Is "Jesus off my penis" offensive?

[kc8tbe]

My apologies if I don't address your post here. Please repost and remind me that I ignored you the first time.

This whole topic has been you trying to suggest that the author clearly wanted to sway a whole shitload of people over to his side of thinking.

I'm not claiming that the author wants to do this. I'm claiming that if the author does want to do this, then he's going about it the wrong way.

Not to insult you or the people you know, but that sounded very similar to remarks I heard from Muslims over the Denmark cartoons.

You don't see me getting violent or trying to get the video censored, though. If Muslims feel offended by drawings of their prophet, that's perfectly alright by me as long as they do it in a civilized fashion.

You're really deciding on what you can and cannot say or do based from the standards of other people. It offends your friend, or it offends your grandmother... Ok, so what? You validate yourself, your likes, your feelings, etc., by what your friends and grandmother thinks?

I'm just curious as to why you feel the need to live your life according to what other people believe, find offensive, etc. If you want to live this way, might I suggest actually becoming a fundie? You will fit right in.

I don't. If I felt the need to conform to the standards of others, you'd think I'd have stopped posting in this thread by now.

Although many fundies feel the need to convert me to their religion, I do not feel a compelling need to convert them to my way of thinking. I don't lie to them and pretend I'm not atheist to avoid conflict. But I also don't try to make them into freethinkers. If I go to such a friend's house, I don't pray before a meal but I do bow my head as others do. I verbally disagree when someone says something I don't agree with, but I don't start conversations that I know will lead to argument. Hopefully you get the idea.

Common sense dictates that not all people will be offended by the same things. So your "test" is hardly based in any kind of common sense whatsoever.

OK, but common sense also dictates also dictates that most fundies are offended when you make fun of their religion. I really don't see why this is so confusing.

Bullshit. My Aunt is one of the most religiously fundamental people in my family, and she had a blast watching American Pie. Strike 2.

Then your aunt is an exception to a rule. That's why this is a subjective test and not a rigorous test.

Wrong. The objective of any particular piece of satire is whatever its author wants it to be. YOU are not in any position to dictate to people what their satire should be attempting to accomplish.

Why the fuck does there have to be any type of balance whatsoever in a satire, you gibbering dimwit?

Satire is a word. It means something. If I want to cook pasta and call it "satire" there is no one to stop me from doing so. But satire is not a useful label for pasta. Something like "meal" or "dinner" might be more appropriate.

If you want to call offensive things "satire," that's fine by me. After all, some offensive things are satire. But some are also just plain offensive. Do things like racial slurs also fit your idea of satire?

If you have a definition for satire significantly different from the three items I posted, I'd actually be curious to hear it.

Why the fuck should something have to be "allowed" to be offensive? Or does the freedom of speach mean nothing to you?

As I've said repeatedly, I don't advocate censoring things just because they are offensive (seriously, read the posts). I mean "allowed" like "tolerated" or "is a necessary part of."

Thank you for proving that you're an idiot. Do you even realize how fucking stupid that idea is?

Yes. That's why I posted it. Sarcasm.

If it's not instinctive to do it, then it's not really common sense. Common sense is gut instinct, and it is only useful when dealing with situations that you've dealt with many times before. It is not useful when encountering something new.

I have dealt with this situation many times before.

Who gives a fuck? The point is that you can't dictate what is and isn't good for people to do by "common sense", which is what you're doing in this case.

I'm not saying that you should dictate these things exclusively by common sense. I'm saying that it is difficult to dictate these things while excluding common sense from your decision entirely.

Wrong. All fundies are assholes. It just takes the right situation to trigger their assholery, like saying "I'm gay" or "I'm a Muslim and I'd like to marry your daughter".

Then, arguably, all people are assholes.

Bullshit. If I kiss my (white) wife in front of a white supremacist, I will offend him. If I do so knowing that this offends him, does that make me an asshole? It does according to your imbecile logic.

If you are going to kiss your wife, see a white supremacist, know that he will be offended, and then kiss your wife anyway; then you are not being an asshole.

If you see a white supremacist and decide to offend him by kissing your wife to celebrate the fact that people like him don't control the world, then you are not being an asshole.

If you see a white supremacist and then say to your wife "Let's kiss just so we can offend that guy," then you are being an asshole.

Your SUBJECTIVE test is just that, and you can always find a grandmother who will find nothing offensive (there are liberal grandmothers out there too who would find this joke funny, and a fundie offensive.) It's an idiotic test with no true baseline.

What you're suggesting is that we ask a fundie grandmother whether it's offensive.

Yes. I'm not saying it isn't subjective. I do contend that being subjective doesn't make it "useless" or "idiotic." And, actually, mentally asking a fundie grandmother whether it's offensive would be a pretty good test too.

You mentioned you watched South Park (under a sentence that it's fine if it's for the enjoyment of the rest of mankind). You don't think Matt and Trey don't wake up every morning thinking just that? That's their bread and butter. It's what their show thrives on.

Matt and Trey wake up in the morning and think "Scientologist's beliefs are really funny. Let's mock them and make a funny TV show for non-Scientologists to enjoy, even though that will offend the Scientologists."

Although I have no way of knowing, they hopefully don't wake up and think "I hate Scientologists. Let's offend them no matter what."

[General Zod]

If you have a definition for satire significantly different from the three items I posted, I'd actually be curious to hear it.

Main Entry: sat·ire
Pronunciation: 'sa-"tIr
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin satura, satira, perhaps from (lanx) satura dish of mixed ingredients, from feminine of satur well-fed; akin to Latin satis enough -- more at SAD
1 : a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn
2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly

I see nowhere about catering to anyone's particular sensibilities or balance of any sort.

[kc8tbe]

Thanks. I, too, own a dictionary. First, recall the three purposes I proposed:

1. To make the subject of the satire think about what he is doing.
2. To make others think about what the subject of the satire is doing.
3. To entertain.

Now, compare to the dictionary definition.

1 : a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn

That would be (1) and/or (2).

2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly

That would be mostly (3).

Yes, I know the verbage in the dictionary does not match up directly with what I posted. If you feel a difference to be significant, please explain clearly where my definition goes astray.

[General Zod]

Yes, I know the verbage in the dictionary does not match up directly with what I posted. If you feel a difference to be significant, please explain clearly where my definition goes astray.

Why the fuck do you even require a separate definition, except to meet your own narrow criteria? The one posted in Merriam Webster is pretty self-explanatory with no interpretation being required, unless you're attempting to be a dishonest fuckwit.

[Darth Wong]

Who even gives a fuck which definition of satire we're using? Is there anything about this person's work which requires that it fit any particular definition of satire?

kc8tbe is just refusing to concede the point out of pride and/or stupidity even though he can't even BEGIN to justify his assumption that creators of satire are required to have certain goals in mind. Either he knows that he's just grasping at straws or he's too goddamned stupid to realize what he's doing. This means he's either a troll or an idiot.

Let me make this very clear for Idiot Boy:

kct8be, EITHER JUSTIFY YOUR ASSUMPTION THAT ALL SATIRE MUST HAVE YOUR STATED GOALS IN MIND OR CONCEDE THE FUCKING POINT.

The fact that the dictionary definition of satire might be stretched to incorporate your version does not mean that it must be restricted to only your version. Get it, moron?

[kc8tbe]

Very well. I concede the point that satire does not need to fit my definition or even the dictionary's definition. Furthermore, I concede that the author's intentions upon creating a work do not qualify or disqualify the work as satire; rather, the work is classified by how others perceive it.

I concede that the dictionary definition of satire is neutral with respect to whether or not satire is offensive. Offensive material can enhance or detract from a satire's ability to "hold up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn" or "expose and discredit vice or folly" depending on how it is used. I was wrong to argue that a satire which offends part of its audience is "worse" than any other satire; the reality of the situation is far more complex than that.

I do not concede the point that any and every piece of artwork could be considered satire. Even though I have not adequately put forth an exclusive definition of satire, and even though a fully objective definition of satire may not exist, I maintain that some things simply are not satire.

The only thing I am qualified to say about the "Keep Your Jesus Off My Penis" video is that I personally found it in bad taste, lacking in wit and comedy, and offensive to fundamentalist Christians. Were I a newspaper columnist, I would have given it 2 out of 5 stars.

[General Zod]

I do not concede the point that any and every piece of artwork could be considered satire. Even though I have not adequately put forth an exclusive definition of satire, and even though a fully objective definition of satire may not exist, I maintain that some things simply are not satire.

Now you're babbling again. Care to point out where anyone claimed such?

The only thing I am qualified to say about the "Keep Your Jesus Off My Penis" video is that I personally found it in bad taste, lacking in wit and comedy, and offensive to fundamentalist Christians. Were I a newspaper columnist, I would have given it 2 out of 5 stars.

Since satire is supposed to be offensive, the fact a particular group finds it offensive means it's accomplished at least one of its goals.

[kc8tbe]

I do not concede the point that any and every piece of artwork could be considered satire. Even though I have not adequately put forth an exclusive definition of satire, and even though a fully objective definition of satire may not exist, I maintain that some things simply are not satire.

Now you're babbling again. Care to point out where anyone claimed such?

Nobody made such a claim. I claimed the opposite in the previous post. I wanted to make it clear that I had not reversed my position on that matter.

Since satire is supposed to be offensive, the fact a particular group finds it offensive means it's accomplished at least one of its goals.

Even if satire is supposed to be offensive (a point I really don't want to argue anymore), that does not mean all offensive things are satires.

[General Zod]

Even if satire is supposed to be offensive (a point I really don't want to argue anymore), that does not mean all offensive things are satires.

So what? Nobody here is arguing that it does, you dimwit.

[Setesh]

Just a quick note on the granny test: My grandmother found it both personally unoffensive and funny.