Clearly, you don't give a crap about free speech. I'm appalled. Utterly appalled. I'm thinking of slinging around some anti-Italian epithets, just to show that I won't be intimidated by your indifference.

Have Fun, RT
 

Sorry, but you are wrong. History tells us, when all else fails, blame the Jews. Haven't you been paying attention?

Besides, my mom is from Naples. Neapolitans were sort of the niggers of the Roman Empire. You can't blame them for anything.


((NOTE: N-bomb dropped for intentional offensive effect))

Have Fun, RT
 

No, but they should not consistently make editorial decisions based on avoiding offense. And they should not avoid "taboo" subjects. Among other things, I get tired of seeing newspapers print things like "the N word".


Personally, I would have, for a number of reasons. One being that sacred cows exist to be gored.

Have Fun, RT
 

A myth, perpetrated by the Italians.

Have Fun, RT
 

my mom's social standing would rocket is she were from Naples. she's Calabrese.

And Judas narced J out and set him up.....the Centurions were just being officious and following orders.

Have Fun, RT
 

This is not directly responsive to what you say here, but it occurred to me earlier today that the major concern with "free speech" -- IMHO -- is ensuring that there is plenty of competition in the so-called marketplace of ideas. If I thought European newspapers were likely to be suppressing the notion that there's a problem with radical Islam, I'd be a lot more sympathetic to the view that these cartoons needed to be published. But it's not like this is a strange concept that's in danger of not being heard. Pointing out that there's a lot of violence committed in the name of Islam is not exactly a sacred cow.

Have Fun, RT
 

That is irrelevant and you know it. You implied that this particular cartoon of suicide bombers entering heaven had no artistic or political value. You stated that just like certain paintings of women are worth entering the Louvera, this one discussing suicide bombers entering heaven wasn't but one could be. So what was this one missing? In other words what would a cartoon depicting suicide bombers entering heaven need to be relevant? What was is about the way this one portrayed the subject that gave it no "purpose"?


During the Spanish inquisition, or even during the recent violence in Northern Ireland, a political cartoon depicting Christians, or Christians using Christianity as an excuse to implement violence, would have been very appropriate. There is a lot of violence in the world today being instituted in the name of Allah, so in my mind, such a cartoon was very relevant.


One of the cartoons printed in the Danish newspaper was suicide bombers lining up to get into heaven, but Mohammed telling them that they were out of Virgins. In any event, the subject is relevant, and any cartoon addressing that subject are not without “merit” or “purpose.


The issue is, would they be worth running if they didn’t offend people. I don’t think whether they offend people should enter into the equation.

How do define "pedophile"? if your son was a daugter, when she turned 6 and then later 9 would you think acceptable for her to sex with a 50 year old man? does his status as a prophet make a difference? Try to be consistent here for once, Spanky's watching.

diclaimer: T's sister was of the age of consent when we dated. or at least her ID said she was.

Have Fun, RT
 

Ty. a French newspaper republished them. You and john Kerry said we have to always listen to what the French say is right.

Are you flip-flopping on the French should have decision making authority question?

Ty v. Ty
 

I always knew what you were talking about. I always understand your argument and that is the problem. You always take the attitude that you wouldn't disagree with me if you really understood what I was saying. You always get that wrong. I always understand exactly what you are saying and, in my humble opinion, your reasoning is almost always really screwed up.

I just put down four of your quotes. No commentary no explanation no paraphrasing. How can you possibly fault me for just directly quoting you and not putting any editorial? All the words are yours and none of them are mine.

I think they not only show the absurity of your arguments but the contradiction. For example what you claim in the fourth quote, I think, is refuted by what you said in the first three. I could be wrong, but the evidence is there so no commentary is required. We don't have to argue about what you said or didn't say or what your were trying to say, or whether what you said then contradicts what you said later. It is all there in black and white and it stands on its own.

Have Fun, RT
 

Look, Spanky, in a previous post, I said: "I was talking about cartoons that depict Mohammed, and it appears you now are not. Either you misunderstood me, or you are changing the subject." You clearly have read this, since you quoted it. WTF?

I don't have any problems with political cartoons on the general subject you're talking about. If people take offense because they don't like the message, they can lump it. Again: My issue is specifically with the cartoons that depict Mohammed, on the understanding that such depictions are per se offensive, regardless of the message.

OK. However, that has nothing to do with the point I made, which was that you would be embarrassed to make gross generalizations about other groups in the way that you were just doing about Moslems.

I didn't realize Mohammed was in that cartoon. I'm sure the cartoonist could have found an equally effective way to make the very same point without actually depicting Mohammed. (To the extent that this qualifies what I said above, please construe it that way instead of being obtuse.)

If you've ever been in a courtroom during a trial, you would understand that whether an idea is relevant is not at all the same as whether it has merit.

We can just agree to disagree, then. I think that if you can communicate just as effectively without offending people, that would be the better thing to do.

Ty v. Ty
 

As S_A_M and I both pointed out to you already, there's no contradiction. If you think you see one, maybe you had better try to explain.

Have Fun, RT
 

Per se according to who? Is there a law? Other definitive proclamation? Is this in the French code? Does the DU endorse it?

I think you are talking out of your ass on this, Tyrone....

http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_i...d9e1c00084.jpg

Ty v. Ty
 

If Sidd, Hank, Diane, or Sebastian says they don't see how the claim in the fourth quote is refuted by the prior quotes I will spell it out. Otherwise I think the quotes stand on their own.

Ty v. Ty
 

Actually Ty --

There are two Spanky posts of "Ty vs. Ty" with four quotes in each. (I think they are different.)

In the first post, some of the statements _are_ arguably contradictory, but I think you can parse out a consistent meaning if you read it as a whole.

I expressly said that, in his _second_ post, those four statements are not contradictory.

S_A_M

Have Fun, RT
 

I think that might be prudent, because if I post one more line by line parsing of your arguments, I think I will be lynched by the other members of the board.

Ty v. Ty
 

I recall only one such post, so perhaps I missed it.

InaniTy
 

If I'm not confused, here are the three quotes from Spanky's first post:

• --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
  I don't recall saying that [the points these cartoons were trying to make have no place in the public discourse], either. Jesus Christ, what is wrong with you?
  
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
  I'm saying that editors -- think about why they're called that - should use their discretion to avoid offending people for no reason.
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop I didn't think these cartoons have much merit to them. Other than as a poke in the eye with a sharp stick,
  
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm still not seeing a contradiction. The larger points that these cartoons were making about Islam and violence certainly have a place in the public discourse. When I say the cartoons don't have much merit, I'm trying to say that there are plenty of other ways to make those points, and that I didn't think there was anything interesting or meritorious about the way that those particular cartoons got at the larger point. I think the same points could have been made in a number of other ways without depicting Mohammed. I gather that the cartoonist was inclined to give (at least some) Moslems a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, and as an editor I wouldn't see that as a sufficient reason to run something.

Spanky, I enjoy the give and take with you, but indeed it does get frustrating when you "parse" individual sentences instead of trying to figure out what I'm getting at. I'm having a hard time seeing where we disagree, except perhaps that you think that when editors do their job, they should ignore whether people are going to take offense at what they run, while I think it's something editors should take into account.

Things I don't think include:

- subjects that bother people should not be addressed
- editorial cartoons are useless
- Christians should take offense at nothing
- newspapers should not talk about violence in the name of Islam

Have Fun, RT
 

This reminds of of that great scene in True Romance:

Hopper: "So ya see, you... you're part eggplant."

Wallken: "Ha ha. You're funny. I love this guy."

Hopper: "I think I'll take that cigarette now."

Ty v. Ty
 

Is this like Steven Colbert's "Formidable Opponent"?

If 6 were 9?

InaniTy
 

luminosity
 

InaniTy
 

For the love of Pete: Slow down. I just realized I was talking about the second one and you about the first. I was in the middle of editing it to change it when you replied. Don't you have a job?

The quotes stand on their own. If anyone else besides Ty of SAM doesn't understand where the contradiction are please let me know.

A Democrat on the Hill writes to Josh.
 

• People, and the media in particular, are getting way too caught up on "who lobbied who, and for what reason" and anyone who was lobbied, is a lobbyist, worked with a lobbyist, or received a donation from someone represented by a lobbyist has the stench of corruption. That's unfair and misses the crux of this particular scandal, and how GOP pay to play government works.
  Its not illegal to be lobbied, and hell, we couldn't do our jobs if we didn't interact with them. Legislation/regulation/oversight can't be done solely by Google research. What is illegal is to go out of your way, and use your position, as quid pro quo for gifts, jobs, and campaign contributions. The vast majority of Democratic staffers work on the Hill, despite the miserable pay and long hours, to try to achieve some measure of good. Many, many Republican staffers- convinced that government is an evil- work here in order to make money off that necessary evil. That breeds corruption. When you have a majority of members and staffers that could care less about policy ad governing and more about power/influence/money/profit Abramoff is inevitable. When the hard, tedious work of legislating and oversight is done by people motivated by careerism rather than professionalism not only do you have Abramoff, but you have Michael Brown, Halliburton, and illegal NSA wiretapping.

linky

Paging PLF
 

Need an irony ruling: Israel plans to build 'museum of tolerance' on Muslim graves

edit, not quote, damnit

Have Fun, RT
 

If I knew I was getting my head sliced off with a dull knife by some crazy Arab fuck, rather than pleading and crying for an end to the war on TV (bc that shit never works and it would freak my parents out) I'd do one of those bits (maybe even in an Alabama Worly accent). Something about the history of Arab migration and camel DNA, etc. As a reluctant ex smoker, it's a shame I wouldn't get a final cig, though. Mmmn. Strong menthol cigarettes.

InaniTy
 

The first time that you said I contradicted myself, I had the courtesy to give you a substantive response. I regret that you can't be bothered to do the same.

A Democrat on the Hill writes to Josh.
 

Politicians and statesmen that participate in corruption hurt their friends and help their enemies. Members that are corrupt wound their own party and the nation but provide comfort to the opposition. What really assists the other party is when the guilty claim that they are being singled out because of partisan persecution.

When Jim Wright and Dan Rostenkowski were looting the national treasury, they screwed the nation and the Democrat party and the entire Democrat cause. When they said they were only being persecuted out of partisanship, they hurt any Democrat who really was being targeted for purely partisan reasons. Since these men were associated with Democrat causes they irreparably harmed such causes. It was their corruption that I believe that lead to the Republican takeover. A great many honest Democrats lost their seats because of what these guys did. When Democrats in Congress were being subject to purely partisan attacks, no one believed they were because Rostenkowski and Wright had already cried wolf. Dan and Jim assisted the Republican party and the Republican cause more than almost any Republican during their time by handing the Congress to the Republicans.

On the flip side, these Republicans today that have associated themselves with Abramoff have helped the Democrat party more than any Democrat possibly could. Every time these guys like Delay, who claims that they are being persecuted out of a partisan vendetta, screams persecution, they are providing future cover for all future real partisan vendettas against Republicans. These corrupt Republicans are associating Republican causes, such as limited government, tax cuts, a strong defense, free trade etc, with corruption and therefore are preventing these policies from being implemented. Delay, Pombo, Doolittle etc, are doing what the Democrats could not do themselves, they are hamstringing the Republican revolution. And they may implement what the Democrats could only dream of but could never achieve on their own, Democrat control of the Congress.

Delay, Pombo, Doolittle, Abramoff etc, are the true champions of the Democrat party and of liberal causes.

Thanks guys.

A Democrat on the Hill writes to Josh.
 

You know, the adjective is "Democratic."

The proper use of grammar in this country has declined considerably over the last few years. It's sad, really.

InaniTy
 

If you're positing that the contention that "not blasphemous" under Christian doctrine equals "should not offend" Christians, then, with that assumption, the 4th statement is contradictory.

I would disagree with that (and I assume that Ty does too), but I understand the position--if a Christian takes offense at some insult (for lack of a better word) to some element of Christianity, it is, by definition, blasphemy. Thus, Ty saying it isn't blasphemous means he is also saying that other Christians should not take offense. Relies on a very broad definition of blasphemy.

InaniTy
 

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

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

South Dakota moves to ban abortion.
 

My sister says KELO in Sioux Falls is reporting:

The South Dakota House has passed a bill that would nearly ban all abortions in the state, ushering the issue to the state Senate.

Supporters are pushing the measure in hopes of drawing a legal challenge that will cause the US Supreme Court to reverse its 1973 decision legalizing abortion.

The bill banning all abortions in South Dakota was passed 47-to-22 in the House.

Amendments aimed at carving out exemptions for rape, incest and the health of women were rejected.

The bill does contain a loophole that allows abortions if women are in danger of dying. Doctors who do those abortions could not be prosecuted.

InaniTy
 

This is pathetic. I simply quoted what you said. It is totally obvious why I think they are contradictory. I am going to cut them down to the essence. I am not changing what they say in any way, or changing their meaning.

Claim:

"I haven't said other Christians .....shouldn't be offended."

Prior statements:

"..but I'm not sure I understand the basis for their offense

"But it doesn't have to do with Christian doctrine, so far as I know. Want to cite chapter and verse to me?"


"Let's stick to Christianity. What makes that blasphemous?"

Does any one besided Ty not see the contradiction? Does anyone think the way I edited them changed their meaning nor mislead the reader as to their original meaning?

A Democrat on the Hill writes to Josh.
 

Actually you are wrong. It is the Democrat party not the Democratic party.

When a cause is brought forth by the Democrat party, I call it a Democrat cause. When a cause is brought forth to increase democratic representation it is a "democratic" cause.

If you read my prior posts I am consistent. I always refer to the Democrat party and Democrat causes.

When I refer to causes not having anything to do with the Democrat party but are used to implement more direct representation I call them democratic.

In addition, when referring to the party or its causes the word is capitalized: like Democrat Party, or Democrat causes. But when you are talking about more direct representation then the word is not capitalized: as in - "We need to implement more democratic reforms so the people are better represented."

InaniTy
 

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

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

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

A Democrat on the Hill writes to Josh.
 

Actually, then it would be called "democratic."

This seems to be a badge of honor for you, but it's a bit of a baffling one. Would you call GOP activities "Republic" activites? Should we the capitalized term "Republican" only for those activities related to representative democracy?

InaniTy
 

Bullshit, Spanky. You are editing these quotes to delete language (see italics) that says exactly what I keep telling you I meant:

• "I wasn't offended by Serrano. I'm sure others were, but I'm not sure I understand the basis for their offense, other than that they felt disrespected and marginalized. That's a little different than a situation where the very act of depicting God (or G-d, as some of my MOT friends call him) is blasphemous.
  
  "I understand why (some) Christians take offense. But it doesn't have to do with Christian doctrine, so far as I know. Want to cite chapter and verse to me?"
  
  
  "--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
  The image of The Prophet was blasphemous to the religion of Islam. The image of Mary, Mother of God with elephant feces thrown all over it was blasphemous to religion(s) as well.
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
  Let's stick to Christianity. What makes that blasphemous?"

Give me a fucking break. If you were really trying to understand what I'm saying, you wouldn't keep editing this stuff so it doesn't make any sense.

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

InaniTy
 

No I think you have that wrong.

Does putting a cross in urine or putting feces on the virgin mary = blasphemy. I think under almost anyone interpretation it does.

Does putting a cross in urine or putting feces on the virign mary offend Christians for obvious reasons. I think it does.

Does the fact that the Koran particularly proscribes putting Mohammeds face on something and that the bible does not particularly proscribe Christians from depicting Jesus in urine or Mary covered in feces, make one clearly offensive to Muslims while the other not clearly offensive to Christians. Or does it also imply that the Mohammed depiction would be more offensive to muslims than the Christ and Mary depictions to Christians because one is particulary proscribe by the Koran and the other not particular proscribed by the Bible. I don't think it does.

Following all those assumptions the above statements are erroneous and contradictory - am I wrong?