Virgin Mary Underpass

[Legs]

Virgin Mary image in eye of beholder

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/US/04/20/mary.underpass.ap/story.mary.ap.jpg

Obdulia Delgado had turned toward the on-ramp of the Kennedy Expressway last week when she saw something that made her stop in traffic.

She saw the image of the Virgin Mary in a yellow-and-white stain on the concrete wall at the Fullerton Avenue entrance.

"I was so stunned I couldn't move. People were honking," said Delgado, 31. "It was a dream. I don't even know how I got home."

By Tuesday morning, dozens had gathered to see what they believe is the image of the Blessed Mother beneath the underpass. People filtered past the site all day, some lighting candles and leaving flowers, others kneeling with rosary beads behind a police barricade. Most snapped pictures with digital cameras and cell phones.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.d.../504210403/1012

[livius drusus]

Um... Isn't it a little, well, Georgia O'Keefe-like, if ya know what I mean?

[Legs]

I think it looks like a big molar LOL

http://www.skt.ku.dk/butik/lomolarmindre.jpg

I'm sorry, but this is just ridiculous - there are so many of these stories "Jesus on a fish stick" "Mary on Grilled Cheese" "Madonna on a ballon"
give me a break! :glare:

[livius drusus]

Wow. That molar is gorgeous! It looks like a dancer in flight.

[Legs]

Wow. That molar is gorgeous! It looks like a dancer in flight.

Please tell me you are not going to light candles around it and pray?

[Beth]

Groan. I think it looks like the molar as well.

[livius drusus]

Please tell me you are not going to light candles around it and pray?

It's called freedom of conscience, heifah. You don't own me. :madrazz:

[godfry n. glad]

Locally, a group of icon wackos saw the Virgin Mary in the design on the back of a roadside caution sign that had been perferated by the "practice" of the local gun users.

I'm with you on this one, liv... I think it looks very "yonic"...Georgia O'Keefeish.

[Legs]

Is a heifah anything like a heifer? :cow:

(I don't get out much)

[livius drusus]

Exactly like it, in fact, only more emphatic. It's a term of endearment coming from me.

[Beth]

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.colchsfc.ac.uk/art/O%27KEEFE2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://lovesongs.motime.com/archive/2004-08&h=1308&w=777&sz=145&tbnid=0-Hh48ba5uUJ:&tbnh=150&tbnw=89&start=18&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dgeorgia%2Bo%2527keefe%2Bart%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN I'll be derned. I have to agree with Liv and godfry.

[viscousmemories]

It looks like water stained, eroded concrete to me. But I could be wrong.

[Legs]

It's a term of endearment coming from me.

In that case... Hi Ho, Hi Ho :D

[Beth]

Exactly like it, in fact, only more emphatic. It's a term of endearment coming from me.
Back ten years ago, that would be like someone saying fatass was a term of endearment. :P

[Beth]

It looks like water stained, eroded concrete to me. But I could be wrong.
You scoffer! It is an apparition of the Holy Mother. People were praying about idiots wizzing onto the expressway via the onramp. The prayers of the faithful were answered and the merging traffic is much slower now.

[Valz]

I'm sorry, but this is just ridiculous - there are so many of these stories "Jesus on a fish stick" "Mary on Grilled Cheese" "Madonna on a ballon"
give me a break! :glare:

Yeap, and you would think that with the ability to do so many things to help Humans they would have something better to do than to appear in those places/things.


Valz

[livius drusus]

I think it hearkens back to a longstanding tradition of roadside shrines. In Italy, there would actually be a little statue and people would leave candles and flowers. Here in the States, that kind of thing is rare so folks end up seeing the same kind of shrine figures in concrete stains and tree bark.

[Beth]

Well, I've been to shrines devoted to Mary. They are peaceful enough and if they help the believer...I'm just not so sure such shrines are safe on an entrance ramp to an expressway.

[livius drusus]

Well, sure, but the question I was musing over was where the impulse to worship these kinds of amorphous figures springs from.

[Beth]

Well, sure, but the question I was musing over was where the impulse to worship these kinds of amorphous figures springs from.
One cannot see the divine. I would think that seeing a holy apparation and worshipping there would let them feel connected with the divine because the divine can be seen an adored. I need to read my Joseph Campbell again and actually read my religious psychology book before I can come up with a better answer.:)

[Bullet]

It looks like water stained, eroded concrete to me. But I could be wrong.A bum probobly pissed on the wall. :leak:

[Ymir's blood]

Definitely a vagina... with a skull over it.

[Dingfod]

That'd be a virgina... with a skull over it.

[Beth]

It looks like water stained, eroded concrete to me. But I could be wrong.A bum probobly pissed on the wall. :leak:
:eek: People worshipping a piss stain. :giggle:

[Shake]

Groan. I think it looks like the molar as well.
Ha ha! The Virgin Mary I can't see there, but I see the molar!

Definitely a vagina... with a skull over it.
Hmm ... now that you mention it ... I can make out the labia and the clitoris there. Perhaps they're worshipping the Yoni (http://www.geocities.com/llfptfu/sf.html)! (Warning: anatomical drawings depicting parts of the female anatomy within)


As for people coming to light candles and pray before a water stain, I've got three things for that: :wall: :banghead: :hb:

Heck, maybe that's what caused it! :D

[Beth]

I wonder just how many Catholics and so one believe in this type of sign.

[Ronin]

It is certainly curious to me that you don't find Buddhists, Jews or Muslims "finding" Mary all that often in these Rorschach appearances.

Protestants, it appears to me, only find images of Jesus in their omelets (and the Ted Nugent one at that)...while Catholics predominantly find Mary.

It really should be obvious that people are motivated by wishful thinking here.

Not necessarily a bad thing, inho, just mighty silly at times.

[Sweetie]

When I look at the picture I see like a white veil, then long brown hair, a face, there's blue and grey, the blue seems to be covering arms and the grey seems to meet in the middle as if hands clasping, and there appears to be rosary beads hanging down the middle. To me the image does look distinctly like a woman, and ethereal.

However, I'm not saying that I agree that the image is "sacred" in any way nor that I would visit it or anything.

Just wanted to express what I see when I look at the "piss stain." :yup: The image is rather at a distance but I see a woman and no I don't understand how one can see a molar in it. :chin:

Truly, you guys just see a molar? Do you get any shape/idea of a woman at all from the image?

[Ronin]

"Police said the image might have been caused by stains from road salt (http://www.katc.com/Global/story.asp?S=3234978&nav=EyAzYsbN) that dripped from the Kennedy expressway onto the wall."

Now we're getting somewhere...apparently it's Lot's wife.

:chin:

[Sweetie]

Now we're getting somewhere...apparently it's Lot's wife.

:chin:

:D

[Ymir's blood]

It is certainly curious to me that you don't find Buddhists, Jews or Muslims "finding" Mary all that often in these Rorschach appearances.
Appropriately enough, non-theists see nothing in these things. :giggle:

[Sweetie]

Appropriately enough, non-theists see nothing in these things. :giggle:

Why nothing? Seeing an image in something that can form images is no strange thing.

The only question is whether or not you think the image is a sign. Does the molar say to you that it's time to visit the dentist, lol? If you see a beautiful puddle, does that mean something? I would say probably not, but, the question I ask is do you really not see an image of a woman on that wall? It may mean nothing even if there is the shape/idea/intimation of a woman, but is there in fact the shape/idea/intimation?

Buddhists of course, may see a woman but have it mean nothing, they may see no sign in it. Muslims could take it as a sign of something, not sure what, they venerate Mary as well.

[Godless Dave]

If I look at it right it sort of looks like a woman wearing a hooded robe. I can also sort of a see a bearded face in this picture (http://hubblesite.org/gallery/wallpaper/image.php?prid=1995/45/image/a&format=640_wallpaper).

[Legs]

If I look at it right it sort of looks like a woman wearing a hooded robe. I can also sort of a see a bearded face in
Dave, everytime I see your avatar I think of Matthew Mcconaughey (yummy)

Oh man, I am probably going to hell for finding Jesus hot

[Dingfod]

Do you get any shape/idea of a woman at all from the image?No. You're seeing what you want to see in it.

[Beth]

If I look at it right it sort of looks like a woman wearing a hooded robe. I can also sort of a see a bearded face in
Dave, everytime I see your avatar I think of Matthew Mcconaughey (yummy)

Oh man, I am probably going to hell for finding Jesus hot
Well, I don't see why. A believer is supposed to be the bride of Christ. :P When I think of Jesus, I will forever see the Will Ferrell Jesus in Superstar.

[freemonkey]

Um... Isn't it a little, well, Georgia O'Keefe-like, if ya know what I mean?
that was my first thought, but, like Sweetie, I can also see the female figure: I see her veiled head, her arms/hands held in front of her body as if in prayer and an aura all around.

People see what they want to see, and people are suggestable. Things remind us of other things. This is abstract art.

[Ronin]

To me...everything is abstract art.

:beatnik:

[godfry n. glad]

Just in case y'all missed it: http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2005/042205.asp

[canaan]

I need some cash. You think if I let my cats pee on the wall I would be lucky enough for it to come out looking like Mary? What do ya think? $10.00 for a picture? $20.00 if it's framed?

Just wondering: how does anyone even know what the virgin Mary looked like? Is there a snapshot out there that I don't know about?

[Ymir's blood]

Just in case y'all missed it: http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2005/042205.asp
Hey, I called it first. :wave:

[Gurdur]

Oh man, I am probably going to hell for finding Jesus hot
You should try reading St Theresa's writings and another saintess sometime.
Pure pornography, no joke.

[Godless Dave]

Just wondering: how does anyone even know what the virgin Mary looked like?

The same way we know Moses looked like Charlton Heston.


"Let my people go, you goddamn dirty ape!"

[Barefoot Bree]

Am I the only one who persists in reading this thread title as "Virgin Mary Underpants"? Or am I just the only one dumbass enough to SAY something about it?

[Ymir's blood]

Am I the only one who persists in reading this thread title as "Virgin Mary Underpants"? Or am I just the only one dumbass enough to SAY something about it?
No, and not anymore. :giggle:

[Dragar]

I find it does look like the Virgin Mary. Or at least, the stain looks like the traditional drawings and paintings of her I've seen.

Simon Singh came to our university a while ago, to promote his new book, Big Bang (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0007162200/102-6244755-2929727?v=glance). One of the things he did was show us how amazing our brains are at picking out patterns, even those that don't exist.

He played us Stairway to Heaven, first forwards, then backwards. Backwards, it sounded like nonsense talk - meaningless noises (only one person raised their hand saying they heard something like words in there).

Then he showed us some lyrics, and let us listen to it again. You can hear the clip, and try the same thing,
here (http://jeffmilner.com/backmasking.htm). The end result? We all raised our hands, having heard the lyrics, clear as day.

This is exactly what the stain on the wall is. When we see the Virgin Mary (or a molar), it's more a statement about how our brain is interpreting the data than it is about the data itself.

[livius drusus]

Ah yes, priming. Clutch done learned me about that one. (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/article.php?a=8)

[Sweetie]

Just in case y'all missed it: http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2005/042205.asp

Is it just me or is this link terribly crass? Are those who post such things guilty by association?

Yuck:

"They will start worshipping your poop if you don't flush fast enough! Frankly, I never thought I would see the day when I was happy for my daughter to spend hours worshipping an enormous gaping vagina!"

[godfry n. glad]

Crass? Of course it's crass.

It's certainly less crass than lying to the American public about why we invaded another country without provocation and against the advice of our "allies".

It's certainly less crass than shooting physicians with high powered rifles because you don't happen to agree with their stand on prenatal life.

And, come to think of it, seeing a holy image in the seepage through a concrete wall ain't the height of sophistication, either.

As for "guilty" by association....of what, being crass? I'm certainly not in denial.

[Ronin]

Just in case y'all missed it: http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2005/042205.asp

Is it just me or is this link terribly crass? Are those who post such things guilty by association?

Yuck:

"They will start worshipping your poop if you don't flush fast enough! Frankly, I never thought I would see the day when I was happy for my daughter to spend hours worshipping an enormous gaping vagina!"

It sure could have used a "not worksafe warning" on it, I'll give you that.

Of course, I do see the vagina way more than "Mary".

I admit I've probably been primed, though.

[Sweetie]

As for "guilty" by association....of what, being crass? I'm certainly not in denial.

My point is that if you want to try and make others look like idiots by making yourself look like a sick pig, that's great though you could choose to have more class, you could instead take the high road in between the two for instance and also if I had the choice, I would rather look like the idiot.

[viscousmemories]

My point is that if you want to try and make others look like idiots by making yourself look like a sick pig, that's great though you could choose to have more class, you could instead take the high road in between the two for instance and also if I had the choice, I would rather look like the idiot.
Why'd you read the whole article and post a quote from it here, Sweetie? It took me two seconds to realize it was something I wasn't interested in and to navigate away. I don't know why you feel like you had to read it and now have to let godfry know what a sick pig he is for thinking it was funny. Are you a sick pig for reading it when you didn't have to?

[godfry n. glad]

It sure could have used a "not worksafe warning" on it, I'll give you that.


Point taken, thanks.

[Sweetie]

Why'd you read the whole article and post a quote from it here, Sweetie? It took me two seconds to realize it was something I wasn't interested in and to navigate away. I don't know why you feel like you had to read it and now have to let godfry know what a sick pig he is for thinking it was funny. Are you a sick pig for reading it when you didn't have to?

I skimmed and then I read a few lines and then I got disgusted but then I wanted to see if that's all there was to the article so then I read some more. *shrug*

He thought it had value, he posted it. I think it's crass I said so. He doesn't care that it's crass. I'm saying he should care that it's crass 'cause it makes him look bad.

Now, you are questioning why I wasn't "big enough" to ignore something so crass. Why do I have to ignore it, why is it above comment? :chin:

My comment and opinion makes me look bad? In that case I don't care in the same sense that godfry doesn't care.

It's all good, right?

[viscousmemories]

He thought it had value, he posted it. I think it's crass I said so. He doesn't care that it's crass. I'm saying he should care that it's crass 'cause it makes him look bad.
Actually you said it made him look crass and he said he doesn't deny that he's crass, and then you said fine if you want to be a low class, sick pig on the low road, go right ahead.

Now, you are questioning why I wasn't "big enough" to ignore something so crass. Why do I have to ignore it, why is it above comment?
I didn't say you have to ignore it. I asked you why you went out of your way to read something that you should've known immediately would offend you. I don't go out of my way to be offended so I don't understand it when other people do. And I really don't understand it when people then complain about having been offended.
My comment and opinion makes me look bad? In that case I don't care in the same sense that godfry doesn't care.

It's all good, right?
So in one sentence you're saying he should care how he comes across, and two sentences later you're saying you don't care how you come across. Okay, whatever. As long as you don't mind having higher standards for others than you have for yourself, I guess there's nothing more for me to say.

[Sweetie]

Actually you said it made him look crass and he said he doesn't deny that he's crass, and then you said fine if you want to be a low class, sick pig on the low road, go right ahead.

"My point is that if you want to try and make others look like idiots by making yourself look like a sick pig"

I'm sorry but the article deserves sick pig status for those who wrote it and for those who link it thinking it has some value.


I didn't say you have to ignore it. I asked you why you went out of your way to read something that you should've known immediately would offend you.

I didn't go out of my way, the link was right there and I didn't know immediately that it would be offensive. :chin: Not all potshots at Catholicism do I immediately take as offensive but this article is just a step too far one way, I mean it's just bad. Seriously, I think I would consider it bad with or without it's relation to Catholicism.

I don't go out of my way to be offended so I don't understand it when other people do. And I really don't understand it when people then complain about having been offended.

I really think you're kinda pushing things a little and I think you are trying to defend something and someone at the same time which is cool, you may but I followed a link, it was just sick and I said so. I don't really know why I have to defend that. :chin:

As to the not caring how I come across, I recognize that I will come across to many like I have come across to you however, I think part of the way you will judge me and perceive my actions in this instance will be based on defense of one of your friends, it will be defensive so I do care how I come across I'm just generally resigned to the fact that I'm already operating here from a position of being two strikes down already.

If Goliath posted the link, would I be free to say what I think and would you be jumping in to his defense?

[viscousmemories]

I'm sorry but the article deserves sick pig status for those who wrote it and for those who link it thinking it has some value.
Yeah, I got that you think that.

I didn't go out of my way, the link was right there and I didn't know immediately that it would be offensive. :chin:
I realize you didn't know what you were going to see when you clicked the link, but I'm talking about after you clicked the link. Did it take you more than two seconds to realize it was something you weren't going to enjoy?

Not all potshots at Catholicism do I immediately take as offensive but this article is just a step too far one way, I mean it's just bad. Seriously, I think I would consider it bad with or without it's relation to Catholicism.
I guess you've never been to that website, then. It's well-known for being exceedingly offensive.

I really think you're kinda pushing things a little and I think you are trying to defend something and someone at the same time which is cool, you may but I followed a link, it was just sick and I said so. I don't really know why I have to defend that. :chin:
Well thank you for saying that I may defend someone if I choose, but as I've already said I didn't object to your saying that the site was sick. I objected to your harping on how sick and wrong he is for posting the link even after he had already responded to your initial complaint.

As to the not caring how I come across, I recognize that I will come across to many like I have come across to you however, I think part of the way you will judge me and perceive my actions in this instance will be based on defense of one of your friends, it will be defensive so I do care how I come across I'm just generally resigned to the fact that I'm already operating here from a position of being two strikes down already.

If Goliath posted the link, would I be free to say what I think and would you be jumping in to his defense?
This has nothing to do with whether or not godfry and I are buddies. I would've said something regardless of who you were talking to. You don't seem to have any problem judging godfry here, why are you criticizing me for judging you?

[Sweetie]

I realize you didn't know what you were going to see when you clicked the link, but I'm talking about after you clicked the link. Did it take you more than two seconds to realize it was something you weren't going to enjoy?

I'm missing something here, maybe it's a few brain cells on my end or maybe it's an actual valuable arguement.

Is it your contention dear sir that because something was posted that was offensive that I was supposed to just ignore it?

Why?

Why can't I read it?

Why can't I say it's offensive?

Seriously, where is the a therefore b?


I guess you've never been to that website, then. It's well-known for being exceedingly offensive.

Right.


I objected to your harping on how sick and wrong he is for posting the link even after he had already responded to your initial complaint.

:chin:

You mean I wasn't supposed to respond to his assertion that he's not in denial about being crass?


This has nothing to do with whether or not godfry and I are buddies. I would've said something regardless of who you were talking to. You don't seem to have any problem judging godfry here, why are you criticizing me for judging you?

Judge me all you want, I just happen to think my judgement is warranted in this case and yours is not.

I'm not complaining, I'm defending myself, correct?

Do you deem the link in fact crass, yes or no?
What do you think of Fundamentalists who post links to Jack Chick tracts? Do you think they are idiots because they toe the line with Chick and think his tracts are worthwhile posting?
Do you not ever comment that Chick tracts are ridiculous and offensive?
Do you never or have you ever commented about Fundamentalists and Chick tracts?
Do you think it's valuable to try and prove a group of people are idiots by linking to something like that?

Have you not noticed that Godfry has been as perceived by me, openly hostile to me for a week or so?

[godfry n. glad]

Have you not noticed that Godfry has been as perceived by me, openly hostile to me for a week or so?

Yeah... I get that way when I smell a censor, and you Sweetie, are the epitome of a moralist censor.

I don't give a shit if you were offended. I thought it funny, if you didn't it's just too damned bad. Instead of keeping your trap shut, or just saying "that's digusting" and moving on, you've decided to launched into character assassination of me because I posted something you didn't happen to like.

Tough shit, Sweetie. Get used to it, you shitty little moralist censor.

godfry

[Sweetie]

[Q

Yeah... I get that way when I smell a censor, and you Sweetie, are the epitome of a moralist censor.

Cool, you may think of me as you wish Godfry, there is no arguement here.

I don't give a shit if you were offended. I thought it funny, if you didn't it's just too damned bad.

Cool, I comment and that's just too damned bad. I'm really having a problem discerning an arguement here. We have established rights and freedoms here correct, I do not agree with what you've done and I've said so, and you do not agree with what I've said and you've said so.

This is what is called being fair. It's much better than the expectation that I must not say that I don't agree with what you've done, said, posted.

Instead of keeping your trap shut,

The problem is, I don't see the rationale behind the idea that I should have kept my trap shut.

I don't need to be in your good graces Godfry, it gains me nothing especially now that I perceive that you are openly hostile and now admittedly so.

or just saying "that's digusting" and moving on, you've decided to launched into character assassination of me because I posted something you didn't happen to like.

:chin: You didn't just post something I didn't happen to like, you posted something inflammatory, disrespectful, distasteful and don't forget, idiotic.

I'm sorry if I thought it was a tad ironic that one might try and show other people idiotic and stupid by well, like I said, acting like that.

Perhaps I should find an article that speaks of the Nazi Pro-Choicers with a whole bunch of inflammatory material and perhaps then we may see hypocrasy at work?



Tough shit, Sweetie. Get used to it, you shitty little moralist censor.

Look man, I can and will defend myself so you must understand, I am not complaining or whining, I think I stand in a position of strength because the article really is that bad.

However, if you consider that article funny and I am to place any value on your definition and opinion as far as me being a "moralist" is concerned, you need to think again. If my being a "moralist" means that I have strong opinions, I have reason for those opinions, I'm not afraid to speak them or defend them, they disagree with yours, I like and can defend them unapologetically, etc. If me being a moralist means that I am not sick nor whatever else, if that is what it means to be a moralist then I am pleased to be one.

Like I said, I would rather be the idiotic moralist than one who posts and finds value in such things.

Don't forget, now I'm the idiotic "shitty" moralist.

I must truly be a terrible human being, how dare I comment? :melo:

[Beth]

Just in case y'all missed it: http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2005/042205.asp
Hehe. I missed this link. The article is right, it does look like a woman's unmentionables. Funny, funny article, although it was a little difficult to eat my lunch while reading it. Not sure if it was from revulsion or if it was from having to supress laughter.

But when it comes to apparitions, I have learned never to trust those Papists. They will start worshipping your poop if you don't flush fast enough! Is Cheny Protestant or Catholic? Because this sounds sooo Pentacostal:giggle:, after seeing all the Mary crap bought on ebay and the prices brought in, I have to say this is a little deserved. Anyone wanna worship my Virgin Mary grilled cheese?... anyone?

Not that all Catholics do this. Some are just plain silly. That is all.

[TomJoe]

I asked you why you went out of your way to read something that you should've known immediately would offend you.

Why do you say that Sweetie should have "known immediately" that the link provided by godfry would have offended her?

I thought the link, which was IIRC posted without a warning, was offensive too. I didn't expect to have a female's privates for display on my work computer, and a simple disclaimer would have sufficed out of simple courtesy to the readers.

[Beth]

ah. Yes, if I were at the library, I could have been in trouble, although it was an illustration and could reasonably argue against it being a pornographic image.

[godfry n. glad]

[Q

Yeah... I get that way when I smell a censor, and you Sweetie, are the epitome of a moralist censor.

Cool, you may think of me as you wish Godfry, there is no arguement here.

So... That's why you come to a freethought board? To moralise and censor?

I don't give a shit if you were offended. I thought it funny, if you didn't it's just too damned bad.

Cool, I comment and that's just too damned bad. I'm really having a problem discerning an arguement here. We have established rights and freedoms here correct, I do not agree with what you've done and I've said so, and you do not agree with what I've said and you've said so.

This is what is called being fair. It's much better than the expectation that I must not say that I don't agree with what you've done, said, posted.

Fine, now that you've said it, you've moved on to trying to tar me with your little brush. Don't agree, I don't care, but when you attempt to damn me because I happened to think it was not only funny, but to the point, you stepped over the bounds of disagreement into being a full-blown shithead about it.

[ Instead of keeping your trap shut,

The problem is, I don't see the rationale behind the idea that I should have kept my trap shut.

I don't need to be in your good graces Godfry, it gains me nothing especially now that I perceive that you are openly hostile and now admittedly so.

So, now we're on the same wavelength. You insult me, I'll insult you back, you masturbatory dickwad. Try using a few braincells sometime, rather than spouting off with your shit-for-brains in neutral.

or just saying "that's digusting" and moving on, you've decided to launched into character assassination of me because I posted something you didn't happen to like.

:chin: You didn't just post something I didn't happen to like, you posted something inflammatory, disrespectful, distasteful and don't forget, idiotic.

Nope. It was graphic, accurate and ironic. So much so, it was funny. It made explicit what several other posters had already said in so many words, but you were probably so dense, ignorant and down-right Down's Syndrome stupid about it, that it took the graphic representation for you to take offense. I still think it's funny. Even funnier now, knowing that a brainless, humorless, poker-up-the-ass petty moralist like you is offended. I've accomplished my desired objective. Thanks for confirming it.

I'm sorry if I thought it was a tad ironic that one might try and show other people idiotic and stupid by well, like I said, acting like that.

Perhaps I should find an article that speaks of the Nazi Pro-Choicers with a whole bunch of inflammatory material and perhaps then we may see hypocrasy at work?

:godwin: I invoke Godwin's Law and claim superiority here.



Tough shit, Sweetie. Get used to it, you shitty little moralist censor.

Look man, I can and will defend myself so you must understand, I am not complaining or whining, I think I stand in a position of strength because the article really is that bad.

However, if you consider that article funny and I am to place any value on your definition and opinion as far as me being a "moralist" is concerned, you need to think again. If my being a "moralist" means that I have strong opinions, I have reason for those opinions, I'm not afraid to speak them or defend them, they disagree with yours, I like and can defend them unapologetically, etc. If me being a moralist means that I am not sick nor whatever else, if that is what it means to be a moralist then I am pleased to be one.

Like I said, I would rather be the idiotic moralist than one who posts and finds value in such things.

Don't forget, now I'm the idiotic "shitty" moralist.

I must truly be a terrible human being, how dare I comment? :melo:

Post away... I henceforth will treat your posts as they deserve. As toxic fecal matter.

[Sweetie]

So... That's why you come to a freethought board? To moralise and censor?

Umm, I'm not censoring but there is a question of respect I think and censoring on message boards is not so much censoring but a question of tact.

I don't have the power to censor first of all, I offer my opinion (or my freethought if you will), I'll defend it, you may agree or disagree. In my opinion, you should not have posted what you did, I'm not censoring you, I'm questioning your tact and class.


Fine, now that you've said it, you've moved on to trying to tar me with your little brush.

I must admit to being a hardass and a sceptic oftentimes so are you going to tell me what the above actually means and back it up with something that I may have actually said so that I can see the relation?

Don't agree, I don't care, but when you attempt to damn me because I happened to think it was not only funny, but to the point, you stepped over the bounds of disagreement into being a full-blown shithead about it.

I'm being a shithead because I thought the link was distasteful, worse than the average chick tract? I'm a shithead because I thought it was sick piggish, crude, crass?

I thought you already agreed it was crass? I don't think anybody has disagreed that it was crass.

I just said is one who posts such things as crass as that which they post? ie: guilt by association?




So, now we're on the same wavelength. You insult me, I'll insult you back, you masturbatory dickwad.

lol.


Nope. It was graphic, accurate and ironic.

That's your opinion, I have mine, case closed.

So much so, it was funny. It made explicit what several other posters had already said in so many words, but you were probably so dense, ignorant and down-right Down's Syndrome stupid about it, that it took the graphic representation for you to take offense. I still think it's funny. Even funnier now, knowing that a brainless, humorless, poker-up-the-ass petty moralist like you is offended. I've accomplished my desired objective. Thanks for confirming it.

lol. Did I say I was specifically offended or did I imply that it makes one look like a sick pig to be associated with it in the same way that it makes Fundamentalists look like ignorant fools to post Chick tracts? Didn't I say it was idiotic, ie: a tad too distasteful and idiotic to have any value? Being offended by the article would be the equivalent of being offended by a Chick which would assume value and substance, both of which I've denied that this article has.



:godwin: I invoke Godwin's Law and claim superiority here.

No suprise.




Post away... I henceforth will treat your posts as they deserve. As toxic fecal matter.

Please do. :yup:

Seriously, you started the hostility bit, you have your opinions, why I am the shithead for going with the flow or do you suppose I'm just supposed to see your hostility consistently directed at me and not say anything, not try to show that you are being an irrational hostile biased man?

I hope you are capable in the future of offering a substantial defense of yourself and your ideas.

Anybody here who can tolerate disagreement?

[godfry n. glad]

So... That's why you come to a freethought board? To moralise and censor?

Umm, I'm not censoring but there is a question of respect I think and censoring on message boards is not so much censoring but a question of tact.

You think it's respect to honor those who worship a crack in the concrete that looks vulvar in nature? Who is lacking "tact"?

I don't have the power to censor first of all, I offer my opinion (or my freethought if you will), I'll defend it, you may agree or disagree. In my opinion, you should not have posted what you did, I'm not censoring you, I'm questioning your tact and class.

But you're trying, none the less. By attempting to paint anyone associated with the page I posted as being classless, tasteless, crass, or whatever, you are attempting to force your standards on everyone else here. That's censorship. I say fuck that noise. If you don't like it, fine... You don't have to. But it was germane to the discussion and to the point. You just didn't like it, so you are now trying to make it difficult, uncomfortable, and problematic to post anything here that might offend your precious little moralistic sensibilities. Fuck that noise.

You need to get over thinking that you are the arbiter of what class and tact is on this board...or anywhere for that matter. You are not the boss of me, or anyone else here, so you can sit on it and spin, fuckwad.


Fine, now that you've said it, you've moved on to trying to tar me with your little brush.

I must admit to being a hardass and a sceptic oftentimes so are you going to tell me what the above actually means and back it up with something that I may have actually said so that I can see the relation?

I already have, but you haven't used that fecal matter packed into your cranium to figure it out... most likely because it's too difficult for you to do so.

Don't agree, I don't care, but when you attempt to damn me because I happened to think it was not only funny, but to the point, you stepped over the bounds of disagreement into being a full-blown shithead about it.

I'm being a shithead because I thought the link was distasteful, worse than the average chick tract? I'm a shithead because I thought it was sick piggish, crude, crass?

I thought you already agreed it was crass? I don't think anybody has disagreed that it was crass.

I just said is one who posts such things as crass as that which they post? ie: guilt by association?

Again... Luckily, you are not the arbiter of class around here...Otherwise, we'd ALL be genuflecting to the concrete cunt.



Nope. It was graphic, accurate and ironic.

That's your opinion, I have mine, case closed.

And that's fine... And, where you should have left it several posts back.

So much so, it was funny. It made explicit what several other posters had already said in so many words, but you were probably so dense, ignorant and down-right Down's Syndrome stupid about it, that it took the graphic representation for you to take offense. I still think it's funny. Even funnier now, knowing that a brainless, humorless, poker-up-the-ass petty moralist like you is offended. I've accomplished my desired objective. Thanks for confirming it.

lol. Did I say I was specifically offended or did I imply that it makes one look like a sick pig to be associated with it in the same way that it makes Fundamentalists look like ignorant fools to post Chick tracts? Didn't I say it was idiotic, ie: a tad too distasteful and idiotic to have any value? Being offended by the article would be the equivalent of being offended by a Chick which would assume value and substance, both of which I've denied that this article has.

I happen to think Chick tractates are funny, too. They show that same petty moralist attitude as you do. I'd suspect that your entire library is nothing but Chick tractates...It's about the reading level I'd expect for you.


Anybody here who can tolerate disagreement?

:ironymeter:

Unlike you, you mean?

[TomJoe]

By attempting to paint anyone associated with the page I posted as being classless, tasteless, crass, or whatever, you are attempting to force your standards on everyone else here. That's censorship.


That's total bullshit godfry. Just because she says something is tasteless, doesn't mean she's forcing her standards on everyone else. It's her opinion, she's entitled to it.

Your beligerent, asshole-ish attitude towards her is more akin to censorship IMNSHO.

[godfry n. glad]

By attempting to paint anyone associated with the page I posted as being classless, tasteless, crass, or whatever, you are attempting to force your standards on everyone else here. That's censorship.


That's total bullshit godfry. Just because she says something is tasteless, doesn't mean she's forcing her standards on everyone else. It's her opinion, she's entitled to it.

Your beligerent, asshole-ish attitude towards her is more akin to censorship IMNSHO.

Excuse me, TomJoe...

She initiated, I followed her example.

As for belligerent, asshole-ish attitudes, she lead the way.

So, stuff it, TomJoe.

godfry

[Sweetie]

You think it's respect to honor those who worship a crack in the concrete that looks vulvar in nature? Who is lacking "tact"?

:chin:

Children can be ignorant and foolish but rarely are they assholes. Which one is more respectworthy? Ignorance and foolishness or assholeness and crudity?

Besides, they aren't "worshipping" anything, they are marking that which they think is somewhat miraculous, an image which you do not agree is there or means anything or that you think is meaningless on the sole basis of what material the image is comprised of. That's your right.

Personally I wouldn't be there thinking the image was anything special but alot of people have an act first and ask questions later type of attitude. Either way, I don't think it's quite deserving of the hostility and crudity you are sending it's way but that's your choice and we've already established that that's just my opinion.




But you're trying, none the less.

Umm, no.

By attempting to paint anyone associated with the page I posted as being classless, tasteless, crass, or whatever, you are attempting to force your standards on everyone else here.

Not really, no. I think it just is the standard opinion. Beth called it revulsive, vm said he didn't even read it because he realized that it wasn't worth reading, etc.

That's censorship.
No, that's not censorship. Throwing whether or not something is tactful up for consideration is not the same as restricting it outright. Even if I had the power I would not restrict it, but I still question the tact behind it.

I say fuck that noise. If you don't like it, fine...
Right, I've already established that I disagree with you, and I feel perfectly comfortable in my disagreement, even though you may not agree.

You don't have to.

Right, and I don't.

But it was germane to the discussion and to the point. You just didn't like it, so you are now trying to make it difficult, uncomfortable, and problematic to post anything here that might offend your precious little moralistic sensibilities. Fuck that noise.

That's not quite how it works, either I defend my opinion well enough that people agree or they disagree with me, I'm not making anything more difficult than it needs to be though I'm sure you would like to post inflammatory and disrespectful material without question and you may think you should, but guess what, I'm questioning.

You need to get over thinking that you are the arbiter of what class and tact is on this board...or anywhere for that matter. You are not the boss of me, or anyone else here, so you can sit on it and spin, fuckwad.

:chin:

I am not the arbitrar of anything but I do have an opinion and I will present it and I will defend it and you know what godfry, sometimes I may just be right. I am not bossing around, I'm questioning your actions. Is there something wrong with that? That is what your original hostility to me is about right, what you've said, you're questioning me and my opinions, etc?


I already have, but you haven't used that fecal matter packed into your crainum to figure it out... most likely because it's too difficult for you to do so.

This is a garden variety ad homminem. I really wish though you would understand that the cruder you get in your language, the less likely you to have any of your insults hit and the more you are appearing hostile.


Again... Luckily, you are not the arbiter of class around here...Otherwise, we'd ALL be genuflecting to the concrete cunt.

Yeah, that's classy.




And that's fine... And, where you should have left it several posts back.

Because you say and think so? I disagree unfortunately, I seriously disagree with your assumption of what I should have done.

[
I happen to think Chick tractates are funny, too.

cool.

They show that same petty moralist attitude as you do. I'd suspect that your entire library is nothing but Chick tractates...It's about the reading level I'd expect for you.

I don't actually know my technical IQ score. :chin:





Unlike you, you mean?

:doh:

[viscousmemories]

I asked you why you went out of your way to read something that you should've known immediately would offend you.

Why do you say that Sweetie should have "known immediately" that the link provided by godfry would have offended her?

I thought the link, which was IIRC posted without a warning, was offensive too. I didn't expect to have a female's privates for display on my work computer, and a simple disclaimer would have sufficed out of simple courtesy to the readers.
As I've said repeatedly, I meant after she clicked on the link she should've known immediately.

My first clue that the article was going to be offensive was the close-up photograph of the woman's vagina alongside the alleged Virgin Mary apparition with the words "Blessed Hymen" superimposed on them.

My second clue was the title of the article, "REMARKS BY LYNNE CHENEY TO CHICAGO CHRISTIANS HUDDLED AT ROADSIDE SHRINE TO THE VIRGIN MARY'S IMPENETRABLE VAGINA"

And my third clue was the first three sentences of the article: MRS CHENEY: Chicagoans, I am so moved to stand on this sacred patch of dank and sooty roadway with you today. Of course, I came as soon as I heard what's been going on.

As a lifelong Christian, and a writer of vulvacentric historical fiction, I never thought for a moment that I would ever get the opportunity to stand so close to the eye-poppingly cavernous opening of Jesus' mom's moist, clammy ladyhole!

It was at that point that I, in the interest of not being any more offended than I already was (and I'm not even Catholic), stopped reading! Why Sweetie felt the need to read the entire thing and then express here how much it offended her is beyond me. Of course she's free to say whatever she wants, just as I am free to say that I don't understand why she insisted on reading something she should have known would offend her and then repeatedly condemn godfry for posting it.

And to clarify for the third time, I didn't say a word when she said it was crass and godfry said he's not in denial about being crass. It was when she then went on to suggest that he's a sick pig lowlife for posting it that I finally asked her why she was still on about it.

[godfry n. glad]

I don't actually know my technical IQ score. :chin:

I'm not surprised. Worry not, it's probably of such a nature that you can show it using the digits on one hand.



Unlike you, you mean?

:doh:

Yep... I guess you do.

[Sweetie]

As I've said repeatedly, I meant after she clicked on the link she should've known immediately.

The problem is with your assumption that I should have done what then? And you must understand, I am not familiar with Cheney, I am not familiar with this website, I have in fact never heard of it and I do operate under the assumption that just because something appears to be one way does not mean it is thoroughly, in other words, I can get something out of any writing usually whether it was intended or not, whether the article is offensive to me or not (see the Pompeii thread in Sexuality) and I seriously thought the article may have had at least one substantial idea.

My first clue that the article was going to be offensive was the close-up photograph of the woman's vagina alongside the alleged Virgin Mary apparition with the words "Blessed Hymen" superimposed on them.
Why is that a clue? It is true that looked at from a certain way it can be thought to resemble a vagina, it just so happens that the one they attached is so ugly. :eek:

It was at that point that I, in the interest of not being any more offended than I already was (and I'm not even Catholic), stopped reading! Why Sweetie felt the need to read the entire thing and then express here how much it offended her is beyond me. Of course she's free to say whatever she wants, just as I am free to say that I don't understand why she insisted on reading something she should have known would offend her and then repeatedly condemn godfry for posting it.

I'm not going to apologize, I am justified. I don't agree with your assumption that I should have just ignored and not commented, you need to show me why this is what I should have done.

You need to prove this to me vm, you really do.

Secondly, I am not repeatedly condemning godfry and if I am it is only in defense of myself, because you have made it so that I have to defend myself.

And to clarify for the third time, I didn't say a word when she said it was crass and godfry said he's not in denial about being crass. It was when she then went on to suggest that he's a sick pig lowlife for posting it that I finally asked her why she was still on about it.

I didn't call him a lowlife, I said that posting such a thing by association makes him look like a pig as that article is sick piggish, though granted my wording might have been off in a few instances.

Secondly, he has consistently been hostile to me for the last week or so. I am meeting that hostility dead-on and I won't back down.

Thirdly, this discussion may have merit when others feel like posting similar things.

[Sweetie]

I'm not surprised. Worry not, it's probably of such a nature that you can show it using the digits on one hand.

Dude, that's just weak.

[viscousmemories]

Incidentally I don't think anyone in this thread is guilty of censorship or attempted censorship. Censorship is physically preventing someone from expressing themselves. Criticising people's words or mannerisms isn't necessarily attempting to censor them unless one at the same time lobbies for the restricition of that persons' right to express themselves. I haven't noticed anyone saying that anyone here shouldn't be allowed to say what they want.

[godfry n. glad]

I'm not surprised. Worry not, it's probably of such a nature that you can show it using the digits on one hand.

Dude, that's just weak.

It's not half as weak as telling somebody he looks like a sick pig. Is that how they teach you to swear in parochial school? It's not weak, it's lame.

Just about as lame as somebody who thinks a crack in a concrete wall is miraculous.

[viscousmemories]

The problem is with your assumption that I should have done what then? And you must understand, I am not familiar with Cheney, I am not familiar with this website, I have in fact never heard of it and I do operate under the assumption that just because something appears to be one way does not mean it is thoroughly, in other words, I can get something out of any writing usually whether it was intended or not, whether the article is offensive to me or not (see the Pompeii thread in Sexuality) and I seriously thought the article may have had at least one substantial idea.
Okay Sweetie, fair enough. I really thought it would be obvious to anyone at first glance that the article was purely offensive satire, but if you didn't and/or chose to give it the benefit of the doubt anyway that's your prerogative.

I'm not going to apologize, I am justified. I don't agree with your assumption that I should have just ignored and not commented, you need to show me why this is what I should have done.

You need to prove this to me vm, you really do.
I have not suggested that you need to apologize and as I've said about five times now I have never thought or said that you should have just ignored it and not commented.

Secondly, I am not repeatedly condemning godfry and if I am it is only in defense of myself, because you have made it so that I have to defend myself.
You said the article was crass and pondered aloud whether godfry wasn't guilty by association for posting the link to it. godfry said he doesn't deny being crass. You then reiterated that you thought it was crass, and elaborated, implying that he was a sick pig etc. That, as I've said many times now, is all I personally objected to.

I didn't call him a lowlife, I said that posting such a thing by association makes him look like a pig as that article is sick piggish, though granted my wording might have been off in a few instances.
Semantics, Sweetie. You said makes the poster look like a sick pig and low class. I don't see any important difference between that and directly saying that godfry looks like a sick pig and lowlife for posting it.

Secondly, he has consistently been hostile to me for the last week or so. I am meeting that hostility dead-on and I won't back down.
I hadn't noticed, but this would have been a perfect response to my first post on this thread and I probably wouldn't have said another word. All I have wanted to know all along is why you seemed unduly antagonistic toward godfry for posting a link to something you were under no obligation to read.

Thirdly, this discussion may have merit when others feel like posting similar things.
It might indeed, but I kind of doubt most people are going to want to wade through it all at this point.

[Sweetie]

It's not half as weak as telling somebody he looks like a sick pig.

I'm sorry, but I stand by my claim that it does not make you look good.

Is that how they teach you to swear in parochial school?

Parochial?

It's not weak, it's lame.
It's weak and lame.

Just about as lame as somebody who thinks a crack in a concrete wall is miraculous.

I already met this point, and it's just about as lame as posting the article you did.

"My point is that if you want to try and make others look like idiots by making yourself look like a sick pig,"

because part of my original point was that it was self-defeating but a further point was that I would rather be lame and and think an image on a concret wall has meaning than to think that the article that you linked to has value for the reason I state in another post, children can be ignorant or foolish, the one may be considered foolish, but it's more respectworthy than assholeness and crudity.

[godfry n. glad]

Incidentally I don't think anyone in this thread is guilty of censorship or attempted censorship. Censorship is physically preventing someone from expressing themselves. Criticising people's words or mannerisms isn't necessarily attempting to censor them unless one at the same time lobbies for the restricition of that persons' right to express themselves. I haven't noticed anyone saying that anyone here shouldn't be allowed to say what they want.

I'll have to disagree with you, vm.

I think anybody that goes beyond the simple step of stating that they think a link, article or post is disgusting, insensitive or whatever, to attacking the poster who posted it, or actively attempting to typify the information as one that people should not read....then they are engaging in attempted censorship. That's what Sweatie has tried to do in this thread, accuse any and all who might go to the link, that if they do so and actually find the material cogent and/or humorous, then they too, are "sick pigs". Sweatie is making, or more accurately, has made, an out-and-out attempt at intimidation as censorship.

godfry

[Sweetie]

Semantics, Sweetie. You said makes the poster look like a sick pig and low class. I don't see any important difference between that and directly saying that godfry looks like a sick pig and lowlife for posting it.

Oh, well I'm not denying that I said and meant it makes him "look like". The differentiation is whether or not it makes him look like or whether or not I am saying that he is in fact those things.

It might indeed, but I kind of doubt most people are going to want to wade through it all at this point.

It is what it is then.

[Dragar]

Oh, well I'm not denying that I said and meant it makes him "look like". The differentiation is whether or not it makes him look like or whether or not I am saying that he is in fact those things.

Posting this makes you sound like a real bitch, Sweetie.

Offended yet?

[Sweetie]

I think anybody that goes beyond the simple step of stating that they think a link, article or post is disgusting, insensitive or whatever, to attacking the poster who posted it, or actively attempting to typify the information as one that people should not read....then they are engaging in attempted censorship. That's what Sweatie has tried to do in this thread, accuse any and all who might go to the link, that if they do so and actually find the material cogent and/or humorous, then they too, are "sick pigs". Sweatie is making, or more accurately, has made, an out-and-out attempt at intimidation as censorship.

godfry

Your reasoning is backwards and you should check your definition of "censorship."

Censorship is when I try or do prohibit people from reading, promoting, seeing something, etc.

Debate is when one tries to convince another that maybe the shouldn't read, find value, promote, see, etc something and they may agree or disagree because it's their freedom and choice.

So yes, I am trying to discredit the link because it's really not good and get this godfry, I am not popular enough to sway social approval and disapproval so where is this claim of intimidation coming from?

I'm intimidating?

I don't think that's even in the cards, I think it's just a question of whether or not I'm right or wrong, justified or unjustified via debate and discussion which from everything I can tell, is the correct way to go about disagreeing socially as opposed to attempting censorship.

[godfry n. glad]

because part of my original point was that it was self-defeating but a further point was that I would rather be lame and and think an image on a concret wall has meaning than to think that the article that you linked to has value for the reason I state in another post, children can be ignorant or foolish, the one may be considered foolish, but it's more respectworthy than assholeness and crudity.

What in the fuck are you prattling on about, Sweatie?

Child? The woman who started the whole damned thing was listed in the article as being an adult of 31. Those are not just children who are asserting that a crack in a concrete wall is the image of the Virgin Mary...they are adults. True, they are adults with the sensibilities of small children, but then that's just redundant with saying they're Catholic.

[Sweetie]

[

Posting this makes you sound like a real bitch, Sweetie.

Offended yet?

Not at all.

Why?

Because maybe in fact it is true that it does make me look like a real bitch.

Maybe it does not. Maybe it does to only some people.

Maybe I don't care how it makes me look.

So in order for me to be offended I have to agree that it does and then I have to care about your opinion (or whomever agrees with you).

(Not saying anything personal here, just mapping out to me the rationalizations possible)

[godfry n. glad]

I think anybody that goes beyond the simple step of stating that they think a link, article or post is disgusting, insensitive or whatever, to attacking the poster who posted it, or actively attempting to typify the information as one that people should not read....then they are engaging in attempted censorship. That's what Sweatie has tried to do in this thread, accuse any and all who might go to the link, that if they do so and actually find the material cogent and/or humorous, then they too, are "sick pigs". Sweatie is making, or more accurately, has made, an out-and-out attempt at intimidation as censorship.

godfry

Your reasoning is backwards and you should check your definition of "censorship."

Censorship is when I try or do prohibit people from reading, promoting, seeing something, etc.

Yeppers... And that's just what you have attempted with this thread.

Debate is when one tries to convince another that maybe the shouldn't read, find value, promote, see, etc something and they may agree or disagree because it's their freedom and choice.

So yes, I am trying to discredit the link because it's really not good and get this godfry, I am not popular enough to sway social approval and disapproval so where is this claim of intimidation coming from?

I'm intimidating?

Debate would have dealt with the information on the link, not the person who posted the link. This thread has been one long, drawn-out ad hominem. You started it, and I followed suit.

No. You are attempting to be intimidating. You're failing miserably.

I don't think that's even in the cards, I think it's just a question of whether or not I'm right or wrong, justified or unjustified via debate and discussion which from everything I can tell, is the correct way to go about disagreeing socially as opposed to attempting censorship.

Yeah, it'd be nice if you actually used that method. But you didn't.

[Sweetie]

"You say bitch like it's a bad thing." :P

[Dragar]

Not at all.

Why?

Because you seemed to suggest (and have now confirmed) that there was a difference between saying 'you are a [insert insult]' and 'you look like [insert insulting term]'.

I hoped my demonstration would enlighten you, but it appears not.

[Sweetie]

What in the fuck are you prattling on about, Sweatie?[

Child? The woman who started the whole damned thing was listed in the article as being an adult of 31. Those are not just children who are asserting that a crack in a concrete wall is the image of the Virgin Mary...they are adults. True, they are adults with the sensibilities of small children, but then that's just redundant with saying they're Catholic.

It had to do with foolishness or assholeness, right, and the reference to children and adults is only relational, correct?

My point is, foolishness is usually ignorance and unknowing, ie: these people you are condemning may not know they are acting possibly foolishly however, I would bet that you recognize that you, by posting that link, are acting rudely and purposely, correct?

So in that case, I would rather be the one doing something supposedly not good becaues I didn't know better, than the one who chooses to treat people that way.

[Sweetie]

[

Because you seemed to suggest (and have now confirmed) that there was a difference between saying 'you are a [insert insult]' and 'you look like [insult insulting term'.

Right, there is a difference between saying that Dragar looks like an, I don't know what for example, looks like an fool for supporting Bush maybe, and saying that he is in fact a fool.

I hoped my demonstration would enlighten you, but it appears not.

It's my lack of brain cells as usual.

I really need enlightenment, everybody else is always in the right moreso than me and I need to be told.

[Sweetie]

So, say we're argueing something and I link to Jack Chick to use in many ways as not only satirical, but as if embedded in this satire was something actually valuable, worthwhile and true as it pertains to the discussion at hand.

Do I look like an idiot then or not?

[Sweetie]

and Dragar, you didn't in fact respond.

Did it in fact, make me look like a bitch to you?

If not, then what?

And are you to blamed for saying so?

[Dragar]

To be honest, Sweetie, I don't see much of a difference between 'You look like a fucking retard' and 'you are a fucking retard'.

It's my lack of brain cells as usual.

Oh, so that offended you? Maybe if I'd said 'I hoped it would appear that my demonstration had enlightened you' we'd have been cool?

I don't think you're stupid, but I do think you're playing with semantics to hide the meaning, Sweetie.

[Dragar]

Did it in fact, make me look like a bitch to you?

If not, then what?

It made you look like someone -

Heck, it made me think you are someone who draws a distinction in words where there is none in meaning.

But heck, if you two just want to flame, be my guest.

[Sweetie]

To be honest, Sweetie, I don't see much of a difference between 'You look like a fucking retard' and 'you are a fucking retard'.

Yeah, see this is a problem, there is a distinction.

I can post Jack Chick and look like a fool, correct? But am I indeed a fool in fact? No.

So my appearance or being called a fool is relationtional to a thing, it's not integral, correct?

If Godfry posts more articles like that, I will say he will look even worse and then after some time I might actually believe he is one, but at the moment, piggishness is attached to the article and is not a quality I think is integral in him.

I'm saying it makes him look bad, take away that which makes him look bad and he just looks like him, I am not saying that when he just looks like him he is bad.

See, when you do this you look like a fool, I don't actually think you are a fool. (for example)

[Dragar]

I can post Jack Chick and look like a fool, correct? But am I indeed a fool in fact? No.

But the point of insults is that they aren't about whether they're true or not.

[Sweetie]

But the point of insults is that they aren't about whether they're true or not.

Like I said, would I be insulted if you claimed a statement or an action made me look like a bitch?

Maybe, maybe not but most likely in this case at least, not.

I have been told similar things at certain intervals and I've heard them out and responded according to what I considered to be the validity of their opinions and in some cases, I determined that they were in fact, right and I responded accordingly.

[Gurdur]

Your reasoning is backwards and you should check your definition of "censorship."
Censorship is when I try or do prohibit people from reading, promoting, seeing something, etc..
Sweetie, both you and TomJoe have made precisely this mistake on this thread.
You yourself keep saying that you implicitly see any disagreement with you as a form of censorship.
Just because you post your opinion -- and that on a public discussion board ! -- does not mean others can't vocally disagree with you; yet you have objected to others disagreeing with you.
As for TomJoe's claim that the disagreement here amounted to censorship, just another wilfull and abjectly exaggereted claim of his under the circumstances here.

This is a discussion board, dedicated to discussing things -- any opinion posted here is fair game for criticism.
Including my own opinions, of course. :yup:

[godfry n. glad]

[quote]My first clue that the article was going to be offensive was the close-up photograph of the woman's vagina alongside the alleged Virgin Mary apparition with the words "Blessed Hymen" superimposed on them.
Why is that a clue? It is true that looked at from a certain way it can be thought to resemble a vagina, it just so happens that the one they attached is so ugly. :eek:

This is a most interesting claim. It's "ugly"?

Do you really dispise your own body that much? That's truly sad.

I'd bet money that the illustration used comes right out of some medical training text. I see this stuff on a sporadic basis, as it's part of my job. It looks at lot like one of Dr. Frank Netter's illustrations. A huge international pharmaceutical company paid for the rights to reproduce his work for dissemination to medical/nursing schools internationally, so "ugly" was less of a consideration than "accurate". It's gynecological in nature, but it's hardly "ugly". I'd bet yours doesn't look much different. How about you post up yours and we'll compare?

[Miss Shelby]

[QUOTE=Sweetie][QUOTE=viscousmemories]
[quote]

This is a most interesting claim. It's "ugly"?

Do you really dispise your own body that much? That's truly sad.I wonder if you would have thought the photo so beautiful if it would have been in reference to your mother or your own sister for that matter. Complete with the 'blessed hymen' reference. That's how offensive it was to me, if it matters at all to you.

Not that it should or that a give a rat's patoot if it doesn't...but I'm pretty sure that Sweetie felt the same way, hence her reaction.

Michelle

[godfry n. glad]

[QUOTE=Sweetie][QUOTE=viscousmemories]
[quote]

This is a most interesting claim. It's "ugly"?

Do you really dispise your own body that much? That's truly sad.I wonder if you would have thought the photo so beautiful if it would have been in reference to your mother or your own sister for that matter. Complete with the 'blessed hymen' reference. That's how offensive it was to me, if it matters at all to you.

Not that it should or that a give a rat's patoot if it doesn't...but I'm pretty sure that Sweetie felt the same way, hence her reaction.

Michelle

First, I did not say the image was "beautiful". I alluded to it being "accurate". I doubt it's my mother and I have no sister, but those are just straw men (or women, as the case may be). It's in reference to no one but the totally fictional character of from a book of fairytales by Iron Age goatherders. I suspect the drawing is a rendering that relies upon some general similarities to the average female pudenda. (Note here that it is NOT a vagina, but a vulva. One can see nothing of the vagina in the picture but the opening....which is reputedly covered with the hymen.)

Curious, here... When you see a picture of a penis that is not readily associated with a given man, do you link it to your father, brother, son or husband? I would think that odd, to say the least.

[Miss Shelby]

Curious, here... When you see a picture of a penis that is not readily associated with a given man, do you link it to your father, brother, son or husband? I would think that odd, to say the least.If it were in reference to St. Joseph I would immediately think of the men in my life. That is the Catholic way. And say what you want, but it's in a thread about Mary and there is a reference which says blessed hymen. I'm not an idiot.

Look man, I was just trying to offer you some perspective. Take it or leave it.

Michelle

[godfry n. glad]

[QUOTE=godfry n. glad]

I'm not an idiot.

Michelle

No... But if you swallow Catholic dogma whole, then you're half-way (or more) there.

But that's just my opinion.

[Miss Shelby]

[QUOTE=godfry n. glad]

I'm not an idiot.

Michelle

No... But if you swallow Catholic dogma whole, then you're half-way (or more) there.

But that's just my opinion.
Do you have results from an empirical study which would render this opinion as truth? According to secularists?

Michelle

[godfry n. glad]

[QUOTE=godfry n. glad]

I'm not an idiot.

Michelle

No... But if you swallow Catholic dogma whole, then you're half-way (or more) there.

But that's just my opinion.
Do you have results from an empirical study which would render this opinion as truth? According to secularists?

Michelle

Nope. I don't claim to have a corner on the "truth". Do you?

[Miss Shelby]

nm

[Sweetie]

Sweetie, both you and TomJoe have made precisely this mistake on this thread.
You yourself keep saying that you implicitly see any disagreement with you as a form of censorship.

Not at all but I'll welcome proof of such, ie: my implicit statements.

[Sweetie]

nm

[JoeP]

What does nm mean? Is this some Catholic code? :noid:
Joking aside, I really don't know what it means - I thought typo until Sweetie repeetied it.

[godfry n. glad]

Hey, JoeP...

I suspect you'll have to find out elsewhere. I know Michelle posted up but then removed the content of her post and I'd bet placed me on ignore. Sweetie did so right afterwards.

godfry

[Sweetie]

nm means nevermind.

I actually was responding to Godfry's leading post about how sad it is that I may think my vagina ugly and I thought better of responding.

If I were going to attempt to respond wittily I might say that I am in fact very comfortable with my vagina, I think my vagina is rather nice, me and my vagina are one. *goes all spiritual on you, pulls a meditative Buddhist pose* :D

[JoeP]

"nevermind" - ok

[Sweetie]

A little less sad about it now Godfry? :wink:

[godfry n. glad]

A little less sad about it now Godfry? :wink:

:mememe:

yeah.

I also know what Miss Shelby posted and decided against, because it came through on the thread notification. I'd say that was a wise decision. :wink:

godfry

(...and we weren't discussing your vagina, but your vulva...the face your vagina presents to the world.) :D

[Ronin]

(...and we weren't discussing your vagina, but your vulva...the face your vagina presents to the world.) :D

Your pedantic obsession with vagina/vulva correction is hilariously anal, godfry...um...well, you know what I mean.

How about we just call it a picture of poontang and be done with it?

:roflmao:

[TomJoe]

No... But if you swallow Catholic dogma whole, then you're half-way (or more) there.

But that's just my opinion.

Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one, and most are full of shit.

:D

[Beth]

and most are full of shit.Yes, but mine don't stink.;)

[godfry n. glad]

No... But if you swallow Catholic dogma whole, then you're half-way (or more) there.

But that's just my opinion.

Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one, and most are full of shit.

:D

Yeah, I know.

I've come to suspect that theists are overfed intellectual laxatives, as the volume tends to be high, but the substance is nearly non-existant.

[viscousmemories]

Good to see the hate still flowing in this thread! :1thumbup:

[Beth]

Great attitude, Tom!

[TomJoe]

I've come to suspect that theists are overfed intellectual laxatives, as the volume tends to be high, but the substance is nearly non-existant.

That may be, but we hardly ever suffer from bloat as a consequence. Everything has it's drawbacks and benefits. :wink:

Oh, and on a serious note. I would strongly disagree that people like Albertus Magnus, or his pupil Thomas Aquinas, or people like John Henry Newman and indeed, Karol Wojtyla were on a steady diet of intellectual laxatives. So while you have come to "strongly suspect" this ... I'd say that, ironically enough, you're talking out of your ass.

[godfry n. glad]

I've come to suspect that theists are overfed intellectual laxatives, as the volume tends to be high, but the substance is nearly non-existant.

That may be, but we hardly ever suffer from bloat as a consequence. Everything has it's drawbacks and benefits. :wink:

Oh, and on a serious note. I would strongly disagree that people like Albertus Magnus, or his pupil Thomas Aquinas, or people like John Henry Newman and indeed, Karol Wojtyla were on a steady diet of intellectual laxatives. So while you have come to "strongly suspect" this ... I'd say that, ironically enough, you're talking out of your ass.

Disagree as you will, but I'd say the likes of those you've listed are indeed high amongst them. Lots of volume but not much in the way of content. This is largely because so many started with misguided assumptions. Garbage in, garbage out.

[TomJoe]

Disagree as you will, but I'd say the likes of those you've listed are indeed high amongst them. Lots of volume but not much in the way of content. This is largely because so many started with misguided assumptions. Garbage in, garbage out.

Do you even know who some of these men were? Do you realize that Albertus Magnus was an architect, astrologist, botanist and geologist, who consistently spoke to the benefits of reason and personal observation? He also passed a similar understanding to his pupil Thomas Aquinas.

[godfry n. glad]

Disagree as you will, but I'd say the likes of those you've listed are indeed high amongst them. Lots of volume but not much in the way of content. This is largely because so many started with misguided assumptions. Garbage in, garbage out.

Do you even know who some of these men were? Do you realize that Albertus Magnus was an architect, astrologist, botanist and geologist, who consistently spoke to the benefits of reason and personal observation? He also passed a similar understanding to his pupil Thomas Aquinas.

I'm fully aware of who they are. Do you realize they all started with an unsupported and unsupportable preconception? Do you realize that what patterns they discerned they ascribed to their unsupported and unsupportable preconception? Look, I already have stated that there have been and are currently great men and women who believe in the dogmas of the Roman Catholic church....But, in my opinion, they still have misguided assumptions. I would note that you have not claimed Copernicus nor Mendel, yet both were men of the cloth in the Catholic Church....yet both chose to have their major works published posthumously...

And Galileo? Not a man of the cloth, but it took the church over 500 years to realize they'd made a mistake in condemning him. Whoops.

Why do you think that was?

(I even know who Duns Scotus is and what the Pelagian heresy is... :wink: )

[godfry n. glad]

(...and we weren't discussing your vagina, but your vulva...the face your vagina presents to the world.) :D

Your pedantic obsession with vagina/vulva correction is hilariously anal, godfry...um...well, you know what I mean.

How about we just call it a picture of poontang and be done with it?

:roflmao:


I can live with that. :D

You might want to clear it through Sweetie, though. She's been objecting to just about everything these days.

:innocent:

[Crumb]

You might want to clear it through Sweetie, though. She's been objecting to just about everything these days.
Well thanks for not contributing to the appearance of hostility.

[Ensign Steve]

You too, Crumb.

[Crumb]

Your welcome. :yup:

[Ronin]

You might want to clear it through Sweetie, though. She's been objecting to just about everything these days.

:innocent:

That's another obsession altogether, godfry, and one I can't help you with.

I see you've found another scapegoat in any event, no sense in me interfering with anyone's closely held fetish.

:spank:

[Ronin]

Here's an update to an already bizarre (imho) story on our human condition:

Man allegedly defaces Virgin Mary image (http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/news/breaking_news/11580705.htm)

from the article

Authorities charged Victor Gonzalez, 37, of Chicago with criminal damage to state supported property, a misdemeanor. Witnesses had seen him painting the image, Banks said. A telephone listing for Gonzalez could not immediately be found.

So, if one tapes religious posters and photos on state supported property and piles stacks of wreaths and candles on an expressway "emergency turnoff" it is acceptable as a "memorial".

If one writes a dissent on the same state supported property, then it is a crime?

:kookoo:

[TomJoe]

Here's an update to an already bizarre (imho) story on our human condition:

Man allegedly defaces Virgin Mary image (http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/news/breaking_news/11580705.htm)

from the article

Authorities charged Victor Gonzalez, 37, of Chicago with criminal damage to state supported property, a misdemeanor. Witnesses had seen him painting the image, Banks said. A telephone listing for Gonzalez could not immediately be found.

So, if one tapes religious posters and photos on state supported property and piles stacks of wreaths and candles on an expressway "emergency turnoff" it is acceptable as a "memorial".

If one writes a dissent on the same state supported property, then it is a crime?

:kookoo:


Well, things that are taped up, or placed, can be easily removed. Graffiti costs money to "remove" (or paint over).

[Ronin]

Well, things that are taped up, or placed, can be easily removed. Graffiti costs money to "remove" (or paint over).

The cost of an ounce of paint and labor to do the removel is equivalent or less than the cost of labor to do the the actual removal and then disposal of those items.

It certainly is unfair to criminally charge one person for such an act, while many others were allowed to do the same thing.

One man's graffiti is another man's Rorschach test.

If State property can be used as a message board then it is open to all views...including those that dissent.

[godfry n. glad]

Well, things that are taped up, or placed, can be easily removed. Graffiti costs money to "remove" (or paint over).

The cost of an ounce of paint and labor to do the removel is equivalent or less than the cost of labor to do the the actual removal and then disposal of those items.

It certainly is unfair to criminally charge one person for such an act, while many others were allowed to do the same thing.

One man's graffiti is another man's Rorschach test.

If State property can be used as a message board then it is open to all views...including those that dissent.

Plus... This has been described as an "expressway underpass". I don't know how the accumulating debris left as "memorials" affected the ability of drivers to use the expressway in a safe manner, but I could bet you that the actual effect had to be much greater than any graffiti would. Plus, the whole deal with the senseless adorers dodging traffic on the expressway to place flowers, or whatever, had to increase the risk for all of being in a injurious accident. The graffiti comment did everybody a favor if it engendered a repaint and removal of the image and the graffiti.

[TomJoe]

The cost of an ounce of paint and labor to do the removel is equivalent or less than the cost of labor to do the the actual removal and then disposal of those items.

Perhaps. However, laying a wreath and writing "Big Lie" over a water stain on an overpass are two completely different things. Alongside roads, where people have died, do you think it's wrong to lay a wreath? Should they be forced to serve jail time or a pay a fine for that? Or, do you think that gang kids that "tag" places should be set free?

It certainly is unfair to criminally charge one person for such an act, while many others were allowed to do the same thing.

It was not the "same thing". Wreaths and taping items up are temporary. Spraying painting is not temporary.

One man's graffiti is another man's Rorschach test.

Writing "Big Lie" isn't exactly mimicing an "ink blot".

If State property can be used as a message board then it is open to all views...including those that dissent.

Sure. If he had taped up a sign that said "Big Lie", or laid a wreath which had "Big Lie" written in roses on it, that'd be one thing. But to "make his point" he defaced public property. I see a distinct difference. It's not what he did, it's how he did it, which makes him a punk IMO.

[Ronin]

The cost of an ounce of paint and labor to do the removel is equivalent or less than the cost of labor to do the the actual removal and then disposal of those items.

Perhaps. However, laying a wreath and writing "Big Lie" over a water stain on an overpass are two completely different things. Alongside roads, where people have died, do you think it's wrong to lay a wreath?

I think that it isn't a criminal offense. My opinion is that the practice of stopping on a roadway to place a personal message is wrong and unnecessary.

I also think that it is a form of proseletyzing as I don't find such "memorials" where every single person has died (say...where people don't usually frequent).

Courthouses and State Highways seem to be the favored spots for these religious billboards.

If it is okay in your view for someone to place them alongside roads, is it equally okay for another person to remove them or would that be a larceny?

Should they be forced to serve jail time or a pay a fine for that?

Nope. State workers should simply clean it up and let a roadway be a roadway.

It certainly is unfair to criminally charge one person for such an act, while many others were allowed to do the same thing.

It was not the "same thing". Wreaths and taping items up are temporary. Spraying painting is not temporary.

Paint is temporary. See how easy it was painted over?

C'mon, TomJoe, are you serious about this?

One man's graffiti is another man's Rorschach test.

Writing "Big Lie" isn't exactly mimicing an "ink blot".

Actually, it is.

If State property can be used as a message board then it is open to all views...including those that dissent.

Sure. If he had taped up a sign that said "Big Lie", or laid a wreath which had "Big Lie" written in roses on it, that'd be one thing. But to "make his point" he defaced public property. I see a distinct difference. It's not what he did, it's how he did it, which makes him a punk IMO.

I disagree.

He merely expressed himself as all of those others did.

Either all should be punished for such expression or none should.

[TomJoe]

I think that it isn't a criminal offense. My opinion is that the practice of stopping on a roadway to place a personal message is wrong and unnecessary.

I could agree that the practice of stopping on a roadway is dangerous and should be prohibited. However, if spraying painting public property is considered graffiti, it isn't up to you or I to decide if it's a criminal offense or not. If it's in the books, it is a criminal offense.

I also think that it is a form of proseletyzing as I don't find such "memorials" where every single person has died (say...where people don't usually frequent).

So you see these "shrines" as an attempt to convert you? Do you think the same thing everytime you drive by a church?

Courthouses and State Highways seem to be the favored spots for these religious billboards.

Well, the courthouses I can see as a political statement. Not sure these roadside shrines are connected however.

If it is okay in your view for someone to place them alongside roads, is it equally okay for another person to remove them or would that be a larceny?

Once it's placed at the side of the road, it's no longer personal property, so it wouldn't be larceny. I think it might be lowclass, but not larceny.


Paint is temporary. See how easy it was painted over?

C'mon, TomJoe, are you serious about this?


So, if someone reports graffiti on their building, do you tell them to stop whining because it'll only take an "ounce of paint" to clean it up?


I disagree.

He merely expressed himself as all of those others did.


I think he should have picked a better approach, and I think anyone with a bit of common sense could have made the distinction between taping a sign and using spray paint to the effect of, the former wouldn't get you in trouble as the latter just might. Also, performing the first would probably have elicited a chuckle from me, or maybe more if he had been a bit more creative ... but the manner in which he did it ... evokes no sympathy from me.

[godfry n. glad]

Hmmm... I guess the next time I have the spare money to throw away, I'll purchase a nice big floral wreath and place it on the public sidewalk outside one of the appropriate local churches.... RC, of course... and have it state in big, bold letters:

THIS IS WHERE THE PRIEST MOLESTED THE CHILDREN - FOR SHAME.

That's acceptable under TomJoe's guidelines, right?

[Ronin]

I could agree that the practice of stopping on a roadway is dangerous and should be prohibited. However, if spraying painting public property is considered graffiti, it isn't up to you or I to decide if it's a criminal offense or not. If it's in the books, it is a criminal offense.

So is littering...even if the abandoned items are candles, posters, photos and wreaths.

I also think that it is a form of proseletyzing as I don't find such "memorials" where every single person has died (say...where people don't usually frequent).

So you see these "shrines" as an attempt to convert you?

Sure. It is a form of advertising like any other.

Do you think the same thing everytime you drive by a church?

Sure. They even have billboards selling their wares.

Courthouses and State Highways seem to be the favored spots for these religious billboards.

Well, the courthouses I can see as a political statement. Not sure these roadside signs are connected however.

I see them just as any other billboard selling me something.

If it is okay in your view for someone to place them alongside roads, is it equally okay for another person to remove them or would that be a larceny?

Once it's placed at the side of the road, it's no longer personal property, so it wouldn't be larceny. I think it might be lowclass, but not larceny.

Very good.

What if I started placing American Humanist Association placards and roadsigns along overpasses and on emergency shoulders, should such items be regulated and/or charged for taking up public space?


Paint is temporary. See how easy it was painted over?

C'mon, TomJoe, are you serious about this?


So, if someone reports graffiti on their building, do you tell them to stop whining because it'll only take an "ounce of paint" to clean it up?

Wouldn't they remove unwanted wreaths, posters, photos from their property?

Would you want all of the Catholics charged with littering?

I think that a certain degree of "nuisance" or "offensive" graffiti on State or Private property could result in a fine for the offender.

However, in this case an exception for one view was made on State property which (imho) allows for all messages to be expressed.


I disagree.

He merely expressed himself as all of those others did.


I think he should have picked a better approach, and I think anyone with a bit of common sense could have made the distinction between taping a sign and using spray paint. Doing the first would probably have elicited a chuckle from me, or maybe more if he had been a bit more creative ... but the manner in which he did it ... evokes no sympathy from me.

Human liberty and fair application of law is far more important to me.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Link to SC latest thread on this subject.
http://skepticalcommunity.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=6009&highlight=

Link includes link to slideshow and original radio report.

:cool:

[TomJoe]

Hmmm... I guess the next time I have the spare money to throw away, I'll purchase a nice big floral wreath and place it on the public sidewalk outside one of the appropriate local churches.... RC, of course... and have it state in big, bold letters:

THIS IS WHERE THE PRIEST MOLESTED THE CHILDREN - FOR SHAME.

That's acceptable under TomJoe's guidelines, right?

You would of course, place it in front of a church where there was an actual case of child abuse ... right?

No, I wouldn't stop you from doing it, nor would I wish to see charges brought against you.

[TomJoe]

So is littering...even if the abandoned items are candles, posters, photos and wreaths.


Yes, so is littering. But I am assuming that these candles, posters, photos and wreaths are not seen as littering because of some legal stipulation. If it were seen as littering, then I wouldn't raise a fuss about these people being fined, or having the items placed immediately thrown out.


So you see these "shrines" as an attempt to convert you?

Sure. It is a form of advertising like any other.

Do you think the same thing everytime you drive by a church?

Sure. They even have billboards selling their wares.


Really? That's interesting. So what do you propose? That church's be fined for existing, and indicating that they are churches (just like hospitals have signs indicating they're hospitals) because they're attempting to convert you against your wishes?


I see them just as any other billboard selling me something.


These shrines are not selling anything. They might be an expression of someone's faith, but I doubt it has anything in mind for you directly.


What if I started placing American Humanist Association placards and roadsigns along overpasses and on emergency shoulders, should such items be regulated and/or charged for taking up public space?


If you want to waste your money on that, go right ahead. Same goes for these people who build shrines on the roadside. I could care less about either of them, unless it causes someone to step in front of my car as I'm barrelling down the highway at 70mph. However, I just read that Wisconsin has come up with a pretty good solution to this issue (http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/business/rules/memorials.htm) and it has my full support. I think it's a good idea.


So, if someone reports graffiti on their building, do you tell them to stop whining because it'll only take an "ounce of paint" to clean it up?

Wouldn't they remove unwanted wreaths, posters, photos from their property?


I'm asking you ... if graffiti was reported to you, would you tell the person filing the report to stop whining because its "temporary"?

Would you want all of the Catholics charged with littering?

On public property, not if there is a law allowing these sorts of "memorials". On private property, yes ... fine them.

I think that a certain degree of "nuisance" or "offensive" graffiti on State or Private property could result in a fine for the offender.

I think any amount of graffiti on state/private property should result in a fine for an offender.

However, in this case an exception for one view was made on State property which (imho) allows for all messages to be expressed.

Perhaps, but if there is an allowance for "memorials of a temporary nature" then an exception was not made.

Human liberty and fair application of law is far more important to me.

Human liberty, afaik, doesn't entail defacement of property, private or public. If there is no allowance for "roadside memorials" and it is littering, than sure ... start fining people.

[godfry n. glad]

Link to SC latest thread on this subject.
http://skepticalcommunity.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=6009&highlight=

Link includes link to slideshow and original radio report.

:cool:

Hey... Thanks Abdul.

In sorting through the pictures, I ran into the one below.

Look closely at it. This is at a time before a huge mass of candles, flowers and other detritus had accumulated. Scrawled on the wall, to the right of the image, down near the "knees", you will see the name of the "discoverer" of the image, along with a date in April.

Now.... The graffiti artist who wrote ON the image has been arrested and cited, yet this person goes free?

What kind of justice is that?

[godfry n. glad]

Hmmm... I guess the next time I have the spare money to throw away, I'll purchase a nice big floral wreath and place it on the public sidewalk outside one of the appropriate local churches.... RC, of course... and have it state in big, bold letters:

THIS IS WHERE THE PRIEST MOLESTED THE CHILDREN - FOR SHAME.

That's acceptable under TomJoe's guidelines, right?

You would of course, place it in front of a church where there was an actual case of child abuse ... right?

Oh, but of course. But then, that's not that difficult. There are at least three within an easy drive of my home.

No, I wouldn't stop you from doing it, nor would I wish to see charges brought against you.

Good... Now, if you could just prevail upon the Chicago police to be fair and even handed. They should arrest Obdulia, too.

[TomJoe]

Good... Now, if you could just prevail upon the Chicago police to be fair and even handed. They should arrest Obdulia, too.

Her name is Obdulia Delgado to be more specific. But why, may I ask, is it up to me to prevail upon the Chicago police to be fair and even handed? Why don't you do it? Besides, did anyone actually see Obdulia Delgado deface public property?

[godfry n. glad]

Good... Now, if you could just prevail upon the Chicago police to be fair and even handed. They should arrest Obdulia, too.

Her name is Obdulia Delgado to be more specific. But why, may I ask, is it up to me to prevail upon the Chicago police to be fair and even handed? Why don't you do it? Besides, did anyone actually see Obdulia Delgado deface public property?

Your statement:

I think any amount of graffiti on state/private property should result in a fine for an offender.

I guess you don't really believe this, then? Or, do you believe it only when it impinges upon your religious sensibilities?

Do try to be consistant, would you, TomJoe?

[godfry n. glad]

[QUOTE=godfry n. glad]
Besides, did anyone actually see Obdulia Delgado deface public property?

Probably. But my bet is that they were co-religionists or those who don't particularly care about graffiti on underpass walls. If they were the former, then they are complicit and have acted to cover up a crime.

[livius drusus]

Oh please. I think smoking pot in public should result in a fine but I'm not about to turn in that dude I saw in the alley the other day; I wouldn't even if we had reasonable drug laws. Consistency does not demand you snitch on anyone breaking a law you think is fair.

[TomJoe]

I think any amount of graffiti on state/private property should result in a fine for an offender.

I guess you don't really believe this, then? Or, do you believe it only when it impinges upon your religious sensibilities?

Do try to be consistant, would you, TomJoe?

I do believe it. However, just because her name is on the wall doesn't mean she is the one who wrote it. If she was caught writing her name on the wall, by all means, fine her.

[godfry n. glad]

I think any amount of graffiti on state/private property should result in a fine for an offender.

I guess you don't really believe this, then? Or, do you believe it only when it impinges upon your religious sensibilities?

Do try to be consistant, would you, TomJoe?

I do believe it. However, just because her name is on the wall doesn't mean she is the one who wrote it. If she was caught writing her name on the wall, by all means, fine her.

Hmmm... And they are absolutely sure that they have the person who wrote the "Big Lie" on the image in custody? Or did the incensed adorers just pick somebody they thought was likely and finger him? He was not arrested at the scene or in the act.

[livius drusus]

Now you're just reaching, godfry. Someting impinging on your irreligious sensibilities, perhaps?

[TomJoe]

Hmmm... And they are absolutely sure that they have the person who wrote the "Big Lie" on the image in custody? Or did the incensed adorers just pick somebody they thought was likely and finger him? He was not arrested at the scene or in the act.

Gee godfry, I imagine that is up to the courts to decide now isn't it? Your speculation isn't worth much though. Spin whatever conspiracy theory you want.

[godfry n. glad]

Oh please. I think smoking pot in public should result in a fine but I'm not about to turn in that dude I saw in the alley the other day; I wouldn't even if we had reasonable drug laws. Consistency does not demand you snitch on anyone breaking a law you think is fair.

Look... The alleged perpetrator was apprehended later, away from the site, on the say-so of devotees who say they saw this particular person scrawl. It was 11:30 at night. Are they sure they have the actual perpetrator, or just somebody that the adorers dislike?

[viscousmemories]

I'm not completely opposed to roadside exhibitions. For example I argued pretty fervently in favor of allowing discreet religious memorials to commemorate auto fatalities in this IIDB thread (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=98503). But I don't believe that the same exceptions should be made for strictly religious expressions such as this one. If those wreaths, candles, etc. constitute littering there, as I strongly suspect they do, then in my opinion they should be removed in accordance with the law.

Also if Gonzalez is being charged with defacing State property for "defacing" the water stained wall, then I agree that the person who wrote his/her name on the wall as the "discoverer" of the water stain should be charged with the same thing.

[godfry n. glad]

Hmmm... And they are absolutely sure that they have the person who wrote the "Big Lie" on the image in custody? Or did the incensed adorers just pick somebody they thought was likely and finger him? He was not arrested at the scene or in the act.

Gee godfry, I imagine that is up to the courts to decide now isn't it? Your speculation isn't worth much though. Spin whatever conspiracy theory you want.

Conspiracy: Roman Catholic Church.

Bottom line - You are willing to excuse somebody who breaks the law if in so doing they happen to agree with your specific point of view. However, if they break the law and offend your sensibilities then they should be tracked down, arrested, cited and fine or incarcerated.

My, I find that a just a bit morally compromised.

[TomJoe]

Conspiracy: Roman Catholic Church.


Yes. This seems to be your favorite pastime. It's amusing to see when you get going.

Bottom line - You are willing to excuse somebody who breaks the law if in so doing they happen to agree with your specific point of view. However, if they break the law and offend your sensibilities then they should be tracked down, arrested, cited and fine or incarcerated.

My, I find that a just a bit morally compromised.

Wrong. Incorrect. Do not pass "Go", do not collect $200. I specifically said fine her, if she was caught in the act (like the other grafitti "artist" was). Do I need to provide you a link to those words godfry, or do you think you can find them for yourself?

[livius drusus]

Bottom line - You are willing to excuse somebody who breaks the law if in so doing they happen to agree with your specific point of view. However, if they break the law and offend your sensibilities then they should be tracked down, arrested, cited and fine or incarcerated.

He specifically said that he whoever shall be found to have defaced public property should be fined. You're the one trying to squeeze him into this little preconception of yours.

[Ronin]

The "defacement" came in the form of tape and paper as well.

There doesn't seem to be a concerted investigation into the perpetrators of that criminal offense...in fact, special parking was made available for them.

If I am not allowed to post bills and/or other advertisements/opinions on said State property without offense, neither should there be any other special exception.

That said, the man should be released no charge, no fine, for posting a dissenting opinion where others have been allowed to post theirs.

[livius drusus]

That's fine. It's still no inconsistency to consider one petty crime -- graffitti, in this case -- worthy of penalty and another -- affixing crap to public property -- not worthy of penalty.

[godfry n. glad]

Conspiracy: Roman Catholic Church.


Yes. This seems to be your favorite pastime. It's amusing to see when you get going.

It's not a pastime, it's a simple statement of fact. Look it up in your dictionary. The Church of the Latter Day Saints qualifies, too.

[Ronin]

That's fine. It's still no inconsistency to consider one petty crime -- graffitti, in this case -- worthy of penalty and another -- affixing crap to public property -- not worthy of penalty.

I think that in this case the intent of the man was not to deface State property with the message "Big Lie" . Rather it is a "free speech" issue to dissent or express an alternative opinion to a forum already permitted on State property.

In any event, here is an interesting overview of such matters:

Highway Memorials (http://www.religioustolerance.org/cros_hwy.htm)

[Ronin]

Should this girl be charged as well?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2005-04/17210166.jpg

Before she was painted over Jessica Navarrete, 16, of Chicago, writes a message to her deceased grandfather near the stain.
(Tribune photo by José M. Osorio)

April 19, 2005

[TomJoe]

Should this girl be charged as well?

Do you tell people who have their house vandalized by graffiti that it's only temporary and an "ounce of paint" will make it all go away?

I've already stated my opinion, to both you and godfry. And in case neither one of you saw it ... if anyone (Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Atheist, Buddhist, WhatTheFrigEver) is caught defacing public property, they should have to pay a fine. Perhaps a fine for defacement with a pencil may be a bit extreme, but with spray paint, permanent magic marker or house paint ... definitely. Spray paint, permanent magic marker, ink, other forms of water-resistant paint ... are not "temporary" as you suggest. Neither is chipping away with a screwdriver, knife, etc etc. Those things don't wash away with the next rain, or road runoff, they can't be picked up and stuffed into garbage bags ... so a fine for those ... most certainly.

Now, if you keep insisting on asking the same question, over and over again, the least you can do is answer the question I asked of you.

[Ronin]

If the State allows others to scrawl messages on the wall, TomJoe, then this man should be allowed to scrawl his own.

It really is as simple as that.

[TomJoe]

If the State allows others to scrawl messages on the wall, TomJoe, then this man should be allowed to scrawl his own.

It really is as simple as that.

Why won't you answer my question?

And who said the State is allowing others to scrawl messages on the wall? Did anyone report this girl? Did anyone notify the authorities? I imagine if crimes are not reported, nothing is done about them. I certainly dont expect police to be clairvoyant.

[TomJoe]

Amusingly enough. Even with the fresh paint job applied by state highway workers, the image returned. And no, I'm not about to start claiming it was a miracle either.

[Ronin]

I've already stated my opinion, to both you and godfry. And in case neither one of you saw it ... if anyone (Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Atheist, Buddhist, WhatTheFrigEver) is caught defacing public property, they should have to pay a fine. Perhaps a fine for defacement with a pencil may be a bit extreme, but with spray paint, permanent magic marker or house paint ... definitely. Spray paint, permanent magic marker, ink, other forms of water-resistant paint ... are not "temporary" as you suggest. Neither is chipping away with a screwdriver, knife, etc etc. Those things don't wash away with the next rain, or road runoff, they can't be picked up and stuffed into garbage bags ... so a fine for those ... most certainly.

Gonzalez used shoe polish to express his message. It seems to have washed off just fine. (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/chi-050605virginmary,0,6483881.story?coll=ny-leadnationalnews-headlines)

He is also purported to be a transient with mental problems who was last known to be on his way to a hospital to receive treatment.

Now, if you keep insisting on asking the same question, over and over again, the least you can do is answer the question I asked of you.

Seems to me that it is now a moot point (if not completely irrelevant as I don't see the message as "graffiti" in any event and my original statement was regarding the labor and cost of removal posted items vs painted items).

[TomJoe]

Gonzalez used shoe polish to express his message. It seems to have washed off just fine. (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/chi-050605virginmary,0,6483881.story?coll=ny-leadnationalnews-headlines)

Well, if it was shoe polish, than I can't see how it would be considered "damage to state property". See my comment above re: pencils.

Seems to me that it is now a moot point.

No, I'd really like an answer to that question. I think after the repeated asking of the same question over and over to me (should this person be charged? what about this person? Look at this person, stop being inconsistent TomJoe!), the least you can do is have the decency to answer my question. Especially when it was an integral part of the discussion to begin with ... with you going so far to imply that my argument that spray painting wasn't "temporary" was a specious argument.

[Ronin]

No, I'd really like an answer to that question. I think after the repeated asking of the same question over and over, the least you can do is have the decency to answer my question. Especially when it was an integral part of the discussion to begin with ... with you going so far to imply that my argument that spray painting wasn't "temporary" was a specious argument.

In my view, it wasn't anywhere near an "integral part of the discussion to begin with".

See my post above (as I edited it prior to your last offering).

[Ronin]

Well, if it was shoe polish, than I can't see how it would be considered "damage to state property". See my comment above re: pencils.

Very good.

:shake:

[TomJoe]

In my view, it wasn't anywhere near an "integral part of the discussion to begin with".

:rolleye1:

I don't know, since a goodly portion of the discussion revolved around the issue of "temporary", I'd say it did. Such a simple question, such a persistent dodge.

[Ronin]

Such a simple question, such a persistent dodge.

Kind of fun having the tables turned, isn't it?

:wink:

[TomJoe]

Kind of fun having the tables turned, isn't it?

:wink:

Well sir, I typically don't have godfry running interference for me so ... if there is something I've missed, let me know and I'll see if I can address it pronto for you, sir.

[viscousmemories]

Amusingly enough. Even with the fresh paint job applied by state highway workers, the image returned. And no, I'm not about to start claiming it was a miracle either.
Just in case anyone didn't read the article Ronin linked to the image only reappeared after some women took to scrubbing away the paint.

After a man defaced a salt stain at the Fullerton underpass that many pilgrims said resembled the Virgin, authorities painted over the image with brown paint.

That’s when Rosa Diaz and Anna Reczek, who work at a nearby car wash, cleaned off the paint that obscured the image.

-source (http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/underpass06.html)

[Beth]

I say sand blast the image. It is causing traffic blockage.

[Dingfod]

Or paint over it with Kilz, that stuff will cover anything.

[Dingfod]

Too late. (http://www.wftv.com/news/4457924/detail.html)

[godfry n. glad]

I say sand blast the image. It is causing traffic blockage.

I'd say a concrete patch, like Gunnite, along with possibly identifying the seepage source and diverting that. If allowed to continue, cold winters in Chicago will continue to erode the wall, weakening it, and requiring it's replacement sooner.

[Dingfod]

I'd say a concrete patch, like Gunnite, along with possibly identifying the seepage source and diverting that. If allowed to continue, cold winters in Chicago will continue to erode the wall, weakening it, and requiring it's replacement sooner.Then is would look like most of Oklahoma's concrete highway bridges. (http://okbridges.wkinsler.com/greyhorsecreek1.html)

[TomJoe]

Amusingly enough. Even with the fresh paint job applied by state highway workers, the image returned. And no, I'm not about to start claiming it was a miracle either.
Just in case anyone didn't read the article Ronin linked to the image only reappeared after some women took to scrubbing away the paint.


Which he linked to after I made my comment. In the article I had read on the re-emergance of the image, these two women and their act were not mentioned.

[viscousmemories]

Which he linked to after I made my comment. In the article I had read on the re-emergance of the image, these two women and their act were not mentioned.
I realized that, TomJoe. I wasn't implying that you were deliberately misleading anyone, I was just adding info about what happened for anyone who doesn't bother to follow every link.

[godfry n. glad]

I'd say a concrete patch, like Gunnite, along with possibly identifying the seepage source and diverting that. If allowed to continue, cold winters in Chicago will continue to erode the wall, weakening it, and requiring it's replacement sooner.Then is would look like most of Oklahoma's concrete highway bridges. (http://okbridges.wkinsler.com/greyhorsecreek1.html)

Yeah. And you don't see throngs of fawning cultists endangering the roadway, littering the immediate area, and defacing the bridge railings, now, do you?

Seems to work.

[Dingfod]

It's baaaaaaaaack!!! (http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-image07.html)

[Skep]

So the guy who wrote "It's a lie." in shoe polish over a salt stain gets charged with misdemeanor criminal damage to public property and the 2 girls who removed the paint, applied by an IDOT employee, get a free pass? What a load of shit.

[godfry n. glad]

So the guy who wrote "It's a lie." in shoe polish over a salt stain gets charged with misdemeanor criminal damage to public property and the 2 girls who removed the paint, applied by an IDOT employee, get a free pass? What a load of shit.

Yeah... You got the basic idea.

I hope the "vandal" gets a damned decent attorney. I'm dropping a line to the ACLU, noting that I think they have a case they need to assist in Chicago. And, yes, I'm a member.

(ETA a couple of questions:
- What did the cleanser the women used to clean the wall contain?
- You mean to tell me that no one saw two women scrub a concrete wall clean of applied paint? Crowds are milling about on an expressway and there are no police? Really?
- Tell me, how is it we have the names of the two women, or even know that it was two women, who scrubbed the wall...probably with toxic chemicals?
Someone witnessed them. Or they confessed. I find it difficult, given the arrestee's disposition, that nobody has complained, particularly since he was arrested for much less.)

[godfry n. glad]

Hey, hey...

I've just been talking with the petitioners down here at the Circle of Buptkis and it was noted that an apparition of Aint Zero Mostel had been seen on a nearby city water pump tank (in smut or mold, we're not sure), right next to the constricted two lane road up to the city's biggest health care facility.

I was asked whether it might not be appropriate for petitioners to take their old hoola-hoops, stale donuts and cast off tires and leave them as offerings at the apparition of Aint Zero Mostel. They thought it would be good opportunity to clean these items from around their homes and have the city dipose of it all a no cost. Plus, it's a fun exercise in creative visualizing.

I'm holding them off because I don't know as whether they can marshal sufficient crowds for the police to write them off entirely. Although since many are petitioners themselves and the stale donuts...well, we'll leave it at that.

I thought I'd ask around and see if there were any other opinions.

:holycow:

irreverand godfry n. glad
irrelevant holey circle of buptkis

[Ronin]

I'd like to know where all of the previously vocal defendant advocates have suddenly gone off to.

Hey, turns out he was just trying to help sinners from violating the second commandment: (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/10452)

from the article ~

A man had scrawled the words "Big Lie" in shoe polish on the image Thursday night, and authorities charged Victor Gonzalez of Chicago with criminal damage to state-supported property, a misdemeanor. Gonzalez, 37, told relatives he believed visitors were worshipping a graven image in violation of the Second Commandment, said Mandy Gonzalez, who identified herself as Gonzalez's niece.

Should his religious right to free expression be punished by the state?

Flock to me now my children in defense of this poor, misunderstood religious man.

[TomJoe]

I'd like to know where all of the previously vocal defendant advocates have suddenly gone off to.

Should his religious right to free expression be punished by the state?

Flock to me now my children in defense of this poor, misunderstood religious man.
Ronin,

Weren't you one of the vocal defendant advocates?

[viscousmemories]

Ronin,

Weren't you one of the vocal defendant advocates?
That's what I thought. Wasn't this comment in defense of Gonzalez?

If the State allows others to scrawl messages on the wall, TomJoe, then this man should be allowed to scrawl his own.

It really is as simple as that.

[Ronin]

Ronin,

Weren't you one of the vocal defendant advocates?

Exactly, TomJoe and vm, and (in this case) I still am (and for the stated "free speech" issue that is applicable...regardless of whether or not Gonzalez ended up being an atheist or a theist whom dissented from the presented forum).

I am, however, wondering where all of the other defendant advocates have gone now that I'm supporting the position that this criminal charge and potential punishment are unjust and misapplied by law enforcement.

So...where are you justaman, liv, beyelzu, Dragar, lunachick, Clutch?

[livius drusus]

Huh? I'm a defendant advocate? All I said was that TomJoe's position looked perfectly consistent to me. I don't give a shit either way about who painted what on what and whether they get a fine or a pat on the back. Sorry to disappoint.

[Ronin]

Huh? I'm a defendant advocate? All I said was that TomJoe's position looked perfectly consistent to me. I don't give a shit either way about who painted what on what and whether they get a fine or a pat on the back. Sorry to disappoint.

Apology accepted.

:wink:

"Perfectly consistent" is what I look for as well, liv, and my point is that it doesn't seem to be applied in this case. I think that there is enough of a history of posts between us for me to make a general assessment that there is an out of character paradigm shift from you regarding this particular topic.

Certainly no offense was intended.

[livius drusus]

I'm afraid I have no idea what you're talking about, Ronin. Do you mean that because I've advocated for accused people before I am inconsistent when I do not advocate for all the accused? If so, that strikes me as an odd standard indeed.

There are plenty of conflicts on which I take no position. Surely there is enough of a history of posts between us for you to include that in your general assessment as well. :wink:

[Ronin]

I'm afraid I have no idea what you're talking about, Ronin. Do you mean that because I've advocated for accused people before I am inconsistent when I do not advocate for all the accused? If so, that strikes me as an odd standard indeed.

Nope...that's not what I said at all, liv.

I am stating that (in my opinion) our lengthy post history provides that I would have expected you to be the defendant's advocate in this case.

There are plenty of conflicts on which I take no position. Surely there is enough of a history of posts between us for you to include that in your general assessment as well. :wink:

Fair enough.

I just thought it an odd anomaly.

Nothing to light a fuse over.

:flamewar:

[livius drusus]

Nope...that's not what I said at all, liv.

I am stating that (in my opinion) our lengthy post history provides that I would have expected you to be the defendant's advocate in this case.

Ohh... I see. Well, I suppose I would if he were incarcerated for a minor civil crime like this or if the fine were a million dollars or something.

Fair enough.

I just thought it an odd anomaly.

Nothing to light a fuse over.

:flamewar:

Couldn't agree more. (About the fuse, not the anomaly. ;))

[Ronin]

Ohh... I see. Well, I suppose I would if he were incarcerated for a minor civil crime like this or if the fine were a million dollars or something.

That you find that Gonzalez should be criminally charged at all when others are not for committing the same offense (writing on the wall = defacement of State property) is what I find somewhat anomalous about your view here regardless of the severity of the charge or amount of the fine.

I am just trying my best to understand that.

[godfry n. glad]

:blink:

I'm not good enough to be counted amongst the defendant advocates?

:kickscan:

[Ronin]

:blink:

I'm not good enough to be counted amongst the defendant advocates?

:kickscan:

You are obviously, godfry, I am addressing those that usually are...but are suddenly silent here in this thread.

:wave:

[godfry n. glad]

Ohh... I see. Well, I suppose I would if he were incarcerated for a minor civil crime like this or if the fine were a million dollars or something.

That you find that Gonzalez should be criminally charged at all when others are not for committing the same offense (writing on the wall = defacement of State property) is what I find somewhat anomalous about your view here regardless of the severity of the charge or amount of the fine.

I am just trying my best to understand that.

I agree. That there is an anomolous disparty in the enforcement of the laws around this object points to some rather egregiously illegal and immoral preferential treatment.

Justice seems to have been perverted; can anyone provide evidence otherwise?

[Ronin]

<crickets>

[godfry n. glad]

:blink:

I'm not good enough to be counted amongst the defendant advocates?

:kickscan:

You are obviously, godfry, I am addressing those that usually are...but are suddenly silent here in this thread.

:wave:

Oh.

Well.

That's not me. :blush:

[godfry n. glad]

<crickets>


hmmm... maybe everybody left town for the weekend?

[beyelzu]

ronin, I dont think I have made a single post in this thread.

but for the record, I do think that the dude who painted it's a lie should not be charged with anything.

laws should be applied equally and fairly. the ladies that removed paint put up by idot are at least as guilty as he is.

[livius drusus]

That you find that Gonzalez should be criminally charged at all when others are not for committing the same offense (writing on the wall = defacement of State property) is what I find somewhat anomalous about your view here regardless of the severity of the charge or amount of the fine.

I am just trying my best to understand that.

It's not I find Gonzalez should be criminally charged, it's that I neither know nor care either way. I've barely followed the story and haven't done a fraction of the reading I'd have to do to have a reasonably well-thought out opinion. All I know is that the stain looked like a Georgia O'Keefe painting that consistency does not demand that we turn people in for vandalism if we think vandals should be charged and fined.

In other words, I courteously abstain out of sheer disinterest. This is the kind of minor story which is so laden with melodrama and spin it snowballs into ridiculous overstatement by the second day. I'm just not grooving on it, I'm afraid.

Now Paula Abdul riding the carnal carousel with that Corey skank: that's a story with legs. :giggle:

[godfry n. glad]

oh...wait...I'm the crickets.

:D

[Dingfod]

...the same offense (writing on the wall = defacement of State property)Plus littering. Don't forget all the hundreds of people that left candles and flowers and shit around the stain. Did any of them get a $200 ticket for littering a public roadway? I don't think so.

[Crumb]

And if they lit the candles, then it is burning material and that is usually a heftier fine considering the fire risk.

[viscousmemories]

I read that Gonzalez was charged with misdemeanor destruction of State property or whatever, but I haven't found anything that says whether the charge stuck or if he suffered any fines or penalties as a result of it. I don't personally think he should and I would be surprised if he did.

However I do know that the police claim that he was arrested because someone witnessed his act and registered a complaint. And since I haven't read that anyone complained about the women who scrubbed the paint off and I don't know whether any cops were around when they scrubbed it clean, as far as I can tell there is no reason to believe they should've been arrested too.

[Crumb]

And since I haven't read that anyone complained about the women who scrubbed the paint off and I don't know whether any cops were around when they scrubbed it clean, as far as I can tell there is no reason to believe they should've been arrested too.
Odd that the government would pay to paint something, but not charge someone who later scrubbed the paint off. I guess they have money to throw away.

[TomJoe]

You are obviously, godfry, I am addressing those that usually are...but are suddenly silent here in this thread.

:wave:


Wow. If godfry takes a sudden left turn, I think your neck'll snap.

[TomJoe]

And if they lit the candles, then it is burning material and that is usually a heftier fine considering the fire risk.

That's a stretch. Lighting a votive candle under an overpass is definitely not a fire risk. :D

[Crumb]

That's a stretch. Lighting a votive candle under an overpass is definitely not a fire risk.
But I'll take any excuse to throw those vicious hoodlums in the slammer and throw away the key! :jail:

I hope the sarcasm is obvious. :wink:

[Ronin]

It's not I find Gonzalez should be criminally charged, it's that I neither know nor care either way.

Fair enough, liv.

Your position earlier appeared that you did care and that you found consistency in someone snitching out Gonzalez for a petty misdemeanor in the face of others committing the same act.

If that wasn't your position then I probably would not have included your name in the list of those defendant advocates I thought would have protested the arrest of Gonzalez.

I also felt that you unfairly supported TomJoe's "religiousity" while sarcastically chastising godfry's "irreligiousity" regarding the same issue with this zinger:

to godfry: Someting impinging on your irreligious sensibilities, perhaps?

I think that supporting TomJoe's position as "perfectly consistent" and posting such a message to godfrey indicated that you held one's view superior over the other.

Since, in this particular case, I do agree with godfrey and not TomJoe (whom I think is really the one showing a bias for his favored group over the rights of another) I was interested in how you justified your position.

I've barely followed the story and haven't done a fraction of the reading I'd have to do to have a reasonably well-thought out opinion. All I know is that the stain looked like a Georgia O'Keefe painting that consistency does not demand that we turn people in for vandalism if we think vandals should be charged and fined.

Well, I know you well enough to know that you would not usually take an uninformed position on a topic and that is why I wanted more information regarding the one you have taken.

I'm still not clear on how it is that anyone can find TomJoe's position "perfectly consistent".

In fact, his position against Gonzalez blatantly changed when he:

a. Was shown a 16 year old girl writing on the same wall in pencil.
b. Learned that Gonzalez wrote on the wall with shoe polish

Of course, the girl was excused because (though she is identified on the internet as committing the act) the police were not "clairvoyant" and "no one" pressed charges:

And who said the State is allowing others to scrawl messages on the wall? Did anyone report this girl? Did anyone notify the authorities? I imagine if crimes are not reported, nothing is done about them. I certainly dont expect police to be clairvoyant.

How disingenuous a defense of action is that?

Now, TomJoe has remained conspicuously quiet on this issue:

So the guy who wrote "It's a lie." in shoe polish over a salt stain gets charged with misdemeanor criminal damage to public property and the 2 girls who removed the paint, applied by an IDOT employee, get a free pass? What a load of shit.

What a load of shit, indeed.


In other words, I courteously abstain out of sheer disinterest. This is the kind of minor story which is so laden with melodrama and spin it snowballs into ridiculous overstatement by the second day. I'm just not grooving on it, I'm afraid.

Now Paula Abdul riding the carnal carousel with that Corey skank: that's a story with legs. :giggle:

An abstention I would have recognized and understood.

:wave:

[Ronin]

ronin, I dont think I have made a single post in this thread.

but for the record, I do think that the dude who painted it's a lie should not be charged with anything.

laws should be applied equally and fairly. the ladies that removed paint put up by idot are at least as guilty as he is.

I agree, beyelzu.

The fact that the state is making an exception for some and not another is a blatant injustice that more people should recognize and speak out against (imho).

[TomJoe]

I'm still not clear on how it is that anyone can find TomJoe's position "perfectly consistent".

In fact, his position against Gonzalez blatantly changed when he:

a. Was shown a 16 year old girl writing on the same wall in pencil.
b. Learned that Gonzalez wrote on the wall with shoe polish


Bullshit. Throughout the thread I consistently referred to spray paint as non-temporary damage to public/private property. It doesn't take a rocket scientist, though it appears to take someone other than Ronin, to figure out that pencil and shoe polish are not permanent, not the way spray paint is.

And who said the State is allowing others to scrawl messages on the wall? Did anyone report this girl? Did anyone notify the authorities? I imagine if crimes are not reported, nothing is done about them. I certainly dont expect police to be clairvoyant.


How disingenuous a defense of action is that?

I think it's pretty obvious that if someone, anyone, scrawls a name on a wall (in reply to godfry) without anyone seeing them, that the cops shouldn't just go and fine the person whose name it happens to be. If I went and wrote liv's name, or godfry's name, or your name on a wall in big letters with spray paint, why should you be the one to get fined for it? Seems kind of nonsensical no?

Now, TomJoe has remained conspicuously quiet on this issue:

So the guy who wrote "It's a lie." in shoe polish over a salt stain gets charged with misdemeanor criminal damage to public property and the 2 girls who removed the paint, applied by an IDOT employee, get a free pass? What a load of shit.

What a load of shit, indeed.


Since I've stated my position numerous times, and I already said that since it was shoe polish, I don't think any charges should be brought against him ... what more need I say? Exactly how am I being conspicuously quiet on the issue when I already stated my position?

Would you like a link to the posts Ronin, so you may read them (again)?

[Ronin]

You are obviously, godfry, I am addressing those that usually are...but are suddenly silent here in this thread.

:wave:


Wow. If godfry takes a sudden left turn, I think your neck'll snap.

So, prior to the topic shift to the injustice of Gonzalez free speech criminal charge and arrest, I was godfrey's lapdog who just happened to deride his hardcore insults and anti-theistic drive?

to godfrey:That's another obsession altogether, godfry, and one I can't help you with.

I see you've found another scapegoat in any event, no sense in me interfering with anyone's closely held fetish.

There's simply more to it than that, TomJoe, I call it as I see it regardless of who is supporting whichever position.

I am masterless, after all.

:samurai:

[viscousmemories]

Of course, the girl was excused because (though she is identified on the internet as committing the act) the police were not "clairvoyant" and "no one" pressed charges:
How is this not an excuse, Ronin? Is it typical for cops to find and arrest people on misdemeanor charges when there were no witnessesses to or complaints about their act simply because they're "identified on the internet as committing the act"?

[Ronin]

Would you like a link to the posts Ronin, so you may read them (again)?

Nah...I got them right here in TomJoe's wonderful world of quotes:



Graffiti costs money to "remove" (or paint over).

and...

I see a distinct difference. It's not what he did, it's how he did it, which makes him a punk IMO.

and...

If it's in the books, it is a criminal offense.



and...

I think he should have picked a better approach, and I think anyone with a bit of common sense could have made the distinction between taping a sign and using spray paint to the effect of, the former wouldn't get you in trouble as the latter just might. Also, performing the first would probably have elicited a chuckle from me, or maybe more if he had been a bit more creative ... but the manner in which he did it ... evokes no sympathy from me.

and...

Human liberty, afaik, doesn't entail defacement of property, private or public.

and...Spray paint, permanent magic marker, ink, other forms of water-resistant paint ... are not "temporary" as you suggest. Neither is chipping away with a screwdriver, knife, etc etc. Those things don't wash away with the next rain, or road runoff, they can't be picked up and stuffed into garbage bags ... so a fine for those ... most certainly.

and...

I think any amount of graffiti on state/private property should result in a fine for an offender.

and, finally...

Well, if it was shoe polish, than I can't see how it would be considered "damage to state property". See my comment above re: pencils.

So, it appears to me that once there are identifiable pictures of a girl writing a religious message on the same wall you began defending against charging Gonzalez.

Now, the issue of two women being identified removing the state sponsored IDOT labor and paint efforts adds a new twist to the story and one worth examining.

If joe-shit-the-ragman had uncovered his "graffiti" defacing state property after IDOT painted over it, would you expect him to be charged if it is "on the books" not to do so?

...or would he be defended depending upon the "message" on the property?

[Ronin]

Of course, the girl was excused because (though she is identified on the internet as committing the act) the police were not "clairvoyant" and "no one" pressed charges:
How is this not an excuse, Ronin? Is it typical for cops to find and arrest people on misdemeanor charges when there were no witnessesses to or complaints about their act simply because they're "identified on the internet as committing the act"?

Yes, vm.

Remember the LA riots?

Arrests were made via news coverage video.

There are, in fact, instances of using this type of reporting as a tool to identify and charge offenders.

[TomJoe]

You also fail to mention that my quotes were all based on the premise that Mr. Gonzalez was using spray paint, a non-temporary means of damaging property. Like I said above, and which you quoted:

Those things don't wash away with the next rain, or road runoff, they can't be picked up and stuffed into garbage bags ... so a fine for those ... most certainly.

I don't think you'd know what "consistent" was, even if it were afixed to your ass by a set of sharp, pointy teeth.

[godfry n. glad]

Of course, the girl was excused because (though she is identified on the internet as committing the act) the police were not "clairvoyant" and "no one" pressed charges:
How is this not an excuse, Ronin? Is it typical for cops to find and arrest people on misdemeanor charges when there were no witnessesses to or complaints about their act simply because they're "identified on the internet as committing the act"?

Well, vm, I'd say photographs and videos of people in the act of vandalising public property would go a long ways toward being far more exacting evidence of crime than the say-so of a couple of bystanders of unknown sympathy. There are many of those. Pictures of people crossing a police line to fondle the object and place pieces of litter on the public right of way and write on the wall.

All that is dismissed, while somebody is apprehended several blocks away on the report of a person who says they saw him?

And now it seems the cops have become enforcement pawns in some kind of internecine religious dogma confrontation. Biased enforcement pawns.

[Ronin]

You also fail to mention that my quotes were all based on the premise that Mr. Gonzalez was using spray paint, a non-temporary means of damaging property. Like I said above, and which you quoted:

Those things don't wash away with the next rain, or road runoff, they can't be picked up and stuffed into garbage bags ... so a fine for those ... most certainly.

I don't think you'd know what "consistent" was, even if it were afixed to your ass by a set of sharp, pointy teeth.

I think that you have been consistently defending the same criminal offense of defacing state property for those representing your religious views and only retracted your opinion of Gonzalez (who dissented from that view in like manner) after I showed the picture of the girl identified doing the same thing.

Your prior "concern" for the state property has also suddenly passed quietly away now that two more identified women have removed a state sponsored application of cover paint.

When called on it you responded by attacking my character personally.

I think that behavior is wrong when anyone does it...you and godfry included.

[godfry n. glad]

You also fail to mention that my quotes were all based on the premise that Mr. Gonzalez was using spray paint, a non-temporary means of damaging property. Like I said above, and which you quoted:

Those things don't wash away with the next rain, or road runoff, they can't be picked up and stuffed into garbage bags ... so a fine for those ... most certainly.

I don't think you'd know what "consistent" was, even if it were afixed to your ass by a set of sharp, pointy teeth.

Consistent? You've been all over the fukken map, TomJoe. And all with one clearly transparent motive, to excuse the actions of your co-religionists. You have, in effect, been defending the notion that those who follow traditions you understand and sympathize with should be treated differently from those who happen to disagree.

That sux.

Big time.

I personally think that Mr. Gonzales, and everybody else who can be identified, by whatever means comparable to the means used to identify Mr. Gonzales, should be fined for defacing public property, littering and obstructing traffic. That, or Mr. Gonzales should be released with all charges dropped and the whole legal confrontation dropped, after the crack has been properly repaired.

(oh...and as for Ronin being my lapdog...:roflmao:...truly funny, man.)

[TomJoe]

I think that you have been consistently defending the same criminal offense of defacing state property for those representing your religious views ...

Actually Ronin, I would not consider these my "religious views". I do not do "private revelations" of this sort.


Your prior "concern" for the state property has also suddenly passed quietly away now that two more identified women have removed a state sponsored application of cover paint.



Actually, if I had been asked, I would have said that I think those women should be forced to repaint that underpass (and maybe a few others that can use a fresh coat of paint) themselves.

And all with one clearly transparent motive, to excuse the actions of your co-religionists.

Incorrect. I'll repeat myself yet again, which ironically enough, I had to say once before to both of you yahoos.

And in case neither one of you saw it ... if anyone (Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Atheist, Buddhist, WhatTheFrigEver) is caught defacing public property, they should have to pay a fine.

Do I think that there is a difference between temporary/non-temporary items, and memorials versus tagging for the sake of tagging? Yes, I do ... and that has been obvious if one actually reads what I've written throughout this thread.

[viscousmemories]

So, it appears to me that once there are identifiable pictures of a girl writing a religious message on the same wall you began defending against charging Gonzalez.
Well for what it's worth I thought it was obvious from the progression of this thread that TomJoe's reversal came when he realized that Gonzalez had used shoe polish instead of spray paint. I could be wrong, but I don't personally have any reason to assume the worst about his character or motives here.

No offense, but comparing these circumstances to the LA riots is laughable. If you can show me a single example of someone arrested on misdemeanor vandalism charges based on reported events I'll be convinced. But somehow I don't think cops act the same on reported evidence of felony assault and misdemeanor vandalism.

[Ronin]

Actually Ronin, I would not consider these my "religious views". I do not do "private revelations" of this sort.

I'm not referring to the "private revelations" aspect, TomJoe, I am referring to the symbol of Mary as representative of your "religious views".


Your prior "concern" for the state property has also suddenly passed quietly away now that two more identified women have removed a state sponsored application of cover paint.



Actually, if I had been asked, I would have said that I think those women should be forced to repaint that underpass (and maybe a few others that can use a fresh coat of paint) themselves.

Actually, we all were asked:

So the guy who wrote "It's a lie." in shoe polish over a salt stain gets charged with misdemeanor criminal damage to public property and the 2 girls who removed the paint, applied by an IDOT employee, get a free pass?

I think that was a prime opportunity to respond.

And all with one clearly transparent motive, to excuse the actions of your co-religionists.

Incorrect. I'll repeat myself yet again, which ironically enough, I had to say once before to both of you yahoos.

And in case neither one of you saw it ... if anyone (Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Atheist, Buddhist, WhatTheFrigEver) is caught defacing public property, they should have to pay a fine.

Do I think that there is a difference between temporary/non-temporary items, and memorials versus tagging for the sake of tagging? Yes, I do ... and that has been obvious if one actually reads what I've written throughout this thread.

Gonzalez did not "tag" for the sake of "tagging", though, and that should be obvious to even the most religious of yahoos.

[TomJoe]

I'm not referring to the "private revelations" aspect, TomJoe, I am referring to the symbol of Mary as representative of your "religious views".


Oh, I see. So everytime someone says "Jesus, Mary and Joseph" followed by a statement, no matter how obtuse it may be ... it has to be part of my "religious views" just because the names of Jesus, Mary and Joseph were invoked?

Wrong. Just because people see Mary underneath an overpass doesn't mean I have to come rushing to their defense, nor if I defend them it's because I happen to be Catholic too. That's a stretch Ronin, and it's hypocritical of you to force that onto me.



Actually, we all were asked:

So the guy who wrote "It's a lie." in shoe polish over a salt stain gets charged with misdemeanor criminal damage to public property and the 2 girls who removed the paint, applied by an IDOT employee, get a free pass?

I think that was a prime opportunity to respond.


To steal a line ... In my view, it wasn't anywhere near an "integral part of the discussion to begin with".

I also was not aware that it is now my duty to respond to each and every comment made in a thread I am participating in, even if the comment appears rhetorical in nature.


Gonzalez did not "tag" for the sake of "tagging", though, and that should be obvious to even the most religious of yahoos.

Naw, really? However, like I said ... I also differentiate between what I consider temporary marking versus non-temporary marking. If you can, but for a moment, recognize the fact that for a majority of the discussion I was working from the vantage point of Mr. Gonzalez using spray paint (which I consider a non-temporary marking method), you'll see that regardless of whether or not he was tagging or making a statement, he permanently marked public property. Once it was revealed that it was shoe polish, to remain consistent, I said I would drop all charges/fines against him.

You are the one who insists on keeping up with the histrionics.

[Ronin]

Well for what it's worth I thought it was obvious from the progression of this thread that TomJoe's reversal came when he realized that Gonzalez had used shoe polish instead of spray paint. I could be wrong, but I don't personally have any reason to assume the worst about his character or motives here.

Given his prior statements regarding any defacement of state property it was obvious that shoe polish fits the criteria as well. I know it is "on the books" as such in many states.

I think that his motives are pretty blatantly defined in the context of this thread.

No offense, but comparing these circumstances to the LA riots is laughable. If you can show me a single example of someone arrested on misdemeanor vandalism charges based on reported events I'll be convinced. But somehow I don't think cops act the same on reported evidence of felony assault and misdemeanor vandalism.

I wasn't "comparing these circumstances" to the LA riots, vm, I was providing an example where video news reports were used to identify and arrest defendants involved in the riots, vandalism and the looting (not just the felony assault).

The reported events in the underpass case is documented by a reporter (witness) showing and identifying defendants on video (evidence). The state is the victim (owner of property defaced) and the police (witnesses) are representatives of the state.

As godfry has pointed out:

Well, vm, I'd say photographs and videos of people in the act of vandalising public property would go a long ways toward being far more exacting evidence of crime than the say-so of a couple of bystanders of unknown sympathy. There are many of those. Pictures of people crossing a police line to fondle the object and place pieces of litter on the public right of way and write on the wall.

That one man is charged by representatives of the state (police) based on a witness statement when police are witnesses themselves to the videos of others doing the same thing without action against them is the point of this exercise, in my view.

Is the arrest of Gonzalez fair and/or just?

My view is that it is not.

You may disagree.

[TomJoe]

Given his prior statements regarding any defacement of state property it was obvious that shoe polish fits the criteria as well.

Since it was so well written the first time, allow me to reiterate it here:

You also fail to mention that my quotes were all based on the premise that Mr. Gonzalez was using spray paint, a non-temporary means of damaging property. Like I said above, and which you quoted:

Those things don't wash away with the next rain, or road runoff, they can't be picked up and stuffed into garbage bags ... so a fine for those ... most certainly.

I don't think you'd know what "consistent" was, even if it were afixed to your ass by a set of sharp, pointy teeth.

[Ronin]

Oh, I see. So everytime someone says "Jesus, Mary and Joseph" followed by a statement, no matter how obtuse it may be ... it has to be part of my "religious views" just because the names of Jesus, Mary and Joseph were invoked?

No, that's a strawman...let's all enjoy the coming fire.

Wrong. Just because people see Mary underneath an overpass doesn't mean I have to come rushing to their defense, nor if I defend them it's because I happen to be Catholic too. That's a stretch Ronin, and it's hypocritical of you to force that onto me.

Ah...the glow of a well built bonfire upon which to burn the messenger while avoiding the message.



Actually, we all were asked:

To steal a line ... In my view, it wasn't anywhere near an "integral part of the discussion to begin with".

But it was asked despite your claim otherwise. The fact remains that you only "come around" when flat out called on bullshit.

I also was not aware that it is now my duty to respond to each and every comment made in a thread I am participating in, even if the comment appears rhetorical in nature.

Weak...so very weak.


Gonzalez did not "tag" for the sake of "tagging", though, and that should be obvious to even the most religious of yahoos.

Naw, really? However, like I said ... I also differentiate between what I consider temporary marking versus non-temporary marking. If you can, but for a moment, recognize the fact that for a majority of the discussion I was working from the vantage point of Mr. Gonzalez using spray paint (which I consider a non-temporary marking method), you'll see that regardless of whether or not he was tagging or making a statement, he permanently marked public property. Once it was revealed that it was shoe polish, to remain consistent, I said I would drop all charges/fines against him.

You are the one who insists on keeping up with the histrionics.

C'mon, TomJoe, the shoe polish on state property required covering by the IDOT laborers and then a cleaning by the two women for it to be scrubbed clean from offended viewers.

Histrionics, indeed.

...far better my "histrionics" than your disingenuous attempts to re-create your own failed position after it has been given the smack down.

[TomJoe]

...far better my "histrionics" than your disingenuous attempts to re-create your own failed position after it has been given the smack down.
:stoopid:

[Ronin]

:tease:

[Crumb]

Ronin :twocents: : I am not sure why you don't believe TomJoe's explanation of his own viewpoint. Can't you give him the benefit of the doubt and entertain the possibility that you may have misunderstood his earlier position. Now that he has clarified, it seems consistent to me. :dunno:

[Ronin]

Ronin :twocents: : I am not sure why you don't believe TomJoe's explanation of his own viewpoint. Can't you give him the benefit of the doubt and entertain the possibility that you may have misunderstood his earlier position. Now that he has clarified, it seems consistent to me. :dunno:

Nope.

I calls it as I sees it and I think I have articulated rather well where, when and how TomJoe has failed to recognize or defend Gonzalez against the unfair treatment he is receiving for his free expression at a forum the state allowed for when it accepted all other forms of expression on a public underpass.

I'm not sure why you don't call for giving godfry the benefit of the doubt regarding his perspective of the treatment given the issue, Crumb.

After all, godfry seems more consistent in his view, having recognized Gonzalez as being unfairly treated from the outset without the "old soft-shoe" TomJoe has given it throughout the thread.

:twocents:

[viscousmemories]

Well as much as I have wanted to stay out of the motive speculation and moral/character judgements being so freely offered here (being above that and all :D ), I'll go ahead and throw in my own:

In my opinion Ronin is right that TomJoe's knee-jerk reaction was to defend the arrest of Gonzalez because of his favorable predisposition to religion. I disagree that he has been inconsistent, but in the early stages of this thread he did seem to err in favor of the religious perspective in supporting Gonzalez' arrest.

However, it's also my opinion that Ronin's antipathy toward religion has made his knee-jerk reaction an uncharitable interpretation of TomJoe's posts. Where I see TomJoe's arguments being influenced by a bias toward religion but his premises and conclusions being reasonable, Ronin apparently sees nothing but inconsistency and hypocrisy. To me it is not inconsistent or hypocritical to think that someone should be arrested for breaking the law even if every other person known to break the law isn't also arrested.

[Crumb]

I don't see any inconsistencies in godfry's perspective either. Neither do I see someone mischaracterizing him and critizing him for being inconsistent. I just think you might be showing a wee bit of bias here, Ronin. Though I could be wrong, and since I am not involved I will leave you be. Carry on. :)

(Oh and liv is an :asshat: ) :giggle:

[livius drusus]

I think Crumb and vm are very smart and I agree with everything they say. :yup:

[Ronin]

Well as much as I have wanted to stay out of the motive speculation and moral/character judgements being so freely offered here (being above that and all :D ), I'll go ahead and throw in my own:

In my opinion Ronin is right that TomJoe's knee-jerk reaction was to defend the arrest of Gonzalez because of his favorable predisposition to religion. I disagree that he has been inconsistent, but in the early stages of this thread he did seem to err in favor of the religious perspective in supporting Gonzalez' arrest.

Thanks, vm, and I wholeheartedly agree.

:shake:

However, it's also my opinion that Ronin's antipathy toward religion has made his knee-jerk reaction an uncharitable interpretation of TomJoe's posts. Where I see TomJoe's arguments being influenced by a bias toward religion but his premises and conclusions being reasonable, Ronin apparently sees nothing but inconsistency and hypocrisy. To me it is not inconsistent or hypocritical to think that someone should be arrested for breaking the law even if every other person known to break the law isn't also arrested.

Wow...just wow.

I would like someone to present some evidence that I have an "antipathy toward religion".

My posts reflect the "free speech" aspect of this event as the thread converted to the Gonzalez incident.

Anyone reading the entire thread can see that my posts were harsh and critical of godfry for his insulting, abusive fetish he has for both Sweetie and TomJoe and their religious views.

To now demonize me and my posts as being a reflection of a personal "antipathy toward religion" as it relates to my motive of calling TomJoe on his religious bias (that even you recognize) offending the free speech of Gonzalez is outright horseshit and personally offensive to find here.

The resulting posts cheerleading such a blatantly false accusation are very disappointing as well.

I am most often found calling anti-theists on their abusive crap and trying to moderate a discussion of the claims of religion and how it effects life and personal liberty.

You and liv personally and especially should know how much I defend the rights of theists to present their views openly in the marketplace of ideas and I staunchly defended the fair and equal right of anyone, to include theists, to be a forum moderator at IIDB.

In fact, I was probably the first one to PM seebs regarding the policy change when it was enacted and faded quite an abundance of hurtful personal mischaracterizations against my views supporting free thought and access from the powers that be at IIDB.

This is the closest anyone has come to repeating that experience for me.

[TomJoe]

In my opinion Ronin is right that TomJoe's knee-jerk reaction was to defend the arrest of Gonzalez because of his favorable predisposition to religion.

Given the fact that there was as much a chance of Mr. Gonzalez being an iconoclastic Christian as it was of him being an atheist, non-Christian, what have you, there was no knee-jerk reaction on my part to defend the arrest on a religious basis.

So Ronin then switches tactics to imply that I defended the arrest because it was an affront to Catholic sensibilities, but since I never take part in these types of "devotions" I can hardly see how it could be that either.

He's free to keep acting the part of an :asshat: and call it "calling it how I see it", but it's still asshattery as far as I am concerned.

[viscousmemories]

To now demonize me and my posts as being a reflection of a personal "antipathy toward religion" as it relates to my motive of calling TomJoe on his religious bias (that even you recognize) offending the free speech of Gonzalez is outright horseshit and personally offensive to find here.
You're right, Ronin. I shouldn't have used the words "antipathy toward religion". I know that everything you just said regarding your prior support of religious expression and opposition to anti-theism in general is true. I apologize.

What I meant, and should have said, is that I think that as much as TomJoe's comments here have to some degree been biased toward the religious position, I think your comments have to some degree been biased toward the areligious position.

But most importantly, the reason I had previously avoided comment about your or TomJoe's motives and why I don't really understand why you have put so much focus on judging whether TomJoe is or has been morally consistent yourself, is because I think that is the definition of an ad hominem line of argumentation.

[Crumb]

asshattery
Wow. That is a fantastic word.

[viscousmemories]

Given the fact that there was as much a chance of Mr. Gonzalez being an iconoclastic Christian as it was of him being an atheist, non-Christian, what have you, there was no knee-jerk reaction on my part to defend the arrest on a religious basis.
I didn't mean that you endorsed his arrest because of his religious affiliation or lack thereof. I understood that your comments were based on a presumption that he was guilty of the crime he was arrested for and that you based your judgement on that. What I meant is that I think the reason you took a stance here at all was because of your predisposition as a religious person to defend the religious point of view, even though you don't seem to go as far as salt-stain adoration yourself.

But again, I would honestly rather not discuss your motives for posting here because I don't think your motives are relevant to the soundness of your arguments. I only offered that speculation because Ronin's allegations that your comments were not morally consistent inspired me to note for the record that not everyone agrees with that assessment or feels that such judgements contribute to the debate. But I didn't want to look like I was choosing sides, despite feeling as though I was being pushed to do so.

[livius drusus]

Ronin,

I second vm's apology about the antipathy towards religion. Yes, of course you're the last person I would accuse of harbouring resentment or hatred toward religion in general or people who espouse one. I'm sorry you were so hurt by vm's comment and my agreement with him.

His clarification matches what I had in mind when I agreed as well; in fact, it's exactly what I had in mind when I wrote that throwaway line to godfry which you found so unfair. Knowing godfry, I figured he could take it, especially since he had dished the very same thing out just a few posts above. Judging from his in stride responses, I suspect I may even have been right about that one thing at least. ;)

[Ronin]

Thanks liv...vm, I appreciate the recognition and the apology.

TomJoe:

I'm sorry for getting way too involved in the useless personal attacks and the careless off the cuff remarks I made toward you regarding what I perceived was an affront to a liberty and free speech issue.

I'd buy you a beer, but this is the internet...so...I'll just have one here without you.

:shake:

[viscousmemories]

Can I just say I still think "Virgin Mary Underpants" everytime I see this thread on the forum index? :D

[Ronin]

Can I just say I still think "Virgin Mary Underpants" everytime I see this thread on the forum index? :D

I'm currently in the process of concocting and testing a newfangled vodka and something drink in honor of that name, vm.

I'll put the recipe up in the Food and Drink forum when it is perfected.

[we are in desperate need of a mad scientist smilie]

[livius drusus]

How about :chemist: ? Not mad enough? I guess it does look more like a freshman chem accident than a "He's ALIVE!" moment.

:kickscan:

[godfry n. glad]

Can I just say I still think "Virgin Mary Underpants" everytime I see this thread on the forum index? :D

I'm currently in the process of concocting and testing a newfangled vodka and something drink in honor of that name, vm.


An immaculate concoction!

[godfry n. glad]

His clarification matches what I had in mind when I agreed as well; in fact, it's exactly what I had in mind when I wrote that throwaway line to godfry which you found so unfair. Knowing godfry, I figured he could take it, especially since he had dished the very same thing out just a few posts above. Judging from his in stride responses, I suspect I may even have been right about that one thing at least. ;)

Yep... You got that right. That rolled right off and I smiled and kept on posting as per usual. I appreciate knowing when I've hit paydirt. :heckled:

Thanks all for the exchange. Everybody.

[Ronin]

How about :chemist: ? Not mad enough? I guess it does look more like a freshman chem accident than a "He's ALIVE!" moment.

:kickscan:

I tried just about every keyword I thought possible...and it was "chemist"?!

Arrrrgh....

I guess it does look more like a freshman chem accident than a "He's ALIVE!" moment.

Now, that's what I'm talking about!

:yay: