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: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
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:

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.


So you decided to ignore this part of that post.... "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
Agreed. I also don't see how political cartoons infringe on the Constitutional rights of others. So they are, by definition, civil.


I agree you don't see it, but that's why we're discussing.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
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?


The rights of the people they are depicting in the "cartoons", their family, friends and associates.

[edit on 19-6-2006 by saint4God]




posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 10:54 AM
link   
The PNAC primer simply points out some of the more vital parts of the documents. Here's the actual website of the The PNAC. And I don't know where you read that phrase about Herskowitz, for it is in neither of the documents I linked. This is an actual link to the memo published in the Times: The Downing Street Memo

BUT I have no interest in you believing or agreeing with either. I just cited a few places that I've picked up information with which to form my opinion. No need going off on a tangent as regards them as neither of them contains political cartoons.




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".
...
the last couples statements seem to be evidence towards a defence system going up.


I'm not feeling defensive at all. However, I do get a bit frustrated at what I perceive as your attempt to wiggle, slide and change the point of your argument, which makes it difficult to stay on subject. I have nothing to defend. It's just your statements such as...



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


...seem to slip in an implication that I DO advocate unnecessary harm. And I feel compelled to clarify that, like you, I do not advocate unnecessary harm. I'm not being defensive, I'm being as clear as possible.


Originally posted by saint4God
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?


It probably would bother me and it would bother me because it's not true. I have never said that things don't bother me. You seem to be missing that point. I don't claim never to be offended or bothered by anything, I'm just saying that being offended is ok. We all get offended sometimes and there is no right to not be offended.



Are you suuuuuuurrre?



Yes, I'm quite sure that 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
So you decided to ignore this part of that post.... "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. "


I didn't ignore it. I did disregard it as you had given the 'scientific' definition of toxic and Webster's definition of harmful, I thought those were the definitions you wished to work with. If you'd like to work with other definitions, please let me know what they are so we can be on the same page. Thanks.


In response to the above quote, I have been 'crushed' by someone I loved and have fully recovered. This "non-physical definition of toxic" that you wish to illustrate gets us back full circle to a subjective (or gray) rather than objective (or black and white) definition, though. For you, a "non-physical definition of toxic" is going to be different than mine and just about everyone else's. We're all individuals and have different ideas on the subject.



I agree you don't see it, but that's why we're discussing.


Then help me see. What Constitutional right do political cartoons infringe upon?



The rights of the people they are depicting in the "cartoons", their family, friends and associates.


Not whose rights. What rights? The right to ... what?

[edit on 19-6-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And I don't know where you read that phrase about Herskowitz, for it is in neither of the documents I linked.


It was a direct quote from the Downing Street Memos you linked.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
No need going off on a tangent as regards them as neither of them contains political cartoons.


Fair enough, let's move on. I do appreciate you sharing these sources though because now I understand where you'd gotten these impressions from.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I'm not feeling defensive at all.


Good! I don't think there's anything to be defensive about.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
However, I do get a bit frustrated at what I perceive as your attempt to wiggle, slide and change the point of your argument, which makes it difficult to stay on subject. I have nothing to defend.


Please be direct, I do my best to do the same. I don't see any "wiggle, slide and change the point" but I know that I only have one set of eyes.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
...seem to slip in an implication that I DO advocate unnecessary harm. And I feel compelled to clarify that, like you, I do not advocate unnecessary harm. I'm not being defensive, I'm being as clear as possible.


I did not mean this implication. It was a position statement "as for me" because "as I see it" kind of thing. Not that you do this WHEREAS I do that statement. Apologies if there was any suggestion that you would knowingly advocate unnecessary harm, that was not the intent.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
It probably would bother me and it would bother me because it's not true.


Thank you! This is the most important point. If none other were seen, I would be completely satisfied.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I have never said that things don't bother me. You seem to be missing that point. I don't claim never to be offended or bothered by anything, I'm just saying that being offended is ok. We all get offended sometimes and there is no right to not be offended.


I think two things would help. If A.) Offense would be seen as harm and B.) This offense is completely avoidable.


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


Very well then.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I didn't ignore it. I did disregard it as you had given the 'scientific' definition of toxic and Webster's definition of harmful, I thought those were the definitions you wished to work with. If you'd like to work with other definitions, please let me know what they are so we can be on the same page. Thanks.


In your physical examples, I used a physical definition. In your spiritual/emotion example I used a spiritual/emotional definition. You seem to be on-point with analogies so I felt comfortable with the liberty of using them.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
In response to the above quote, I have been 'crushed' by someone I loved and have fully recovered. This "non-physical definition of toxic" that you wish to illustrate gets us back full circle to a subjective (or gray) rather than objective (or black and white) definition, though. For you, a "non-physical definition of toxic" is going to be different than mine and just about everyone else's. We're all individuals and have different ideas on the subject.


I don't think we're that different. I think all the things you've listed would harm you mentally/spiritually would harm me mentally/spiritually. We're not that different the way I see it.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Then help me see. What Constitutional right do political cartoons infringe upon?


Liberty and the pursuit of happiness...at the broadest level foremost. These cartoons inhibit our abilities to witness and testify for ourselves what is true, subjected to the opinions of others and imposed as factual or characteristically parts of our being that are incorrect. It is a personal assault upon our intelligence, our emotions and our loved ones' ability to live with the constitutional rights we all should be entitled to.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Not whose rights. What rights? The right to ... what?


The rights of those being negatively depicted and their families. The rights that are inherent to all citizens of this and many free-world countries. The right to be free of inhibitory lies associated with us.

[edit on 19-6-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
It was a direct quote from the Downing Street Memos you linked.


Well, when I open the link and do a search on "Herskowitz", it's not there.



I think two things would help. If A.) Offense would be seen as harm and B.) This offense is completely avoidable.


A. I don't see offense as harmful.
B. It doesn't matter to me whether it's avoidable or not, as it's none of my business.

So, I can be pretty darn sure we're never going to agree on this issue.




Liberty and the pursuit of happiness...


Good luck with that in court. Even the ACLU wouldn't take that case.



The rights of those being negatively depicted and their families. The rights that are inherent to all citizens of this and many free-world countries. The right to be free of inhibitory lies associated with us.


The right to vote? The right of Free Speech? The right to bear arms? What CONSTITUTIONAL right?

There is no such thing as the right to "to be free of inhibitory lies associated with us." That's not a Constitutional right. And whether or not you think we should have that right is a matter of opinion.

(You have wiggled in and out of the definition of toxic, what you mean by civil, and now Constitutional "rights".)

You keep changing the playing field... It's frustrating.



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Well, when I open the link and do a search on "Herskowitz", it's not there.


downingstreetmemo.com...


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
A. I don't see offense as harmful.
B. It doesn't matter to me whether it's avoidable or not, as it's none of my business.

So, I can be pretty darn sure we're never going to agree on this issue.


May certainly be the case, but appreciate you going through it with me. I'm learning a lot and hope you're getting something out of this too.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Good luck with that in court. Even the ACLU wouldn't take that case.


Hehe, ACLU....good one.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The right to vote? The right of Free Speech? The right to bear arms? What CONSTITUTIONAL right?


Already quoted the first and foremost. If I cannot establish that point, no point into going into the details.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
There is no such thing as the right to "to be free of inhibitory lies associated with us." That's not a Constitutional right. And whether or not you think we should have that right is a matter of opinion.


"The House concluded the President made perjurious, false and misleading statements before the grand jury, which the House believes constitutes a high crime and misdemeanor. Our entire legal system depends upon the courts being able to find the truth. That's why witnesses must raise their right hand and swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. That's why there are criminal penalties for perjury and making false statements under oath. The need for obtaining truthful testimony in court is so important that the federal sentencing guidelines have the same penalties for perjury as for bribery."
www.uhuh.com...

So we can hold a President accountable for lies but not the citizens of the country?


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
(You have wiggled in and out of the definition of toxic, what you mean by civil, and now Constitutional "rights".)


Thanks for pinpointing these areas. I thought I'd fully explained toxic. Civil and Constitutional is according to my understanding as a citizen, I don't have a law degree and am always welcoming of education.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
You keep changing the playing field... It's frustrating.


Hopefully you can see how this is all topically related.



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
downingstreetmemo.com...


That's not the link I gave you.



So we can hold a President accountable for lies but not the citizens of the country?


Yes. The President is subject to special legal scrutiny because of his position, called 'high crimes'. (see below).

And regarding your Clinton impeachment excerpt, he lied under oath. It's a very different thing than making a political cartoon or lying to your neighbor according to the law and to the Constitution. Nobody swears to tell the truth when creating cartoons.




I have carefully researched the origin of the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" and its meaning to the Framers, and found that the key to understanding it is the word "high". It does not mean "more serious". It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons.


Constitution.org



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by saint4God
downingstreetmemo.com...


That's not the link I gave you.


When you click on "> Bush’s long-standing intent to invade Iraq" which is on the page you linked to me that comes up. Notice how the address says "http://downingstreetmemo.com..." ?


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Yes. The President is subject to special legal scrutiny because of his position, called 'high crimes'. (see below).

And regarding your Clinton impeachment excerpt, he lied under oath. It's a very different thing than making a political cartoon or lying to your neighbor according to the law and to the Constitution. Nobody swears to tell the truth when creating cartoons.


So it's okay to lie as long as you don't do it under oath?





I have carefully researched the origin of the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" and its meaning to the Framers, and found that the key to understanding it is the word "high". It does not mean "more serious". It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons.


Constitution.org


Nice work here. The page has additional interesting things to say too.

I'm impressed to find out that not only are we saying we should be allowed to lie to defame somone's character constitutionally, but additionally to see that we're taking advantage of a political office knowing that they are unable to retaliate.

[edit on 19-6-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
So it's okay to lie as long as you don't do it under oath?


Certainly that depends on what you mean by your question. The law does not legislate whether we as citizens lie or not. So I guess you could say that according to the law it's okay if we lie as long as it's not done under oath. Truth is not legislated outside of the courtroom (except in cases of libel and slander, going back to the beginning of the thread)


Now, according to me? I don't lie. It is never ok for me to lie. But I don't impose that standard on anyone else. I don't like it when people lie, especially about me or my loved ones, and I will most likely step in to clarify if I can. But no, lying is not "okay" by me in any circumstances. But I don't control anyone but myself, so... I can't control whether people choose to lie or not. It's up to them. (Except in the cases stated above, where the law will take over.)



I'm impressed to find out that not only are we saying we should be allowed to lie to defame somone's character constitutionally, but additionally to see that we're taking advantage of a political office knowing that they are unable to retaliate.


I'm not saying anything about "we should", I'm saying what is, according to the Constitution and the law. And I don't know what you mean by "taking advantage of a political office knowing that they are unable to retaliate."



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 04:06 PM
link   



'Saved By the Bell' Actress Lark Voorhies Sues for Libel
Thursday, June 01, 2006

LOS ANGELES — Lark Voorhies, who played Lisa Turtle in TV's "Saved By the Bell," has sued The National Enquirer for libel over an article that included claims she had a drug problem.

The suit, which seeks unspecified damages, was filed Tuesday in Superior Court.

The suit says Voorhies, whom it describes as a "famous and popular actress," lost several "potential acting and hosting jobs" after the tabloid published a June 2005 article that said she was hospitalized for a coc aine addiction.

Her doctor wrote a letter confirming that she had no addiction and was not hospitalized for drug abuse, the suit said.

The tabloid story was "patently false and heinous," and humiliated her, the actress stated in her lawsuit, which alleges libel, invasion of privacy, unauthorized use of her image, name or voice and other claims.

Voorhies could not be located by The Associated Press for comment. A call to National Enquirer after hours Wednesday was not immediately returned.


Awe c'mon, nobody takes the National Enquirer as a valid news source right? It's just harmless entertainment for fun. /sarcasm off



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 04:49 PM
link   


Nobody has argued that libelous materials should be ignored or allowed...

Saying that actress had a drug problem when she doesn't is libel. It's not a political cartoon.


As mentioned in my very first post in this thread, Libel a problem.



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
I don't see where it's okay to treat person A one way, but treat person B differently because they are a politician.


We treat people differently because they are soldiers, because they are police officers, why not because they are politicians?

The simple answer is that politicians are entrusted with power, and are therefore dangerous. We do not have the option of NOT entrusting them with power -- we need certain services from the government -- so if we are to keep them from abusing that power, they must be subjected to a greater scrutiny and suspicion than you or I.



If someone drew an unsavory cartoon of you and posted it on the net without your permission, would you be okay with that?


Depends on what you mean by "okay with that." Unless the cartoon crossed the line into libel, I don't think the cartoonist should be prohibited from doing so.



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.


The presidency is a 24/7 job, and the president's office is also his home during his term. This argument would justify denying the poor schmuck living in the White House any fun at all for 4 years, since no matter when he did it he would be doing it on taxpayer-funded time.

But the point I was making was that, for reasons involving trust, integrity, and abuse of power, the public had a right to know about Bill Clinton cheating on his wife, where it would not have a right to know if I did so.

Can we go a little further into the implications of a "right not to be offended"? Have you considered where such a right could lead?

I'm a serious believer in a non-Christian religion. I sometimes feel a bit offended by Christian claims to have an exclusive monopoly on spiritual truth. Do I have a right to silence all such claims, since they offend me?

[edit on 20-6-2006 by Two Steps Forward]



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I'm not saying anything about "we should", I'm saying what is, according to the Constitution and the law.


Very well, let's work together to change "we should" to "what is" and "what is" into "we should".



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And I don't know what you mean by "taking advantage of a political office knowing that they are unable to retaliate."


Just that George Bush couldn't draw a cartoon about a cartoonist and the things they say and do as opinion. The cartoonist appears to be going after "prone targets". All a politician can do is say, "that's not true". I'd be curious to see what cartoons the prime minister/president/queen would draw of the people who cartoon them.



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
We treat people differently because they are soldiers, because they are police officers, why not because they are politicians?


I'm speaking out of the context of their job. Any rights given to a person should not be revoked unless they voluntarily revoke them (as in the case of a soldier). The politician did not raise his hand and revoke the right to self-representation.


Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
The simple answer is that politicians are entrusted with power, and are therefore dangerous. We do not have the option of NOT entrusting them with power -- we need certain services from the government -- so if we are to keep them from abusing that power, they must be subjected to a greater scrutiny and suspicion than you or I.


I'm not sure how close observation and cartooning are compatible.


Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
Depends on what you mean by "okay with that." Unless the cartoon crossed the line into libel, I don't think the cartoonist should be prohibited from doing so.


I mean, how would you feel about that?


Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
The presidency is a 24/7 job, and the president's office is also his home during his term. This argument would justify denying the poor schmuck living in the White House any fun at all for 4 years, since no matter when he did it he would be doing it on taxpayer-funded time.


He violated work ethics, the same as any company would have. It wasn't a matter of "having fun at work".


Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
But the point I was making was that, for reasons involving trust, integrity, and abuse of power, the public had a right to know about Bill Clinton cheating on his wife, where it would not have a right to know if I did so.


If someone violates company policy, the company needs to know.


Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
Can we go a little further into the implications of a "right not to be offended"? Have you considered where such a right could lead?


This goes back to infringing upon the rights of others, being both harmful and avoidable. I'm not proponing any blanket statement philosophy or politics. As an intelligent society, we should be able to put forth and review each issue on a case by case basis. This is what the House does, this is what the Senate does, this is what the President does. Why should I be any different?


Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
I'm a serious believer in a non-Christian religion. I sometimes feel a bit offended by Christian claims to have an exclusive monopoly on spiritual truth. Do I have a right to silence all such claims, since they offend me?


Did I draw a cartoon of you looking idiotic and saying things you didn't? If I did, then yes I should not do this. I'm unsure of your point.



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
But the point I was making was that, for reasons involving trust, integrity, and abuse of power, the public had a right to know about Bill Clinton cheating on his wife, where it would not have a right to know if I did so.


I know it's off topic, but I wanted to make a point here.
I don't agree that we had a 'right to know' about Billy cheatin' on his wife... Do we have a right to know the inner workings of his marriage? What if he and Hillary had an agreement that they would see other people? What if they had an open marriage? What if they do S&M? The commitment he made to Hillary and the privacy of his marriage vows and whether or not he broke his commitment to her, was none of our business, in my opinion.

When asked if he slept with Monica, I think he should have said that his sex life is a private matter and between himself and his wife. We don't have a right to know every detail about his most personal and private life; if he has regular bowel movements, if he sleeps on his side or back, if he has hemorrhoids or herpes. It has nothing to do with the running of the nation, therefore is none of our business.


Originally posted by saint4God
Very well, let's work together to change "we should" to "what is" and "what is" into "we should".


I don't want to. I like it the way it is. If anything I'd expand the rights of free speech. I rarely use the word 'should'. I don't tell people what they should do. It's their business.


Originally posted by saint4God
I'm speaking out of the context of their job. Any rights given to a person should not be revoked unless they voluntarily revoke them (as in the case of a soldier). The politician did not raise his hand and revoke the right to self-representation.


Yes, he did. A politician knows what to expect when he goes into office. He knows he's likely to become a target of political cartoons. He knows he will be held, by law, to a higher standard because he is accepting power.



Did I draw a cartoon of you looking idiotic and saying things you didn't? If I did, then yes I should not do this. I'm unsure of your point.


Why must it be the narrow expression of a cartoon? As long as we're trying to stop offensive political cartoons, what's to stop other 'offensive' and ‘avoidable’ behaviors? Why stop at cartoons? There are lots of other 'offensive' behaviors that people engage in that infringe on the same “rights” that political cartoons infringe upon (not that I buy that argument, but let’s suppose for a moment that I do).

The point is that different people find different things offensive. If we start disallowing behavior (political cartoons) based on the idea that they are 'harmful' (offensive) and 'avoidable', then you had better be ready to give up a lot of your religious expression, because people find them offensive.

Just as you are claiming that these drawings on paper are 'harmful' because they hurt the spirit, someone is going to claim that the cross you wear or the prayer you perform in a restaurant is embarrassing to them and hurtful to their spirit. And it can be avoided. You can wear your cross at home and pray in church.

Someone is going to say that your username (that you call yourself a "saint" and use the name of G_d) is some sort of sacrilege and highly offensive to them and could be avoided by your choosing a non-religious username. Someone is going to be offended at your persistent attempts to 'preach' to other people. Someone is going to want to reach out and 'protect' these impressionable people from your proselytizing; form your infringing on their right to freely choose their own religion.

Someone is going to call these things 'hurtful' and 'avoidable'. People of other religions are going to claim that what you preach isn’t true; that what you claim Jesus said, he did not; that you are lying about Jesus.

Will you support the eradication of religious expression as strongly as you support the eradication of political cartoons?



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Why must it be the narrow expression of a cartoon?


Because that's the title of the thread.



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
As long as we're trying to stop offensive political cartoons, what's to stop other 'offensive' and ‘avoidable’ behaviors? Why stop at cartoons? There are lots of other 'offensive' behaviors that people engage in that infringe on the same “rights” that political cartoons infringe upon (not that I buy that argument, but let’s suppose for a moment that I do).


Start a thread and we'll talk about it. I think murder is wrong, but not about to go into that here.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The point is that different people find different things offensive. If we start disallowing behavior (political cartoons) based on the idea that they are 'harmful' (offensive) and 'avoidable', then you had better be ready to give up a lot of your religious expression, because people find them offensive.


There's too much assumption here for me to pursue.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Just as you are claiming that these drawings on paper are 'harmful' because they hurt the spirit, someone is going to claim that the cross you wear or the prayer you perform in a restaurant is embarrassing to them and hurtful to their spirit. And it can be avoided. You can wear your cross at home and pray in church.


No. Apples to oranges.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Someone is going to say that your username (that you call yourself a "saint" and use the name of G_d) is some sort of sacrilege and highly offensive to them and could be avoided by your choosing a non-religious username.


This has already happened, let's start a thread about it.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Someone is going to be offended at your persistent attempts to 'preach' to other people. Someone is going to want to reach out and 'protect' these impressionable people from your proselytizing; form your infringing on their right to freely choose their own religion.


This is not ridiculing anyone else. Do you not see this? Up until this point, it looked like you were engaged in the same conversation I was, now it looks like this outlashing of non-related things.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Someone is going to call these things 'hurtful' and 'avoidable'. People of other religions are going to claim that what you preach isn’t true; that what you claim Jesus said, he did not; that you are lying about Jesus.


What's this have to do with the topic?


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Will you support the eradication of religious expression as strongly as you support the eradication of political cartoons?


What's this have to do with the topic?

I'm not going to play the spin game and tire of repeating myself. Either explain how these things relate or let's move on.

[edit on 20-6-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 09:26 AM
link   
So we can talk about the analogies of a neighbor telling the child next door that his dad's a jerk or sweeping dirt under the rug or urinating on another person or the rays in a tanning booth or racism or Gladiator sports, but leave the religious analogies out of it for fear of being off-topic? C'mon...

If you have read my post and cannot figure out how the religious aspect is yet another so-called 'offensive' behavior and how that relates to the subject at hand, I think it's simply because you don't want to see it. I can't make you understand.

Different people find different things offensive. Whether it be political cartoons or religious expression, they are both protected by the first amendment. You can't affect one without affecting the other.

Freedom of speech is not in place to protect politeness, courtesy or popular opinion. If that were the case, it wouldn't be necessary. It is in place to protect the unpopular, rude and sometimes OFFENSIVE expression. ALL expression.

You have made a (very weak) case in this thread that political cartoons infringe on the Constitutional rights of liberty and the pursuit of happiness of the subject of the cartoons and their friends and families. I'm just presenting to you what you may likely encounter if you go down the road of silencing what YOU consider to be 'offensive' materials. I have just brought it to a personal level for you.

I understand that you're not willing to discuss it here. And that's ok. I'm not all that interested into delving further into it. I'm pretty sure you get my point, whether you're open to discussing it here or not.



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
So we can talk about the analogies of a neighbor telling the child next door that his dad's a jerk or sweeping dirt under the rug or urinating on another person or the rays in a tanning booth or racism or Gladiator sports, but leave the religious analogies out of it for fear of being off-topic? C'mon...


Ya, as I have related them back to the topic. It seem to me your chasing after other topics instead of related in to this one. If you'd like me to explain more how the analogies I've used are related, I certainly can. I'm asking you to do the same with yours.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
If you have read my post and cannot figure out how the religious aspect is yet another so-called 'offensive' behavior and how that relates to the subject at hand, I think it's simply because you don't want to see it. I can't make you understand


My expression of religion does not puppeteer anyone else. It does not paint a picture of anyone other than my self. I do not provide words coming out of anyone else's mouth. Still don't see a difference?


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Different people find different things offensive. Whether it be political cartoons or religious expression, they are both protected by the first amendment. You can't affect one without affecting the other.

Freedom of speech is not in place to protect politeness, courtesy or popular opinion. If that were the case, it wouldn't be necessary. It is in place to protect the unpopular, rude and sometimes OFFENSIVE expression. ALL expression.

You have made a (very weak) case in this thread that political cartoons infringe on the Constitutional rights of liberty and the pursuit of happiness of the subject of the cartoons and their friends and families. I'm just presenting to you what you may likely encounter if you go down the road of silencing what YOU consider to be 'offensive' materials.


*listens to soapbox* It's not about me. Have you not figured this out yet? I am not in the cartoons nor am I in a family of one who was. That does not prevent me from caring.

I'm also surprised that you've gone to the impression that I'm encouraging banning. I thought I made clear in my first post what the goal is.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I have just brought it to a personal level for you.


No, you've changed topics. Start a thread, I'll join you and we'll talk about it.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I understand that you're not willing to discuss it here. And that's ok. I'm not all that interested into delving further into it. I'm pretty sure you get my point, whether you're open to discussing it here or not.


I don't, sorry. You're digging for "ammo", so you go after my username and make guesses about my stances (which are baseless so there no need to pick through and validate which are correct and which are not since it's unrelated). Again, start a thread about me and my lifestyle that you presumably know a lot about, I don't mind. This "firing back" on off-topic issues just shows me that the discussion is no longer progressive.


[edit on 20-6-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Ya, as I have related them back to the topic.


I have clearly related the religious analogy back to the topic. You may not agree with my analogy, but it's not because I haven't explained it in my 2 previous posts. We just see things differently, is all.




My expression of religion does not puppeteer anyone else. It does not paint a picture of anyone other than my self. I do not provide words coming out of anyone else's mouth. Still don't see a difference?


Oh, I see a difference. But I also see many commonalities, which I have already explained in my previous 2 posts. Every analogy contains 'differences' when compared to the original subject. If it didn't, it wouldn't be an analogy. Pointing out a difference doesn't make the analogy meaningless.



It's not about me. Have you not figured this out yet? I am not in the cartoons nor am I in a family of one who was. That does not prevent me from caring.


How do you know the families are offended? What makes you think they want you to be their Champion? If you're doing this, not for yourself, but for someone else, do you know that all these so-called 'offended' families even want your help? If not, then you're doing it for yourself and it is about you. You even said:


Originally posted by saint4God
What hurts me more is to see others who are unnecessarily or unjustly harmed.


That's ultimately about you.



I don't, sorry. You're digging for "ammo", so you go after my username and make guesses about my stances (which are baseless so there no need to pick through and validate which are correct and which are not since it's unrelated).


Ammo? What could I possibly need ammo for?
I'm not fighting a battle here, just having a discussion, using examples. I hoped to help you understand my point of view by using something more personal to you. I meant no offense.

My points have been perfectly made and I'm betting understood by everyone reading them, with the possible exception of you. I was making a comparison, an analogy. You're obviously uncomfortable with it, so I'll drop it. But the only 'guesses about your stances' I've made are from reading your very words on this board.



This "firing back" on off-topic issues just shows me that the discussion is no longer progressive.


"Firing back"? I don't know what you mean. My manner of debate and discussion is no different on page 5 than it was on page one. Perhaps I've just touched on a more sensitive (to you) subject...

I get it, though. The subject of religion is not to be discussed in this thread and renders the discussion 'no longer progressive' in your mind. We can discuss many other topics as they relate to people being offended by what others do, but religion is, by some arbitrary ruling, out of bounds.

Gotcha.



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
I'm speaking out of the context of their job. Any rights given to a person should not be revoked unless they voluntarily revoke them (as in the case of a soldier). The politician did not raise his hand and revoke the right to self-representation.


We're not talking about a right of "self-representation" -- I think -- what the hell is that? -- but about a right to privacy. And I disagree. Anyone who holds elected office volunteered to do so, and understood ahead of time that living in a goldfish bowl was part of the price paid for power.



I'm not sure how close observation and cartooning are compatible.


Cartooning, along with other forms of satire, draws public attention to what the satirist believes is a flaw or danger in a particular politician, party, etc. It's all part of keeping our elected officials accountable to the public.


I mean, how would you feel about [being the subject of a nasty cartoon]?


If it was well done, I would probably be amused. If not, I would probably be annoyed.



He violated work ethics, the same as any company would have. It wasn't a matter of "having fun at work".


Yes, it was, because that's HOW you say Clinton violated work ethics -- by having fun on taxpayer-funded time. We didn't elect him, and didn't pay him, to get blow jobs. Right? Of course we didn't.

But we also didn't elect him, and didn't pay him, to sleep. Or to go to the bathroom. Or to eat. Or to party, except at official functions in the line of duty. Et cetera.

Because the presidency is a 24/7 job, some of the work ethic standards that apply to a 40-hour-week job simply can't apply to that one.

But this really isn't that important. We can disagree about exactly why Clinton's having an affair with an intern was wrong. Do we agree that it was properly a matter of public right-to-know? Whereas, if you were to cheat on your spouse, it would be none of my business.


If someone violates company policy, the company needs to know.


And as, in the case of the president, WE are the company, we have a right to know.



This goes back to infringing upon the rights of others, being both harmful and avoidable. I'm not proponing any blanket statement philosophy or politics. As an intelligent society, we should be able to put forth and review each issue on a case by case basis.


But in doing so, we still go by underlying principles. We say that killing someone is wrong, for example, but we make exceptions for self-defense, defense of another, and some other situations. A police officer who kills someone while trying to make an arrest is subject to an investigation. He isn't automatically condemned for killing someone -- we do not apply that standard as a blanket statement -- but it's still an important standard of community values, and so an investigation to determine whether the killing was justified is always required. If we did NOT have the underlying value that killing should not happen, we would behave, and judge, differently, case by case.

Just so, if we adopt a "right not to be offended" value, our judgment, case by case, would differ from what it is now. I am suggesting that the consequences of having that value might be quite dire.



Did I draw a cartoon of you looking idiotic and saying things you didn't? If I did, then yes I should not do this. I'm unsure of your point.


All right, let me explain it clearer.

"Offense" is highly subjective and individual. Just about any human behavior is going to offend somebody. There are people who have posted on this forum who surely find the annual Gay Pride parade in San Francisco highly offensive. (You may even be one of them, but I'm not sure about that.) There are people who find other people's religion, politics, lifestyle, etc. offensive and don't want to be confronted with them.

I used the example of traditional Christianity as something that might offend some people -- that DOES in fact offend me -- because I gather from other posts of yours that you are, yourself, a traditional Christian, so that example is likely to strike home. The presence of certain kinds of church (though of course not all Christian churches) in my community is offensive to me. If I have a right not to be offended, would that not imply a right to muzzle people like you?

And I just don't think I have that right. I don't care how offensive I find fundamentalist Christianity, I just plain don't have the right to shut it down. Yet this is a logical consequence of a "right not to be offended." And that's why I don't believe we should recognize any such right.



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I have clearly related the religious analogy back to the topic. You may not agree with my analogy, but it's not because I haven't explained it in my 2 previous posts. We just see things differently, is all.


Not the relationship between religious expression and cartooning people inappropriately. If I'm not "getting it" then try a different approach please.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Oh, I see a difference. But I also see many commonalities, which I have already explained in my previous 2 posts. Every analogy contains 'differences' when compared to the original subject. If it didn't, it wouldn't be an analogy. Pointing out a difference doesn't make the analogy meaningless.


What are the commonalities?


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
How do you know the families are offended?


News.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
What makes you think they want you to be their Champion?


I'm sure they don't require a champion. But, I will side with them on this particular issue.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
If you're doing this, not for yourself, but for someone else, do you know that all these so-called 'offended' families even want your help? If not, then you're doing it for yourself and it is about you. You even said:


Originally posted by saint4God
What hurts me more is to see others who are unnecessarily or unjustly harmed.


That's ultimately about you.


The indirect effect that come to me is not the subject at hand. I may be included in the far reaches of the ripple effect, but no it is not about me. I'm speaking, doesn't mean I'm in the limelight of the topic.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Ammo? What could I possibly need ammo for?
I'm not fighting a battle here, just having a discussion, using examples. I hoped to help you understand my point of view by using something more personal to you. I meant no offense.


No harm done because I have no interest in getting myself involved personally. The tactic is familiar to me though, and is suggestive to a battle strategy.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
My points have been perfectly made and I'm betting understood by everyone reading them, with the possible exception of you. I was making a comparison, an analogy. You're obviously uncomfortable with it, so I'll drop it. But the only 'guesses about your stances' I've made are from reading your very words on this board.


The board, perhaps, but we're focused on this thread. If we try to dump the whole board onto this one thread, surely the topic will be lost.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
"Firing back"? I don't know what you mean. My manner of debate and discussion is no different on page 5 than it was on page one. Perhaps I've just touched on a more sensitive (to you) subject...


As I said, I'd be glad to discuss religious freedom, which has nothing to do with the topic at hand, on a thread if you'd like to initiate it. I'm dishearted that this discussion is trying to be steered as a RELIGIOUS PREJUDICE and HYPOCRISY yet again. It's discriminatory.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I get it, though. The subject of religion is not to be discussed in this thread and renders the discussion 'no longer progressive' in your mind. We can discuss many other topics as they relate to people being offended by what others do, but religion is, by some arbitrary ruling, out of bounds.

Gotcha.


Load whatever assumptions you like, it doesn't make them valid nor am I going to spend the time picking them apart on this thread.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join