Down with Political & Personal cartooning!

Originally posted by darkelf
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.

The "house" is the world. You and I are temporary residents of the house. SOMEBODY is gonna have to clean up when things become a mess. Yes, it's a chore, one we don't like, but how much must build up before someone decides to start cleaning.

Originally posted by darkelf
If I put it out for the trash pick-up, it becomes someone else’s problem.

We should be smart consumers and consider what happens to the trash when it's taken out. Is it made of plastics and toxic materials to the environment?

Originally posted by darkelf
The only way to resolve the dilemma would the complete abolition of dirt. I don’t see that happening.

*picks up a vacuum cleaner* I don't go out like dat.

Originally posted by darkelf
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?”

I too was talking about spiritual and think you've pinpointed a great, appropriate verse that applies to the situation:

"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms."

The above statement isn't Anti-President/Prime Minister obviously because...

"Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority," - Peter 2:13

But rather to mental, emotional, spiritual evils.

Taking action, as originally stated is to not apply economic authority to support this activity. In addition, educating others to this paradigm is a great way to help deny ignorance.

Originally posted by darkelf
Maranatha

Thank you for this. Learn something new everyday . I should've taken the initiative to look it up, but thought it was a name in reference to something I missed.

[edit on 16-6-2006 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God
If someone flashed a nude picture in front of you and go "why did you look at that?" What's your answer?

Like I said before, most political cartoons take some amount of study (5 seconds at least) and even reading to get the point across. Reading a few lines of text is a very conscious activity. A nude picture is registered instantly.

But then again, I don't feel in any way assaulted by the cartoons or nudity, so these wouldn't bother me. If it were bloody gruesome pictures, something I find unpleasant, I wouldn't go back to the source, plain and simple.

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

Not at all. I said I don't support murder. It also happens to be illegal in our current society, but that's not why I think it's wrong. The death penalty is legal and I think that's wrong, too.

I'm still curious to see if your courteousness extends beyond the bounds of allowing the unacceptable to happen.

To clarify, I don't impose my beliefs on others, not out of courtesy to them, but because I don't like it when others impose their beliefs on me and I would be acting out of integrity if I imposed mine on them. So my motivation isn't courtesy, it's my own integrity.

At what point does it require action?

I answered that. If it's simply offensive, it requires no response (or action). So if it's a picture or words that simply offends a person, no action is ever required. Sticks and stones...

As I said, in my opinion, the point at which it requires action is here:
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 (acted upon).

But still the reliance is upon the government to decide, not civility.

That's because civility is a subjective thing. Like morals, every person has their own perception of what's right and wrong. Whose concept of 'civility' would we use to determine what should and shouldn't be allowed? In our society, we must rely on one central body (the government) to set certain standards within which we all must operate. That's one of the government's purposes.

I'm not saying I rely on the government to set my morals, I'm saying the government sets the outer or upper (or lower) boundaries and we each choose how to operate within those boundaries. I believe my morals are much stricter than the government's.

But I do think that we have an additional responsibility to be the guiding force for the government...not the other way around.

I totally agree.

Originally posted by saint4God
Even though there's enforcement and consequence it's possible for someone to feel unaccountable. Am I close?

Close to what? I don't understand your question. I believe what you have said is certainly true. True accountability is rare. Even if someone knows they've done something wrong, they still may not feel accountable and may even blame their wrong-doing on someone or something else.

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

I think that might be one way we differ... kind of related to the "mind our own business" thing I mentioned earlier.



[edit on 16-6-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Like I said before, most political cartoons take some amount of study (5 seconds at least) and even reading to get the point across. Reading a few lines of text is a very conscious activity. A nude picture is registered instantly.

How long did this take?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
But then again, I don't feel in any way assaulted by the cartoons or nudity, so these wouldn't bother me. If it were bloody gruesome pictures, something I find unpleasant, I wouldn't go back to the source, plain and simple.

Okay, we can use gore as an example instead of pornography. Effects are similar.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Not at all. I said I don't support murder. It also happens to be illegal in our current society, but that's not why I think it's wrong. The death penalty is legal and I think that's wrong, too.

Good, thanks for demonstrating leadership morality here.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
To clarify, I don't impose my beliefs on others, not out of courtesy to them, but because I don't like it when others impose their beliefs on me and I would be acting out of integrity if I imposed mine on them. So my motivation isn't courtesy, it's my own integrity.

I answered that. If it's simply offensive, it requires no response (or action). So if it's a picture or words that simply offends a person, no action is ever required. Sticks and stones...

Has anyone ever said anything that has hurt you?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
As I said, in my opinion, the point at which it requires action is here:
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 (acted upon).

I'm hoping to demonstrate some of this analysis and leave it to readers here to resolve. I cannot make them do anything nor would I want to, rather provide evidence for a case deserving action.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
That's because civility is a subjective thing. Like morals, every person has their own perception of what's right and wrong. Whose concept of 'civility' would we use to determine what should and shouldn't be allowed? In our society, we must rely on one central body (the government) to set certain standards within which we all must operate. That's one of the government's purposes.

I'm not saying I rely on the government to set my morals, I'm saying the government sets the outer or upper (or lower) boundaries and we each choose how to operate within those boundaries. I believe my morals are much stricter than the government's.

It's good to have the higher standard I think. I disagree that civility is relative, because that would mean none of us have the capability to feel the difference between right and wrong through consciousness or heart.

Originally posted by saint4God
How long did this take?

It took me about 10 seconds, because I wondered what the hell Bush was doing on a rocket. And I searched the picture to see what I was missing. It finally registered that it's probably meant to be a missile or nuke, I don't know. I'm not good at these things. But one example doesn't make the rule. I said MOST (not all) cartoons require some study.

And, by the way, if I'm interpreting the cartoon correctly (and there's no guarantee) in my opinion it's fairly accurate. It's no secret that Bush is a war president and that he was over eager to invade Iraq and now he's chomping at the bit to invade Iran.

Okay, we can use gore as an example instead of pornography. Effects are similar.

Perhaps to some. Not to me. Just clarifying.

Has anyone ever said anything that has hurt you?

Absolutely! I'm a human being. A woman who has lived nearly half a century on this Earth. I'm a compassionate, caring, sensitive person. Of course I sometimes feel pain when somebody says something cruel or hurtful to me!

I just don't think I have some kind of right to be comfortable all the time. I don't think I have the right NOT to be hurt or offended. It's part of life. And I don't have the right to control what other people do or say. That's their job. And it's not for me to say how they do it.

My responsibility is in my ability to respond... What I can control is my reaction and response to them. My thoughts, my feelings about what they said. I ask myself, "What is it about me that I feel so hurt because of the words spoken by that person? Is what they said true? Do I hurt because I recognize some truth in their words? Or can I reject what they said because it really isn't true at all"?

Now we're getting into my definition of 'accountabiltiy'.

I disagree that civility is relative, because that would mean none of us have the capability to feel the difference between right and wrong through consciousness or heart.

We do disagree, then. Every person draws their line of civility (and morality) at a different place. A very frank, outspoken young American person would have a different idea of what's civil than, say, the Queen of England.

Crapping in the street is something we can probably all agree is not civil. Telling someone you appreciate their point of view is something we can probably all agree is civil. But there's a world in between and each person draws their line of civility at a different place. To me, civility is not a black and white issue, There's a world of gray.

Just in case you missed it in my last post (I added this in edit):

Originally posted by saint4God
Even though there's enforcement and consequence it's possible for someone to feel unaccountable. Am I close?

Close to what? I don't understand your question. I believe what you have said is certainly true. True accountability is rare. Even if someone knows they've done something wrong, they still may not feel accountable and may even blame their wrong-doing on someone or something else.

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

I think that might be one way we differ... kind of related to the "mind our own business" thing I mentioned earlier.

Originally posted by saint4God
The "house" is the world. You and I are temporary residents of the house. SOMEBODY is gonna have to clean up when things become a mess. Yes, it's a chore, one we don't like, but how much must build up before someone decides to start cleaning.

As a mom and grandma, I get tired of picking up after everyone else, but if I don’t do it, it won’t get done. Hence, the problem, most people don’t mind the dirt piling up as long as it doesn’t affect them. Some people will even tolerate the dirt as art. Others will defend the dirt claiming that by cleaning it, you are violating their right to view the dirt. Nevertheless, if we sweep and mop the floor and put down a new rug, someone will claim that the rug offends them. Can you see where I’m going with this?

BH has it pegged when she said:

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
That's because civility is a subjective thing. Like morals, every person has their own perception of what's right and wrong. Whose concept of 'civility' would we use to determine what should and shouldn't be allowed? In our society, we must rely on one central body (the government) to set certain standards within which we all must operate. That's one of the government's purposes.

The government has to find a happy medium to satisfy the majority. Some people will be happy with their decisions, while others will complain. Fact is that most people will rise or fall to the extent of expectations.

Which is easier, to make a point with a mean spirited jab or write something profound that causes a person to think? By lowering our standards, we have not allowed the cream to rise to the top. We now have to sift through many curds to get to the cream. However, you will know which is which by the taste it leaves with you. Keep in mind that many people enjoy curds.

Originally posted by darkelf
If I put it out for the trash pick-up, it becomes someone else’s problem.

We should be smart consumers and consider what happens to the trash when it's taken out. Is it made of plastics and toxic materials to the environment?

I agree, but then again whose standards do we use? I see many things that I consider toxic embraced by others.

Originally posted by darkelf
The only way to resolve the dilemma would the complete abolition of dirt. I don’t see that happening.

*picks up a vacuum cleaner* I don't go out like dat.

Good luck with that. I hope you have a long extension cord!

Taking action, as originally stated is to not apply economic authority to support this activity. In addition, educating others to this paradigm is a great way to help deny ignorance.

Agreed!

Originally posted by darkelf
Maranatha

Thank you for this. Learn something new everyday

. I should've taken the initiative to look it up, but thought it was a name in reference to something I missed.

This is a greeting used by the early church.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
It took me about 10 seconds, because I wondered what the hell Bush was doing on a rocket.

I think I finished sooner on the time, since it's an image that's beaten into the brain media-wise.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And I searched the picture to see what I was missing. It finally registered that it's probably meant to be a missile or nuke, I don't know. I'm not good at these things. But one example doesn't make the rule. I said MOST (not all) cartoons require some study.

Okay, I agree if there's dialogue it takes more time. The recent addition to these cartoons is animation which reduces time needed to decipher and increase possibility to catching attention. Us people out of instinct tend to draw to motion versus still images.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And, by the way, if I'm interpreting the cartoon correctly (and there's no guarantee) in my opinion it's fairly accurate. It's no secret that Bush is a war president

I cannot think of a president in recent history who has not been involved in armed conflict. It would be nice to have a "non-war" president I think, but I do not see what they see so am not able to make the decisions they do.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
and that he was over eager to invade Iraq and now he's chomping at the bit to invade Iran.

How do you know he was over eager? And, chomping at the bit to invade? Where did this opinion come from?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Perhaps to some. Not to me. Just clarifying.

Sure thing and appreciated.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Absolutely! I'm a human being. A woman who has lived nearly half a century on this Earth. I'm a compassionate, caring, sensitive person. Of course I sometimes feel pain when somebody says something cruel or hurtful to me!

Have you ever felt worse mental/emotional pain than being punched or a broken bone?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I just don't think I have some kind of right to be comfortable all the time. I don't think I have the right NOT to be hurt or offended. It's part of life.

I'll go further to say "yes" for ourselves being hurt or offended sometimes. What hurts me more is to see others who are unnecessarily or unjustly harmed.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And I don't have the right to control what other people do or say. That's their job. And it's not for me to say how they do it.

Until they infringe upon the rights of other's "life, liberty and the persuit of happiness". I'm not making this stuff up here.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
My responsibility is in my ability to respond...

What I can control is my reaction and response to them. My thoughts, my feelings about what they said. I ask myself, "What is it about me that I feel so hurt because of the words spoken by that person? Is what they said true? Do I hurt because I recognize some truth in their words? Or can I reject what they said because it really isn't true at all"?

Now we're getting into my definition of 'accountabiltiy'.

I think you've really got yourself in order and like how you can ask yourself the hard questions.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
We do disagree, then.

Every person draws their line of civility (and morality) at a different place. A very frank, outspoken young American person would have a different idea of what's civil than, say, the Queen of England.

Crapping in the street is something we can probably all agree is not civil. Telling someone you appreciate their point of view is something we can probably all agree is civil. But there's a world in between and each person draws their line of civility at a different place. To me, civility is not a black and white issue, There's a world of gray.

Another point of disagreement. Glad we can do it civily .

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Close to what? I don't understand your question. I believe what you have said is certainly true. True accountability is rare. Even if someone knows they've done something wrong, they still may not feel accountable and may even blame their wrong-doing on someone or something else.

Gotcha. I think that it clarifies for me what I was asking.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I think that might be one way we differ... kind of related to the "mind our own business" thing I mentioned earlier.

Hehe. Just to be clear, I'm not a person who goes around "all up in someone's bizness". On the road, I don't blow my horn, nor yell at other drivers. I care not what they do to me unless I think they are at risk of doing it to others unconsciously. If one person is unjustly yelling at another, I will do my best to get involved in the most diplomatic way possible.

Originally posted by darkelf
As a mom and grandma, I get tired of picking up after everyone else, but if I don’t do it, it won’t get done. Hence, the problem, most people don’t mind the dirt piling up as long as it doesn’t affect them. Some people will even tolerate the dirt as art. Others will defend the dirt claiming that by cleaning it, you are violating their right to view the dirt. Nevertheless, if we sweep and mop the floor and put down a new rug, someone will claim that the rug offends them. Can you see where I’m going with this?

Exaclty, and is precisely my point. If political/personal cartoons are dirt, we all have to do our part to keep the house clean. All I have to do is show why it is dirt if it is not seen as such.

Originally posted by darkelf
The government has to find a happy medium to satisfy the majority. Some people will be happy with their decisions, while others will complain. Fact is that most people will rise or fall to the extent of expectations.

I'm not concerned with what government nor the majority thinks is right, though am grateful for the freedoms they'd given me.

Originally posted by darkelf
Which is easier, to make a point with a mean spirited jab or write something profound that causes a person to think? By lowering our standards, we have not allowed the cream to rise to the top. We now have to sift through many curds to get to the cream. However, you will know which is which by the taste it leaves with you. Keep in mind that many people enjoy curds.

I like the analogy but am going to disagree. Just become someone has fortitude does not mean they're the best fit for politics. In fact, the result can lead to only those with super-egos to make it through. Is that who we want running our country? Personally I prefer someone with heart who's sensitive to the needs of the country and have the compassion necessary to reach out to those who require assistance.

Originally posted by darkelf
I agree, but then again whose standards do we use? I see many things that I consider toxic embraced by others.

If it kills you, is harmful, or makes you ill, it's toxic. Toxic is not a relative term, it's a scientific one.

Originally posted by darkelf
Good luck with that. I hope you have a long extension cord!

I shall do my best.

Originally posted by darkelf
This is a greeting used by the early church.

Even more knowledge, good stuff ^_^. Thanks again.

[edit on 16-6-2006 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God
If political/personal cartoons are dirt, we all have to do our part to keep the house clean. All I have to do is show why it is dirt if it is not seen as such.

You do understand that many people will still disagree with you. Of those who agree, some will still ignore it in the hope that they won’t have to be responsible for cleaning it up.

I'm not concerned with what government nor the majority thinks is right, though am grateful for the freedoms they'd given me.

Those of us who answer to a higher authority often don’t care what the majority thinks. However, their beliefs still affect us.

Just become someone has fortitude does not mean they're the best fit for politics. In fact, the result can lead to only those with super-egos to make it through. Is that who we want running our country? Personally I prefer someone with heart who's sensitive to the needs of the country and have the compassion necessary to reach out to those who require assistance.

I’m not sure who this originated from, but I once heard that the best people for government office are usually those who would never consider serving. Those who aspire to politics are probably the worst for the job. Have you read my signature?

If it kills you, is harmful, or makes you ill, it's toxic. Toxic is not a relative term, it's a scientific one.

And sometimes it is a spiritual one.

Originally posted by saint4God
How do you know he was over eager? And, chomping at the bit to invade? Where did this opinion come from?

Remember a few pages ago, I mentioned that I had done research and read documents? To name just a couple:

Pnac Primer
Downing Street Memos

Have you ever felt worse mental/emotional pain than being punched or a broken bone?

I was repeatedly sexually abused as a child by 2 family members and I was raped at 17 by a trusted friend. From the time I was 14 to about 19, I had 20 seizures a day and could not function in society. I stood by my mother's bed as she died of bone marrow cancer. I lost the only baby I would ever have the opportunity to bear, I had my breasts removed to prevent the spread of breast cancer, my best girlfriend of 25 years died last year of cancer, and for the past 1 1/2 years, my husband has been living in another state where his job is... So I would say probably, yes.

Why?

What hurts me more is to see others who are unnecessarily or unjustly harmed.

It happens to the best of us. I guess I give people credit to come through it. Like I have. I don't like to see people be hurt, but it's true what they say, it makes people stronger.

Until they infringe upon the rights of other's "life, liberty and the persuit of happiness". I'm not making this stuff up here.

No. Even if someone infringes on the rights of others, I don't have the right to control what they do or say. That's law enforcement's job. And it's not for me to do something about it. That's what the law, the government, the Constitution are for. I'm not a vigilante.

That's not to say I won't help if someone needs it, but unless there's the threat of immediate danger, I'm likely to call the police or whoever to alert them to it.

Originally posted by saint4God
If it kills you, is harmful, or makes you ill, it's toxic. Toxic is not a relative term, it's a scientific one.

Too much water can kill you. Is water toxic?
What is 'harmful'? How do you measure that?
Ice cream can make one ill. Is it toxic?
A broken heart hurts, love can harm... Is love toxic?
Avacados give me a migraine headache. Are avacados toxic?
Old age kills people. Is age toxic?

I'm highly uncomfortable and disagree strongly with these black and white assertions that 'toxic' and 'civility' are not relative. How can you possible say that?

Is it civil to kiss your boyfriend in public? How about your wife?
Where is the line between civil and uncivil as regards public displays of affection?
How about burping or blowing your nose at the dinner table?
Isn't it uncivilized to have a picture of Jesus in a restaurant?
Is it civil for a service person to call a female customer "Ma'am"? How about "Miss"? How about "Madam"? Which is polite and which is offensive?
Is it civil for a black person to use the N word?

Originally posted by darkelf
You do understand that many people will still disagree with you.

Certainly. In fact, I'm used to it .

Originally posted by darkelf
Of those who agree, some will still ignore it in the hope that they won’t have to be responsible for cleaning it up.

Indeed. Yet what remains by this supposition is a small percentage that will realize and take ownership. How valuable is one person to you?

Originally posted by darkelf
Those of us who answer to a higher authority often don’t care what the majority thinks. However, their beliefs still affect us.

No doubt.

Originally posted by darkelf
I’m not sure who this originated from, but I once heard that the best people for government office are usually those who would never consider serving. Those who aspire to politics are probably the worst for the job. Have you read my signature?

Perhaps I misunderstood your "cream of the crop" analogy. If you'd like to explain more, I'm all ears.

Originally posted by darkelf
And sometimes it is a spiritual one.

My point exactly

I want to take a moment to thank Duzey, Benevolent Heretic and darkelf for all their insight, consideration and responses. For me it's been an exploration into the inner working of some very complex issues, which is a pleasant surprise considering the topic at hand. I hope the time as been equally valuable for you two as well. Looks like I got some homework up there Benevolent. Please allow me some time to read through it and respond. Feel free to post away though so long as you don't mind the delayed response. It looks like a beautiful weekend coming up! So rather than burden anyone to respond to me, I'd like to request "off" for the weekend on this topic since it seems we've diligently worked to move it forward for a little while now. See you on Monday (with responses to the previous posts), have a blessed weekend.

[edit on 16-6-2006 by saint4God]

Have a wonderful weekend, everyone.

My husband is coming home tomorrow for a visit, so I'm just thrilled! My weekend will be grand!

Very, very interesting thread.

My own opinion, Saint, is that while I can agree on the value of increased civility in ordinary discourse, when a person becomes a political leader the rules must change to some degree. The reason is that political leaders are entrusted with power that can be misused, and should be regarded with suspicious vigilance lest they misuse it. Because of this, I believe such leaders have less claim on forbearance than you or I do.

For example, I would normally consider it in very poor taste to render a man's sordid extramarital affair public knowledge. However, when that man is the president of the United States, his willingness to cheat on his wife might have something to say about his integrity in other contexts. And so, while I thought it was the height of stupidity to impeach Clinton for lying about the matter, I had no problem with the affair becoming public knowledge, regardless of how much embarrassment it caused him or how much distress it caused his wife and daughter, and also saw nothing wrong with the Republicans using the affair for their own political purposes. He was fair game because he was the president.

And that's just personal misbehavior. When we come to actual policies and actual use of power, elected officials should be scrutinized even more closely, using any tools at our disposal. You have suggested that political cartoons may induce a generally skeptical and disrespectful attitude towards the government, and you've likened this to a neighbor telling a child that his father is an ass. But I see this as a good thing, not a bad one. The government is not my parent, and it does not serve me well to maintain a respectful and supportive attitude towards it, particularly not an unquestioningly respectful and supportive attitude. Quite the contrary. Too much respect and too little questioning of our elected officials is deadly to liberty, and political satire and commentary that raises questions in our minds serves a public good.

Everyone should understand, and I do, that you are not calling for censorship by the state. But that is simply a matter of tools. There are many things that a reasonable person might see as bad or morally wrong, which should nonetheless not be made illegal, because the law is the wrong instrument to use against them and would do more harm than good. Apparently you feel this way about political cartooning and would like to suppress it by other means, e.g. a boycott.

What I would like to suggest, though, is that political satire may be a good thing, precisely for the reasons you are finding it to be a bad one, and that far from needing a solution (regardless of the tool chosen for that purpose), it should be encouraged.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Remember a few pages ago, I mentioned that I had done research and read documents? To name just a couple:

Pnac Primer
Downing Street Memos

If you agree with these I can see how the opinion would be formed.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I was repeatedly sexually abused as a child by 2 family members and I was raped at 17 by a trusted friend. From the time I was 14 to about 19, I had 20 seizures a day and could not function in society. I stood by my mother's bed as she died of bone marrow cancer. I lost the only baby I would ever have the opportunity to bear, I had my breasts removed to prevent the spread of breast cancer, my best girlfriend of 25 years died last year of cancer, and for the past 1 1/2 years, my husband has been living in another state where his job is... So I would say probably, yes.

Why?

No doubt you've held a great share of trials. Indeed it takes a great deal of fortitude to make it through all these things. I don't want to pull out any specific and personal example just to illustrate a point. I hope that through all these things that you receive immeasurable blessings.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
It happens to the best of us. I guess I give people credit to come through it. Like I have. I don't like to see people be hurt, but it's true what they say, it makes people stronger.

I hear what you're saying, but don't advocate unnecessary harm when it can be avoided.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
No. Even if someone infringes on the rights of others, I don't have the right to control what they do or say. That's law enforcement's job. And it's not for me to do something about it. That's what the law, the government, the Constitution are for. I'm not a vigilante.

Nor am I, but will do my civic responsibility not because I feel I deserve rights (because I don't deserve anything really), but rather to help others in respects to living constitutionally. The police cannot be everywhere. The law does not disappear because there isn't adequate enforcement.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
That's not to say I won't help if someone needs it, but unless there's the threat of immediate danger, I'm likely to call the police or whoever to alert them to it.

That works. You're still doing something about it. I'll just go a step further to say our rights can be in "threat of immediate danger" and are worth defending.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Too much water can kill you. Is water toxic?
Ice cream can make one ill. Is it toxic?
Avacados give me a migraine headache. Are avacados toxic?
Old age kills people. Is age toxic?

Last I checked (biology major, 4 years college) water wasn't considered toxic nor does something have to kill you to be considered topic. Maybe a PHD can clarify for us. I don't have a science book with me so maybe the dictionary will do for now:

Main Entry: tox·in

Etymology: International Scientific Vocabulary
: a poisonous substance that is a specific product of the metabolic activities of a living organism and is usually very unstable, notably toxic when introduced into the tissues, and typically capable of inducing antibody formation
www.m-w.com...

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
What is 'harmful'? How do you measure that?

Main Entry: harm·ful
: of a kind likely to be damaging
www.m-w.com...

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
A broken heart hurts, love can harm... Is love toxic?

Aha! Now we're getting into a very interesting track. I recall reading that anger and depression can release toxins into the bloodstream linked to heart disease. I don't have that source with me anymore -_- else I'd share but fascinating read.

But more importantly, I think we're moving to a non-physical definition of toxic...which I most certainly welcome since it would make comparative analogies easier. I will say that being "crushed" by someone you love is toxic in that sense. It's harmful to the spirit and emotion to a point that is irrecoverable.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I'm highly uncomfortable and disagree strongly with these black and white assertions that 'toxic' and 'civility' are not relative. How can you possible say that?

Just did ^_^. I don't know why people have issue with asserting and agreeing upon definition. Noah Webster did.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Is it civil to kiss your boyfriend in public? How about your wife?

Ooh, I love the hard questions. I don't see how either infringe upon the Constitutional rights of others. Open for discussion on this one though and am curious to people's thoughts.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Where is the line between civil and uncivil as regards public displays of affection?

Kissing somebody without permission would violate their rights.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
How about burping or blowing your nose at the dinner table?

As long as you don't blow your nose on someone else's shirt.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Isn't it uncivilized to have a picture of Jesus in a restaurant?

Why would it be? Private establishment. They can have Satan or Osama Bin Laden if they want. As far as a customer bringing one in, the owner can dismiss the guest for any reason with or without explanation.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Is it civil for a service person to call a female customer "Ma'am"? How about "Miss"? How about "Madam"? Which is polite and which is offensive?

I'm concerned about rights, not etiquette. I'd like others to be considerate but that's a personal preference

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Is it civil for a black person to use the N word?

In what context? To call someone something they are not is slanderous. If someone called me a "thief", they better have the proof.

Main Entry: slander
Function: noun

1 : the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation
2 : a false and defamatory oral statement about a person -- compare LIBEL
www.m-w.com...

[edit on 19-6-2006 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Pnac Primer
Downing Street Memos

If you agree with these I can see how the opinion would be formed.

'Agree' with them? What's to agree or disagree with? These are official documents. I don't 'agree' with them, I believe them. Do you not? If not, why? They're much more damaging to the character of this administration than a cartoon.

I don't want to pull out any specific and personal example just to illustrate a point.

Well, if you had a point to make, I kinda wish you would. You asked about my pain for a reason. I spilled my guts and then you say basically never mind? Blessings on me... I'm curious why you asked about my pain. What point did you wish to make?

I hear what you're saying, but don't advocate unnecessary harm when it can be avoided.

Well, neither do I, of course.

Nor am I, but will do my civic responsibility

Well, so will I, of course.

I get the feeling that you're trying to illustrate that because I'm not all up in everyone's business, trying to protect them from seeing 'offensive' materials, that I'm some sort of uncaring, aloof person. That I 'advocate unnecessary harm' or won't do my 'civic duty' simply because I believe in free expression, even when people find it offensive.

All I'm saying is there's a big difference between a woman seeing an 'offensive' political cartoon in a newspaper and that same woman being attacked in the street. One situation requires my intervention, one does not. And I'm not 'ignoring my civic duty' nor 'advocating unnecessary harm' by supporting the freedom of expression of the political cartoons.

Originally posted by saint4God
Main Entry: tox·in

Etymology: International Scientific Vocabulary
: a poisonous substance that is a specific product of the metabolic activities of a living organism and is usually very unstable, notably toxic when introduced into the tissues, and typically capable of inducing antibody formation
www.m-w.com...

Great. Then we agree that political cartoons are definitely non-toxic. And we can agree that your previous statement is far too broad and in fact, incorrect:

Originally posted by saint4God
If it kills you, is harmful, or makes you ill, it's toxic.

Originally posted by saint4God
I don't know why people have issue with asserting and agreeing upon definition.

I don't have a problem agreeing on a definition of a word, I just have a problem associating that word (toxic or harmful) to a cartoon, as it is neither.

I don't see how either infringe upon the Constitutional rights of others.

Agreed. I also don't see how political cartoons infringe on the Constitutional rights of others. So they are, by definition, civil.

I'm concerned about rights, not etiquette.

Perhaps I misunderstood, but I though that you were suggesting that political cartoons were not civil... What right(s) are cartoonists or newspapers infringing upon by printing political cartoons?

I hope everyone had a good weekend, forgot to mention that earlier.

Thanks for the reply Two Steps Forward, and totally agree it is an interesting thread. Moreso because a lot of people here have decided to delve into the really big questions instead of just taking the topic at face value.

I understand and respect your stance, it being the opposite, yet still disagree. I don't see where it's okay to treat person A one way, but treat person B differently because they are a politician. If someone drew an unsavory cartoon of you and posted it on the net without your permission, would you be okay with that?

I don't want to go on too much of a tangent, but the issue I had with President Clinton was he was in a tax-payer paid building, on tax-payer paid time engaging in unprofessional conduct. If I hired a painter to paint my house, he should not be in my shed with his girlfriend making out. What he does in his house during his time is beyond my right to complain. Political cartoons of Clinton though are a problem for the reasons I'd initially posted.

[edit on 19-6-2006 by saint4God]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
'Agree' with them? What's to agree or disagree with? These are official documents. I don't 'agree' with them, I believe them. Do you not? If not, why? They're much more damaging to the character of this administration than a cartoon.

These are both opinion articles, not textbooks. If I tried to pass them off as fact, it'd be a gross misrepresentation. There may be some facts within them, but this is the case in most persuasive articles.

The Pnac Primer is primarily opinion.

Downing Street Memos is a little better to adhereing, but phrases like this one:

"I'll tell you, he was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," Herskowitz told Baker.

Make me wonder what psychic network Herskowitz was calling to read someone else's mind. He then goes on to cite George Bush's opinion on his father's handling of Operation Desert Storm. It does not state he had plans to invade Iraq no matter what as it implies.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Well, if you had a point to make, I kinda wish you would. You asked about my pain for a reason. I spilled my guts and then you say basically never mind? Blessings on me... I'm curious why you asked about my pain. What point did you wish to make?

The point was that mental pain can be more damaging than physical pain to endure. Hence to say "sticks and stones" is more or less a lie we oft tell others or ourselves to reflect verbal abuse back to the offender. I did not forsee you putting yourself out as a personal example and by no means wanted to be insensitive with the words I may use in discussing the trials you've had.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Well, neither do I, of course.

Well, so will I, of course.

Glad we can agree on these two points.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I get the feeling that you're trying to illustrate that because I'm not all up in everyone's business, trying to protect them from seeing 'offensive' materials, that I'm some sort of uncaring, aloof person.

I do not believe you are uncaring or aloof. I think you've more than proven otherwise and nothing I can say could possibly take away from that.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
That I 'advocate unnecessary harm' or won't do my 'civic duty' simply because I believe in free expression, even when people find it offensive.

I'm pokin' around a paradigm as it related to my initial post. I've had no intention on painting anyone into a "bad light". Speaking of though, if I were to do so, would it not be offensive like a political cartoon? Why would that bother you if I did? Even if you're saying that it would not, the last couples statements seem to be evidence towards a defence system going up.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
All I'm saying is there's a big difference between a woman seeing an 'offensive' political cartoon in a newspaper and that same woman being attacked in the street. One situation requires my intervention, one does not.

Okay, we've worked out the extremes, let's see what's in-between.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And I'm not 'ignoring my civic duty' nor 'advocating unnecessary harm' by supporting the freedom of expression of the political cartoons.

Are you suuuuuuurrre? This is what we're working out I think.

By the way, I would like to clarify that I, in my daily life, am by no means near the model of a perfect person. I have sins aplenty and I'm sure I'd bore you all with a list. Nevertheless, a key component of growth is identifying problems, then resolving them to not be repeated. This is not "top of the scale" priority of them, but nevertheless a piece of the puzzle.

[edit on 19-6-2006 by saint4God]