I don't have a problem with violence, I have a problem with hypocritical censorship directed by puritans.
How is it hypocritical? The two things are completely different beasts. I am not going to argue the issue of porn and lack of modesty with you because it would be pointless given how we don't have a common ground on what the issue even is. But complaining people accept violence but not nudity is like saying someone is a hypocrite for not wanting to participate in organ transfer programs over worries about whether they take place before true death, but accepting blood donation (which, of course, has no such issue).
The problem with lack of modesty is that it leads to sinning against the fourth commandment. Watching violence on the tv, on the other hand, doesn't lead to sinning against the 5th. The two are not the same. If you disagree there is such thing as sins, or that sinning against chastity is a bad thing, or even that there is more leeway in how much is allowable, that is a different conversation. But claiming it is hypocritical to be against one but not the other in the same amount is just false.
EDIT: Unneccessarily hostile.
The fourth commandment has nothing to do with modesty in media, it's a massive reach that really undervalues any point you are trying to make.
Fact is, being okay with heavy violence while at the same time not being okay with nipples (I am not talking about anything hardcore in this regard) is dumb, hypocritical censorship.
You are correct, and in my defence I was still half asleep when I typed that. But I hope it is clear I meant the sixth commandment rather than the fourth?
People through two thousand years of Christianity have dressed much more modestly than they do now; in Europe as well. Modesty was seen as more or less important through all this time, but no one argued it wasn't important, and the respect for other people's appetites has always been the reason. So, again, one thing is one thing and another is another. Claiming it is hypocritical just shows you lack the willingness to consider your opponent's view and wants to make hm sound bad.
Six commandment also doesn't make sense, because watching stuff isn't adultery. If you really want to use this type of argument, ninth makes most sense, but that's only if you actually watch this shit for arousal.
To "sin against the sixth commandment" is a turn of phrase taken to mean any kind of sexual immorality or impropriety (while the ninth commandment is either rolled into this or taken to mean as sins against matrimony itself. It is not that discussing what the details of the commandments are isn't a worthy topic, but for the discussion at hand, it is enough for us to be on the same page that, from the Christian point of view at the very least, masturbation and any kind of sexual relationship outside of marriage are mortal sins, and as such to be avoided by all means.
And if we agree, then it is only sane that we keep people dressed modestly. Not because seeing any hint of skin is going to make any man completely burn with lust, but because you want to avoid as much to give someone else occasion for sin. Likewise, in media, it makes sense to avoid immodest clothes if you don't want to give people watching occasion for sin.
But then, what if you get a boner from watching someone do a murder spree with a chainsaw, does desiring this chainsaw break the tenth? Point is, there is no way to involve the commandments here in a way that makes any sense.
There is, you just have to actually discuss the issue instead of making fun of it.
The past is the past, and in this context, it's completely irrelevant. I'm not talking about what would be okay two thousand years ago. If one misses the past so much, he can always go live with the amish. With how extremely widespread and easy to access sex is these days, being stubborn about something minor is not only extremely hypocritical, it's also pointless.
The past is also the future, because the only way forward in the face of an abyss is going back. But, more importantly, the issue we are talking is whether it makes internal sense to demand people show some modesty in videos, but not care if they show a lot of blood. By showing that this was seen by Christians (and still is by those who take it seriously) as of real import, I am trying to show you that, yes, people do take modesty to be about sinning. It is not about being a busy body or being better than those who don't dress modestly. But, more important (because that is what is being discussed), it has nothing to do with what amount of violence should be allowed to be shown in media. Those things are unrelated issues.
Not to mention that you seem to be looking at this from the perspective of your faith, so your point only matters to you and other believers who might agree.
I am, of course, looking at this from the Catholic perspective. But despite the big mess up I did in my first post, I think I made a fair case for why this has nothing to do with hypocrisy. To sum it up:
- For a Christian, it is a matter of mortal sin to act against chastity.
- From 1, it is also a matter of sin, which can be mortal, to give occasion for another to do so.
- From 2, modesty is an important virtue and concept that should be kept in society, at least from the Christian point of view. (There is also an argument from natural law, but I don't know Aristotle enough to argue it well).
- The viewing of violence can have certain detrimental effects, such as desensitisation. But unlike immodesty, it doesn't in itself give occasion to sin as people aren't naturally attracted to violence, but rather turn to in in order to obtain what they are naturally attracted to.
- As such, whatever the right amount of violence on media may be, and whether you agree with the Christian view or not, it is wrong to claim it is inconsistent or even hypocritical.
