Down with Political & Personal cartooning!

Originally posted by saint4God
You've said you can see how it's harmful to those being depicted and their families and that it is hypocritical, so why not advocate change?

I'm not the one who said that. I do not think words or pictures can harm people except where slander and or libel are concerned, and then only if it matters that their reputation or credibility is damaged. Such as in the case of a famous person. If they lose jobs or their reputation is damaged, etc.

To say I should gouge my eyes out is bit unreasonable

I didn't say that either.

If you have a right to see it, I should have the right to not see it.

You do have that right.

So, why is it piping in when I flip my channels, website, and paper pages when I did not request it?

It would be impossible for ALL of us to see only what we 'request' to see. Something you find important and interesting may be offensive to someone else. Papers, magazines, television shows all display a variety of things. It's up to us to either pick through and look at what we want and disregard the rest or to disregard the media altogether.

That's what I'm advocating. Save the bucks, save your eyes, save your mind, and eat a healthy diet of truth.

I do understand what you're advocating. However, I enjoy it, so I won't be joining you. I do eat a healthy diet of truth and my mind easily discerns the difference between truth and satire, so I feel comfortable enjoying both.

Originally posted by saint4God
You've said you can see how it's harmful to those being depicted and their families and that it is hypocritical, so why not advocate change?

I think you might have gotten me and BH mixed up.

While I can see how it might be upsetting to those who are the targets of such satire, I don't support taking away someone's right to produce them. There are many things in this world that I don't like or don't agree with. That doesn't mean I think they should be banned, it just means I don't participate in them or support them. Every person is different and they should have the right to make their own decisions based on what is right for them.

And finally, I don't normally advocate anything at all. The moment I take a firm stance on something is the moment when I find a new piece of information which makes me re-evaluate my position. I'm a lifelong learner, and I don't know enough about anything to make a decision that would affect the other 6 billion people that share the planet with me.




[edit on 14-6-2006 by Duzey]

Originally posted by triptrippington
Wow.
Just wow S4G. That reminds me of a really rippin' Jesus cartoon. nah...j/k

...

Originally posted by triptrippington
Is there even a way you could possibly get it more wrong?

Please explain.

Originally posted by triptrippington
I don't remember you getting THIS pissed when the Allah cartoons broke.

Actually that's covered in the "Personal" cartooning aforemention, including those in leadership, etc. Do you think I'm referring to a specfic cartoon somewhere? Nope, not at all.

Originally posted by triptrippington
Backyards kid.. backyards

Hm?

Originally posted by triptrippington
Oh well, me Jesus (pronounced HEY ZEUS), Allah, Buddah and the boys gotta roll,
thanks for playing anyway. We're gonna go tip a cow -Jeez! I hope it ain't sacred!
But then again, those suckers make the tastiest burgers

Please feel free to write when there's a geniune interest in relaying thoughts and ideas, establishing an understanding between two people.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I'm not the one who said that.

Doh! My bad. I retract my question then (and have learned to slow down my response times even if it's the end of my break at work).

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I didn't say that either.

Oh good, this is the only defense I can come up with so far to "not see it"

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

If you have a right to see it, I should have the right to not see it.

You do have that right.

Good! We agree on this.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
It would be impossible for ALL of us to see only what we 'request' to see. Something you find important and interesting may be offensive to someone else. Papers, magazines, television shows all display a variety of things. It's up to us to either pick through and look at what we want and disregard the rest or to disregard the media altogether.

A difficult challenge, but I am up for it.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I do understand what you're advocating. However, I enjoy it, so I won't be joining you.

As we've met head-to-head on discussion before, I hadn't expected a different outcome.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I do eat a healthy diet of truth

Excellent!

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
and my mind easily discerns the difference between truth and satire, so I feel comfortable enjoying both.

Can you candidly tell me you have never been influence in opinion or fact by a political/personal cartoon?

"Please feel free and I dunno whateverthehellelse"
Are you serious?
OH_ your idiotic comments are duly noted, but, if you'd like to sit at the big peoples table, you MUST conform to these rules.
My goodness.
I guess you told me!
You are soooo cute!
Na-na-na...getting back to the gist of this thread, HOLY CRAPOLA Now I dont even remember it!!!
Could ya clue me in? or would that be going against the rules?

Wait, this IS BTS right?

Originally posted by Duzey
I think you might have gotten me and BH mixed up.

I did, my apologies to you both.

Originally posted by Duzey
While I can see how it might be upsetting to those who are the targets of such satire, I don't support taking away someone's right to produce them. There are many things in this world that I don't like or don't agree with. That doesn't mean I think they should be banned, it just means I don't participate in them or support them.

We're on the same page here then.

Originally posted by Duzey
Every person is different and they should have the right to make their own decisions based on what is right for them.

If I tell my neighbor's kids that their dad is an ass, should I have the right to do so?

Originally posted by Duzey
And finally, I don't normally advocate anything at all. The moment I take a firm stance on something is the moment when I find a new piece of information which makes me re-evaluate my position.

I'd love to explore this more, but should not veer off-topic.

Originally posted by Duzey
I'm a lifelong learner, and I don't know enough about anything to make a decision that would affect the other 6 billion people that share the planet with me.

Fortunately that's neither of our responsibility.

Originally posted by saint4God
If I tell my neighbor's kids that their dad is an ass, should I have the right to do so?

You have every right to do that. Everyone has the right to be a complete butthead, if they so desire.

Originally posted by saint4God
Fortunately that's neither of our responsibility.

And I'm very thankful for that.

Originally posted by saint4God
Oh good, this is the only defense I can come up with so far to "not see it"

Let's be clear, I am saying you have a right not to look at something. What I didn't say was that you should "gouge your eyes out".

Can you candidly tell me you have never been influence in opinion or fact by a political/personal cartoon?

No, I cannot tell you that, for sure. I can't think of a time when I was, but it may have happened. I am influenced by many things I see and hear. We all are. If not for external imput, and a discerning mind, we would be very different creatures.

However, I am not influenced against my will. I am never forced to believe something or think something that I don't wish to. I am not a victim to sensory input. I know that everything I see either contains some truth or doesn't and it's up to me to determine that. I have the power to disbelieve anything I see or hear.

So, just placing it in front of me holds no responsibility for whether or not I choose to believe it. The choice is mine. I can do everything from closing my eyes (which I do when there are close-ups of bugs on TV) to turning the channel, to turning off the TV, to cancelling a subscription to a magazine, all of which I have done. But never have I advocated banning something because I didn't like it.

I just want to say ONE thing about this thread.
It reads, " Down With Political and Personal Cartooning"
Shouldn't the Headline ALONE warrent it being tossed in the can?
Tuff snot!!!
What, there can be NO freedom of speech now? EVER?
Yeah, you wish pal...

wow...hehe...I just got that.Irony?


[edit on 14-6-2006 by triptrippington]

Originally posted by triptrippington
Shouldn't the Headline ALONE warrent it being tossed in the can?

Why? The poster is expressing their opinion.

What, there can be NO freedom of speech now?

And then you rant about free speech, after you've just advocated suppressing this posters right to same? Sounds a little hypocritical to me. ... pal.


[edit on 14-6-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]

refer to my last post.
See?
I do feel bad..like I been stuck in the neck with a super big burrito!
No. Really!

I have to agree that cartoons sometimes go over the line and they ascribe qualities and actions and beliefs to people that are out of bounds and just plain fabrications.

Opinion is one thing, lies exaggerations etc can take the fun out of insightful commentary and constructive criticism.

Originally posted by Duzey
You have every right to do that. Everyone has the right to be a complete butthead, if they so desire.

You do not believe I'm infringing upon the child's right to form their own impressions? I'm not infringing upon the parent's rights to properly inform the child?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Let's be clear, I am saying you have a right not to look at something.

Not to be circular, but again I ask "how?" There isn't another way I know of completely doing so.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
What I didn't say was that you should "gouge your eyes out".

I did not mean to imply that you said I should gouge my eyes out. I said "to say" this would be unreasonable (with Biblical reference of course - "If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away."). Perhaps there was a better way to phrase it to not imply it was you who would say this. That was my solution because I see no other way.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Can you candidly tell me you have never been influence in opinion or fact by a political/personal cartoon?

No, I cannot tell you that, for sure.

I appreciate an honest person.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I can't think of a time when I was, but it may have happened. I am influenced by many things I see and hear. We all are. If not for external imput, and a discerning mind, we would be very different creatures.

A very wise assessment.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
However, I am not influenced against my will.

Whoa, hey, what about the above statement where it may have happened?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I am never forced to believe something

Agreed here.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
or think something that I don't wish to.

Or perhaps something you think you wished to, but were previously or subconciously influenced. I'm talking deep in there, not superficial "what am I gonna have for lunch today" kind of thing.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I am not a victim to sensory input. I know that everything I see either contains some truth or doesn't and it's up to me to determine that. I have the power to disbelieve anything I see or hear.

I do believe that you've got a sharp eye from discerning just from our conversations here and think it's commendable to have strong will. However, the mind and body have this in common. When a person eats junkfood day after day, no matter how many times s/he declares, "I am healthy!" the bloodwork still comes back with high cholesterol and risk of heart disease.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
So, just placing it in front of me holds no responsibility for whether or not I choose to believe it. The choice is mine. I can do everything from closing my eyes (which I do when there are close-ups of bugs on TV) to turning the channel, to turning off the TV, to cancelling a subscription to a magazine, all of which I have done.

Huzzah, admirable behaviour and hope others follow the example.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
But never have I advocated banning something because I didn't like it.

Nor have I UNLESS it infringes upon the rights of others. For example, smoking. Sure, we're free to smoke but what about the person next to you who does not want lung cancer? Sure they can move but should they have to?

Originally posted by saint4God
You do not believe I'm infringing upon the child's right to form their own impressions? I'm not infringing upon the parent's rights to properly inform the child?

See my post above. You cannot MAKE the child think something. Parents are but one influence on a child, and usually a lot stronger influence than the butt-head neighbor.

Originally posted by saint4God
Not to be circular, but again I ask "how?" There isn't another way I know of completely doing so.

Well, you can avoid the channels that you know have programming you don't wish to see, but even occasionally I do see bugs on TV and I look away. There are 2 ways that you could protect yourself entirely from EVER experiencing ANYTHING that you wish not to experience. One would be to become Queen or King of the World and dictate everything that happened. The other would be a sensory deprivation chamber.

Or there's always the eye-gouging thing...

Otherwise, I suggest dealing with the unpleasantries of life like the rest of us do.

Whoa, hey, what about the above statement where it may have happened?

I may have been influenced. But not against my will. If I am influenced, at least part of me was open and willing to change my mind about something.

However, the mind and body have this in common. When a person eats junkfood day after day, no matter how many times s/he declares, "I am healthy!" the bloodwork still comes back with high cholesterol and risk of heart disease.

Everything in Moderation. I do eat junk food once in a while, but mostly, my diet is wonderfully healthy. My food diet and well as my mental diet. I get my news from ATS but I simply won't miss an episode of American Idol. I don't eat junk food day after day, mentally or physically and if I did, it would be my choice.

I believe in personal responsibility in all things. If I am influenced by something it's my doing.

Nor have I UNLESS it infringes upon the rights of others. For example, smoking. Sure, we're free to smoke but what about the person next to you who does not want lung cancer? Sure they can move but should they have to?

In a perfect world, no. But look around.

Just a point, without regard to the smoker, the non-smoker has a choice to sit in a place where there's smoke or to move to another place or to ask the smoker to stop. He doesn't have to be a victim to the smoke.

This is how I live my life. Accountable.

Originally posted by saint4God
We've all seen them jammed into newspapers, online and on television. Cartoons depicting real life people saying and doing things that they didn't/won't say and do. We find this to be perfectly acceptable under the guise of "free speech"...but my question is, when does "free speech" become slander? It doesn't take a doctorate degree to figure out that when you depict real people falsely, then putting words into their mouth it is turning them into puppets for not just a laugh, but a subversive agenda. It's not limited to politics but any leadership role up to and including real teachers, historical figures, church leaders, and so forth. If the character is based on a real person, they're looking to tear that person down. Deny ignorace, don't buy it. To clarify, when I say "down with" I mean to not use your economic authority to fund this activity. Just like everything else in capitalism, if people don't buy it the ones who are out for the buck will go somewhere else. (That's a much bigger percentage than one may guess)



You, mr./ms. socio-political cartoonist are the one with the agenda. It's not funny, and it's not going to work on me.

[edit on 13-6-2006 by saint4God]

As a cartoonist, I find this statement ignorant and offensive. Cartoons generally do not have a "hidden agenda." They're nothing more than personal opinions and expression. When I draw, I do it to express myself. I neither know nor care if I change anyone's opinion. Yes, the truth is very important, but it is also important to express one's own views and receive the views of others. Looking at a political or social situation through other people's eyes gives one a sense of perspective.

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

[edit on 6/15/2006 by spookymusic]

Originally posted by saint4God
You do not believe I'm infringing upon the child's right to form their own impressions? I'm not infringing upon the parent's rights to properly inform the child?

You haven't infringed on anything. The child will still be the one to form their own impressions. They can choose to discount you completely.

I'm not sure if I get what you mean about properly inform. Yes, a parent should be able to choose what kinds of things their children are exposed to in regards to tv, music, movies, etc. but I don't think that right extends to quashing another persons right to free speech.

If I had a child and that happened to me, I would make the best of the situation I could. I would use it as an example of free speech protecting all people, even the stupid, rude butthead. And then I'd explain to my child that even though we have that right, we should exercise common courtesy when using it unless we want people to think we are buttheads too.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
See my post above. You cannot MAKE the child think something. Parents are but one influence on a child, and usually a lot stronger influence than the butt-head neighbor.

Thank goodness for that. Now, how many butt-head neighbors does it take to convince this statement is true? Two? Seven? Before the child goes, "hm...I think he could be" or "perhaps there's a darkside I don't know about". This is leading to a point if you don't mind playing along.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Well, you can avoid the channels that you know have programming you don't wish to see, but even occasionally I do see bugs on TV and I look away.

I really like your analogy and find it very appropriate for this discussion.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
There are 2 ways that you could protect yourself entirely from EVER experiencing ANYTHING that you wish not to experience. One would be to become Queen or King of the World and dictate everything that happened.

In that world, no-one would be happy. Wait, we live in that world already . Kidding, but it feels like it most of the time.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The other would be a sensory deprivation chamber.

How much do they cost?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Or there's always the eye-gouging thing...

The least harmful of the two previous options you've presented here I'm sure.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Otherwise, I suggest dealing with the unpleasantries of life like the rest of us do.

Hehe, okay. As I said in my original post, not looking to ban or destroy, only leave the industry unpatronized until it folds upon its own ridiculous weight.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I may have been influenced. But not against my will. If I am influenced, at least part of me was open and willing to change my mind about something.

Interesting. I would not say that your will is changed quickly or by one cartoon. In facts I think you've demonstrated nicely just how strong your will is here. I'm thinking the tides on the beach effect over time. Internal mental errosion until the pier collapses. Don't know the technical term for this but like it would say on a tanning booth "warning, long exposure to UV rays can cause cancer."

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Everything in Moderation.

Even cyanide and love? How about an excess of love and an exclusion of cyanide? It is topically related, but now I'm more interested in hearing more about how you think if you don't mind sharing.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I do eat junk food once in a while, but mostly, my diet is wonderfully healthy.

More wisdom I think we all can learn from.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
My food diet and well as my mental diet.

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

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I get my news from ATS but I simply won't miss an episode of American Idol.

Which one is healthy? ATS doesn't exactly toll the liberty bell. The greater the shock, the greater the play on ATS. Yes, I know I'm biting the hand that feeds me but it's because I believe that conceptually they have a good thing here and only want to help take out the garbage if they'd like it.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I don't eat junk food day after day, mentally or physically and if I did, it would be my choice.

Without a doubt. I do not want to remove YOUR choices. I want to remove my exposure to them, incidental or otherwise and stating a case as to why this is a good idea. I would like to see the harmful motivations (money, political agenda) removed from these "cartoonists" to see what that cartoon would look like then.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I believe in personal responsibility in all things. If I am influenced by something it's my doing.

I believe you excel in taking ownership and there's much to be learned from that. So for me this is almost a win-win coversation.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
In a perfect world, no. But look around.

Do I have to? Kidding kidding. I like to try to guard my heart and mind from the things I used to evilly revel in. I'm feeling happier and healthier because of it, but have a looooong way to go still. I will go into the battlefield though if it means helping someone to safety.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Just a point, without regard to the smoker, the non-smoker has a choice to sit in a place where there's smoke or to move to another place or to ask the smoker to stop. He doesn't have to be a victim to the smoke.

You're a courteous person, I think this example proves that. What I'd like to stip the example down to though is rights. Do you feel that someone next to you smoking is violating your right to breath non-toxic air? Why or why not?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
This is how I live my life. Accountable.

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

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