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

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Gattigap
It's contradictory if you think that "blasphemy" = Christians taking offense to it.

Given the carefree use of the term in today's society -- Pat Robertson probably thinks that everything short of reading the King James and only the King James version is blasphemous -- I can see how you'd equate the two concepts.

But Ty is trying to make the point that blasphemy can be, and more properly is, a narrower therm than that. Agree or disagree with the argument, but don't refuse to acknowledge the point.

Another way of looking at it.

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?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Do you disagree?

Spanky, no one disagrees that many (most?) Christians would find that offensive. Whether you find that blasphemous depends on what you mean by that word. If you use Merriam-Webster's definition ("impiously irreverent: profane"), it is blasphemous. I only note that the blasphemy is no different from the reaction that you would get from any Buddhist/Zoroastrian/member of a Mithraic cult if you did the same to an image of Buddha/Zoroaster/Mithra. In other words, I don't see anything distinctively Christian about the offended reaction you describe.

Do you now understand that no one has been disagreeing with you about this, or are you still obtuse?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Of course, you can only posit that if you assume that I didn't mean anything at all when I refered to Christian doctrine. Alternatively, you might think that I meant something when I used those words, and that I was trying to draw a distinction concerning the nature of the offense.

I agree that if you don't bother reading some of my words, they may appear contradictory. Caveat emptor.

When you refered to Christian doctrine, you were saying that because christian doctrine did not specifically proscribe dipping the cross in Urine, you did not think it could be assumed to be offensive or blasphemous.

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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
When you refered to Christian doctrine, you were saying that because christian doctrine did not specifically proscribe dipping the cross in Urine, you did not think it could be assumed to be offensive or blasphemous.

No. That's stupid and illogical. Try again.

All three of those statements were questioning why an editor, or anyone else, would assume that Serroanoes works was offensive.

No. That's really not what I said. Try again.

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.

No. That's not what I implied. Try again.

Why the hell else would you refer to scripture?

Because -- as I've said repeatedly -- I was suggesting that there was nothing unique to Christianity that would make that stuff blasphemous.

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.

That was never my argument. Try again.

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?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Am I an America citizen instead of an American citizen? Your concept of adjectives is fascinating.

Are you an America or an American.

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?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
edit, not quote, damnit

dammit, not damnit, dammit.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Spanky
Why would the name of a party be an adjective?

Because the adjective modifies the noun "party." Party is part of the name. If you want to use the noun, it would be the "Party of Democrats."

[Diane_Keaton]

[i]Originally posted by Tyrone
For about the fourth fucking time: Anyone might be offended by a depiction of a religious figure in urine or dung. But no Christian doctrine that I'm aware of specifically makes that blasphemous.

So...feces on Mary is not technically against a specific rule dictated by Christianity (not that Mary is revered only by Christians of course), while on the contrary, depicting a nicely dressed, dung free Muhummed would ironically be a technical violation of Islam. Wow. Wee. SFW?

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.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

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?

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.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Because the adjective modifies the noun "party." Party is part of the name. If you want to use the noun, it would be the "Party of Democrats."

Spanky:

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.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Because the adjective modifies the noun "party." Party is part of the name. If you want to use the noun, it would be the "Party of Democrats."

I think you are wrong here. In this context the term Democrat or Democratic is not used as a modifier. A modifier means it helps explain the term party. It does not.

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?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Spanky
Another way of looking at it.

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?

Not really. As Ty's put it earlier, I do go to church and shit, but I'm not up on the liturgy enought to give you a concise definition of what's blasphemous and what's not from a doctrinal point of view.

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.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
adjectival and noun forms that are different.

Nebbish ==a noun mostly used incorrectly as an adjective.

Carry on.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Nebbish ==a noun mostly used incorrectly as an adjective.

Carry on.

It would have been helpful if you had noted that the corresponding adjective is "nebbishy."

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Gattigap
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.

When you say blasphemy < offensiveness to those who are Christian.

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.