View Full Version : Larry David Blasted for 'Curb' Episode Where He Urinates on Jesus Painting
The Reaper
10-28-2009, 12:39
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2009/10/28/catholic-league-blasts-larry-david-curb-episode-urinates-jesus/
FOXNews.com - October 28, 2009
Larry David Blasted for 'Curb' Episode Where He Urinates on Jesus Painting
Comedian Larry David pushed the mocking of religion over the edge in latest episode of his HBO show, critics say.
Comedian Larry David is under attack from critics who say he pushed the mocking of religion and Christian belief in miracles over the edge in the latest episode of his HBO series "Curb Your Enthusiasm," which the cable network defended as "playful."
On the show's most recent installment, which aired Sunday, David urinates on a painting of Jesus Christ, causing a woman to believe the painting depicts Jesus crying.
Deal Hudson, author and publisher of InsideCatholic.com, said he doesn't find any humor in the episode.
What would happen if you did this with a picture of Mohammed or the Koran?
Would that be a 1st Amendment right?
Is that sort of satire protected as "art"?
TR
bandycpa
10-28-2009, 13:00
TR,
You hit it on the head. There would be fatwas issued, and the "artist" would be in hiding afraid for his life. There would be demonstrations in the street, and massive media coverage of the "injustice" that was being "perpetrated". That's what would happen in the "religion of peace".
As such, the responses I've heard so far are mild protest, a blurb on FoxNews, and a potential boycott of HBO.
Just doesn't have the same bite.
Bandy
Team Sergeant
10-28-2009, 13:05
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2009/10/28/catholic-league-blasts-larry-david-curb-episode-urinates-jesus/
What would happen if you did this with a picture of Mohammed or the Koran?
Would that be a 1st Amendment right?
Is that sort of satire protected as "art"?
TR
He'd be dead by now.... and he knows it.;)
TrapLine
10-28-2009, 13:07
I was disgusted reading this story, but not surprised. It seems that to avoid being mocked and ridiculed by the progressive inteligencia, religious people might embark on a campaign of violence and threats. Maybe a few taped beheadings like those practiced by members of the religion of peace would prevent acts like this. As it is, continue on, nothing to see here. Just some Christians being derided:mad:.
longrange1947
10-28-2009, 13:16
This is a rip off of the Crucifix in the jar of urine some years ago, thus not even original.
What was the point of this stupid display of jackassery?
Can this be carried into a Hate Crime? :rolleyes:
Can this be carried into a Hate Crime? :rolleyes:
Not if he's into 'golden showers' and his ACLU attorney claims he was doing it purely as an act of love. :rolleyes:
Richard's jaded $.02 :munchin
IMO, this is nothing new.
During Seinfeld's run back in the 1990s, Mr. David and Mr. Seinfeld regularly mocked religion, Judaic culture, and the Holocaust.
Moreover, I would take FNC's umbrage with a grain of salt. Fall sweeps are just around the corner (October 29 - November 25, 2009). Curb goes head to head with Fox's coverage of the World Series this Sunday and next. Moreover, if any show sets the bar on attacking religious faith, it is Fox's own Family Guy. (An example for the thick skinned is here (http://www.hulu.com/watch/37971/family-guy-dinner-with-jesus#x-4,vclip,5,0).)
Just my $0.02.
bandycpa
10-28-2009, 14:30
IMO, this is nothing new.
During Seinfeld's run back in the 1990s, Mr. David and Mr. Seinfeld regularly mocked religion, Judaic culture, and the Holocaust.
Moreover, I would take FNC's umbrage with a grain of salt. Fall sweeps are just around the corner (October 29 - November 25, 2009). Curb goes head to head with Fox's coverage of the World Series this Sunday and next. Moreover, if any show sets the bar on attacking religious faith, it is Fox's own Family Guy. (An example for the thick skinned is here (http://www.hulu.com/watch/37971/family-guy-dinner-with-jesus#x-4,vclip,5,0).)
Just my $0.02.
Sigaba,
Touche'
Bandy
And this one - one of my favorites...Road to Germany...
http://www.cinecast.us/8117_7x03_road_to_germany.html
Richard
bandycpa
10-28-2009, 14:50
The thing that bothers me most is the double-standard adhered to by the entertainment industry. Going back to Family Guy for a second, there was an episode that had a scene with Mohammed in it, but Fox censored the scene. Yet, episodes mocking Jesus go uncensored by Fox (Comedy Central has done similar things with South Park too).
Richard, you and I have talked about religion before, and I've always enjoyed and learned from those conversations. I believe we share some of the same ideas on that particular subject. I'm not as appalled in a spiritual sense about Larry David as I am disappointed by the clear pandering to one spiritual culture over another, that saddens me quite a bit.
I want the entertainment industry to do like referees in a game, call it down the middle or don't call it at all.
Bandy
dadof18x'er
10-28-2009, 15:30
We'll be seeing these things increase till the end of the age,IMHO.
You really didn't hear much about the thousands of Christians martyred
in Sudan:confused: Also its getting to the point that you can't say
Merry Christmas anymore..... just confirmation of the truth I think.
John 15:25
But this happened that the word might be fulfilled which is written in their law, ‘They hated Me without a cause.’
greenberetTFS
10-28-2009, 15:44
And this one - one of my favorites...Road to Germany...
http://www.cinecast.us/8117_7x03_road_to_germany.html
Richard
Excellent Richard,as usual your right on top with this showing.......:eek: I had never heard of this show but I guess it's an age thing.....:rolleyes:
Big Teddy :munchin
Absolutely sickening. Maybe it will qualify for a Hate Crime under the new law that O signed.
6.8SPC_DUMP
10-28-2009, 18:25
I'm in humble agreement with every thing TR said - and also don't presume to tell ppl how to interpret or react to "comedy". But, in the show he didn't intentionally piss on Jesus Christ's picture; like some "sidewalk performance art's masterpiece".
Reminds me of my favorite comedian, Norm Macdonald's, POV on the topic:
God says: "I'll have some performance art for you while the devil shoves some coal up your a**."
Bill Harsey
10-28-2009, 18:28
This is a rip off of the Crucifix in the jar of urine some years ago, thus not even original.
Wasn't that "art work" funded by the NEA? Please correct if I'm wrong.
I want the entertainment industry to do like referees in a game, call it down the middle or don't call it at all.Bandy, FWIW, I appreciate your desire for more balanced television. The questions that occurs to me is how do we achieve that balance?
Would balance measured by
individual episodes
seasons
a show over the course of its lifetime
the studios producing the shows
by the content provided by a particular service (i.e. network)
or another metric
And then what would be balanced down the middle?
American politics and culture
politics and culture of the entertainment industry
the tension between art and commerce that is arguably the driving force in today's mass popular culture
the issues themselves
Finally, who would judge the level of balance?
network executives
the corporate masters of the networks
Network affiliates
advertisers
viewers
critics
RTF academics
Nielsen ratings (or some other metric that allegedly captures viewers' behavior)
the studios producing the shows
The FCC or some other government agency
longrange1947
10-28-2009, 19:26
Bill, you are correct, along with the "piece of art" where they let a dog slowly starve to death in an "Art Museum".
I am in favor of dissolving the NEA, cleaning it out, and getting someone that can actually decide what is worthy art versus crap called art.
I may not know what art is, but dam sure know what is is not!
I am sure to get trounced on the grounds of freedom of art, or expression, or whatever, but there are limits and those few are not listed in the first amendment. I don't give a crap how much you twist it.
My worthless two cents.
Bandy, FWIW, I appreciate your desire for more balanced television. The questions that occurs to me is how do we achieve that balance?
Would balance measured by
individual episodes
seasons
a show over the course of its lifetime
the studios producing the shows
by the content provided by a particular service (i.e. network)
or another metric
And then what would be balanced down the middle?
American politics and culture
politics and culture of the entertainment industry
the tension between art and commerce that is arguably the driving force in today's mass popular culture
the issues themselves
Finally, who would judge the level of balance?
network executives
the corporate masters of the networks
Network affiliates
advertisers
viewers
critics
RTF academics
Nielsen ratings (or some other metric that allegedly captures viewers' behavior)
the studios producing the shows
The FCC or some other government agency
Sigba is on the mark.
If you enact laws to 'enforce' balance you lose your right to choose.....imo.
Balance (or freedom choice in my view) it is at your finger tips. It requires a mere press of a button to change to a channel of your desire or turn it off.
Your remote is your appropriate weapon, not laws and government bureaucracy.
Peregrino
10-28-2009, 19:50
Wasn't that "art work" funded by the NEA? Please correct if I'm wrong.
Yes - Maplethorpe. :mad:
bandycpa
10-28-2009, 19:51
Bandy, FWIW, I appreciate your desire for more balanced television. The questions that occurs to me is how do we achieve that balance?
Would balance measured by
individual episodes
seasons
a show over the course of its lifetime
the studios producing the shows
by the content provided by a particular service (i.e. network)
or another metric
And then what would be balanced down the middle?
American politics and culture
politics and culture of the entertainment industry
the tension between art and commerce that is arguably the driving force in today's mass popular culture
the issues themselves
Finally, who would judge the level of balance?
network executives
the corporate masters of the networks
Network affiliates
advertisers
viewers
critics
RTF academics
Nielsen ratings (or some other metric that allegedly captures viewers' behavior)
the studios producing the shows
The FCC or some other government agency
Sigaba,
As always, very thought provoking. That's one of the reasons this is my favorite site on the web. Facebook this isn't, and that's very refreshing.
I'm probably being a little Pollyannish in my desire for "calling it down the middle". I want to see the proper respect in the entertainment industry for people's beliefs. I'm not saying that we can't question those beliefs, or even have a little fun with them (again, that's a judgement call I know). However, urinating (in any form) on a picture of Christ goes beyond "poking fun" and leans toward malicious disrespect.
I'd like to see the balance measured by the networks themselves. If FOX decides not to put on a Family Guy that pokes at Muhammad, then don't put on one that pokes at Jesus, or Buddha, or any other religious figure. If they decide to do that for one, then do it for all of them. That's fairness to me.
The issues themselves along with our culture would have to be the drivers in the determination of balance. Being from Southwest Virginia, I have heard pretty much every hillbilly and redneck joke known to man. And they are funny because there is some truth (although highly stereotyped and hyperbolized) in the material. What makes it okay is that other regions get satirized too. Same thing with the issues. If it's okay to pick on one subject, then it's okay to pick on all of them.
As to who would judge the balance, that's even trickier. I would say the viewership would be the ultimate judge, but that becomes a tangled web in and of itself. There are too many sets of values and various acceptable behaviors in the viewership to create a universal base of balance. I guess ultimately though, the viewership does create the balance by whether they decide to watch the program that has the controversial material on it or to change the channel when said material comes on.
As the saying goes, I know what right looks like. And, even though we may all have different perspectives of right, I just have a hard time seeing that anyone could say that urinating on a picture of a religious figure looks right.
Bandy
mojaveman
10-28-2009, 20:51
Lets keep an eye on Larry David.
Bad things happen to people who urinate on images of JC. :D
Bad things happen to people who urinate on images of JC.
Guess I'm safe then - I only urinate on images of J*** 'effin F****, Nancy 'effin P*****, Barney 'effin F****, Barack 'effin O****, Usama 'effin B**L****, and so forth.
Ever wonder how so many jackasses can - as noted above - have the same 'effin middle initial? :p
Richard's jaded $.02 :munchin
PS - ** used because I refuse to either print or say aloud the name of the first person on that list and - for the rest - to confuse the DHS so they won't add me to any other lists of potentially dangerous citizens.
I'm probably being a little Pollyannish in my desire for "calling it down the middle". I want to see the proper respect in the entertainment industry for people's beliefs. I'm not saying that we can't question those beliefs, or even have a little fun with them (again, that's a judgement call I know). However, urinating (in any form) on a picture of Christ goes beyond "poking fun" and leans toward malicious disrespect.
As the saying goes, I know what right looks like. And, even though we may all have different perspectives of right, I just have a hard time seeing that anyone could say that urinating on a picture of a religious figure looks right.
Bandy
Very well said Bandy, IMO.
Agree with TR as well...What would happen IF.....:munchin
Holly
I watched the episode last night. The joke involved him "splashing" a bit on the image of JC (that is at shoulder height in the bathroom) not actually urinating on it.
But regardless as far as I could tell he did not actually urinate on anything let alone the photo, it was most likely a prop guy or grip that sprayed some water from off camera. So the title should really be, Larry David is in a scene in a TV show where he pretends to spray a small amount of water that is assumed to be urine onto a prop photo of Jesus.
bandycpa
10-29-2009, 07:51
I watched the episode last night. The joke involved him "splashing" a bit on the image of JC (that is at shoulder height in the bathroom) not actually urinating on it.
But regardless as far as I could tell he did not actually urinate on anything let alone the photo, it was most likely a prop guy or grip that sprayed some water from off camera. So the title should really be, Larry David is in a scene in a TV show where he pretends to spray a small amount of water that is assumed to be urine onto a prop photo of Jesus.
But, going back to TR's original point, what would have happened had it been a picture of Mohammed instead?
Bandy
But, going back to TR's original point, what would have happened had it been a picture of Mohammed instead?
Bandy
They would have freaked out, yelled "silence, I will kill you". The way I see it That Danish paper is still printing papers, Salman Rushdie is still alive, it is really time to start telling the Muslims to get over themselves.
CPTAUSRET
10-29-2009, 08:02
Guess I'm safe then - I only urinate on images of J*** 'effin F****, Nancy 'effin P*****, Barney 'effin F****, Barack 'effin O****, Usama 'effin B**L****, and so forth.
Ever wonder how so many jackasses can - as noted above - have the same 'effin middle initial? :p
Richard's jaded $.02 :munchin
PS - ** used because I refuse to either print or say aloud the name of the first person on that list and - for the rest - to confuse the DHS so they won't add me to any other lists of potentially dangerous citizens.
Richard:
You forgot Hanoi 'effin Jane...
Richard:
You forgot Hanoi 'effin Jane...
Check the first name on my list. ;)
I don't truly hate many people - but I truly despise her and her 'effin supporters. :mad:
Richard
bandycpa
10-29-2009, 08:11
They would have freaked out, yelled "silence, I will kill you". The way I see it That Danish paper is still printing papers, Salman Rushdie is still alive, it is really time to start telling the Muslims to get over themselves.
We are in agreement.
CPTAUSRET
10-29-2009, 08:15
Check the first name on my list. ;)
I don't truly hate many people - but I truly despise her and her 'effin supporters. :mad:
Richard
Roger.
Despicable! Sums it up pretty well for me.
I see her face, and it brings back memories of the many friends I lost in VN.
Slantwire
10-29-2009, 08:17
Barney 'effin F****
What's your beef with Don Knotts?
What's your beef with Don Knotts?
Fife would have been F*** and not F****. Reading comprehension and spelling seem to be going down hill around here as of late. :p
Richard
The Reaper
10-29-2009, 08:40
They would have freaked out, yelled "silence, I will kill you". The way I see it That Danish paper is still printing papers, Salman Rushdie is still alive, it is really time to start telling the Muslims to get over themselves.
Tell that to Theo van Gogh.
How many people were killed globally after the Danes published the cartoons depicting Muhammed, the BS rumor started that a Gitmo guard flushed a Koran, or after the idiot soldier in Iraq shot a Koran?
TR
Team Sergeant
10-29-2009, 09:09
But, going back to TR's original point, what would have happened had it been a picture of Mohammed instead?
Bandy
There's not a mutherF***** in Hollywood with big enough balls to urinate on a picture of Mohammed.
There's not a mutherF***** in Hollywood with big enough balls to urinate on a picture of Mohammed.
There was - but he died of AIDS. ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Without setting precedent we can not prevent those who wish to amend our freedom of speech, by allowing the pissing contest to be reduced to reproductions and images of sacred things; we counter the argument that the state has an obligation to protect images and reproductions from being used as toilet paper, or other creative pursuits, depending of course on the quality of paper used and meeting environmental standards of acid in parts per million.
The point is as much as we may find it extremely distasteful, (no pun intended) this is exactly why prayer is not allowed in school, the replica of the ten commands must be removed from a courthouse, and why we can burn our National Symbol without reprisal/penalty, and why must here signed that blank check to preserve that right, so others can and do piss on Jesus, the Koran, etc. but you all know this already, i just thought it needed to be said again, and again, and again
...i just thought it needed to be said again, and again, and again.
Is that preaching? :D
Richard
Dozer523
10-29-2009, 10:06
The point is as much as we may find it extremely distasteful, (no pun intended) this is exactly why prayer is not allowed in school, the replica of the ten commands must be removed from a courthouse, and why we can burn our National Symbol without reprisal/penalty, and why must here signed that blank check to preserve that right, so others can and do piss on Jesus, the Koran, etc. but you all know this already, i just thought it needed to be said again, and again, and again Right Penn. But it is hard to fathom that our Founding Fathers thought for one minute we would take for granted much less, abuse, those freedoms just because we were free too. I suspect they thought we might actually have a little class. But, considering the alternative, I'll just shake my head at the down side.
Sacamuelas
10-29-2009, 10:19
In honesty, I don't care what he did in an entertainment television series on cable television. Some will be offended and can voice their opposition. Great. Some limited news coverage to generate revenue from the audience that is interested in the matter is appropriate.
Choose to watch. Choose to ignore. Choose to protest. The world is not fair....the fact that news coverage is not equal in its bias towards Christian sacrilegious behaviors compared to islamic examples does not justify our nation desiring the same outrage in the media that occurs when the Islamic prophet is mocked. Everyone should remember that the ideal is that ALL forms of expression similar to this action and the cartoons should be TOLERATED. The ideal is not for everyone's freedom to be restricted to prevent the possibility that some will be offended.
Just my absolutely worthless $.02
mojaveman
10-29-2009, 11:51
Richard:
You forgot Hanoi 'effin Jane...
Interesting that you mention her name. In the American Legion post that I was a member of we had images of her posted in the urinals in the mens bathroom.
Do you remember a few years ago when she was autographing copies of her book somewhere and some veteran gave her a load of tobacco juice in the face?
My concern about the general behavior exemplified by LD's actions focus on the potential detriment to our society rather than on the religious aspect.
LD, Maplethorpe, and the rest are - from their perspective - simply making a bid for attention. They lack the courage to extend their actions, since they know that the society will protect them from any reaction to their present behavior - but would not do so if they directed it against Big Mo (or Mohammed, if you prefer).
However, western society and the U.S. seem to have a lot of Christianity and Christian principles embedded within our culture. Whether this is "good" or "bad" doesn't matter. Our fundamental concepts about how and why we behave and function as we do incorporate elements of Christianity and its precursor, Judaism. It is my opinion (and perhaps others can expand or correct this) that such things as individual worth, truthfulness, mercy, charity and a host of other things are, within our culture, based on the religious foundation mentioned above. (Note: This does not suggest that other religious systems do not include elements such as these.)
Now if we expose the underlying religion to consistent ridicule, I think we must ask ourselves whether we may also be acting to weaken the foundations of the society. More pointedly, our civilization includes quite a number of implicit elements that we don't think about much. As we change those elements, we might wish to ponder what the unintended consequences might be.
I note that western nations tend to have a relatively good lifestyle. Lots of people are clawing to get in. Not many want to leave the western lifestyle. So it seems we have something that's fairly good. If we make fundamental changes, it seems to me that the upside potential is limited and the downside risk is substantial.
How does that interact with freedom of speech? I'm not sure. At one time, social pressure would have taken care of the problem. (Note how the effects of social pressure have largely disappeared - so now we have volumes of laws. Perhaps a consequence of less consensus within the culture?) Perhaps a stringent equality is the answer - thus, if it is acceptable to dip one image into excrement, then it is acceptable to dip any and all images in the same manner. But I really don't think the behavior makes any of us any better through its existence. I would pose the rhetorical question of whether we can do better, but the development of such dubious entertainment suggests that we cannot. On reflection, apes tend to throw such things about. Maybe there isn't such a big gap between humans and apes after all. :(
Maybe there isn't such a big gap between humans and apes after all.
I believe that our Heavenly Father invented man because he was disappointed in the monkey. I believe that whenever a human being, of even the highest intelligence and culture, delivers, an opinion upon a matter apart from his particular and especial line of interest, training and experience, it will always be an opinion so foolish and so valueless a sort that it can be depended upon to suggest to our Heavenly Father that the human being is another disappointment and that he is no considerable improvement upon the monkey.
- Mark Twain's Autobiography
And so it goes...;)
Richard's jaded $.02 :munchin
My concern about the general behavior exemplified by LD's actions focus on the potential detriment to our society rather than on the religious aspect.
LD, Maplethorpe, and the rest are - from their perspective - simply making a bid for attention. They lack the courage to extend their actions, since they know that the society will protect them from any reaction to their present behavior - but would not do so if they directed it against Big Mo (or Mohammed, if you prefer).
However, western society and the U.S. seem to have a lot of Christianity and Christian principles embedded within our culture. Whether this is "good" or "bad" doesn't matter. Our fundamental concepts about how and why we behave and function as we do incorporate elements of Christianity and its precursor, Judaism. It is my opinion (and perhaps others can expand or correct this) that such things as individual worth, truthfulness, mercy, charity and a host of other things are, within our culture, based on the religious foundation mentioned above. (Note: This does not suggest that other religious systems do not include elements such as these.)
Now if we expose the underlying religion to consistent ridicule, I think we must ask ourselves whether we may also be acting to weaken the foundations of the society. More pointedly, our civilization includes quite a number of implicit elements that we don't think about much. As we change those elements, we might wish to ponder what the unintended consequences might be.
I note that western nations tend to have a relatively good lifestyle. Lots of people are clawing to get in. Not many want to leave the western lifestyle. So it seems we have something that's fairly good. If we make fundamental changes, it seems to me that the upside potential is limited and the downside risk is substantial.
How does that interact with freedom of speech? I'm not sure. At one time, social pressure would have taken care of the problem. (Note how the effects of social pressure have largely disappeared - so now we have volumes of laws. Perhaps a consequence of less consensus within the culture?) Perhaps a stringent equality is the answer - thus, if it is acceptable to dip one image into excrement, then it is acceptable to dip any and all images in the same manner. But I really don't think the behavior makes any of us any better through its existence. I would pose the rhetorical question of whether we can do better, but the development of such dubious entertainment suggests that we cannot. On reflection, apes tend to throw such things about. Maybe there isn't such a big gap between humans and apes after all. :(
Or another way to look at it is that Western society is becoming more and more hedonistic, jaded by ease of living. When all you have to worship is yourself, it becomes very easy to mock and defile the things others believe in.
MOO, television as a form of media and expression is very close to being worthless. All it does is attempt to indulge those watching with increasingly shocking and lewd acts in order to get as much of a reaction as possible. There is little or no focus on beauty or style.
Unfortunately, "modern" art is in much the same boat. Shock value does not equal art, no matter how much the artist may lie to themselves about their purpose.
Antone who hasn't seen the movie Idiocracy ought to. When I first heard about it I immediately knew (one) of the sources for the idea, and I was pleasantly surprised by the presentation. Very relevant to this I think. How far are piss jokes from fart jokes, anyways?:rolleyes:
MOO, television as a form of media and expression is very close to being worthless.
If only it were worthless! IMO, it's not just zero value, it's a large negative.
One need only tune in the national news on any network. The information provided is both limited and distorted, thus it deceives and misdirects while persuading the viewers they are informed. - All MOO, YMMV.
Perhaps a consequence of less consensus within the culture?Did this cultural consensus ever exist?:confused: It certainly didn't during the Astor Place Riot of 10 May 1849.
Or another way to look at it is that Western society is becoming more and more hedonistic, jaded by ease of living. When all you have to worship is yourself, it becomes very easy to mock and defile the things others believe in.
MOO, television as a form of media and expression is very close to being worthless. All it does is attempt to indulge those watching with increasingly shocking and lewd acts in order to get as much of a reaction as possible. There is little or no focus on beauty or style.
Unfortunately, "modern" art is in much the same boat. Shock value does not equal art, no matter how much the artist may lie to themselves about their purpose. With respect, your critique collapses against its own logic. You decry the alleged degradation of certain values, forms of art, and culture by degrading other values, forms of art, and culture. Yet while you chastise the producers and consumers of mass popular culture, you refer readers to a product of mass popular culture to prove your point.
Did this cultural consensus ever exist?:confused: It certainly didn't during the Astor Place Riot of 10 May 1849.
Well...if we wanted to pursue a more formal treatment...
The first issue is "cultural consensus". Clearly, it's a construct that consists of several other constructs - including language, religion, societal ideals and mythology, accepted history, economic orientation, political system, and a host of things that I have surely missed.
With that minor detail put to the side, the next problem is creating a valid numerical scale for our new construct, followed by figuring out a way to measure it and produce some decent descriptive statistics.
Of course, we need to find a way to do this over the lifetime of societies around the world and throughout history.
I think that's way out of my league. ;)
However, Wikepedia notes:
The two actors became figureheads for Britain and America, and their rivalry came to encapsulate two opposed views about the future of American culture.
This seems to suggest that the riots were a violent manifestation of the turmoil inherent in cultural shifts and transformation. And notice this was a relatively minor shift.
Thus, I cannot help but wonder if the cultural shifts we presently encourage will not lead to problems in the same way.
Did this cultural consensus ever exist?:confused: It certainly didn't during the Astor Place Riot of 10 May 1849.
With respect, your critique collapses against its own logic. You decry the alleged degradation of certain values, forms of art, and culture by degrading other values, forms of art, and culture. Yet while you chastise the producers and consumers of mass popular culture, you refer readers to a product of mass popular culture to prove your point.
Pissing on a picture of someone's God isn't art; it isn't when it's JC, and it wouldn't be if it was Mohammed, or any other religious symbol or deity. I DECRY the fact that such infantile, self pleasing behaviour is regarded as "art", and defended as such, because it is not. I stand by my assertion of such behaviour as hedonism.
Do you deny the "degradation" of television? A form of mass media that has as little to offer as television is nothing but. Don't think; just relax and enjoy the stunning show of lies, sex and violence, brought to you for just $80 a month! Don't go outside, let your mind and body atrophy while watching our fantastic display of lights!
Art is the communication of ideas and strong emotion expressed through a medium. I would argue that television, as a medium does not fail in this, but in the main the ideas on television convey few original or useful ideas, and few emotions save for disgust and anger. Isn't that what you feel when you flick through and "nothing's on"? Do you really feel Joy when watching Family Guy?
There are exceptions. I would say channels like Discovery, occasionally PBS, and occasionally the History channel. HBO? Skinemax? TNT, TBS, etc? Forget it. Unless you like 10 versions of the same garbage.
Yes, I chastise both producers and consumers. Yes, I point to television as an example. It is the fault of TV producers that such things are on television, and the fault of the watchers as well for watching things like this. (It is appropriate and correct for you to assume I don't watch TV more than an hour during the week).
And yes, I am judging other values, forms of art and cultures. It is my inherent right as a human being to do so. Take it as you will. I judge and view a large proportion of television, and American popular culture in general, as becoming increasingly hedonistic. I make this judgement by examining the meaning of the word, and then comparing it to what I see; programs about $100,000 sweet 16 parties on MTV, 7 versions of CSI with all the dissections and post mortems you could ask for, 3 different versions of Family Guy, hundreds of Lifetime movies that are all themed after a woman being raped/cheated on and then killing the offender. I had more typed out than that but cut a bunch out :p.
And as I said, judgement. I accept that others can make their own judgments as well. This isn't a personal attack Sig, just a refutation ;). After I reread it, it sounded too personal but I couldn't figure out how to change that.
..."cultural consensus"... the next problem is creating a valid numerical scale for our new construct, followed by figuring out a way to measure it and produce some decent descriptive statistics.
01100001 01110011 01110100 01101111 01110101 01101110 01100100 01101001 01101110 01100111 00100001
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Plutarch
10-30-2009, 04:09
On the plus side, we can be certain that it was NOT a picture of Christ, as none exist. That picture of 'Jesus' was no more holy than the bathroom hand towels.
I was more offended by the fact that such a crass act is the subject of popular entertainment. It is an indictment against our culture that had he been urinating on anything besides a religious idol, few would have taken notice.
On the plus side, we can be certain that it was NOT a picture of Christ, as none exist. That picture of 'Jesus' was no more holy than the bathroom hand towels.
Well, that's one way to look at it...:rolleyes:
A symbol indeed, but a symbol that is revered by many, hated by many, but important none-the-less, IMVHO.
Holly
CPTAUSRET
10-30-2009, 08:00
Interesting that you mention her name. In the American Legion post that I was a member of we had images of her posted in the urinals in the mens bathroom.
Do you remember a few years ago when she was autographing copies of her book somewhere and some veteran gave her a load of tobacco juice in the face?
I remember the incident at the book signing. Not sure I would have done that, but I empathize with his rationale.
Slantwire
10-30-2009, 08:25
01100001 01110011 01110100 01101111 01110101 01101110 01100100 01101001 01101110 01100111 00100001
Richard's $.02 :munchin
01010111 01101000 01100001 01110100 00100000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01110011 01101111 00100000 01100001 01110011 01110100 01101111 01110101 01101110 01100100 01101001 01101110 01100111 00111111
Perhaps reflection upon the issue suggests the challenge of finding solid answers to the problem. The complexity is, I think, truly astounding.
It occurs to me that each of the items included in the construct should be mediated by the intensity such issues create within the society.
For those who haven't done the binary-ascii conversion: LINK (http://www.roubaixinteractive.com/PlayGround/Binary_Conversion/Binary_To_Text.asp) ;)
bandycpa
10-30-2009, 11:14
Perhaps reflection upon the issue suggests the challenge of finding solid answers to the problem. The complexity is, I think, truly astounding.
It occurs to me that each of the items included in the construct should be mediated by the intensity such issues create within the society.
For those who haven't done the binary-ascii conversion: LINK (http://www.roubaixinteractive.com/PlayGround/Binary_Conversion/Binary_To_Text.asp) ;)
As an aside, I found the binary alphabet link and was "astounded" too. Hadn't done that in years. Felt like a kid with a decoder ring, and my desk calendar now has the proof of this. Brought back memories of converting binary and hexadecimal to decimal in computer science class many, many years ago.
Yep, 40 has caught up with me. (but it's only 28 in hex, so my best years are still ahead).
Bandy
Slantwire
10-30-2009, 12:25
For those who haven't done the binary-ascii conversion: LINK (http://www.roubaixinteractive.com/PlayGround/Binary_Conversion/Binary_To_Text.asp) ;)
Nice link. Beats doing it by hand.
When I went to FTI (Now FTCC) waaaay back in the day we had to do that binary math stuff in a math course I took. I have no clue way and never used it since.
Naught plus Naught = - Well at least me and Jethro were on the same page.
01010111 01101000 01100001 01110100 00100000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01110011 01101111 00100000 01100001 01110011 01110100 01101111 01110101 01101110 01100100 01101001 01101110 01100111 00111111
01101101011000010110111000100111011100110010000001 10100101101110011011100110000101110100011001010010 00000110010001100101011100110110100101110010011001 01001000000111010001101111001000000111001001100101 01100100011101010110001101100101001000000110000101 10111001111001011101000110100001101001011011100110 01110010000001110011011011110010000001110111011011 11011011100110010001100101011100100110011001110101 01101100011011000111100100100000011000010110111001 10010000100000011001000111100101101110011000010110 11010110100101100011011000010110110001101100011110 01001000000110001101101111011011010111000001101100 01100101011110000010000001101001011011100111010001 10111100100000011100110110111101101101011001010010 00000111001101101111011100100111010000100000011011 11011001100010000001100110011011110111001001101101 011101010110110001100001
But that's just my jaded $.02.
Richard :munchin
01000001011000110111010001110101011000010110110001 10110001111001001011000010000001001001001000000111 01110110000101110011001000000110100001101111011100 00011010010110111001100111001000000111010001101111 00100000011001000110100101110011011101000110100101 10110001101100001000000111010001101000011001010010 00000110010101101110011101000110100101110010011001 01011101000111100100100000011011110110011000100000 01101000011101010110110101100001011011100010000001 10001101110101011011000111010001110101011100100110 01010010000001110100011011110010000001100001001000 00011100110110100101101110011001110110110001100101 00100000011010010110111001100100011001010111100000 10000001101110011101010110110101100010011001010111 001000101110
:D
greenberetTFS
10-30-2009, 17:30
Richard,Pinhead and nmap.......Knock it off,your making my head hurt......:rolleyes::eek::p
Big Teddy :munchin
This isn't a personal attack Sig, just a refutation ;). After I reread it, it sounded too personal but I couldn't figure out how to change that.Soak60--
It didn't come across as personal.
FWIW, I share your view of the CSI-type shows. I agree that the ongoing popularity of reality programming is troubling, not the least because viewers don't realize that they, not the contestants, are the ones being humiliated. My view of Family Guy is souring thanks to Seth MacFarlene's unending attacks on all religious values and many cultural sensibilities.
(If I had the economic resources, I'd produce a reality show in which aspiring television executives would work in teams. These teams would each create and produce the first several episodes of two scripted shows [a drama and a comedy]. These episodes would be judged by centrist-minded focus groups, potential advertisers, and established executives. These judges would decide if the shows had legs to make it to their fourth seasons. Winning teams would get to produce their shows. Losing teams would be banned from the Thirty Mile Zone for twenty years. But I'm not bitter.)
But before we get to that phase of my master plan to improve American civilization, let me share the following experience.
Years ago, I had for a house mate what in some circles is known as a party girl. She regularly had her girlfriends over for viewing parties. On Thursdays, it was Friends. On Sundays, it was Sex and the City. She invited me to every viewing party.
By happy coincidence, I had other plans every time.;) There was no way, I sniffed from atop my high horse, that I was going to watch shows that were clearly crap and geared towards uncritical viewers.
Fortunately, my curiosity trumped my elitism (no small feat, I'm a snob). Why are these women--and tens of millions of others (in the case of Friends)--watching these shows? After some covert viewing, I think I found answers. Not only were the shows funny (in the case of Friends, I'd say 'brilliant,' but YMMV), but more importantly, the story lines and character arcs were serving as mirrors and waypoints as the women sought to answer a question all had in common: What does one do when the partying stops and it is time to get serious about the life one wants to live?
Yes, one can lament that people are finding these kinds of connecting points on the small screen, the Silver Screen, or their computer screens rather than from more traditional sources. But if the study of popular culture is, as some argue, the intellectual history of the 'inarticulate', maybe sometime one has to trudge through a MySpace profile, watch an episode of Aqua Teen Hunger Force, or endure The Matrix trilogy.
(Disclosure: Curiosity only goes so far. No way I'm going to watch another second of Brothers and Sisters. Five minutes into the premier episode, you knew that Tom Skerrit's character had gotten off lucky by dropping dead in the opening act.)
bandycpa
10-30-2009, 20:43
01000001011000110111010001110101011000010110110001 10110001111001001011000010000001001001001000000111 01110110000101110011001000000110100001101111011100 00011010010110111001100111001000000111010001101111 00100000011001000110100101110011011101000110100101 10110001101100001000000111010001101000011001010010 00000110010101101110011101000110100101110010011001 01011101000111100100100000011011110110011000100000 01101000011101010110110101100001011011100010000001 10001101110101011011000111010001110101011100100110 01010010000001110100011011110010000001100001001000 00011100110110100101101110011001110110110001100101 00100000011010010110111001100100011001010111100000 10000001101110011101010110110101100010011001010111 001000101110
:D
01001001 01110100 00100000 01110100 01101111 01101111 01101011 00100000 01101101 01100101 00100000 01100001 01101110 00100000 01101000 01101111 01110101 01110010 00100000 01110100 01101111 00100000 01100100 01100101 01100011 01101001 01110000 01101000 01100101 01110010 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100001 01110100 00101100 01100010 01110101 01110100 00100000 01101001 01110100 00100000 01110111 01100001 01110011 00100000 01110111 01100101 01101100 01101100 00100000 01110111 01101111 01110010 01110100 01101000 00100000 01101001 01110100 00101110 01110100 01101000 01100001 01101110 01101011 01110011 00100000 01110011 01101001 01110010 01110011 00101110 01010011 01101111 01110010 01110010 01111001 00100000 01000010 01101001 01100111 00100000 01010100 01100101 01100100 01100100 01111001 00101110
greenberetTFS
11-01-2009, 13:36
brandycpa,
You just had to bite didn't you? :rolleyes::eek::p
Big Teddy :munchin
01001001 01110100 00100000 01110100 01101111 01101111 01101011 00100000 01101101 01100101 00100000 01100001 01101110 00100000 01101000 01101111 01110101 01110010 00100000 01110100 01101111 00100000 01100100 01100101 01100011 01101001 01110000 01101000 01100101 01110010 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100001 01110100 00101100 01100010 01110101 01110100 00100000 01101001 01110100 00100000 01110111 01100001 01110011 00100000 01110111 01100101 01101100 01101100 00100000 01110111 01101111 01110010 01110100 01101000 00100000 01101001 01110100 00101110 01110100 01101000 01100001 01101110 01101011 01110011 00100000 01110011 01101001 01110010 01110011 00101110 01010011 01101111 01110010 01110010 01111001 00100000 01000010 01101001 01100111 00100000 01010100 01100101 01100100 01100100 01111001 00101110
Goodness...you work much too hard. Now what would you do if I used a hex? (As in hexidecimal?)
LINK for conversion TO hex (http://www.string-functions.com/string-hex.aspx)
LINK to convert FROM hex (http://www.string-functions.com/hex-string.aspx)
4120706f73742d48616c6c6f7765656e2068657821
:D
bandycpa
11-01-2009, 19:02
brandycpa,
You just had to bite didn't you?
Big Teddy :munchin
Big Teddy - Couldn't help myself. Took me back to my computer science days back in school. I've been driving the FaceBook people nuts with it all weekend. That was a lot of fun too.
nmap - 54 68 61 6e 6b 73 20 66 6f 72 20 74 68 65 20 68 65 78 21 :D
Bandy
Dozer523
11-01-2009, 20:17
LINK to convert FROM hex (http://www.string-functions.com/hex-string.aspx)
4120706f73742d48616c6c6f7765656e2068657821 :D
$145.00 for demi-bra:eek: WTF is a demi-bra:confused:
$145.00 for demi-bra:eek: WTF is a demi-bra:confused:
Let's see now...demi is often used to mean "half". So a demi-bra could mean half-sized version. At $145, it clearly isn't half-priced!
And that's how rumors get started. ;)
Demi's bra? For $145 I'll sell you the one from my collection she wore in GI Jane. :p :D
If only someone had taken computer school instead of SERE.... :D
Bill Harsey
11-02-2009, 08:29
looks like the kids here have had too much Halloween candy.
Utah Bob
11-02-2009, 09:09
If only someone had taken computer school instead of SERE.... :D
I understand it's easy to get into and tough to get out of.:rolleyes:
Slantwire
11-02-2009, 10:22
01101101011000010110111000100111011100110010000001 10100101101110011011100110000101110100011001010010 00000110010001100101011100110110100101110010011001 01001000000111010001101111001000000111001001100101 01100100011101010110001101100101001000000110000101 10111001111001011101000110100001101001011011100110 01110010000001110011011011110010000001110111011011 11011011100110010001100101011100100110011001110101 01101100011011000111100100100000011000010110111001 10010000100000011001000111100101101110011000010110 11010110100101100011011000010110110001101100011110 01001000000110001101101111011011010111000001101100 01100101011110000010000001101001011011100111010001 10111100100000011100110110111101101101011001010010 00000111001101101111011100100111010000100000011011 11011001100010000001100110011011110111001001101101 011101010110110001100001
But that's just my jaded $.02.
Richard :munchin
Life's wonderful and dynamic complexity can make it difficult to deal with. Abstracting and simplifying things with a formula makes things seem more manageable.
Do you consider the decision to use battle drills to be astounding? Or a reasonable attempt to help people be functional in complex and fluid situations?
Life is as complex and as simple as those living it can personally experience. ;)
Do you consider the decision to use battle drills to be astounding? Or a reasonable attempt to help people be functional in complex and fluid situations?
A 'drill' to attempt to favorably direct a response to an extremely narrow and given scenario vs a 'construct' to finitely measure and predict the defining of social consensus - apples and oranges with the inevitable production of yet another left-brained venn diagram of limited usefulness - such seems to be the way of human nature.
In the space of one hundred and seventy-six years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. That is an average of a trifle over one mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oolitic Silurian Period, just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi River was upwards of one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing-rod. And by the same token any person can see that seven hundred and forty-two years from now the Lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters long, and Cairo and New Orleans will have joined their streets together, and be plodding comfortably along under a single mayor and a mutual board of aldermen. There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
- Life on the Mississippi - Mark Twain
Richard's $.02 :munchin
I understand it's easy to get into and tough to get out of.:rolleyes:
But doesn't it lead to the coveted 18LC slot? :D
Life's wonderful and dynamic complexity can make it difficult to deal with. Abstracting and simplifying things with a formula makes things seem more manageable.
Life is as complex and as simple as those living it can personally experience. ;)
A 'drill' to attempt to favorably direct a response to an extremely narrow and given scenario vs a 'construct' to finitely measure and predict the defining of social consensus - apples and oranges with the inevitable production of yet another left-brained venn diagram of limited usefulness - such seems to be the way of human nature.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Richard's right, of course. In essence, such a compression destroys a great deal of information. We can observe an example in our exchanges - text removes a great deal of the information available in face-to-face communication. We try to work around the situation with font colors and smilies, but the change is real.
On the other hand, such manipulations of data may help to understand some issues. Comparison of disparate groups is problematic without such approaches. But as Mr. Twain suggests, extrapolation can lead to dangerous outcomes.
In practical work, "having tea with the village chief" is probably worthwhile. I can imagine that understandings and working agreements could spring from such an approach, and that no lesser method could work as well. And yet, my personal biases continue to assert themselves. I would without a doubt want to reduce the village chief to a series of numbers. Oh, well. ;)
Urinating on a facsimile of what my Lord may look like is not just insulting to me it is a direct attack on all Christians. Urinating on that picture means much more than the act.:mad:
MAB32, please understand that my comments are in no way meant to convey any disrespect or unkindness. If I err, it is due to ignorance, not ill will. I recognize the sensitivity of the subject.
According to my limited understanding of doctrine, those who seek salvation can find it only through Christ. And due to the precept of original sin, all are guilty, and without Christ cannot achieve salvation. Now if that's true, and someone rejects Christ's gift, then have they not chosen damnation? And is that not a far worse fate than anything one of us could impose upon them?
So perhaps those who perform such loathsome acts are to be pitied more than hated - since they have, by the acts done of their own will and freely, literally damned themselves forever.
You are correct nmap in some ways. As a Christian I am commanded by the Lord to try and save as many people on this Earth as I can connect with. I can only plant the seed of how my Lord loves everyone including you and everyone else here on this board. They make their own decision here like everybody else. The individual will determine their own fate is also correct. However, the Lord wants nobody to die twice and end up in the Lake Of Fire.
And....No, you didn't insult me or my beliefs in any way.:)
We despise all reverences and all the objects of reverence which are outside the pale of our own list of sacred things. And yet, with strange inconsistency, we are shocked when other people despise and defile the things which are holy to us.
- Mark Twain, Following the Equator,
And so it goes...;)
Richard's jaded $.02 :munchin
And Mark Twain was only human too.
Plutarch
11-02-2009, 21:37
nmap - Christian doctrine varies widely from church to church. With all respect to MAB32 and others, consider the following.
1. Many Christians are deeply offended by any representation of the Lord, as they feel it is a blasphemous 2nd Commandment violation. Personally, I would be quite happy if they tossed that painting of whomever into the incinerator.
2. Many Christians believe God predestines all men to eternal damnation or salvation before they are born. God saves whom he will for his own purposes. No choices you make in life will effect your eternal fate.
These are hotly debated issues within the Christian community, and I mean no disrespect to anyone here who feels Scripture teaches differently.
I only point them out for the sake of clarity.
frostfire
11-03-2009, 19:03
/hijack alert
And Mark Twain was only human too.
also FWIW, Mark Twain absolutely admired one who's perhaps His most humble and faithful servant, considering her as "the most extraordinary person the human race has ever produced." He went as far as claiming his work on her as his best, much to chagrin of his atheists, agnostics and intellectuals fan. Whatever faith and piety she displayed through the pages of history, Mark Twain, one of American's finest writer who was quite scornful of many aspects of organized religion, did not seem to mind.
/end hijack
GratefulCitizen
11-03-2009, 22:38
Another entertainer is getting the attention he craves.
The difference between notoriety and fame is lost on him.
Whether by design or by accident he is diverting the attention of some Christians.
Neither the Great Commandment nor the Great Commission would seem to promote quarreling with yet another self-aggrandizing entertainer.
At Calvary, the Savior said: "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do."
If He had enough mercy for that, such a trifling issue hardly merits a quarrel.
Glorify Christ, pray for sinners.
At Calvary, the Savior said: "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." If He had enough mercy for that, such a trifling issue hardly merits a quarrel.
That, in a nutshell, is the difference between Christ's followers and Mohammad's. For Muslims the slightest offense demands revenge, not reprieve.
-Susan
Seven centuries of 'change' can make a difference. ;)
Richard's jaded $.02 :munchin
The Reaper
11-04-2009, 08:18
Seven centuries of 'change' can make a difference. ;)
Richard's jaded $.02 :munchin
Can the other people of this planet survive the wait for reformation?
TR