The Piss Christ and Israel.

[sealadaigh]

The 'Piss Christ' was art: it was a statement that making religious artifacts of cheap material carelessly produced with no interest in aesthetics or quality, is an abomination.

The 'point' was that the 'crucifix' in question was some soulless piece of tacky plastic junk. And that such a 'representation' of the Passion was akin to pissing in Christ's face.

no need to explain that to me, my friend. i already know it. the only reason i even mentioned it is because rose, hoss, say it, MJB, roudy, and some others think legitimate, albeit edgy, art in some way justifies israelis spray painting "jesus is a monkey" on palestinian cars in mixed arab-israeli neighbourhoods or "hitler was right", complete with swazticas, on the national holocaust memorial in jerusalem. then they keep throwing it in my face. i just thought i would put it to rest before rose's next hot...hmmmmmmm...event.

It wasn't on Palestinian cars you fucking idiot, it was on a Church wall. And the culprit has not been found yet. Israeli police are looking for for him, and it was roundly condemned by Israelis of all walks of life. These kind of things don't happen here? What's your point? As usual you don't have any, just a slithering Nazi worm rambling bullshit to instigate hatred against Jews.

lolol...yeah...the original report that i had read said cars were vandalised...i can certainly breathe a sigh of releif that it was a monastary that was the main target and that these alleged jewish "price tag" vandals also tried to set it on fire.

 

[sealadaigh]

Isn't that interesting! So, will you show me their posts from which you've derived that conclusion? I don't hang on ANYONE's every post so don't assume I've noticed.......

read the "jesus is a monkey" thread. you know it is a trend on this board to always bring up something somewhere and something worse to deflect from any israeli wrong doing.

lol...what do you think my original post on this thread was about anyway?

Actually, I don't have any idea what your OP was supposed to be about.
And I don't 'know' any such thing as you suggested. What I DO 'know' is that it's nearly impossible to have any actual discussion about a purported thread topic withOUT the personal attacks and insults.

And I've noticed that my seeking to refrain from such attacks and insults has NOT prevented my being targeted for that behavior from quite a few posters. It's rather wearisome......

Yet I really do NOT wish to be discussing that.

i can FULLY UNDERSTAND why you do NOT wish to be discussing that.

 

[MHunterB]

MJB, it's kind of you to seek to fill in the 'backstory' for others posting here.

I appreciate it - but I'm kind of an independent sort and prefer to decide matters for myself. : )

 

[MHunterB]

read the "jesus is a monkey" thread. you know it is a trend on this board to always bring up something somewhere and something worse to deflect from any israeli wrong doing.

lol...what do you think my original post on this thread was about anyway?

Actually, I don't have any idea what your OP was supposed to be about.
And I don't 'know' any such thing as you suggested. What I DO 'know' is that it's nearly impossible to have any actual discussion about a purported thread topic withOUT the personal attacks and insults.

And I've noticed that my seeking to refrain from such attacks and insults has NOT prevented my being targeted for that behavior from quite a few posters. It's rather wearisome......

Yet I really do NOT wish to be discussing that.

i can FULLY UNDERSTAND why you do NOT wish to be discussing that.

I'm glad you agree that I shouldn't have been subjected to those slanderous insults from certain other posters.

NO, I do NOT wish to keep discussing their spewage, because it detracts from attempts to discuss the actual topics.

And when you've learned to discuss purported Israeli misdeeds without declaring yourself the loser via Goodwin's Law - then maybe you can discuss those with me.

 

[irosie91]

from deach

rose, hoss, say it, MJB, roudy, and some others think legitimate, albeit edgy, art in some way justifies israelis spray painting "jesus is a monkey" on palestinian cars in mixed arab-israeli neighbourhoods or "hitler was right",

deach lied again------but then his statement that he knows what other people "think" is mitigating-----it suggests he is nuts In any case I have, certainly, never stated that
the "Jesus is a monkey" grafitti is justified I CORRECTLY stated that it is no 'worse' than graffitti which appears on synagogues and the homes of jews regularly---so regularly that no one in my city would bother to report it to the cops

I do not like the crucifix in piss concept of "art" nor did I enjoy seeing-----and standing NEXT TO, the elephant dung "madonna" (the elephant dung was dry and heavily varnished----but somehow just the idea disgusted me besides that the jerky "artist" decorated the damned DUNG with sequins) I am no artist-----I simply do not understand it other than the fact that MONET did use nice colors The point that I correctly made is that the grafitti on the church (of unknown origin) has gotten so much press because of its "MAN BITES DOG" quality--------racists against HUMANS will always get more excited if a MAN BITES A DOG" than if a DOG BITES A MAN. It it turns out that the grafitti on the church was NOT DONE BY JEWS-----I have a sense that a few dozen islamo nazis will slit their wrists

 

[sealadaigh]

Actually, I don't have any idea what your OP was supposed to be about.
And I don't 'know' any such thing as you suggested. What I DO 'know' is that it's nearly impossible to have any actual discussion about a purported thread topic withOUT the personal attacks and insults.

And I've noticed that my seeking to refrain from such attacks and insults has NOT prevented my being targeted for that behavior from quite a few posters. It's rather wearisome......

Yet I really do NOT wish to be discussing that.

i can FULLY UNDERSTAND why you do NOT wish to be discussing that.

I'm glad you agree that I shouldn't have been subjected to those slanderous insults from certain other posters.

NO, I do NOT wish to keep discussing their spewage, because it detracts from attempts to discuss the actual topics.

And when you've learned to discuss purported Israeli misdeeds without declaring yourself the loser via Goodwin's Law - then maybe you can discuss those with me.

it depends on whether you do or do not ascribe to goodwin's law...but if you want me to stop, i will quite easily. in return though, perhaps you will comment on it when other, pro-zionist, posters use it.

 

[sealadaigh]

i can FULLY UNDERSTAND why you do NOT wish to be discussing that.

I'm glad you agree that I shouldn't have been subjected to those slanderous insults from certain other posters.

NO, I do NOT wish to keep discussing their spewage, because it detracts from attempts to discuss the actual topics.

And when you've learned to discuss purported Israeli misdeeds without declaring yourself the loser via Goodwin's Law - then maybe you can discuss those with me.

it depends on whether you do or do not ascribe to goodwin's law...but if you want me to stop, i will quite easily. in return though, perhaps you will comment on it when other, pro-zionist, posters use it.

i will revise the above. i have no belief in the goodwin law whatsoever and think many analogies are appropriate. i also think though, that if you do ascribe to this law, it can be broadened as well to include other analogies.

however, and without any obligation on your part whatsoever, i will stop using it as of now, or that certainly is my intent. if however, i am being beaten over the head with similar analogies as usually is the case, that resolve will be weakened considerably.

 

[MJB12741]

xxxxx

 

[patrickcaturday]

I'm glad you agree that I shouldn't have been subjected to those slanderous insults from certain other posters.

NO, I do NOT wish to keep discussing their spewage, because it detracts from attempts to discuss the actual topics.

And when you've learned to discuss purported Israeli misdeeds without declaring yourself the loser via Goodwin's Law - then maybe you can discuss those with me.

it depends on whether you do or do not ascribe to goodwin's law...but if you want me to stop, i will quite easily. in return though, perhaps you will comment on it when other, pro-zionist, posters use it.

i will revise the above. i have no belief in the goodwin law whatsoever and think many analogies are appropriate. i also think though, that if you do ascribe to this law, it can be broadened as well to include other analogies.

however, and without any obligation on your part whatsoever, i will stop using it as of now, or that certainly is my intent. if however, i am being beaten over the head with similar analogies as usually is the case, that resolve will be weakened considerably.

First of all thanks to both posters for bringing up such an intriguing subject as Goodwin's Law. It is so rare that anything truely novel comes up on this board that when it does it is a breath of fresh air, a rare oppertunity to learn.
I have to admit that it is a subject that I was not at all familiar with. I find the assertion by Goodwin that the longer a conversation goes on, on the internet the greater the chance that a reference to Hitler or the Nazis will occur to be abosolutly facinating. What I think would be another branch of study on the same subject is weather or not the same behavior can be observed from one thread to another as long as they are by the same poster. Something I will have to study on. I think that the focus of my studies will be on Roudy. irose, and MJB as they seem to be the most frequent abusers !!! Seal not so much as he seems to use such illusions exrtremely infrequently if at all. His laspes seem to be more of the nature of how Goodwim Modified his law when he said;

The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that the likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising increases as the discussion progresses, irrespective of whether it is appropriate or not. Precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.[5]

Godwin's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[MJB12741]

Isn't it interesting folks how whenever & wherever XXXXX here comes "Patrick"? Heh Heh.

i will revise the above. i have no belief in the goodwin law whatsoever and think many analogies are appropriate. i also think though, that if you do ascribe to this law, it can be broadened as well to include other analogies.

however, and without any obligation on your part whatsoever, i will stop using it as of now, or that certainly is my intent. if however, i am being beaten over the head with similar analogies as usually is the case, that resolve will be weakened considerably.

First of all thanks to both posters for bringing up such an intriguing subject as Goodwin's Law. It is so rare that anything truely novel comes up on this board that when it does it is a breath of fresh air, a rare oppertunity to learn.
I have to admit that it is a subject that I was not at all familiar with. I find the assertion by Goodwin that the longer a conversation goes on, on the internet the greater the chance that a reference to Hitler or the Nazis will occur to be abosolutly facinating. What I think would be another branch of study on the same subject is weather or not the same behavior can be observed from one thread to another as long as they are by the same poster. Something I will have to study on. I think that the focus of my studies will be on Roudy. irose, and MJB as they seem to be the most frequent abusers !!! Seal not so much as he seems to use such illusions exrtremely infrequently if at all. His laspes seem to be more of the nature of how Goodwim Modified his law when he said;

The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that the likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising increases as the discussion progresses, irrespective of whether it is appropriate or not. Precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.[5]

Godwin's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[sealadaigh]

i will revise the above. i have no belief in the goodwin law whatsoever and think many analogies are appropriate. i also think though, that if you do ascribe to this law, it can be broadened as well to include other analogies.

however, and without any obligation on your part whatsoever, i will stop using it as of now, or that certainly is my intent. if however, i am being beaten over the head with similar analogies as usually is the case, that resolve will be weakened considerably.

First of all thanks to both posters for bringing up such an intriguing subject as Goodwin's Law. It is so rare that anything truely novel comes up on this board that when it does it is a breath of fresh air, a rare oppertunity to learn.
I have to admit that it is a subject that I was not at all familiar with. I find the assertion by Goodwin that the longer a conversation goes on, on the internet the greater the chance that a reference to Hitler or the Nazis will occur to be abosolutly facinating. What I think would be another branch of study on the same subject is weather or not the same behavior can be observed from one thread to another as long as they are by the same poster. Something I will have to study on. I think that the focus of my studies will be on Roudy. irose, and MJB as they seem to be the most frequent abusers !!! Seal not so much as he seems to use such illusions exrtremely infrequently if at all. His laspes seem to be more of the nature of how Goodwim Modified his law when he said;

The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that the likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising increases as the discussion progresses, irrespective of whether it is appropriate or not. Precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.[5]

Godwin's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

i am not entirely familiar with the "law" but as long as the...lol...well, it wasn't a request, it was more of an accusation but whatever. if the hunter lady wants me to forego NAZI analogies, i am willing to try it, although i think the type of analogy is to be considered.

personally, analogy is a big weapon in my arsenal and i try to use it accurately and not fallaciously. i happen to like "the fight of the valkyries" and a good wylie gustafson yodel now and again. i think that people confuse the particulars of the enormity or obscurity of the componants of the analogy the analogies with the accuracy of the analogy...sort of an ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny type deal. indeed, i think the purpose of analogy, its effect, lies in the exaggeration while maintaining the similarity or correlation of quality of the things being analogised.

also, i think goodwin's law speaks specifically to one event and perhaps should, or has been, extended, if jewish people are offended by analogy to the ho.locaust and celtic people are offended by analogy to the starvation and eastern europeans/stalinism or chinese/communism...you get the picture.

personally, i don't have a problem with comparing the starvation of the irish with a school lunch program that allows poor children to go hungry, but that is me.

at any rate, if it offends hunter (and i expect her acknowldgement of the post), i am willing to give it a try. it really isn't aan unreasonable request and it never hurts to be aware of other people's sensitivities.. it really does have to be a two way street though, for it to last.

isn't there some generic, general term for these types of argument anyway.

(another note...i think goodwins's law is very limited in regard to the particular forum in which it is used.)

 

[MHunterB]

I don't expect anyone to change what they choose to post simply because I find it offensive.

If someone is convinced it's right and proper to demonize others as 'not really human' or some such only because of a difference of opinion here, that's their prerogative and also within the forum rules.

 

[sealadaigh]

I don't expect anyone to change what they choose to post simply because I find it offensive.

If someone is convinced it's right and proper to demonize others as 'not really human' or some such only because of a difference of opinion here, that's their prerogative and also within the forum rules.

i think well meaning people should always consider what others find offensive and attempt to adjust their behaviour accordingly. i have never lacked a willingness to try to further progress.

i can make peace as effectively as i can make war put prefer peace. i do have my limits, of course, but i think you would find my tolerances exceed those of most people.

that doesn't mean i agree with what you think godwin's law is exactly. think it has a much narrower scope than you suggest but i can give your version a try, certainly.