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

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
You look at the Sun for the political articles? or is this just in case the wife finds the links in your history?

Clearly, you don't give a crap about free speech. I'm appalled. Utterly appalled. I'm thinking of slinging around some anti-Italian epithets, just to show that I won't be intimidated by your indifference.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
Actually he was crucified which was strickly an Italian (Roman) way of executing people. The Jews get a walk on this one. And since Christian doctrine has taught us that the son holds the guilt of his fathers actions (we all carry original sin from Adam eating the Apple), that means, as a son of Italy, you are guilty of killing the savior and the one true God.

How does that make you feel?

Sorry, but you are wrong. History tells us, when all else fails, blame the Jews. Haven't you been paying attention?

Besides, my mom is from Naples. Neapolitans were sort of the niggers of the Roman Empire. You can't blame them for anything.


((NOTE: N-bomb dropped for intentional offensive effect))

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
So I take you think that the U.S. newspapers have an obligation to print all manner of racial and religious epithets (e.g.) to offend people, just to show we still have free speech in this country?

No, but they should not consistently make editorial decisions based on avoiding offense. And they should not avoid "taboo" subjects. Among other things, I get tired of seeing newspapers print things like "the N word".

C'mon Spanky -- you don't believe what you're saying here. You already said that if you were the Danish editor, you wouldn't have run the cartoon the first time around.

Personally, I would have, for a number of reasons. One being that sacred cows exist to be gored.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I thought it was the Jews.

A myth, perpetrated by the Italians.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
my mom is from Naples.

my mom's social standing would rocket is she were from Naples. she's Calabrese.

And Judas narced J out and set him up.....the Centurions were just being officious and following orders.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
No, but they should not consistently make editorial decisions based on avoiding offense. And they should not avoid "taboo" subjects. Among other things, I get tired of seeing newspapers print things like "the N word".

This is not directly responsive to what you say here, but it occurred to me earlier today that the major concern with "free speech" -- IMHO -- is ensuring that there is plenty of competition in the so-called marketplace of ideas. If I thought European newspapers were likely to be suppressing the notion that there's a problem with radical Islam, I'd be a lot more sympathetic to the view that these cartoons needed to be published. But it's not like this is a strange concept that's in danger of not being heard. Pointing out that there's a lot of violence committed in the name of Islam is not exactly a sacred cow.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
For one, a lot of Muslims seem to attach some importance to the fact that it depicts Mohammed.

That is irrelevant and you know it. You implied that this particular cartoon of suicide bombers entering heaven had no artistic or political value. You stated that just like certain paintings of women are worth entering the Louvera, this one discussing suicide bombers entering heaven wasn't but one could be. So what was this one missing? In other words what would a cartoon depicting suicide bombers entering heaven need to be relevant? What was is about the way this one portrayed the subject that gave it no "purpose"?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I imagine you'd be embarrassed to stereotype a lot of other groups in this way.

During the Spanish inquisition, or even during the recent violence in Northern Ireland, a political cartoon depicting Christians, or Christians using Christianity as an excuse to implement violence, would have been very appropriate. There is a lot of violence in the world today being instituted in the name of Allah, so in my mind, such a cartoon was very relevant.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I was talking about cartoons that depict Mohammed, and it appears you now are not. Either you misunderstood me, or you are changing the subject.

One of the cartoons printed in the Danish newspaper was suicide bombers lining up to get into heaven, but Mohammed telling them that they were out of Virgins. In any event, the subject is relevant, and any cartoon addressing that subject are not without “merit” or “purpose.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Well, I guess you misunderstood. I thought they'd weren't particularly interesting, and therefore weren't worth running if they'd offend a lot of people.

The issue is, would they be worth running if they didn’t offend people. I don’t think whether they offend people should enter into the equation.

[original Hank@judged.com]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Looks like that cartoon of Mohammed as a pedophile was a hoax.

How do define "pedophile"? if your son was a daugter, when she turned 6 and then later 9 would you think acceptable for her to sex with a 50 year old man? does his status as a prophet make a difference? Try to be consistent here for once, Spanky's watching.

diclaimer: T's sister was of the age of consent when we dated. or at least her ID said she was.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This is not directly responsive to what you say here, but it occurred to me earlier today that the major concern with "free speech" -- IMHO -- is ensuring that there is plenty of competition in the so-called marketplace of ideas. If I thought European newspapers were likely to be suppressing the notion that there's a problem with radical Islam, I'd be a lot more sympathetic to the view that these cartoons needed to be published. But it's not like this is a strange concept that's in danger of not being heard. Pointing out that there's a lot of violence committed in the name of Islam is not exactly a sacred cow.

Ty. a French newspaper republished them. You and john Kerry said we have to always listen to what the French say is right.

Are you flip-flopping on the French should have decision making authority question?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Tell me you read those four quotes and couldn't figure out what I was talking about.

The point is, Christians may have been offended, but not because of some Christian doctrine.

If you take a representation of a religious figure and put it in urine or dung, chances are, I dunno, pretty good that you're going to offend some adherents of that religion. That's true whether you're talking about Christ, Mohammed, Zoroaster or Mithra. But Moslems have an additional, distinct reason to take offense -- namely, the prohibition on depicting Mohammed at all. The first sort of offense derives from the underlying message. As I understand it, the second sort of offense relates to the means.

eta: When people saw pictures of Serrano's "art," were they offended by:

- what Serrano had done,
- by the fact that he was getting funding from the NEA,
- by the newspaper's paying attention to it, or
- by the newspaper's decision to run a picture of it?

My recollection is that it was the first two. I don't recall anyone complaining about the last two.

I always knew what you were talking about. I always understand your argument and that is the problem. You always take the attitude that you wouldn't disagree with me if you really understood what I was saying. You always get that wrong. I always understand exactly what you are saying and, in my humble opinion, your reasoning is almost always really screwed up.

I just put down four of your quotes. No commentary no explanation no paraphrasing. How can you possibly fault me for just directly quoting you and not putting any editorial? All the words are yours and none of them are mine.

I think they not only show the absurity of your arguments but the contradiction. For example what you claim in the fourth quote, I think, is refuted by what you said in the first three. I could be wrong, but the evidence is there so no commentary is required. We don't have to argue about what you said or didn't say or what your were trying to say, or whether what you said then contradicts what you said later. It is all there in black and white and it stands on its own.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
That is irrelevant and you know it. You implied that this particular cartoon of suicide bombers entering heaven had no artistic or political value. You stated that just like certain paintings of women are worth entering the Louvera, this one discussing suicide bombers entering heaven wasn't but one could be. So what was this one missing? In other words what would a cartoon depicting suicide bombers entering heaven need to be relevant? What was is about the way this one portrayed the subject that gave it no "purpose"?

Look, Spanky, in a previous post, I said: "I was talking about cartoons that depict Mohammed, and it appears you now are not. Either you misunderstood me, or you are changing the subject." You clearly have read this, since you quoted it. WTF?

I don't have any problems with political cartoons on the general subject you're talking about. If people take offense because they don't like the message, they can lump it. Again: My issue is specifically with the cartoons that depict Mohammed, on the understanding that such depictions are per se offensive, regardless of the message.

During the Spanish inquisition, or even during the recent violence in Northern Ireland, a political cartoon depicting Christians, or Christians using Christianity as an excuse to implement violence, would have been very appropriate. There is a lot of violence in the world today being instituted in the name of Allah, so in my mind, such a cartoon was very relevant.

OK. However, that has nothing to do with the point I made, which was that you would be embarrassed to make gross generalizations about other groups in the way that you were just doing about Moslems.

One of the cartoons printed in the Danish newspaper was suicide bombers lining up to get into heaven, but Mohammed telling them that they were out of Virgins. In any event, the subject is relevant, and any cartoon addressing that subject are not without “merit” or “purpose.

I didn't realize Mohammed was in that cartoon. I'm sure the cartoonist could have found an equally effective way to make the very same point without actually depicting Mohammed. (To the extent that this qualifies what I said above, please construe it that way instead of being obtuse.)

If you've ever been in a courtroom during a trial, you would understand that whether an idea is relevant is not at all the same as whether it has merit.

The issue is, would they be worth running if they didn’t offend people. I don’t think whether they offend people should enter into the equation.

We can just agree to disagree, then. I think that if you can communicate just as effectively without offending people, that would be the better thing to do.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
I just put down four of your quotes. No commentary no explanation no paraphrasing. How can you possibly fault me for just directly quoting you and not putting any editorial? All the words are yours and none of them are mine.

I think they not only show the absurity of your arguments but the contradiction. For example what you claim in the fourth quote, I think, is refuted by what you said in the first three. I could be wrong, but the evidence is there so no commentary is required.

As S_A_M and I both pointed out to you already, there's no contradiction. If you think you see one, maybe you had better try to explain.

[the Vicar of Piss Christ]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Again: My issue is specifically with the cartoons that depict Mohammed, on the understanding that such depictions are per se offensive, regardless of the message.
.

Per se according to who? Is there a law? Other definitive proclamation? Is this in the French code? Does the DU endorse it?

I think you are talking out of your ass on this, Tyrone....

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
As S_A_M and I both pointed out to you already, there's no contradiction. If you think you see one, maybe you had better try to explain.

If Sidd, Hank, Diane, or Sebastian says they don't see how the claim in the fourth quote is refuted by the prior quotes I will spell it out. Otherwise I think the quotes stand on their own.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
As S_A_M and I both pointed out to you already, there's no contradiction. If you think you see one, maybe you had better try to explain.

Actually Ty --

There are two Spanky posts of "Ty vs. Ty" with four quotes in each. (I think they are different.)

In the first post, some of the statements _are_ arguably contradictory, but I think you can parse out a consistent meaning if you read it as a whole.

I expressly said that, in his _second_ post, those four statements are not contradictory.

S_A_M