The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Blah blah blah. Go back and read what I wrote. Your position is a capitulation. The substance of my argument is exactly what I wrote.

Like I said . . .

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
As an aside, why is what Bush thinks even relevant? Are you suggesting he's infallible on foreign policy issues? Are you offering the simpleton argument that "Bush is not for capitulation, therefore, if I agree with Bush, I cannot be for capitulation"?*

Good Lord, no, he is not infallible, but it is relevant because it suggests that there are good policy reasons to take basically the position I do -- or that, at least, a number of professionals in charge of running our foreign policy seem to think so.

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I'm not indulging you any more on this. You're either an idiot or a jackass who simply refuses to give up when he's got a shit argument. Either way, this is a wasted endeavor. If it'll shut you up, I retract my gloating. In fact, I'll say you bested me. How's that? You win. You're a fucking rock star.

So, you are "indulging" me. You think I have enjoyed this? This whole exchange is a prime example of why I rarely bother to try to engage in extended discussions on these boards. It is not worth the time and effort. If I had Hank's sense of the absurd, I'd try dada too.

Sebby -- you have created a persona on these Boards whose principal concerns seem to be, in no particular order: (a) the quality of your Scotch, (b) the purity of your blow; (c) the size of your bank account; and (d) busting your nut.

You strike your cynical, world-weary, elitist dillettante pose and post a lot of wild, hyperbolic shit in a wanna-be gonzo style. You are occasionally funny, and not always wrong, but there is no reason for anyone to take you seriously on any issue more important than which drink to order.

On this argument specifically, you have repeatedly misstated my position, proudly and knowingly adhered to an absolutist rant, refused to admit the slightest possibility of error, called me names when I disagreed, and never, ever, bothered to address the substance of any concern I raised.

Forgive me if I'm not heart-broken that a man of your apparent intellect and acomplishment considers me a jackass.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Okay, so S.A.M. lost this one very handily.

You say this, Diane, but your last post -- the one about tactical reasons to lay low on the issue as part of a broader strategy -- expressed exactly some of the themes I put forward.

So was I right or wrong about that? Is your position a capitulation? Are you a coward and an appeaser?

S_A_M

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Fish Sunday Thinker
But, we also want to be understood and respected within our adopted societies and within the world community.

Would you, then, like to see an increase in pro-active groups making themselves heard about the true aspects of Islam? Do you think there will be a strong movement to, "take back the night" so to speak?

there is an element of unnecessary hatefulness inherent in this incident

I'm not sure what was in their minds when the papers published what they did, but when I first saw the cartoon with the bomb on The Prophet's head, I thought of how Bin Laden speaks of the [violent] obligations of Muslims supposedly supported by Allah. Were the comics saying "Death to Muslims; we hate them; die?" I guess I also don't see that there is more hatred towards Muslims than there is towards non-Muslims. Not that there is a way to measure that.

The tiny minority of extremist thugs that misrespresent Islam must be roundly chastised and the violence condemned. They are enemies of Allah and Islam.

I guess I would ask the same question I did in the beginning of the post. What's the solution - who will do the chastising? What would be most effective? Don't you think it would be most effective for followers of Islam to criticize those who hijack the religion for violent purposes?

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
You say this, Diane, but your last post -- the one about tactical reasons to lay low on the issue as part of a broader strategy -- expressed exactly some of the themes I put forward.

So was I right or wrong about that? Is your position a capitulation? Are you a coward and an appeaser?

S_A_M

The posts you chimed in on only had to do with the governments of the papers which published the comics. I never once criticized US papers for not running the cartoons. (If our government had said the European governments should have censored the papers, I'd have jumped in.) So no. I am neither coward nor appeaser. (I am, though, laughing at how nobody seemed interested in the topic until I posted a picture of the Baby Jesus Butt Plug).

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
On this argument specifically, you have repeatedly misstated my position, proudly and knowingly adhered to an absolutist rant, refused to admit the slightest possibility of error, called me names when I disagreed, and never, ever, bothered to address the substance of any concern I raised.

Okoay, I know you are talking to Sebby here, but....let me just say that you are one of those posters with whom I agree with over 80% of the time. You seem flabbergasted that everyone thinks your arguments sucked. If you feel so strongly about this, you really should go back and re-read the original posts, and then your reactions to them. Maybe some of the things you meant to say didn't come out the way you intended.

[the Vicar of Piss Christ]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
I posted a picture of the Baby Jesus Butt Plug).

BLASPHEMOUS!!!!

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.

Sorry Ty but this statement doesn't pass the smell test. You really don't understand why Christians would be offended by seeing their savior (or their saviors mother) covered in urine or feces? You think it more extreme ("a little different") that the Prophet is just depicted than where the Christian savior is depicted in urine or feces? Give me a break.


The following also does not pass the smell test:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
To claim your attitude towards a bunch or born-agains burning up Arkansas for Piss-Christ would be the same as your support of these burners is silly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Posted by Ty:
I'm not sure what this sentence means.

Are you really this slow? Do you not understand what this means? I didn't even have to read the prior post Hanks post referenced to know exactly what it means. Are you really going to stand by your statement you don't know what it means or are you going to acknoledge you just don't want to answer it.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
The image of The Prophet was blasphemous to the religion of Islam. The image of Mary, Mother of God with elephant feces thrown all over it was blasphemous to religion(s) as well.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Let's stick to Christianity. What makes that blasphemous?

I think you'll find that the standard definition of blasphemy is broadly stated as "expressing disrespect for God or for something sacred" or, alternately, "the act of depriving something of its sacred character". Some would interpret floating a crucifix in urine, or hurling elephant dung on an image of Mary to be disrespectful of something sacred. (I find the images interesting and don't care if they are or are not blasphemous, but you asked...)

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You'll recall that I started out by saying that I didn't think these cartoons have much merit to them. Other than as a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, I mean.
God bless America.

You don't think a political cartoon depicting many muslims inclination torwards violence has no merit. Is this not a current issue? You don't think a cartoon depicting a bunch of suicide bombers lining up in heaven for virgins does not have merit? These seem to be standard political cartoon fare. Do you not like political cartoons? Do you not think political cartoons have merit? Do you think they have no place in political discourse?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Y'all seem to be saying the Danish had a responsibility to fight the GWOT by pissing off Moslems however they could.

You should stop trying to characterize what people say. It is never your goal to accurately convey what is being said, but to twist what is being said to support your specious arguments. The point everyone is trying to make is that the effect of outlawing political speech is pretty much the same as people not expressing political speech out of fear. When you say it was not "prudent" to print these, you are also saying that the consequences of such political speech could be violence, so such speech should be avoided.

In Germany in the twenties there was free speech, but much of this speech was avoided because of fear of reprisal. The main argument for not printing these cartoons is fear of reprisal.

People on this board are saying when someone is trying to squelch free speech through intimidation, no matter what the speech is, it should be repeated to show that such intimidation is not tolerated and will not succeed in our society. You seem to be arguing that we should let the intimidators succeed in their goal of intimidation.

The point is not to stick it in their eye, but to show that intimidation will not work when trying to squelch free speech in the west.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm saying that editors -- think about why they're called that -- should use their discretion to avoid offending people for no reason.

You really think political cartoons, or social commentary cartoons have no purpose? Do you really thing the points these cartoons were trying to make have no place in the public discourse? Do you think the point of these cartoons could be as effective if their meassage was just written as opposed to conveying the message in cartoon form?

[the Vicar of Piss Christ]

Originally posted by Spanky
You don't think a political cartoon depicting many muslims inclination torwards violence has no merit. Is this not a current issue? You don't think a cartoon depicting a bunch of suicide bombers lining up in heaven for virgins does not have merit? These seem to be standard political cartoon fare. Do you not like political cartoons? Do you not think political cartoons have merit? Do you think they have no place in political discourse?



You should stop trying to characterize what people say. It is never your goal to accurately convey what is being said, but to twist what is being said to support your specious arguments. The point everyone is trying to make is that the effect of outlawing political speech is pretty much the same as people not expressing political speech out of fear. When you say it was not "prudent" to print these, you are also saying that the consequences of such political speech could be violence, so such speech should be avoided.

In Germany in the twenties there was free speech, but much of this speech was avoided because of fear of reprisal. The main argument for not printing these cartoons is fear of reprisal.

People on this board are saying when someone is trying to squelch free speech through intimidation, no matter what the speech is, it should be repeated to show that such intimidation is not tolerated and will not succeed in our society. You seem to be arguing that we should let the intimidators succeed in their goal of intimidation.

The point is not to stick it in their eye, but to show that intimidation will not work when trying to squelch free speech in the west.

Concur.



Also, here is another that the JP paper in Denmark apparently left out of the original 12. the 13th. I am not sure what the translation means. Something about Muhammed being a paedofile, whatever that is. Probably another word for holy.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Sorry Ty but this statement doesn't pass the smell test. You really don't understand why Christians would be offended by seeing their savior (or their saviors mother) covered in urine or feces? You think it more extreme ("a little different") that the Prophet is just depicted than where the Christian savior is depicted in urine or feces? Give me a break.

I don't think you are trying very hard to understand what I am saying. Or, you are putting words into my mouth for fun.

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?

The following also does not pass the smell test:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
To claim your attitude towards a bunch or born-agains burning up Arkansas for Piss-Christ would be the same as your support of these burners is silly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Posted by Ty:
I'm not sure what this sentence means.

Are you really this slow?

Apparently.

Do you not understand what this means?

I don't recall saying anything about Arkansans.

I didn't even have to read the prior post Hanks post referenced to know exactly what it means. Are you really going to stand by your statement you don't know what it means or are you going to acknoledge you just don't want to answer it.

Yes, and no.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
I think you'll find that the standard definition of blasphemy is broadly stated as "expressing disrespect for God or for something sacred" or, alternately, "the act of depriving something of its sacred character". Some would interpret floating a crucifix in urine, or hurling elephant dung on an image of Mary to be disrespectful of something sacred. (I find the images interesting and don't care if they are or are not blasphemous, but you asked...)

One turns on Koranic doctrine, the other turns on Merriam-Webster -- that was my point. They are different in that way.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
You don't think a political cartoon depicting many muslims inclination torwards violence has no merit.

Not "a." That one.

Is this not a current issue?

Turns out, yes.

You don't think a cartoon depicting a bunch of suicide bombers lining up in heaven for virgins does not have merit?

That question is about as good as asking whether a painting of a woman has merit? Are we talking about the Mona Lisa? There are plenty of paintings of women that aren't hanging in the Louvre.

Do you not like political cartoons? Do you not think political cartoons have merit? Do you think they have no place in political discourse?

No, I do like political cartoons. No, I do think many political cartoons have merit. No, I think they have some place in political discourse.

You should stop trying to characterize what people say.

Well, if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is.

The point everyone is trying to make is that the effect of outlawing political speech is pretty much the same as people not expressing political speech out of fear. When you say it was not "prudent" to print these, you are also saying that the consequences of such political speech could be violence, so such speech should be avoided.

No, that's actually not what I was saying. Go back and read it again.

Is there some faction in the Danish legislature that wants to ban political cartoons? If so, I agree that that would be wrong.

In Germany in the twenties there was free speech, but much of this speech was avoided because of fear of reprisal. The main argument for not printing these cartoons is fear of reprisal.

No, the main argument was that they are offensive to people.

People on this board are saying when someone is trying to squelch free speech through intimidation, no matter what the speech is, it should be repeated to show that such intimidation is not tolerated and will not succeed in our society. You seem to be arguing that we should let the intimidators succeed in their goal of intimidation.

If that was the point of running the cartoons the very first time, I missed it. Some Danish editor had clairvoyance, and knew that if he ran these cartoons, people would get agitated and some would threaten violence, and -- knowing that -- he decided that failing to run the cartoons would be bowing to the threat of future violence. No intimidation!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
You really think political cartoons, or social commentary cartoons have no purpose?

As Tom Toles and G.B. Trudeau are my witnesses, no, I do not think that.

Did you really drink so much Colt .45 and peach schnapps tonight that that's what you think I was trying to say?

Do you really thing the points these cartoons were trying to make have no place in the public discourse?

I don't recall saying that, either. Jesus Christ, what is wrong with you?

I apologize to anyone whose God I just blasphemed.

Do you think the point of these cartoons could be as effective if their meassage was just written as opposed to conveying the message in cartoon form?

As to those particular cartoons, yes, because I think they are underwhelming examples of the craft.