It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Down with Political & Personal cartooning!

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by spookymusic
As a cartoonist, I find this statement ignorant


I'm open to being educated and never claimed to know it all. By all means "deny ignorance", that's what we're here to do.


Originally posted by spookymusic
and offensive.


Unlike in political/personal cartoons, I am not "calling someone out". I've named nor represented any single individual, yet I offend? How is it then a cartoonist has the liberty to "call someone out" and yet not offend? (P.S. I have no intention on personally offending anyone, removing any source of income, causing harm in any way, or "rights removal" for anyone. Apologies then if I have done so.)


Originally posted by spookymusic
Cartoons generally do not have a "hidden agenda."


I agree that cartoons generally do not. My target is political and/or personal cartoons. They are a representation of the author's agenda.


Originally posted by spookymusic
They're nothing more than personal opinions and expression. When I draw, I do it to express myself. I neither know nor care if I change anyone's opinion. Yes, the truth is very important, but it is also important to express one's own views and receive the views of others. Looking at a political or social situation through other people's eyes gives one a sense of perspective.


I have no issue with expressing yourself UNTIL it infringes upon the rights of others. If I urinate on another person as my "expression", guess what.


Originally posted by spookymusic
That, and I don't particularly appreciate someone telling people that I shouldn't get money for my work.


Are you saying you'd be unable to get money unless you draw real people? I thought it took more talent, not less, to add such detail as to draw a distinction between President so-and-so versus Joe on the street. By the way, I have a very high admiration for the art and talent.

[edit on 15-6-2006 by saint4God]




posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 07:50 AM
link   
From Wiki:


Political satire is a subgenre of general satire that specializes in gaining entertainment from politics, politicians and public affairs. It has also been used with subversive intent where political speech and dissent are forbidden by a regime, as a method of advancing political arguments where such arguments are expressly forbidden.


These cartoons give us an opportunity to laugh at ourselves. It keeps us from taking ourselves too seriously. If you find yourself offened at one of these, pehaps you should examine yourself for the reason.

I have been offended by some of these in the past and when I examined myself, I discovered that I felt like it was a personal attack on me or my beliefs. Political satire is covered under freedom of speech. I may not agree with it, but I do not want any laws to change it.

Just keep in mind that not everyone feels or believes the same as you. All of us feel we are privy to the truth. Remember that one person’s truth is another person’s ignorance.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by darkelf
These cartoons give us an opportunity to laugh at ourselves. It keeps us from taking ourselves too seriously. If you find yourself offened at one of these, pehaps you should examine yourself for the reason.


Firstly darkelf, I have found your thoughts on very solid footing so I give them the utmost consideration. I appreciate the posts you've presentd.

I used to laugh at the President, Prime Minisiter, and whoever else was in them. It wasn't until close self-examination and wide-scale impact analysis that I saw the negative effects.


Originally posted by darkelf
I have been offended by some of these in the past and when I examined myself, I discovered that I felt like it was a personal attack on me or my beliefs.


I've never experienced this from a political/personal cartoon so I'll take your word on it.


Originally posted by darkelf
Political satire is covered under freedom of speech. I may not agree with it, but I do not want any laws to change it.


Agreed.


Originally posted by darkelf
Just keep in mind that not everyone feels or believes the same as you.


Thank God this is true. How horribly boring would life be then?


Originally posted by darkelf
All of us feel we are privy to the truth.


This is the complimentary side of ATS. We'll question things here. Questioning things is Biblical as well.


Originally posted by darkelf
Remember that one person’s truth is another person’s ignorance.


In close examination of this statement, it is possible for one person to know truth while the other person does not know. This is a given, which is why we send children to school, why people go to college, church, karate, along with other skill and knowledge acquisition activities. So I'm not sure what's being said here if you'd like to clarify or rephrase in a way I can understand.


[edit on 15-6-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Now, how many butt-head neighbors does it take to convince this statement is true?


Of course I cannot answer that, but at somepoint, the child may be convinced to start wondering about it. And if 15 people are telling the child his dad is an ass, maybe they're right. No matter. In the case of a child, it's the parent's responsibility to control the exposure and limitations of the influences their child has.

I know in second grade, my own experiences (influences) convinced me that my parents were wrong about black people. They weren't 'dirty' or somehow less than me. The external influence overcame my parents' influence and I made my own assessment. However, no amount of dishonesty, greed or corruption I experienced in the world overcame what my parents taught me about honesty, integrity and honor. Still.

So it's hard to say. But certainly there comes a time when a child will change his mind because of external influences. There is no pat answer to how much influence can a child bear before considering it. They're much more complex creatures (and deserve more credit) than that.



Don't know the technical term for this but like it would say on a tanning booth "warning, long exposure to UV rays can cause cancer."


And it is known (or at least suspected) that long exposure to stimuli creates change. That's how brainwashing happens. I'm with you on this. Long exposure to violence, for example de-sensitizes people to it. I believe that.

I'm not convinced however that long exposure to political cartoons would change someone's political stance or opinions... They just don't cut that deeply, if you know what I mean. Seeing a news story of a politician stealing $2 million has much more influence on a person and would cause him to reconsider supporting this politician than would a political cartoon of him doing the same.



Even cyanide and love?


OK, not everything. I assumed that it would be understood that poison, nuclear bombs and murder wouldn't be included... I think you get my drift abut everything in moderation.



I'm not sure I understand the need for mental junk food.


I wouldn't classify it as a 'need'... for me, at least. It's a balancer. It's a desire for variety. It's entertainment. I love to study people and I'm a singer, so I find American Idol extremely entertaining and fulfilling to a certain aspect of who I am. Kind of like a weekly Twinkie.
I don't need it. I want it.

I'm not, however, a reality show junkie. Some people OD on the things. To me, that's as unhealthy as OD-ing on anything. There's that moderation thing again.



ATS doesn't exactly toll the liberty bell. The greater the shock, the greater the play on ATS.


But we are (at least I am) DISCERNING. We, as the complex human beings that we are, must be able to look at the whole and DISCERN which is valuable input and which is crap. You do that. By saying you want to take out the 'garbage' you have discerned which is which. To you. And that's very important because some of that garbage is treasure to others and frankly, you have no business judging whether they should enjoy that 'garbage' or not.



I do not want to remove YOUR choices. I want to remove my exposure to them, incidental or otherwise and stating a case as to why this is a good idea.


If you want to remove your incidental exposure then you're going to have to find a way to do that. But what you're talking about here is changing an industry... not just your exposure, but everyone's... and that's going to be pretty tough.



I would like to see the harmful motivations (money, political agenda) removed from these "cartoonists" to see what that cartoon would look like then.


Well, good luck with that. Like I said, I hope you are unsuccessful. I'd like to point out here that money and political agenda aren't inherently 'harmful'. Money is not the root of all evil, it's the LOVE of money that is. (Yes, even love in moderation...) And a political agenda that encourages equality, environmentalism and education, can be a good thing, indeed.



What I'd like to stip the example down to though is rights. Do you feel that someone next to you smoking is violating your right to breath non-toxic air? Why or why not?


Not really. Because there are plenty of places I could be that have less toxic air. Now, that's not to say I wouldn't ask them not to smoke. If it was a posted non-smoking area, I'd be the first to point it out to them and ask them to stop.

If it was outside and I could move, I might. Most likely, I would just stay and enjoy it. I smoked for 30 years and quit 5 years ago. I still love the smell.



I agree we should be held accountable for the things we think and do. Why isn't that smoke held accountable for violating the rights of others?


In my world, accountability is something I take for myself. It's not something I thrust upon others. If others are to be accountable, it's going to have to be they who choose it. It's not my place to force or impose my belief system on others. True accountability is a difficult thing to embrace and it wouldn't be fair to demand that others live to my standards. I'm not saying they're higher standards, just different. They're mine. I have chosen them. Other people choose their own.

Don't misunderstand, I do wish people would be accountable, and I think they should, especially in the case of government and so on, when their actions impact me, but those are just thoughts.



I'm asking so many questions and being "nit-picky" here because I'm really liking these answers and feel they get into the meat of the initial proclamation. I hope this is seen more as a compliment than a fight as I have no intention nor desire to have an exchange without progress.


I'm enjoying it. It doesn't feel like fighting at all to me. No worries.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Unrelated: I like you avatar picture currently with the smiling girl jumping for joy.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Of course I cannot answer that, but at somepoint, the child may be convinced to start wondering about it. And if 15 people are telling the child his dad is an ass, maybe they're right. No matter. In the case of a child, it's the parent's responsibility to control the exposure and limitations of the influences their child has.


Let's template that with the "child" being the public, the "dad" being the government, and the "neighbor(s)" being the cartoonists. There are many cartoonists that are representing one person in government (the president for example). How many cartoons get banged out about the president that are untrue that incite paranoia or thoughts that this is probably true? Probably the same answer, we can't say, but it certainly can happen. Is it then the government's "dad's" responsibility to limit the influences? I would say no, but I would say problem would be solved if the neighbor didn't slander pop. This can be achieved if the child rejects the assertions by the neighbor completely, standing up for him/herself when it comes to baseless accusations.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I know in second grade, my own experiences (influences) convinced me that my parents were wrong about black people.


Do you believe their impression of darker skinned people was shaped by society's opinion or fact? Almost full circle here. Certainly they've seen cartoons/joke about them, yes? Glad you were able to break free.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
They weren't 'dirty' or somehow less than me. The external influence overcame my parents' influence and I made my own assessment. However, no amount of dishonesty, greed or corruption I experienced in the world overcame what my parents taught me about honesty, integrity and honor. Still.


It is great to hear they'd clung to and taught honesty, integrity and honor and moreso that you're able to carry that legacy forward.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
So it's hard to say. But certainly there comes a time when a child will change his mind because of external influences. There is no pat answer to how much influence can a child bear before considering it. They're much more complex creatures (and deserve more credit) than that.


I think many of us are children on the inside most of the time, which is why I have no problem templating that example I'd started with in this post.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And it is known (or at least suspected) that long exposure to stimuli creates change.


w00t! Thank you.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
That's how brainwashing happens.


I have a hard time with this "brainwashing" concept. Probably because I've never seen it happen nor read of scientific evidence supporting it unless it involved many months of torture.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I'm with you on this. Long exposure to violence, for example de-sensitizes people to it. I believe that.





Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I'm not convinced however that long exposure to political cartoons would change someone's political stance or opinions...


Do you believe that a person's political stance and opinions are so well rooted that they'd not be affected by the wind of word of mouth? Rumors are a great example to study in relation to this topic.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
They just don't cut that deeply, if you know what I mean.


...unless the cartoon is about you or someone in your family...


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Seeing a news story of a politician stealing $2 million has much more influence on a person and would cause him to reconsider supporting this politician than would a political cartoon of him doing the same.


This is true, but doesn't mean the cartoon has no effect.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
OK, not everything. I assumed that it would be understood that poison, nuclear bombs and murder wouldn't be included... I think you get my drift abut everything in moderation.


Thanks. I know I get literal sometimes, but am not a fan of blanket statements and all-encompassing philosophical templates when they don't pass testing.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I wouldn't classify it as a 'need'... for me, at least. It's a balancer. It's a desire for variety. It's entertainment.


Same with gladiator sports?


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I love to study people and I'm a singer, so I find American Idol extremely entertaining and fulfilling to a certain aspect of who I am. Kind of like a weekly Twinkie.
I don't need it. I want it.


Spoken from the heart, I like.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I'm not, however, a reality show junkie. Some people OD on the things. To me, that's as unhealthy as OD-ing on anything. There's that moderation thing again.


*nods*


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
But we are (at least I am) DISCERNING. We, as the complex human beings that we are, must be able to look at the whole and DISCERN which is valuable input and which is crap. You do that. By saying you want to take out the 'garbage' you have discerned which is which. To you. And that's very important because some of that garbage is treasure to others and frankly, you have no business judging whether they should enjoy that 'garbage' or not.


Ah, but we are here to "deny ignorance", are we not? If it is not true, then by the standards set forth by this site, it is garbage. I'm not holding my own ruler to ATS, rather ATS's ruler to ATS. I'm not in the practice of judging others if this is what is implied. In fact, if I do judge others, please be a friend and point it out.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
If you want to remove your incidental exposure then you're going to have to find a way to do that. But what you're talking about here is changing an industry... not just your exposure, but everyone's... and that's going to be pretty tough.


If there were a website named "politicalcartoons.com" then I know beforehand what I'm getting into. Then those who wish the freedom to view them can go there. Similar to pornography, I don't want it flashing up on the screen as I did not request it to be there.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Well, good luck with that.


I don't believe in luck but appreciate the well wishings.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Like I said, I hope you are unsuccessful.


Certainly your right as well.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I'd like to point out here that money and political agenda aren't inherently 'harmful'. Money is not the root of all evil, it's the LOVE of money that is. (Yes, even love in moderation...) And a political agenda that encourages equality, environmentalism and education, can be a good thing, indeed.


Of this I can agree. I should have been specific in saying "a malignant political agenda". Please apply this correction to any previous mentionings to "agenda" on this thread.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Not really. Because there are plenty of places I could be that have less toxic air. Now, that's not to say I wouldn't ask them not to smoke. If it was a posted non-smoking area, I'd be the first to point it out to them and ask them to stop.


Ah, so you're depending on government regulation to defend your right to fresh air? Interesting. Again, I think you're too accomodating of a person to yield your rights to the person who wants to destroy it. It's admirable and think I'd do the same, but I'm focused on the principle at the moment.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
If it was outside and I could move, I might. Most likely, I would just stay and enjoy it. I smoked for 30 years and quit 5 years ago. I still love the smell.


Hehe, got me there. The example unravels if you enjoy someone else's toxic sharings.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
In my world, accountability is something I take for myself. It's not something I thrust upon others. If others are to be accountable, it's going to have to be they who choose it. It's not my place to force or impose my belief system on others. True accountability is a difficult thing to embrace and it wouldn't be fair to demand that others live to my standards. I'm not saying they're higher standards, just different. They're mine. I have chosen them. Other people choose their own.

Don't misunderstand, I do wish people would be accountable, and I think they should, especially in the case of government and so on, when their actions impact me, but those are just thoughts.


I guess it's a good thing you're not in law enforcement
. By the way, isn't it our civic duty to ensure we're all following the laws and not violating each other's rights? If someone is getting beaten on the street, is it "not your responsibility" to thrust your belief that this is wrong upon the assailant?

Enjoying this discussion, thanks for moving with me on it.

[edit on 15-6-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Let's template that with the "child" being the public, the "dad" being the government, and the "neighbor(s)" being the cartoonists.


I believe a child needs protection from outside influences to a certain extent, and that is one of the jobs of a parent. An adult, on the other hand, is responsible for protecting himself within the social and political framework in which he lives.



How many cartoons get banged out about the president that are untrue that incite paranoia or thoughts that this is probably true?


Some. But the responsibility of perception, emotion, action, belief all lie with the observer. What I believe in this world of constant external stimuli and influence is up to me. What I decide is true is my responsibility.



Is it then the government's "dad's" responsibility to limit the influences? I would say no...


I would also say no, when it comes to Free Speech. The government has a responsibility to protect the citizens from true harm, but words and pictures do not harm.



Do you believe their impression of darker skinned people was shaped by society's opinion or fact?


It probably came from their parents.



Certainly they've seen cartoons/joke about them, yes?


I doubt it. My parents were born in 1906 and 1916.



I think many of us are children on the inside most of the time, which is why I have no problem templating that example I'd started with in this post.


I have the logic and reasoning mind of an adult. I am still childlike in ways and hope to always be, but my ability to discern the truth of a situation is pretty much all grown up.
I will never again be as impressionable as I was as a child. And if I am, I doubt I'll be reading political cartoons, I'll be trying to eat my checkers.



Do you believe that a person's political stance and opinions are so well rooted that they'd not be affected by the wind of word of mouth?


It depends on so much. You're asking black and white questions and the only answers are gray.
If I hear something that is pretty convincing, and has credible back-up, it's possible for me to change my mind.

Perfect example: Even though I have never supported GW. Bush, in the beginning, I did support the invasion of Iraq. I believed what BushCo said. Against even my husband's opinion, I supported Bush's actions. However, over time, I researched and read and listened and I changed my opinion about the war. I am now fully convinced that everything I believed about GW. Bush was untrue. And I have held this belief for 3 years now. And I can honestly say that not one political cartoon influenced me!


For one thing, I rarely see them. I actually think they're boring. For another, I know they're cartoons and not meant to be true. By the time I even noticed Anti-Bush cartoons, I had already firmly established the fact that I had been deceived. I got my information from credited news sources and from reading documents, not from word of mouth. My whole family hated Bush and the war from the beginning. I argued with them. It wasn't until I did my own personal research that I changed my mind.



...unless the cartoon is about you or someone in your family...


If a cartoon is about someone in my family, I may feel offended, yes, but it wouldn't negatively impact my opinion of that family member! I wouldn't change my mind about them. And as I have said many times on this board and elsewhere, we DON'T have the right not to be offended. There is no such right.

We all get offended by stuff. That's what happens when we live with other people.



Same with gladiator sports?


I don't know what gladiator sports are, but I can speak to sports. I hate them! I HATE the whole idea of sports. Just very nearly everything about them. I think they are stupid and worthless and promote violence and competition to an unhealthy and corrupt degree. But I will defend the right of people to consent to participate in them, watch them on TV for hours, and get as involved in them as much as they want. It's none of my business.

Continued...



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Ah, but we are here to "deny ignorance", are we not?


That's one of the reasons I'm here. I also enjoy it. I'm entertained, educated and it keeps me in touch with the outside world.



If it is not true, then by the standards set forth by this site, it is garbage.


I'm not sure what you're judging as garbage, so I can't really say. And even then, I could agree with you that certain things are garbage, but the thread starter and participants might not agree. So, who's right?

Who's to say whether something is TRUE or not? If I believe it, it's true to me. That's another 'gray' thing. Some people say the existence of God or the words in the bible are Truth and Facts. I don't agree. So, who's right? I can only say what's true to me with the exception of very concrete facts. And I'm not interested in exploring those.




If there were a website named "politicalcartoons.com" then I know beforehand what I'm getting into.


You also know where you're likely to find them. Newspapers, magazines, websites. You can avoid those, too. I manage to miss most political cartoons and if I see them I don't have to look more closely and see what they're about or read them. And neither do you. 99% of the time, I scan right over them. I'm not interested.

Where are you seeing them?



Ah, so you're depending on government regulation to defend your right to fresh air?


Unlike pictures and words, second-hand smoke has been proven to be physically harmful. Big difference.



I guess it's a good thing you're not in law enforcement
.


If I were, it wouldn't be about "holding other people accountable", it would be about "enforcing the law". Entirely different thing.



By the way, isn't it our civic duty to ensure we're all following the laws and not violating each other's rights?


No. It's my civic duty to be sure I follow the law and not violate others' rights.



If someone is getting beaten on the street, is it "not your responsibility" to thrust your belief that this is wrong upon the assailant?


It is not my responsibility, no. I would do what I could to make it stop, but not to hold the assailant accountable, thrust my beliefs on him or tell him what he's doing is wrong. My concern would be to protect the victim. Because that seems like the right thing to do. My focus wouldn't be on the assailant, rather to help someone in need.

I don't eat Twinkies, by the way.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I believe a child needs protection from outside influences to a certain extent, and that is one of the jobs of a parent. An adult, on the other hand, is responsible for protecting himself within the social and political framework in which he lives.


I'm good to go with this answer.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Some. But the responsibility of perception, emotion, action, belief all lie with the observer. What I believe in this world of constant external stimuli and influence is up to me. What I decide is true is my responsibility.


An excellent testament for taking ownship.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I would also say no, when it comes to Free Speech. The government has a responsibility to protect the citizens from true harm, but words and pictures do not harm.


But it's enough for a court case? I'm not sure I understand.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
It probably came from their parents.


Hard to guess without interviewing I suppose.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I doubt it. My parents were born in 1906 and 1916.


They didn't make jokes about them back then? nor have baseless opinion discussions about them? The concept transcends the literal. I won't chase down this road long if the signs are being overlooked.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I have the logic and reasoning mind of an adult. I am still childlike in ways and hope to always be, but my ability to discern the truth of a situation is pretty much all grown up.
I will never again be as impressionable as I was as a child. And if I am, I doubt I'll be reading political cartoons, I'll be trying to eat my checkers.


I don't care who you are, that thar is funny. I don't agree with the emotion disappearing over time nor the influence thereof, so stalemate. Let's go eat checkers.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
It depends on so much. You're asking black and white questions and the only answers are gray.
If I hear something that is pretty convincing, and has credible back-up, it's possible for me to change my mind.

Perfect example: Even though I have never supported GW. Bush, in the beginning, I did support the invasion of Iraq. I believed what BushCo said. Against even my husband's opinion, I supported Bush's actions. However, over time, I researched and read and listened and I changed my opinion about the war. I am now fully convinced that everything I believed about GW. Bush was untrue. And I have held this belief for 3 years now. And I can honestly say that not one political cartoon influenced me!


I believe you, no doubt. Though when we read cartoon after cartoon of him being an idiot, then become convinced by that, whenever we see his picture or video, we're thinking "idiot". Maybe not cognizantly, maybe we "over-rule" it with our good senses but then again, maybe not.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
For one thing, I rarely see them. I actually think they're boring. For another, I know they're cartoons and not meant to be true. By the time I even noticed Anti-Bush cartoons, I had already firmly established the fact that I had been deceived. I got my information from credited news sources and from reading documents, not from word of mouth. My whole family hated Bush and the war from the beginning. I argued with them. It wasn't until I did my own personal research that I changed my mind.


Marks of wisdom on making an assessment. I don't think most of us are that well read in our daily lives, thus weakly rooted and easily swayed by opinions...especially cartoons.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
If a cartoon is about someone in my family, I may feel offended, yes, but it wouldn't negatively impact my opinion of that family member! I wouldn't change my mind about them. And as I have said many times on this board and elsewhere, we DON'T have the right not to be offended. There is no such right.

We all get offended by stuff. That's what happens when we live with other people.


I like the way you think. I hope others keep this in mind when I pray, preach, wear my cross, and protest in public.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I don't know what gladiator sports are, but I can speak to sports. I hate them! I HATE the whole idea of sports. Just very nearly everything about them. I think they are stupid and worthless and promote violence and competition to an unhealthy and corrupt degree. But I will defend the right of people to consent to participate in them, watch them on TV for hours, and get as involved in them as much as they want. It's none of my business.


Gladiator sports was in the Roman arenas, where two men took weapons and battled until one of them died, for example. Death and carnage was entertainment, part of the show. But then again...we don't have the right to impose our beliefs on others so I guess it's okay if that happens. I admit I'm testing your metal. I'm not trying to be mean-spirited, but want to know where you draw the line (if at all) between inaction and action needed on offensive materials.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
That's one of the reasons I'm here. I also enjoy it. I'm entertained, educated and it keeps me in touch with the outside world.


No arguments here



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I'm not sure what you're judging as garbage, so I can't really say. And even then, I could agree with you that certain things are garbage, but the thread starter and participants might not agree. So, who's right?


The garbage I'm referring to is the things not true (which is foundationally formed from ignorace, that which we deny). Not my standard, so I'm not judging anybody. One statement in signing up is we must adhere to the truth, else lose membership.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Who's to say whether something is TRUE or not? If I believe it, it's true to me. That's another 'gray' thing. Some people say the existence of God or the words in the bible are Truth and Facts. I don't agree. So, who's right? I can only say what's true to me with the exception of very concrete facts. And I'm not interested in exploring those.


I'd like to talk more about it on a thread sometime, but fear delving too deep on an unrelated topic.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
You also know where you're likely to find them. Newspapers, magazines, websites. You can avoid those, too.


You are kidding, right? How is that denying ignorance?


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I manage to miss most political cartoons and if I see them I don't have to look more closely and see what they're about or read them. And neither do you. 99% of the time, I scan right over them. I'm not interested.


I'm sick of the "make Kerry/Bush fart"-type ads. I'll be honest. These cartoony events would not make me laugh if I were either of them. Don't why they make anyone laugh anyway. It's insulting and I'm not even involved.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Where are you seeing them?


Pick a site.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Unlike pictures and words, second-hand smoke has been proven to be physically harmful. Big difference.


I care less about my body than my spirit. Should we go run psych studies on these cartoons to get our proof?


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
If I were, it wouldn't be about "holding other people accountable", it would be about "enforcing the law". Entirely different thing.


The law holds us accountable, does it not? (in theory)


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
No. It's my civic duty to be sure I follow the law and not violate others' rights.

It is not my responsibility, no. I would do what I could to make it stop, but not to hold the assailant accountable, thrust my beliefs on him or tell him what he's doing is wrong. My concern would be to protect the victim. Because that seems like the right thing to do. My focus wouldn't be on the assailant, rather to help someone in need.


Beautiful theory but in order to get that person away, the assailant has to be approached in one form or another. Asking him/her to close his eyes doesn't really work. Neither does the "look over there!" trick. S/he feels it is their right to assault the other person according to their beliefs. Will you or will you not help him/her by getting them to notice this error?


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I don't eat Twinkies, by the way.




[edit on 15-6-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
But it's enough for a court case? I'm not sure I understand.


Go back to the beginning and read about slander and libel. And where I said each case must be analyzed.



They didn't make jokes about them back then? nor have baseless opinion discussions about them? The concept transcends the literal.


I don't remember. My parents never joked about black people. Or discussed them much at all. When they did, it was the manner more than the content that gave me the impression of black people that I learned early on. It was only when I asked questions that my mother whispered under her breath that "they're dirty"...



Though when we read cartoon after cartoon of him being an idiot, then become convinced by that, whenever we see his picture or video, we're thinking "idiot".


If you want political cartoons taken out of the picture because you don't want to be exposed to them, then why are you reading one after another? I submit that you want their possible influence taken away from everyone, not just you. And it isn't because you are offended, it's because you're afraid they might have some influencing affect on people.

As for me, I don't need to see one cartoon to form my opinion of GW Bush.



I don't think most of us are that well read in our daily lives, thus weakly rooted and easily swayed by opinions...especially cartoons.


Don't suppose you have any data on this idea that people are swayed by cartoons? I don't think cartoons are that influential. If people are so 'weakly-rooted' that a cartoon could sway their opinion, then they better not watch the news, read the paper or browse a conspiracy site.

Look how strongly people here on ATS hold to their beliefs, even in the face of people TRYING to sway their opinions with facts and real information.



Gladiator sports was in the Roman arenas, where two men took weapons and battled until one of them died, for example.


Well, that would be considered murder today in the framework of our society, wouldn't it? And... I'm against murder.




But then again...we don't have the right to impose our beliefs on others so I guess it's okay if that happens.


Who said we don't have the right to impose our beliefs on others? I said I don't do it. I didn't say we don't have the right.



I ... want to know where you draw the line (if at all) between inaction and action needed on offensive materials.


If it's simply offensive, it's not an action and requires no response.

(You have chosen to debate with one of the people on this board who probably is the least politically correct, most staunchly protects the first amendment and thinks people should mind their own business.)


If it breaks a law (disturbing the peace, public nudity, child abuse) or is a case of libel or slander, then I think it should be analyzed and resolved.

Is that a clear line?



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
One statement in signing up is we must adhere to the truth, else lose membership.


I believe that statement is that we're not to "knowingly post anything false". Then that should take care of it. If there's something false, the owners should be contacted. They do a pretty good job.
But a lot of stuff is just opinion being passed off as "truth".



You are kidding, right? How is that denying ignorance?


I didn't claim it's denying ignorance. I said you could choose to avoid political cartoons by avoiding those media. If it's more important to you to avoid political cartoons, then you'll do that. If it's more important to you to deny ignorance, then you'll deal with the material contained therein. Your choice.



I'm sick of the "make Kerry/Bush fart"-type ads.


I don't even notice them.



Should we go run psych studies on these cartoons to get our proof?


I already know what I think. I don't need any more 'proof'. If you wish to prove something, you're going to have to find a way to do that.



The law holds us accountable, does it not? (in theory)


Not the way I mean "accountable". Individual officers might view it that way, or they might see themselves as simply enforcers of the law. I don't know. But the way I mean accountable, no one can do that to me. I choose it for myself.



Beautiful theory but in order to get that person away, the assailant has to be approached in one form or another. ... Will you or will you not help him/her by getting them to notice this error?


As I said:


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I would do what I could to make it stop


I couldn't care less whether the assailant 'notices their error' or realizes what they're doing is 'wrong'. I don't care. As long as they stop.

The Twinkie comment was an attempt at humor. I had mentioned a "weekly Twinkie" earlier and I don't eat them, it was just an example. Don't feel bad. People don't always get my humor.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 09:45 PM
link   
you guys, for a very well executed conversation!


saint4God, I'm going to agree with BH here, and disagree with you. I don't believe political cartoons sway opinion so much as express points of view. And as BH mentioned, it is not libel or slander unless the subject's reputation is measurably damaged by them. I see them in somewhat the same light as some of Jon Stewart's remarks... he says the most outrageous things, but it is not slander, because it is obvious he is a jokester, and no-one's reputation is damaged by what he says.

If you want political cartoons to disappear, I'd say your best bet would be to try to convince people of the damage done by them, and to stop buying the newspapers or magazines in which they appear. You present your argument well, and you may be able to yourself influence enough people. I say this even though I disagree with your argument, by the way...


And I am very much opposed to any idea of removing these by decree, or law. For essentially the reasons BH has presented, so I won't repeat them here.

I had a similar discussion with a colleague at work when the infamous Mohammad cartoons came out. In order to have even a chance at an educated opinion, I looked at them briefly. My opinion is that they were poorly executed, boorish and stupid. As did my colleague. Where we differed was in that he wanted the cartoons to be banned, and not allowed to be printed. I am opposed to censorship. Down that path lies danger.

Anyway, very interesting discussion!

Edit for typo...

[edit on 15-6-2006 by Open_Minded Skeptic]



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 12:00 AM
link   
To the original poster,.....

Although I see what you're saying,.... and a very small part of me agrees with you, I think you're stepping into the "ban the words 'In God We Trust' from our currency, take down the public Christmas trees, and get rid of all the religious symbols from public places" territory. Just to make the connection more clear,..... you're trying to ban images which 'may' be offensive to a few, and understood by the majority as nothing more than images. People who laugh at these cartoons already have a preconceived notion of the person, and that is why it makes them laugh or not laugh. I think everyone can think for themselves, and the majority won't let a cartoon sway their opinion of a public figure.
Lord help us when people start looking to cartoons on how to vote, or what to think of people.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Go back to the beginning and read about slander and libel. And where I said each case must be analyzed.


Understood and am glad it's not my job to do so.



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
If you want political cartoons taken out of the picture because you don't want to be exposed to them, then why are you reading one after another?


Allow me to clarify then. If someone flashed a nude picture in front of you and go "why did you look at that?" What's your answer? I don't read them anymore. Used to until I realized the effects.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I submit that you want their possible influence taken away from everyone, not just you. And it isn't because you are offended, it's because you're afraid they might have some influencing affect on people.


I used to have an effect on me and no longer does. Not offended but sway. I did not state per my initial post I wanted to take things away. I'm advocating not financially supporting vai economic authority and taking the self-responsibility of turning away. Notice I'm not writing to the New York Time here. I'm writing to you and the ATS audience. This is intentional.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Don't suppose you have any data on this idea that people are swayed by cartoons?


Nope. I can only go by personal and interpersonal experience. Ask probing questions, "You think Bush is an idiot, why?" Some of the answers come back as what was said in cartoons, not news articles. I'd recommend anyone to template this experiment. Fortunately I have not the time or resources to carry it forward, but most assuredly the desire is there to do so.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Look how strongly people here on ATS hold to their beliefs, even in the face of people TRYING to sway their opinions with facts and real information.


Again, ATS is not your typical crowd. For that I'm grateful. Many people are awake here.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Well, that would be considered murder today in the framework of our society, wouldn't it? And... I'm against murder.


Crutching off of the government to decide what's right and wrong?


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Who said we don't have the right to impose our beliefs on others? I said I don't do it. I didn't say we don't have the right.


Thanks for this clarification. I'm still curious to see if your courteousness extends beyond the bounds of allowing the unacceptable to happen. I don't mean to knock it at all, I have great respect for those who are willing to accomodate the people of their environment. Maybe you're helping me stike that balance



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
If it's simply offensive, it's not an action and requires no response.


At what point does it require action?


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
(You have chosen to debate with one of the people on this board who probably is the least politically correct, most staunchly protects the first amendment and thinks people should mind their own business.)


Good! I've chosen well then! I agree with 2 out of 3. I'm not big on the "mind your own business" when others are being harmed. I think we need to champion the rights of EVERYONE, not those who love to infringe upon others.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
If it breaks a law (disturbing the peace, public nudity, child abuse) or is a case of libel or slander, then I think it should be analyzed and resolved.

Is that a clear line?


Better no doubt, and thanks. But still the reliance is upon the government to decide, not civility. Get me not wrong, our (I'm U.S.) government does a very fine job and there's nowhere else in the world I'd rather be. But I do think that we have an additional responsibility to be the guiding force for the government...not the other way around.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by darkelf
These cartoons give us an opportunity to laugh at ourselves. It keeps us from taking ourselves too seriously. If you find yourself offened at one of these, pehaps you should examine yourself for the reason.


Firstly darkelf, I have found your thoughts on very solid footing so I give them the utmost consideration. I appreciate the posts you've presentd.

I used to laugh at the President, Prime Minisiter, and whoever else was in them. It wasn't until close self-examination and wide-scale impact analysis that I saw the negative effects.


Wow! Thanks. Then you should understand where I am coming from. I never advocated laughing at others. If I find a cartoon funny, it is usually because it appeals to my weird sense of humor. The difference between a “normal” cartoon and a “poli” cartoon is that I often dissect the later. I often find them suspect and so I try to determine why it is or isn’t funny. I often see my beliefs mirrored in this satire. Satirical humor tends to offend some people. I have to determine if the cartoon is meant in fun or if it is mean spirited. More and more poli cartoons are falling into the mean spirit group.



Originally posted by darkelf
I have been offended by some of these in the past and when I examined myself, I discovered that I felt like it was a personal attack on me or my beliefs.


I've never experienced this from a political/personal cartoon so I'll take your word on it.


When I was in the Navy, I used to take offense at poli cartoons that depicted the military in a negative light. As I was a member of the military, I took offense that someone (who had probably never served) was depicting me in a negative light. I was offended at most religious cartooning for the same reason. Now, I just ignore it.



Originally posted by darkelf
All of us feel we are privy to the truth.


This is the complimentary side of ATS. We'll question things here. Questioning things is Biblical as well.


Some people here are better at it than others are. That is some can question my beliefs without attacking me personally while others cannot. Here at ATS we always prefer the former.



Originally posted by darkelf
Remember that one person’s truth is another person’s ignorance.


In close examination of this statement, it is possible for one person to know truth while the other person does not know. This is a given, which is why we send children to school, why people go to college, church, karate, along with other skill and knowledge acquisition activities. So I'm not sure what's being said here if you'd like to clarify or rephrase in a way I can understand.


Saint I respect your opinions, candor and the way you present your arguments. But you and I know that there are some truths that can change you life if you are willing to open your mind. My last two statements were meant to be taken together.

For instance: evolution, alien seeding, or creationism; which is true? Believing something is not what makes it true. I could choose any of the three as my answer and have any number of people who truly believe one of the other attack my position as being ignorant of the truth. We all feel we are privy to the truth, but some of us are in ignorance.

Back to your original topic: You feel it is wrong to make fun of political figures in cartoons. I agree that much cartooning nowadays is more mean spirited than merely making fun. But the world we live in today is a place where people have become “lovers of themselves.” I agree that they shouldn’t be doing this, but that’s the way it is. We both know where this is going and what we should be doing.

Maranatha!



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 07:35 AM
link   
If I hadn't said it before, allow me to say it again. I am enjoying this conversation and feel it's very progressive in getting into the heart of the matter. I appreciate your time, patience and perspective. Okay, back to work:


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I believe that statement is that we're not to "knowingly post anything false". Then that should take care of it. If there's something false, the owners should be contacted. They do a pretty good job.
But a lot of stuff is just opinion being passed off as "truth".


I also agree that the moderators do a great job. Heh, I wouldn't be here if I felt otherwise. I'd rant until booted as an unappreciative sod, and rightly so. Opinions can align with truth, just need to dig in there and root out whether it is or not. Personal perspective on my part, I know...but it may be the truth



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I didn't claim it's denying ignorance. I said you could choose to avoid political cartoons by avoiding those media. If it's more important to you to avoid political cartoons, then you'll do that. If it's more important to you to deny ignorance, then you'll deal with the material contained therein. Your choice.


Ah, a "lose-lose" scenario. I appreciate the advice nonetheless.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I don't even notice them.


I should train myself in selective sight I guess.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I already know what I think. I don't need any more 'proof'. If you wish to prove something, you're going to have to find a way to do that.


No time & money presently, but would like to.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Not the way I mean "accountable". Individual officers might view it that way, or they might see themselves as simply enforcers of the law. I don't know. But the way I mean accountable, no one can do that to me. I choose it for myself.


I think I understand. Even though there's enforcement and consequence it's possible for someone to feel unaccountable. Am I close?


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I couldn't care less whether the assailant 'notices their error' or realizes what they're doing is 'wrong'. I don't care. As long as they stop.


Ah. I'd care and want to go further to help both parties involved.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The Twinkie comment was an attempt at humor. I had mentioned a "weekly Twinkie" earlier and I don't eat them, it was just an example. Don't feel bad. People don't always get my humor.


Gotcha! Sorry, with the many branches of our discussion, I'm not able to relate things as well as I should.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 07:45 AM
link   
Thank you for the kind comments Open_Minded Skeptic!


Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
I am opposed to censorship. Down that path lies danger.


I believe there's a time and place for everything. I don't want my daughter watching Nickelodeon and Jimmy Neutron saying, "F*ck you b*tch!" and such. This audio-pollution was not sought out by either myself or her. We have a great opportunity now in our age of technology to give people the stick, the control lever to say "if you want it, go get it" but also to say, "if you don't want it, you don't have to see it". This is why I don't watch much tv (other than news), because I don't have that leveler. The internet on the other hand, gives more opportunity for personal control (though there are violations a plenty there too). If this topic came up 50 years ago, I may not be pushing the issue so hard as it was difficult to put these freedoms into place. It's a new century though, we've gone through a lot of change and I hope we can change with the times.

Appreciate your post again, and so glad the the discussion has maintained a positive connotation.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by darkelf
Wow! Thanks. Then you should understand where I am coming from. I never advocated laughing at others.


My thought process at the time (or lack thereof) was that they knew what they were getting into in the limelight, all part of the job, should be able to laugh at themselves, not take anything seriously, etc. All these things may be true superficially, but things happen deep inside that tend to surface later on. Even manifest itself in unexpected ways. The joke was funny because I nor people I knew personally were not the target.


Originally posted by darkelf
If I find a cartoon funny, it is usually because it appeals to my weird sense of humor. The difference between a “normal” cartoon and a “poli” cartoon is that I often dissect the later. I often find them suspect and so I try to determine why it is or isn’t funny. I often see my beliefs mirrored in this satire. Satirical humor tends to offend some people. I have to determine if the cartoon is meant in fun or if it is mean spirited. More and more poli cartoons are falling into the mean spirit group.


Totally agree. This trend made me aware of what was going on. Even older cartoons I thought were funny suddenly seemed very sour. Jibjab comes to mind.


Originally posted by darkelf
When I was in the Navy, I used to take offense at poli cartoons that depicted the military in a negative light. As I was a member of the military, I took offense that someone (who had probably never served) was depicting me in a negative light. I was offended at most religious cartooning for the same reason.


I'm glad you see this perspective too.


Originally posted by darkelf
Now, I just ignore it.


Same here, but it doesn't make the problem go away. Sweeping dirt under the rug doesn't mean the house is clean.


Originally posted by darkelf
Some people here are better at it than others are. That is some can question my beliefs without attacking me personally while others cannot. Here at ATS we always prefer the former.


Yeah, overall I think the odds are better here than co-workers or the "average Joe" on the street.


Originally posted by darkelf
Saint I respect your opinions, candor and the way you present your arguments. But you and I know that there are some truths that can change you life if you are willing to open your mind. My last two statements were meant to be taken together.


Apologies for misunderstanding then. I try to disect until I understand. Seems I missed the point there.


Originally posted by darkelf
For instance: evolution, alien seeding, or creationism; which is true? Believing something is not what makes it true.


Totally agree. Reality exists despite anyones likes, dislikes or beliefs.


Originally posted by darkelf
I could choose any of the three as my answer and have any number of people who truly believe one of the other attack my position as being ignorant of the truth. We all feel we are privy to the truth, but some of us are in ignorance.


Hence why we're here *nods*.


Originally posted by darkelf
Back to your original topic: You feel it is wrong to make fun of political figures in cartoons. I agree that much cartooning nowadays is more mean spirited than merely making fun. But the world we live in today is a place where people have become “lovers of themselves.” I agree that they shouldn’t be doing this, but that’s the way it is. We both know where this is going and what we should be doing.


Then let us take action. I would not ask for more. Sitting idle saying "that's not my job" is a similar isolationist attitude that we (U.S. and allies) had the onset of WWII that cost lots of lives. No pre-emptive striking, but reacting to that which is wrong. Defend what is right, good and true. Repel the attacks of spite, malice and intellectual warefare.


Originally posted by darkelf
Maranatha!


Lost me here


[edit on 16-6-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 08:59 AM
link   
Edit double post


[edit on 6/16/2006 by darkelf]



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by darkelf
Now, I just ignore it.


Same here, but it doesn't make the problem go away. Sweeping dirt under the rug doesn't mean the house is clean.


That’s not a very good analogy. If I ignore the dirt, it just builds up. If I sweep it under the rug, it’s still my problem. If I put it out for the trash pick-up, it becomes someone else’s problem. The only way to resolve the dilemma would the complete abolition of dirt. I don’t see that happening.



Originally posted by darkelf
Back to your original topic: You feel it is wrong to make fun of political figures in cartoons. I agree that much cartooning nowadays is more mean spirited than merely making fun. But the world we live in today is a place where people have become “lovers of themselves.” I agree that they shouldn’t be doing this, but that’s the way it is. We both know where this is going and what we should be doing.


Then let us take action. I would not ask for more. Sitting idle saying "that's not my job" is a similar isolationist attitude that we (U.S. and allies) had the onset of WWII that cost lots of lives. No pre-emptive striking, but reacting to that which is wrong. Defend what is right, good and true. Repel the attacks of spite, malice and intellectual warefare.


I was responding more in the spiritual than in the physical. Ephesians 6: 12 comes to mind. But since you answered in the physical, what would you suggest we do to “take action?”



Originally posted by darkelf
Maranatha!


Lost me here


Maranatha


[edit on 6/16/2006 by darkelf]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join