" a child to get himself in a lifeboat, and then dumps her once he's in the lifeboat, is a complete unmitigated asshole.

-I watched Walk the Line last night, and again the same thing happened. The husband and wife weren't working WITH each other. Johnny going around cheating, in love with another woman, while he already has a wife and children.

Filandering is seen as "romantic", and I see it differently.

JHC

I don't think philandering is romantic. I think what these films are showing-- particularly the films where an engaged person meets somebody else-- is that people sometimes make mistakes, and in these romantic fantasies, they realize their mistake before it's too late. In real life, people don't often come to that realization, so Hollywood let's us fantasize.

I would say Walk the Line is showing Johnny Cash, warts and all. Do you think it would it have been a better film if they had covered up his infidelity, for the sake of showing a "happy marriage"?

I haven't seen the film, I would if given a chance but it's not playing anywhere within a hour-drive from my place in the world. And I'm afraid it might turn me off sheep completely :p

But as far as the debate so far, love isn't always meeting the right person at the right time for the two of you to be together and getting together right away, with lots of sex and babies and wonderful memories. Sometimes it takes years to make it work, but love between anyone shouldn't have boundaries placed on it (unless of course it's talking Pauly Shore, which is both wrong and weird).

Comrade, Agree that it showed Cash warts and all. I think they could have done a better job with his first marriage. The movie portrayed it as "young kids quickly getting married", but that is such a simple out. If he put as much energy in his first marriage, as he did chasing after ms. Carter, it surely wouldn't have fallen apart. It was about him seeing the responsibilities of being married and having children, when he could be on the road lost in fame, sex and drugs. . .he chose the later. . .I don't think that point was driven home enough.

JHC

hibster wrote: Jake cries when Heath will not commit to him after his divorce... I think everybody can connect with this, your hopes dashed when somebody lets you down by turning you down

he had just driven 14 hours to see him!

Hibster - what are you doing wearing your heart on your sleeve in this thread???!!!?? Can't you see it's one of those bizarre "where have our traditional, wholesome values gone?" debates that is for citizens of the U.S only????

Know your place.

Can't you see it's one of those bizarre "where have our traditional, wholesome values gone?" debates that is for citizens of the U.S only????

I Concur

pumped full of drugs wrote: why do these guys even "like" each other, there are very few scenes of any chemistry between them

No chemistry is more a comment about the actors rather then the characters.

pumped full of drugs wrote: is Heath a failure because society will not let him marry Jake?

Marriage is a bit of a jump. This movie takes place in the early 60s. Ennis fears coming out because of the memory of a man suspected of being gay being murdered.

pumped full of drugs wrote: Ang Lee tries so hard to make this passion seem a natural part of their natures

It is a natural part of their nature.

68 Pontiac wrote: So let me get this straight (no pun intended), one of the guys is married??? And this is a "great" love story???

The marriage was a mistake, it never should have had to happen, they felt forced to deny who they were. A lot of closeted gays feel they have to get married, even today.

I think Guess Who's Coming to Dinner was the first movie with an interracial couple; I wonder what the reaction was then in 1967.

(The Good Doctor) Martin Fradley wrote:

hibster wrote: Jake cries when Heath will not commit to him after his divorce... I think everybody can connect with this, your hopes dashed when somebody lets you down by turning you down

he had just driven 14 hours to see him!

Hibster - what are you doing wearing your heart on your sleeve in this thread???!!!?? Can't you see it's one of those bizarre "where have our traditional, wholesome values gone?" debates that is for citizens of the U.S only????

Know your place.

taxi wrote: [The marriage was a mistake, it never should have had to happen, they felt forced to deny who they were.

A lot of closeted gays feel they have to get married, even today.

Slapped my head last night-- I totally missed the obvious. Gay man marries a woman, meets another gay man, 68 says the gay man and his wife should "work on their marriage."

O-Kay....

No, I skip most movies in the mainstream theaters, don't like dealing with the idiot crowds in them. I'll just wait till it arrives on HBO or whatever, I'm in no hurry to see it on the first day of DVD release either.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

taxi wrote: [The marriage was a mistake, it never should have had to happen, they felt forced to deny who they were.

A lot of closeted gays feel they have to get married, even today.

Slapped my head last night-- I totally missed the obvious. Gay man marries a woman, meets another gay man, 68 says the gay man and his wife should "work on their marriage."

O-Kay....

Sorry, call me what you will but not too accepting of the gay persuation.

JHC

Well, you don't have to be accepting of the gay persuasion to see the utter futility in advising a gay man to work on his marriage with a (presumably) straight woman...

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Well, you don't have to be accepting of the gay persuasion to see the utter futility in advising a gay man to work on his marriage with a (presumably) straight woman...

It's about responsibility. He chose to marry a woman. Just because he has lustful thoughts about men doesn't releave him of his responsibilities as a husband and possibly a father. Heck, I see women all the time I would love to jump in the sack with, but I have a responsibility to my family. Marriage is so much more than about sex. So the thought that he's a victim of society is complete rubish to me. He chose his route, and he sould take responsiblity for his actions.

JHC

68 Pontiac wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Well, you don't have to be accepting of the gay persuasion to see the utter futility in advising a gay man to work on his marriage with a (presumably) straight woman...

It's about responsibility. He chose to marry a woman. Just because he has lustful thoughts about men doesn't releave him of his responsibilities as a husband and possibly a father. Heck, I see women all the time I would love to jump in the sack with, but I have a responsibility to my family. Marriage is so much more than about sex. So the thought that he's a victim of society is complete rubish to me. He chose his route, and he sould take responsiblity for his actions.

JHC

Gay men sometimes marry women because they're in denial about their sexuality, and getting married "proves" they're not gay. Just like gay men join the military in droves-- because they're in denial about their sexuality, and joing the military "proves" they're not gay.

The reality they discover afterwards is that they're still gay, and when joining the military or getting married doesn't cahnge that, they have to come to terms with what they've been in denial about. That's the point at which they come out.

Sometimes gay men marry when they know they;re gay because it provides a cover to protect their careers or whatever.

"Responsibility" has nothing to do with these sitautions. Are you really suggesting a straight woman should remain in a marriage with a gay man, just because that fits your personal notion of propriety?

I think what 68 is trying to say and what I am saying that the glorification of adultery is not something to be proud of. But marriage would be much better off if people gay or straight got married for the right reasons.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

"Responsibility" has nothing to do with these sitautions. Are you really suggesting a straight woman should remain in a marriage with a gay man, just because that fits your personal notion of propriety?

I don't see the big issue. In marriage, sex drops off. For some a little and others completely off the map. I have friends that have little to no sex with their wives, simply because they don't have the sexual urges anymore (and no they aren't military). Do I understand this, hell no. . .but sex becomes a less important issue. That he is gay isn't a reason to break off a marriage, as they could turn into one of the many happy couples that simply don't have sexual relations. What about the more important parts of marriage? Friendship, guidance, stability, etc.

Cheating is cheating, whether it be someone of the opposite sex or the same.

JHC

twist wrote: I think what 68 is trying to say and what I am saying that the glorification of adultery is not something to be proud of. But marriage would be much better off if people gay or straight got married for the right reasons.

I completely agree with both statements. But I don't agree that these films are glorifying adultery, either. It's still all shades of gray...

twist wrote: I think what 68 is trying to say and what I am saying that the glorification of adultery is not something to be proud of. But marriage would be much better off if people gay or straight got married for the right reasons.

Exactly.

JHC

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: I completely agree with both statements. But I don't agree that these films are glorifying adultery, either. It's still all shades of gray...

Not to start another topic or thread, but have to completely disagree, as there is no grey area in life.

JHC

68 Pontiac wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

taxi wrote: [The marriage was a mistake, it never should have had to happen, they felt forced to deny who they were.

A lot of closeted gays feel they have to get married, even today.

Slapped my head last night-- I totally missed the obvious. Gay man marries a woman, meets another gay man, 68 says the gay man and his wife should "work on their marriage."

O-Kay....

Sorry, call me what you will but not too accepting of the gay persuation.

JHC

And that is why in the early 60s when this movie takes place and still today, gays feel they need to stay closeted.

68 Pontiac wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

"Responsibility" has nothing to do with these sitautions. Are you really suggesting a straight woman should remain in a marriage with a gay man, just because that fits your personal notion of propriety?

I don't see the big issue. In marriage, sex drops off. For some a little and others completely off the map. I have friends that have little to no sex with their wives, simply because they don't have the sexual urges anymore (and no they aren't military). Do I understand this, hell no. . .but sex becomes a less important issue. That he is gay isn't a reason to break off a marriage, as they could turn into one of the many happy couples that simply don't have sexual relations. What about the more important parts of marriage? Friendship, guidance, stability, etc.

Cheating is cheating, whether it be someone of the opposite sex or the same.

JHC

The marriage doesn't end because he wants sex outside the marriage-- it ends because the marriage is a sham. I really don't understand how somebody who is in a committed relationship can have almost no understanding of human relationships. Your comments are made in complete denial of reality.

68 Pontiac wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: I completely agree with both statements. But I don't agree that these films are glorifying adultery, either. It's still all shades of gray...

Not to start another topic or thread, but have to completely disagree, as there is no grey area in life.

JHC

Now you're contradicting yourself. You have explicitly said there are grey areas in U.S. military matters. Is that not "life"?

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Now you're contradicting yourself. You have explicitly said there are grey areas in U.S. military matters. Is that not "life"?

Comrade, Checked my prior posts and can't find what you are refering to. Please explain?

JHC

It was probably in the IRan one. You said something about grey areas (more than once, really) with the U.S. One example: the good guys don't wear white hats, and the bad guys don't wear black hats.

68 Pontiac wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: I completely agree with both statements. But I don't agree that these films are glorifying adultery, either. It's still all shades of gray...

Not to start another topic or thread, but have to completely disagree, as there is no grey area in life.

JHC

all of life is grey areas, nothing in our reality is perfect. people HATE grey areas, they want everything to be simple so they have ideals which are black and white ... this is the universal human condition, the conflict between ideals and reality

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: It was probably in the IRan one. You said something about grey areas (more than once, really) with the U.S. One example: the good guys don't wear white hats, and the bad guys don't wear black hats.

Said that, but that doesn't imply grey area, simply people can be deceptive.

JHC

14% the title is a bad pun that makes you cringe.

68 Pontiac wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: --still all shades of gray..not really..

--no grey area in life.there are some-but not too often. JHC

zing -neworderonline has the world of politics , religion and cultural relations all clearly sorted out. ----here read cultural as either- straight- or organically gay- some people- just are - not after a hit on the head or bad violation. just are. different circuitry . edited after 68 Pontiac 10:26:00 on the right and wrong of some actions--the choices vs. consequences of an action.. plainly - take another step back :substance: and note that the politics that set up the situation in the first place are off. by that example- the Nazi persecution of Jewish. so then to break out of acceptable and take responsibility for the choice. ethics.

Edit: That posted all funky for some reason.

messed up here too.

I'm going to try to post this again.

68 Pontiac wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Well, you don't have to be accepting of the gay persuasion to see the utter futility in advising a gay man to work on his marriage with a (presumably) straight woman...

It's about responsibility. He chose to marry a woman. Just because he has lustful thoughts about men doesn't releave him of his responsibilities as a husband and possibly a father. Heck, I see women all the time I would love to jump in the sack with, but I have a responsibility to my family. Marriage is so much more than about sex. So the thought that he's a victim of society is complete rubish to me. He chose his route, and he sould take responsiblity for his actions.

JHC

A better comparison would be if you were responsible for your brother (for whatever reason). You meet girls you would love to jump in the sack with, but you never act on it because you know you can’t. Then one day you meet the woman you fall in love with (your wife), but you can’t be with her and rarely even see her, not only because of your responsibility to your family, but you also fear you will be killed if anyone finds out.

It’s not just about responsibility; it’s about hiding who you are.

A few grey areas:

1. A man marries a woman and years later she discovers his identity is a sham and in fact he's a serial killer who changed his identity to evade the law. Should she work on her marriage?

2. A man (foreign national) marries a woman and after he has his permanent residency status, he informs her that he only married her for the green card. Should she work on her marriage?

3. A man marries a woman for her money, as she accidentally discovers while on his computer. Should she work on her marriage?

4. A man marries a woman he does not love because she told him he was the father of her child. Later, he discovers that she deceived him because he had a good job, and she was already pregnant when their liaison occurred. Should he work on his marriage?

5. A man marries a woman he does not love because she deceives him that she's pregnant, when in fact she's not. Should he work on his marriage?

6. A man marries a woman because he's gay and wants to conceal that fact. Later, she discovers that he's gay, and has never loved her. Should she work on her marriage?

7. A man marries the boss' daughter, and later she discovers that he never loved her, but only married her to advance his career. Should she work on her marriage?

8. Ehh, I'm tired of this, so ... etc.

"Digital Mike Binoche" wrote:

Can't you see it's one of those bizarre 'where have our traditional, wholesome values gone?' for citizens of the U.S only?

I Concur

quality. international isn't. J.W.

Here's an example of black and white, please give your answer to:

You live in Germany during WWII. Your good friend arrives at your door. He informs you that he is Jewish, and that if caught he and his family will be taken to a concentration camp. You take in his family and hide them in your basement. A few hours later German military show up asking if you are harboring any Jews. You say "no".

Was it wrong to lie?

68 Pontiac wrote: Here's an example of black and white, please give your answer to:

You live in Germany during WWII. Your good friend arrives at your door. He informs you that he is Jewish, and that if caught he and his family will be taken to a concentration camp. You take in his family and hide them in your basement. A few hours later German military show up asking if you are harboring any Jews. You say "no".

Was it wrong to lie?

I think that's a good example of why black and white perspectives don't work. One could say "It's always wrong to lie," but that black & white perspective doesn't recognize the reality that life is shades of grey. Is it better to tell the truth in this instance, or to lie? I would say, and it appears you agree, that it's better to lie. Now if you're discussing the truth with your 2 year old, that's too complex a concept, so you'd just say "always tell the truth," and later, when your 2 year old is older and can handle more complex concepts, you'd say something akin to "always lie to the gestapo."

Comrade, Understand your point, and this example was explained to me a few years back as I actually first thought of grey areas existing.

Answer: It is always wrong to lie. The damage the truth would do makes it a choice. So lying would be wrong, but I would be willing to take the responsibility, judgement and punishment for lying rather than see my friend and his family perish.

Many of your marriage questions have similar reasoning. Thought it would be easier to explain it this way than to talk about each example you gave.

JHC

I fail to see why lying is always wrong. Telling the truth in this case leads to an injustice, while lying leads to justice. What purpose could possibly be served by elevating the importance of the truth above the importance of justice?

Your getting stuck on the injustice of it all.

You have two choices:

1. Tellthe truth, your friend is sent away.

2. you lie, and your friend is safe.

Both have consequences

1. You know you sent your friend to certian death.

2. Lying is punishable offense and could cause your own death.

In the end you have to chose which punishment is worth taking.

This is one problem our society has, when people make choices, but can't accept the concequences that come with these choices. Usually it is chalked up as grey area, so that they can feel like a victim, rather than see that they in fact chose the path they lead.

JHC

I feel like I'm reading Faust.

14 -K wrote: 14% the title is a bad pun that makes you cringe.

68 Pontiac wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: --still all shades of gray..not really..

--no grey area in life.there are some-but not too often. JHC

zing -neworderonline has the world of politics , religion and cultural relations all clearly sorted out. ----here read cultural as either- straight- or organically gay- some people- just are - not after a hit on the head or bad violation. just are. different circuitry . edited after 68 Pontiac 10:26:00 on the right and wrong of some actions--the choices vs. consequences of an action.. plainly - take another step back :substance: and note that the politics that set up the situation in the first place are off. by that example- the Nazi persecution of Jewish. so then to break out of acceptable and take responsibility for the choice. ethics.

A bit lost on what you are writing about??? Also why add stuff to my quote I never wrote??? Whatever.

JHC

68 Pontiac wrote:

14 -K wrote: 14% the title is a bad pun that makes you cringe.

68 Pontiac wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: --still all shades of gray..not really..

--no grey area in life.there are some-but not too often. JHC

zing -neworderonline has the world of politics , religion and cultural relations all clearly sorted out. ----here read cultural as either- straight- or organically gay- some people- just are - not after a hit on the head or bad violation. just are. different circuitry . edited after 68 Pontiac 10:26:00 on the right and wrong of some actions--the choices vs. consequences of an action.. plainly - take another step back :substance: and note that the politics that set up the situation in the first place are off. by that example- the Nazi persecution of Jewish. so then to break out of acceptable and take responsibility for the choice. ethics.

A bit lost on what you are writing about??? Also why add stuff to my quote I never wrote??? Whatever.JHC

ridiculous to quote- and quote - etc.ok.-for- 68-Pontiac- the problem? was agreeing with your point of view there. a few issues were raised. a plain movie , then about the strengths of (heterosexual) marriage, then about your setting up a situation to see if lying is ever acceptable. that you'd be prepared to face the consequences for speaking honestly. I said that's good- but then back up & look at the situation too. lying to 'officials that are carrying out horrid death orders. saying that the situation itself was unacceptable. not the lying or not- within it.- the lying is secondary within the reality of the bad politics. ----------

and anything that I've added- that there are some (grey areas ) - but not too often- is clearly in blue. was just trying to simplify things down to basics. that's all. 'night.

Generic wrote: ffs guys...it was just a movie...

right. just seemed to somhow, gosh , never happened before, go off on a tangent.

I'd go see it if they were porking the sheep

twist wrote: I'd go see it if they were porking the sheep

they are saving the sheep porking for the extended director's cut DVD

Guaranteed to move two units-- one in an Iowa cornfield and one Walhalla.

And loads in Kettering. :D

14 -K wrote: 68-Pontiac- the problem? was agreeing with your point of view there. a few issues were raised. a plain movie , then about the strengths of (heterosexual) marriage, then about your setting up a situation to see if lying is ever acceptable. that you'd be prepared to face the consequences for speaking honestly. I said that's good- but then back up & look at the situation too. lying to 'officials that are carrying out horrid death orders. saying that the situation itself was unacceptable. not the lying or not- within it.- the lying is secondary within the reality of the bad politics. ----------

and anything that I've added- that there are some (grey areas ) - but not too often- is clearly in blue. was just trying to simplify things down to basics. that's all. 'night.

Understood, didn't understand at first, thanks for clarifying. Still not sure why you added to my quotes, but don't worry about it.

The "lying" post was only a way to answer Comrade's other posts. Seemed to take the post off topic momentarily, but not meant to completely take it off point.

JHC

By the way, hopefully no one gets completely irritated by my postings. Trying to have an interesting conversation. Anyone out there married to an "English as a second language" spouse knows that it's hard to have deep conversations. This forum has been my outlet for that.

68 Pontiac wrote:

14 -K wrote: 68-Pontiac- and anything that I've added- that there are some (grey areas ) - but not too often- is clearly in blue. was just trying to simplify things down to basics. that's all. t.

--not sure why you added to my quotes, but don't worry about it. --- outlet for that.

great- glad that I've caught this- sorry. only added to point out a different view. was 3/4 in agreement just had the exceptions to any rule point. this neworderonline can be the greatest place to have a quick bash at 20- questions.. definitely. edit- being decisive is the best way to go. JW.

Actually I always thought of the "exception to the rule" as a personal philosophy, but I got myself in trouble ALOT. Found that I keep a more level head in decision making using the "black/white" rule. So it has become my new personal philosophy. JHC