|
A Democrat on the Hill writes to Josh.
Quote:
|
Have Fun, RT
Quote:
|
Um ...
Quote:
|
A Democrat on the Hill writes to Josh.
Quote:
When you have a Republican cause. That is a cause pushed by the Republicans. When you have a cause that is promoted to have indirect representation that is a "republican" cause. |
A Democrat on the Hill writes to Josh.
Quote:
|
InaniTy
Quote:
Would an editor of a newspaper think it obvious that most Christians would find a picture of Christ dipped in urine or the virgin mary covered in feces offensive? I think the answer is yes. Yes Pat Roberstson may find many things blasphemous that many Christians don't consider offensive. But in this case I think we can assume that most Christians (and that an editor could assume this is the case) would find Christ in a pool of urine or Mary covered in feces as both blasphemous and offensive. Do you disagree? |
InaniTy
Quote:
Do you now understand that no one has been disagreeing with you about this, or are you still obtuse? |
InaniTy
Quote:
All three of those statements were questioning why an editor, or anyone else, would assume that Serroanoes works was offensive. That is why you referred to Christian doctrine and the term blasphemy. Then you later said you never implied that Christians should not be offended. But as I have pointed out an quoted, you said earlier you don't know why Christians were offended when the bible didn't proscribe such activity. You asked me to cite something from the scriptures to support the idea that such actions were blashemous, implying when I couldn't, that it was wrong to assume most Christians would be justified in thinking they were blashemous or offensive. Why the hell else would you refer to scripture? Since I just quoted the comment about scripture, you used the absense of the surrounding language to imply that the refence to scripture had nothing do with your argument that Christians should not be offended by the Christ in Urine. Then you have the audacity to imply that since not all the words are there people are going to interpret them wrong. No they will only interpret them wrong if they give you a chance to mislead them as to their intent. |
InaniTy
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Now, here's my question for you. Why is it psychologically so important for you to keep arguing with your misunderstanding of what you thought I was saying rather than respond to all of the posts in which I've tried to clarify and explain? Is it really that hard for you to shift gears like that? |
A Democrat on the Hill writes to Josh.
Quote:
Is it America's colony of Puerto Rico, or is it American's colony of Puerto Rico? Is it the Reform Party or the Reformer's Party? Before party the word does not change into an adjective or it would be the reformer's party. When referring to political partys the word before the term party is a noun not an ajdective. Like California State. It is not the Californian state. It is New York City, not New Yorkers City. The name of a city, state, party or country is a noun. Same as political parties. It is the reform party not the reformers party, just like it is the Democrat party not the democratic party. The name of the Democrat party is not an adjective. The name of the party is not Democratic it is Democrat. Why would the name of a party be an adjective? |
Quote:
|
A Democrat on the Hill writes to Josh.
Quote:
|
InaniTy
Quote:
Yeah, yeah, tell us all about how you are simply correcting Spanky on terminology, but you now what? You sound like a big fat Timmy. Or worse, you really see this distinction as having some larger meaning in context. It doesn't. It is not technically against any rule or religion to draw a picture and put a caption under it that says "Black People Are Dirty Nasty Monkeys'. So you think blacks should be less offended (or have less justification to be offended) because there is no law or religions against it? Do Muslims have increased anger over the cartoons because their religion prohibits [i]all [/]depictions of Muhummed? Yeah, maybe. But would a black person be angrier if the same picture I mentioned above included a drawing of Coretta Scott King with a mustache? Fuck yeah. People get more or less offended over an image depending on the aggravating features/factors. Why should this obvious fact be such a big deal to you in this cartoon context? Stop making such a big deal out of it. Ya fat Timmy. |
InaniTy
Quote:
Clarify and explain? Is that what you call pretending you said something else? In my opinion, your meaning is almost always obvious, your only need to "clarify it" when it is shown how ridiculous or illogical your statements were. Instead of admitting it was ridiculous you just clarify it and pretend you meant something else. It seems to me that you claim an awful lot that the obvious meaning of prior statements are not actually the real meaning. I find it very annoying. That is why instead of trying to argue what you "meant" I just simply quoted you. But somehow, the meaning of quotes I though were obvious, needed to be explained and "clarified". I think in the future I will just ignore your posts. That should make everyone happy. |
A Democrat on the Hill writes to Josh.
Quote:
Basicially, the Republicans are not good enough with words and language and stuff to be able to handle having adjectival and noun forms that are different. Democrats can handle it. So, "Republican" is both a noun and an adjective; "Democrat" is a noun, and "Democratic" is an adjective. Democrats can also understand that there is both an oft-used adjective "democratic" (with a lower-case "d") that is used generally, and then there is the adjective "Democratic" (with an upper-case "D") that is used when referring to something affiliated with the Democratic Party. It's sort of like "[c/C]atholic." Mel Gibson is a Catholic [noun] who belongs to the Catholic [adjective] church. Some might say, given the wide range of films he has appeared in and worked on, that his tastes are catholic [adjective] . However, I will assume that you lost track when you started thinking, "Is Deer an adjective or a noun? Why is it capitalized? What is the plural form?" and/or are poking something sharp through your eye to see if it will make you see pretty colors. ETA text in color. |
A Democrat on the Hill writes to Josh.
Quote:
Is the word "reform" an adjective? Isn't the adjective "reformer". And if that is the case why isn't it the "reformer party". I think the confusion started because Republican is both an adjective and a noun. But in Republican Party it is being used as a noun. The term Republic in no way helps explain the Republican party. But people over time starting thinking the term Republican was an adjective and therefor Democratic should be used for Democrat party. But the term Democrat is capitalized because it is a noun. It is called the Democrat "party" because that is the name, not because the term Democrat someone helps explain the party. But over time people used the term wrong and because it was misused so much it became accepted. Am I wrong? |
InaniTy
Quote:
And in any case, what you've got above are arguments about whether those two presentations would be blasphemous under Christian doctrine. That's probably a reasonable interpretation, but it's not what I was talking about. What I was talking about was your incredulity over Ty "contradicting" himself, when what Ty was really saying was that blasphemy<offensiveness to those who are Christian. |
A Democrat on the Hill writes to Josh.
Quote:
Carry on. |
A Democrat on the Hill writes to Josh.
Quote:
|
InaniTy
Quote:
Do you mean that blasphemy is less offesnive to Christians than to Muslims or Or do you mean that something that is blasphemous to Christians may not be offensive. Or do you mean that something that is not offensive to Christians is also not blasphemous. |
InaniTy
Quote:
|
InaniTy
Quote:
Ty Said: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop I am not assuming anything. I am a Christian, and I'm telling you what I think. I haven't said others Christians aren't offended, or shouldn't be offended. . -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prior to this he said: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop I wasn't offended by Serrano. I'm sure others were, but I'm not sure I understand the basis for their offense, , other than that they felt disrespected and marginalized. That's a little different than a situation where the very act of depicting God (or G-d, as some of my MOT friends call him) is blasphemous. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop I understand why (some) Christians take offense. But it doesn't have to do with Christian doctrine, so far as I know. Want to cite chapter and verse to me? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Let's stick to Christianity. What makes that blasphemous? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To me these sun up as 1) "I never said other Christians shouldn't be offended by Serrno" Where before, He said: 1) I don't understand the basis for other Christians offense at Serrano's work, as with Mohammed in the Koran the bible doesn't explicity say it is blasphemous (notice offense and blashemous used interchangeably in the above quote) 2) you can't cite chapter or verse from Scripture to show why Christians would take offense. 3) There is no scripture saying it is blasphemous. It seems to me he said since there is no scripture calling it blasphenous or offensive, Christians should not take it as such. But then later he claims he never said that Christians should not be offended by Serrano. Did I paraphrase something wrong? Did I take something out of context? Did I misrepresent the meaning of something? Where is the flaw in my logic? Why is this not as simple and as obvious as I see it. |
InaniTy
Quote:
I mean that from the little I've read on the topic, there's something specific about Islam that forbids visual representations of Muhammed. In Christianity, there may not be a good analogue to that concept. The closest we've come is a reference to "blasphemy," but Ty is pointing out that blasphemy is a pretty garden-variety term often used to refer to religious references, representations, etc. that Christians think dishonor God or otherwise find offensive to their beliefs. In the Venn Diagram, "blasphemy" probably exists entirely within the circle of things that offend (most) Christians, but the "blasphemy" circle is smaller. That's what I, and others, have been trying to explain. Diane and some others have seemed to grasp this point and reply, Big Deal, So What? Whatever -- I consider it something of a small point myself. However, you -- far as I can tell -- have siezed upon the concept of blasphemy as one of such stunning obviousness and clarity that you've invested a good day's worth of posts in trying to argue that Ty is being inconsistent. I'm bemused by this, but am finding it hard to believe that you're really having such a hard time understanding what's been explained by now in a dozen different ways. Gattigap |
InaniTy
Quote:
|
InaniTy
Quote:
|
InaniTy
Quote:
RT, can I be a mod of Ty? |
InaniTy
Quote:
Is the debate over whether the cartoons should have been republished because they are offensive to certain Muslims to the point that they work themselves into a killing frenzy? If so, the answer is self-obvious - anything and everything should be done that does so. If it takes poor cartooning, so be it. If it takes bad writing (Rushdie), so be it. Whatever - expose the fuckers. First, they mostly kill each other, which is good, kind of like the stampedes at Mecca. Like lemmings, nature is saying we have too many Muslamic nutjobs. Second, it illustrates the danger posed by Islam (as practiced in most of the world, if not the U.S), which is good, if only to scare Europe and Muslim-apologists in the U.S. who think "it is a religion of peace." Third, it self-identifies the "militant" Muslim from the "moderate" Muslim, which is good, so that the CIA or Mossad can whack them. Fourth, it reminds us that we are not that far removed from our own witch hunts and Inquisitions, which is good, because the religious right would bring them back in modified form. And, fifth, it exposes the Tyrones of the world, who are afraid of hurting wackjob's feelings. If flat-earthers were offended if someone satirized them, would Ty feel the same way? Muslims (like any other religious person) believe in something without evidence. Yet, it appeears Ty would grant them special dispensation from ridicule because they really feel strongly about it. In fact, they deserve the most ridicule. A flat-earther is laughable. A flat-earther who would kill, burn, honor-rape, etc. because you impugn their belief in a flat-earth would be committed. |
InaniTy
Quote:
|
The Economist.
The Economist doesn't think the reprints were just sticking it in people's eyes.
The limits to free speech Cartoon wars Feb 9th 2006 From The Economist print edition Free speech should override religious sensitivities. And it is not just the property of the West I DISAGREE with what you say and even if you are threatened with death I will not defend very strongly your right to say it.” That, with apologies to Voltaire, seems to have been the initial pathetic response of some western governments to the republication by many European newspapers of several cartoons of Muhammad first published in a Danish newspaper in September. When the republished cartoons stirred Muslim violence across the world, Britain and America took fright. It was “unacceptable” to incite religious hatred by publishing such pictures, said America's State Department. Jack Straw, Britain's foreign secretary, called their publication unnecessary, insensitive, disrespectful and wrong. Really? There is no question that these cartoons are offensive to many Muslims (see article). They offend against a convention in Islam that the Prophet should not be depicted. And they offend because they can be read as equating Islam with terrorism: one cartoon has Muhammad with a bomb for his headgear. It is not a good idea for newspapers to insult people's religious or any other beliefs just for the sake of it. But that is and should be their own decision, not a decision for governments, clerics or other self-appointed arbiters of taste and responsibility. In a free country people should be free to publish whatever they want within the limits set by law. No country permits completely free speech. Typically, it is limited by prohibitions against libel, defamation, obscenity, judicial or parliamentary privilege and what have you. In seven European countries it is illegal to say that Hitler did not murder millions of Jews. Britain still has a pretty dormant blasphemy law (the Christian God only) on its statute books. Drawing the line requires fine judgements by both lawmakers and juries. Britain, for example, has just jailed a notorious imam, Abu Hamza of London's Finsbury Park mosque, for using language a jury construed as solicitation to murder (see article). Last week, however, another British jury acquitted Nick Griffin, a notorious bigot who calls Islam “vicious and wicked”, on charges of stirring racial hatred. Drawing the line In this newspaper's view, the fewer constraints that are placed on free speech the better. Limits designed to protect people (from libel and murder, for example) are easier to justify than those that aim in some way to control thinking (such as laws on blasphemy, obscenity and Holocaust-denial). Denying the Holocaust should certainly not be outlawed: far better to let those who deny well-documented facts expose themselves to ridicule than pose as martyrs. But the Muhammad cartoons were lawful in all the European countries where they were published. And when western newspapers lawfully publish words or pictures that cause offence—be they ever so unnecessary, insensitive or disrespectful—western governments should think very carefully before denouncing them. Freedom of expression, including the freedom to poke fun at religion, is not just a hard-won human right but the defining freedom of liberal societies. When such a freedom comes under threat of violence, the job of governments should be to defend it without reservation. To their credit, many politicians in continental Europe have done just that. France's interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, said rather magnificently that he preferred “an excess of caricature to an excess of censorship”—though President Jacques Chirac later spoiled the effect by condemning the cartoons as a “manifest provocation”. Shouldn't the right to free speech be tempered by a sense of responsibility? Of course. Most people do not go about insulting their fellows just because they have a right to. The media ought to show special sensitivity when the things they say might stir up hatred or hurt the feelings of vulnerable minorities. But sensitivity cannot always ordain silence. Protecting free expression will often require hurting the feelings of individuals or groups, even if this damages social harmony. The Muhammad cartoons may be such a case. In Britain and America, few newspapers feel that their freedoms are at risk. But on the European mainland, some of the papers that published the cartoons say they did so precisely because their right to publish was being called into question. In the Netherlands two years ago a film maker was murdered for daring to criticise Islam. Danish journalists have received death threats. In a climate in which political correctness has morphed into fear of physical attack, showing solidarity may well be the responsible thing for a free press to do. And the decision, of course, must lie with the press, not governments. It's good to talk It is no coincidence that the feeblest response to the outpouring of Muslim rage has come from Britain and America. Having sent their armies rampaging into the Muslim heartland, planting their flags in Afghanistan and Iraq and putting Saddam Hussein on trial, George Bush and Tony Blair have some making up to do with Muslims. Long before making a drama out of the Danish cartoons, a great many Muslims had come to equate the war on terrorism with a war against Islam. This is an equation Osama bin Laden and other enemies of the West would like very much to encourage and exploit. In circumstances in which embassies are being torched, isn't denouncing the cartoons the least the West can do to show its respect for Islam, and to stave off a much-feared clash of civilisations? No. There are many things western countries could usefully say and do to ease relations with Islam, but shutting up their own newspapers is not one of them. People who feel that they are not free to give voice to their worries about terrorism, globalisation or the encroachment of new cultures or religions will not love their neighbours any better. If anything, the opposite is the case: people need to let off steam. And freedom of expression, remember, is not just a pillar of western democracy, as sacred in its own way as Muhammad is to pious Muslims. It is also a freedom that millions of Muslims have come to enjoy or to aspire to themselves. Ultimately, spreading and strengthening it may be one of the best hopes for avoiding the incomprehension that can lead civilisations into conflict. |
A Democrat on the Hill writes to Josh.
Quote:
There is only 1 female poster who sort of likes me. She asked that I reply to this post because she didn't think you saw it. To ignore Fringey is really to drink in this board as a decaf no cal substitute. Fringey is truly the Espresso that drives the movers and shakers here. wttw |
InaniTy
Quote:
|
InaniTy
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Spanky
What makes you think I don't understand this?[quote] Your last dozen or so posts on the topic. Quote:
|
InaniTy
Quote:
Your first assumption is wrong -- at least according to the oldest, technical, standard definition of blasphemy. As Gattigap said -- you and Ty are using the term in different ways but you aren't admiting it. I think you know that. As Ty is using the term -- and it is no secret -- his statements are not contradictory. [eta -- but I agree with Diane that it really is a Timmy argument -- Sorry Ty. I winced when i saw that was where you were going.] S_A_M P.S. Spanky -- You may be consistent, but you are also wrong to use the form "Democrat Party" and "Democrat program." The official name of the Party is the "United States Democratic Party." You have been fooled by the fact that, while members of the Republican Party are called Republicans, members of the Democratic Party are called Democrats. See, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democra...onal_Committee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democra...ited_States%29 P.P.S. BTW -- Republican with a small "r" is an adjective too (i.e. "our republican form of government.") P.P.P.S. Having done more reading and thinking on this cartoon issue, I come to find that I mostly agree now with Spanky and Diane (and Sidd) on the substance. That said, I still think the timing is bad tactically. Whiel we're confessing error -- I'm also thinking that I may have underestimated the difficulties which a Hamas government in the PA will cause. Interesting times. |
A Democrat on the Hill writes to Josh.
Quote:
Keep this up and you'll have to retire this sock -- ask Hank about the PT Boat incident. S_A_M |
InaniTy
Quote:
The post you didn't address........... Here are the quotes: Ty Said: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop I am not assuming anything. I am a Christian, and I'm telling you what I think. I haven't said others Christians aren't offended, or shouldn't be offended. . -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prior to this he said: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop I wasn't offended by Serrano. I'm sure others were, but I'm not sure I understand the basis for their offense, , other than that they felt disrespected and marginalized. That's a little different than a situation where the very act of depicting God (or G-d, as some of my MOT friends call him) is blasphemous. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop I understand why (some) Christians take offense. But it doesn't have to do with Christian doctrine, so far as I know. Want to cite chapter and verse to me? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Let's stick to Christianity. What makes that blasphemous? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To me these sum up as I never said other Christians shouldn't be offended by Serrno Where before, He said: 1) I don't understand the basis for other Christians offense at Serrano's work, as with Mohammed in the Koran the bible doesn't explicity say it is blasphemous (notice offense and blashemous used interchangeably in the above quote) 2) you can't cite chapter or verse from Scripture to show why Christians would take offense. 3) There is no scripture saying it is blasphemous. It seems to me he said since there is no scripture calling it blasphenous or offensive, Christians should not take it as such. But then later he claims he never said that Christians should not be offended by Serrano. Did I paraphrase something wrong? Did I take something out of context? Did I misrepresent the meaning of something? Where is the flaw in my logic? Why is this not as simple and as obvious as I see it? |
InaniTy
Quote:
|
InaniTy
Does putting a cross in urine or putting feces on the virgin mary = blasphemy. I think under almost anyone interpretation it does.
Quote:
Here is the first definition I found: "A contemptuous or profane act, utterance, or writing concerning God or a sacred entity." Doesn't that fit? What definition are you talking about? P.S. Not that he is an expert, but I remember when Jesses Helms was discussing it on the Senate floor he called the Christ in piss piece "Blasphemy". |
InaniTy
Gattigap:
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Spanky What makes you think I don't understand this?[quote] You said: "Your last dozen or so posts on the topic." Now I am totally curious. For the life of me I can't think of any reason why you think this was so (I was trying to show that Ty didn't think that Christians should be offended by Serrano and then claimed he never said that Christians shouldn't be offended by Serrano). It seems that you thought that I didn't understand that some things that are not blasphemous could still be considered offensive being that the blaphemous bubble is wholly inside and smaller than the offensive bubble. I understand that, and I think the fact that everthing that is blasphemous is also offensive supports my contradictory argument. Why would I argue against that concept? It was like I was having one discussion and you think I was having another discussion. Can you print the post or posts you think demonstrate that I didn't understand the following (it should be hard considering there are dozens of them): "I mean that from the little I've read on the topic, there's something specific about Islam that forbids visual representations of Muhammed. In Christianity, there may not be a good analogue to that concept. The closest we've come is a reference to "blasphemy," but Ty is pointing out that blasphemy is a pretty garden-variety term often used to refer to religious references, representations, etc. that Christians think dishonor God or otherwise find offensive to their beliefs. In the Venn Diagram, "blasphemy" probably exists entirely within the circle of things that offend (most) Christians, but the "blasphemy" circle is smaller. That's what I, and others, have been trying to explain." P.S. It also occured to me that you thought I didn't understand that the Koran specifically forbids visual represntation of Mohammed where the Bible has no similar proscription. But since I have stated that I understand that concept in at least three posts I doubt that is what you meant when you said I didn't understand something. |
InaniTy
Quote:
As for Less's point about republication: I'm not sure. I was really talking about the Danish cartoon that first ran the thing, before the protests, trying to piss people off. I guess I still think that republishing to piss them off shows some degree of insecurity, and that ignoring them would be stronger. eta: I mostly don't understand why people give a shit about this. Censorship is wrong. Violence is wrong. Offending people is wrong. Condemning Christians doesn't mean you support everything Moslems do, and vice versa. |
In the beginning.......
quote:
Originally posted by Spanky This controversy has demonstrated to me why I could never be a responsible editor of a newspaper, magazine or head of news network. I would post this everywhere (just like those European magazines) to show that there is free speech in this country that can't be cowed by fanatics of any stripe. Clearly this would not be in the shareholders interest but I wouldn't be able to help myself. I think those other magazines and newspapers that published the cartoon to show solidarity with the newspaper in Denmark did a very honorable and courageous thing. I applaud it 100%. Their laws against blasphemy don't apply here or anywhere else in the west and they need to get used to it. Tys Points: I guess I don't understand the point of continuing to post the cartoon. If lots and lots of people are offending by it, why? It's not like it's particularly interesting or artistic. As I understand the protesters, many of them are protesting because the cartoons are offensive to them. I'm all for free speech, but having the right to free speech does not mean you have an obligation to offend. ______________________________________________ The response to my post surprized me. I was expecting people would have a problem with me saying that such an act was not in the "shareholders best interest." Or that by saying I could not be an editor because I would print the cartoons, thereby implying printing the cartoons would be the wrong thing for a responsible editor to do, would anger posters - especially the liberals. I thought people would jump all over those comments by saying that newspapers etc. have a duty to put free speech principles over profit etc. But instead I was critisized for my inclination to reprint the cartoons. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:23 AM. |
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com