No more than any other commercialized version of that pose.This ripoff of U.S. Marines planting Old Glory on Iwo Jima was actually staged and photo taken ten years ago. However with the recent SCOTUS decision, it's been all over the internet.
I find it offensive to mess with such an iconic moment in the history of the U.S.
AND YES I AM AWARE THE ICONIC ROSENTHAL PHOTO ITSELF IS A REENACTMENT FROM AN EARLIER FLAG RAISING.
This ripoff of U.S. Marines planting Old Glory on Iwo Jima was actually staged and photo taken ten years ago. However with the recent SCOTUS decision, it's been all over the internet.
I find it offensive to mess with such an iconic moment in the history of the U.S.
AND YES I AM AWARE THE ICONIC ROSENTHAL PHOTO ITSELF IS A REENACTMENT FROM AN EARLIER FLAG RAISING.
They 'can' -- I get it.
That's one level, the beer company pandering. That's the only image I posted that used the actual Rosenthal photo, rather than referring back to it with a parody.
Then there's, say, the political cartoons using the spirit-dynamic to make a point. Or the New York Mets winning their first championship --- representing triumph after years of ridicule. As I suggested, the "verb" of the photo, not the "noun".
Is it appropriate to use a photo of a dead person or people for parody purposes? Let's not forget that the men in that photo could have and probably do have living relatives.
I said nothing of the sort. The symbology doesn't change. However, one might logically conclude from an authentic photograph that five people took part...the four in the scene and the one that held the camera and claimed he took it. That would mean that five like-minded people created the image. With a contrived image, it takes just one asshole to create a hoax image (a "picture" of something that never really happened)...not unlike the lampshade purported to be a photograph of an alien space craft or the plastic float presented as a photograph of the Loch Ness monster, or a photoshop image of a large crowd cheering for a liberal candidate when in fact there were fewer than ten people at the failed rally.
Again, you make up stories. Again, you miss the point of being honest. I support gay rights myself. One doesn't have to be gay to support gay rights.
They 'can' -- I get it.
That's one level, the beer company pandering. That's the only image I posted that used the actual Rosenthal photo, rather than referring back to it with a parody.
Then there's, say, the political cartoons using the spirit-dynamic to make a point. Or the New York Mets winning their first championship --- representing triumph after years of ridicule. As I suggested, the "verb" of the photo, not the "noun".
Is it appropriate to use a photo of a dead person or people for parody purposes? Let's not forget that the men in that photo could have and probably do have living relatives.
Yeah that would apply to the beer can. It's the only image posted that actually features the Marines. Although none of them are done "for parody purposes" --- they simply are parodies, for their various purposes of making a point, or in the case of "Ol' Glory", for selling beer. But the parody is the tool to make the point -- not the point itself. I wonder if that distinction is lost on those who claim to be offended.
What do you think of the photo in post 43? Those men also have living relatives...
I did. It's a simple question that misrepresents its own object. A learned person would not reply to it as if they believed it was a photograph taken ten years ago as described by the less than truthful originator.
Quite not so. The purpose of the thread is to stoke the fires of disgust by getting in the face of those that respect, admire and honor the soldiers that died defending the freedoms now enjoyed in this tolerant nation by comparing the courage of those men to the persistence of the gay community in redefining courage.
Quite not so. The purpose of the thread is to stoke the fires of disgust by getting in the face of those that respect, admire and honor the soldiers that died defending the freedoms now enjoyed in this tolerant nation by comparing the courage of those men to the persistence of the gay community in redefining courage.
It is the equivalent of one asking a Christian if the image below offends them.
Now a Muslim wouldn't be offended by that it. A Muslim is offended only when you disrespect HIS religion by drawing an image of his demented, pedophile, piece of pig shit prophet, Mohammed.
I'm not offended by much of what I see or hear. While I think the OP image is bullshit when judged for its intent, it does not offend me. It simply amuses me that gays think legitimacy and nobleness has been forever established by the ruling of a non-elected court of nine.
Quite not so. The purpose of the thread is to stoke the fires of disgust by getting in the face of those that respect, admire and honor the soldiers that died defending the freedoms now enjoyed in this tolerant nation by comparing the courage of those men to the persistence of the gay community in redefining courage.
It is the equivalent of one asking a Christian if the image below offends them.
Now a Muslim wouldn't be offended by that it. A Muslim is offended only when you disrespect HIS religion by drawing an image of his demented, pedophile, piece of pig shit prophet, Mohammed.
I'm not offended by much of what I see or hear. While I think the OP image is bullshit when judged for its intent, it does not offend me. It simply amuses me that gays think legitimacy and nobleness has been forever established by the ruling of a non-elected court of nine.
Finally, off the shiny object.
But your analogy is bullshit. There simply is no direct reference to Iwo Jima Marines in the image. Nor in any of the images of post 42 save the beer can. The observer has to plug one in.
And further, the image was created some fifteen years ago, so it's got nothing whatsoever to do with "a non-elected court of nine" or any other number.
Finally, your flailing attempt at analogy isn't offensive to religion. It's offensive to Bill Watterson.
The same people who find that offensive would find nothing wrong with burning a cross.This ripoff of U.S. Marines planting Old Glory on Iwo Jima was actually staged and photo taken ten years ago. However with the recent SCOTUS decision, it's been all over the internet.
I find it offensive to mess with such an iconic moment in the history of the U.S.
AND YES I AM AWARE THE ICONIC ROSENTHAL PHOTO ITSELF IS A REENACTMENT FROM AN EARLIER FLAG RAISING.
The same people who find that offensive would find nothing wrong with burning a cross.This ripoff of U.S. Marines planting Old Glory on Iwo Jima was actually staged and photo taken ten years ago. However with the recent SCOTUS decision, it's been all over the internet.
I find it offensive to mess with such an iconic moment in the history of the U.S.
AND YES I AM AWARE THE ICONIC ROSENTHAL PHOTO ITSELF IS A REENACTMENT FROM AN EARLIER FLAG RAISING.
Quite not so. The purpose of the thread is to stoke the fires of disgust by getting in the face of those that respect, admire and honor the soldiers that died defending the freedoms now enjoyed in this tolerant nation by comparing the courage of those men to the persistence of the gay community in redefining courage.
It is the equivalent of one asking a Christian if the image below offends them.
Now a Muslim wouldn't be offended by that it. A Muslim is offended only when you disrespect HIS religion by drawing an image of his demented, pedophile, piece of pig shit prophet, Mohammed.
I'm not offended by much of what I see or hear. While I think the OP image is bullshit when judged for its intent, it does not offend me. It simply amuses me that gays think legitimacy and nobleness has been forever established by the ruling of a non-elected court of nine.
Finally, off the shiny object.
But your analogy is bullshit. There simply is no direct reference to Iwo Jima Marines in the image. Nor in any of the images of post 42 save the beer can. The observer has to plug one in.
And further, the image was created some fifteen years ago, so it's got nothing whatsoever to do with "a non-elected court of nine" or any other number.
Finally, your flailing attempt at analogy isn't offensive to religion. It's offensive to Bill Watterson.
OH come on, Pogo, that image even doctored is very recognizable as an iconic symbol. I understand that gay people are happy about the recent ruling, but I still think that using that image in that manner is inappropriate.
Dream on, Dufus! The comparison is blatantly obvious to any sane person studied in American history.Quite not so. The purpose of the thread is to stoke the fires of disgust by getting in the face of those that respect, admire and honor the soldiers that died defending the freedoms now enjoyed in this tolerant nation by comparing the courage of those men to the persistence of the gay community in redefining courage.
It is the equivalent of one asking a Christian if the image below offends them.
Now a Muslim wouldn't be offended by that it. A Muslim is offended only when you disrespect HIS religion by drawing an image of his demented, pedophile, piece of pig shit prophet, Mohammed.
I'm not offended by much of what I see or hear. While I think the OP image is bullshit when judged for its intent, it does not offend me. It simply amuses me that gays think legitimacy and nobleness has been forever established by the ruling of a non-elected court of nine.
Finally, off the shiny object.
But your analogy is bullshit. There simply is no direct reference to Iwo Jima Marines in the image. Nor in any of the images of post 42 save the beer can. The observer has to plug one in.
And further, the image was created some fifteen years ago, so it's got nothing whatsoever to do with "a non-elected court of nine" or any other number.
Finally, your flailing attempt at analogy isn't offensive to religion. It's offensive to Bill Watterson.
OH come on, Pogo, that image even doctored is very recognizable as an iconic symbol. I understand that gay people are happy about the recent ruling, but I still think that using that image in that manner is inappropriate.
That's fine. But when I asked this threat what's "offensive" about this, all I got was a lot of finger-wagging claiming a "comparison" between the Marines and the later figures, which comparison does not exist, and I made that point.
This last clown was obsessed on how the image was generated, and when I finally got him off that shiny object he tried to slip an analogy that isn't a fair comparison at all ---- so I called him on that too.
It's what I do around here--- call out the hypocrisy.
