Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: HotSnoJ on February 02, 2004, 06:58:26 am
-
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,110114,00.html
Gee I wonder what was suppose to happen? :rolleyes:
-
I think it was supposed to be exciting and saucy but it just turned out to be strange and somewhat sickening.
Awful, awful titties.
-
Meh, pop ****e. I lost my interest having finished reading the words "Justin Timberlake".
-
Originally posted by an0n
it just turned out to be strange and somewhat sickening.
It involved a Jackson, what exactly were you expecting?
-
I thought it was funny. Janet Jackson is a hottie. And you can't tell how nasty her boobie was from where the camera was placed.
-
as I said elsewere
two words
Janet Jackson
I used to think she was hot, then I saw her next to Michael, and the famely resemblence was... disturbing...
-
Who honestly cares? Either a sad, sad PR stunt, or a not-terribly-entertaining cock-up. Either way, quite frankly I don't care. :blah:
-
Not only is is a poorly executed PR stunt, it is a testament to how far the pop world is willing to go to get new blood buying CDs and watching TRL.
-
Hey! I happen to like TRL (UK).
-
Exactly. :P
-
Originally posted by an0n
Hey! I happen to like TRL (UK).
Why?
-
Originally posted by Kalfireth
Meh, pop ****e. I lost my interest having finished reading the words "Justin Timberlake".
Once again, gotta love you for those words :D
-
People like this should be shot.
Wasn't there a streaker in the second quarter? He was down to a G-string and shoes when the New England linebacker tackled him...
Go heavy metal...
-
I have a feeling Disposable Heroes or Damage Inc during SB halftime would be awesome
that should scare all those pop stars to death
-
They played Don't Tread On Me during the game as background music or somerthing once or twice.
That was when the Panthers were making a comeback.
-
Ugliest boobies I've ever seen. She should be ashamed of herself for revealing such ugly knockers.
I would call it an NC-17-rated halftime.
-
Of course, nobody would make a big deal of it if America hadn't been founded on Puritan morals in the first place...
-
OMG!!!!111oneoneone A b00b!!!!
-
Funny how showing a hot chick's breast is a bad thing, but showing Uday and Qusay's bloodied faces is a GOOD thing.
Yeah. That's showing the world how we've got our priorities straight.
-
since when is janet a hot chick?
-
Originally posted by Carl
since when is janet a hot chick?
rotflmao
Like someone here said, she looks alot like her brother. *shudders* IT'S.JUST.WRONG!!
-
That's not the point, Carl. Don't give in to your inner dickhead.
American culture has the most screwy bias ever: BREASTS BAD and BLOODY CORPSES GOOD.
Read that again. Then before you comment, read it again. Read it a fourth time just to make sure you've got a clue. If you still can't restrain yourself from being a dickhead, say nothing.
For the record: Janet has been hot since around the time she release Rhythm Nation. :D You kids were probably still in diapers or something. ;)
-
Originally posted by mikhael
American culture has the most screwy bias ever: BREASTS BAD and BLOODY CORPSES GOOD.
Biased my butt. it's 'cuz (women's) breasts are considered a secondary sex organs. The corpses of Uday and Qusay aren't.
-
Mik is spot on, there is something severely wrong when it's acceptable to show bullet ridden corpses on national T.V and it's considered immoral to show a god damn boob.
-
I was promising myself not to get involved in such a discussion and I realize there are lots of conservative american families who sit their entire family around the set to watch the superbowl and its a sort of religious experience and while I'd rather not see people tearing off their clothes all the time...I much prefer the way that the Europeans are taking this as...and that is the sort of funny, embarrasing, slightly raunchy event that it was. Instead...its a national scandal.
Heck...its legal in Canada (or maybe just Ontario - I forget which) to walk around bear breasted. I've seen only two people ever do that and the weather around here these days is certainly not condusive to that...but ahh whatever :)
We get all uptight about people's skin on television and not about world hunger or the fact that were going to pollute outselves into extinction sometime in the next 100 years.
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
Biased my butt. it's 'cuz (women's) breasts are considered a secondary sex organs. The corpses of Uday and Qusay aren't.
You stated the bias yourself, but I feel the need to make it more blunt:
SEX BAD! VIOLENCE GOOD!
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
Biased my butt. it's 'cuz (women's) breasts are considered a secondary sex organs. The corpses of Uday and Qusay aren't.
Yeah, because seeing a girls breast is sooooooo much worse than seeing a couple of bloodied corpses.
I find it rather entertaining that girls' breasts are secondary sexual organs, whilst mens breasts--which are in every biologically important way identical to women's breasts, including the ability to lactate--are not.
Why are sexual characteristics bad and bloody corpses okay, Hot?
-
I can't possibly think in any way how Janet Jacksons boob is worse than a corpse. Unless she has the same plastic surgeon as her brother.
-
Originally posted by IceFire
Heck...its legal in Canada (or maybe just Ontario - I forget which) to walk around bear breasted.
I don't usually pick on typos cause we all make them but this one made me laugh :lol:
Now if Janet Jackson had been bear breasted I could understand why people were complaining :D
-
Originally posted by IceFire
We get all uptight about people's skin on television and not about world hunger or the fact that were going to pollute outselves into extinction sometime in the next 100 years.
But as least we'll be moral!!!
yeah right whatever....
-
Originally posted by IceFire
We get all uptight about people's skin on television and not about world hunger or the fact that were going to pollute outselves into extinction sometime in the next 100 years.
Haven't you ever noticed that the same people who believe that skin is wrong believe in that wacky fire and brimstone revelations ending?
You think it's a coincidence that they don't seem to care about the world going to hell in a handbasket and the fact that the world going to hell in a handbasket is supposedly a sign of the coming apocolypse? :D
-
You'd figure if they're gonna get someone to have their shirt torn off it could be a singer who is young, lithe and attractive.
-
You obviously haven't seen Janet Jackson in concert. The woman muscular, sexy and damnably attractive. And she's got the muscle control of a belly dancer. If we're talking 'attractive', I'd take her over pretty much all of the current crop of cookie cutter pop tarts out there right now.
-
when I was watching it i was like 'daaaammmnn' until I saw that metal thing.... :wtf: At first I thought it was a publicity stunt until she tried to cover it up.
I don't think it was scripted. MTV would have known that they would have gotten themselves into trouble for this and they did.
-
The metal thing? You mean the nipple shield? those things are totally hot.
She's been sporting the piercing since at least the time The Velvet Rope came out (97 as I recall). The shields have been popular with piercing enthusiasts for a while now, too.
I'd like to know if she's got a matched set. ;)
-
Anyone actually watch the game? :nervous:
-
Originally posted by mikhael
You obviously haven't seen Janet Jackson in concert. The woman muscular, sexy and damnably attractive. And she's got the muscle control of a belly dancer. If we're talking 'attractive', I'd take her over pretty much all of the current crop of cookie cutter pop tarts out there right now.
Let me help. For the following sentence, let everything meant as sarcasm be red.
[glow=red]You'd figure if they're gonna get someone to have their shirt torn off it could be a singer who is young, lithe and attractive.[/glow]
-
you know I'm not sure what part of the contry you've been looking at, but from were I'm at it seems as if our cultur is saturated with BTH sex and violence, we just happen to have some olddecency laws still on the books that we are hesetent to dispose of
also, there was a time when I thought Jannet was extreemly hot, but one day I realised, she looks EXACTLY like whacko Jako the cyborg pedo-phile freak show... he has an Elephant in his HOUSE!
-
*cough* publicity stunt *cough*
-
Originally posted by Shrike
Let me help. For the following sentence, let everything meant as sarcasm be red.
[glow=red]You'd figure if they're gonna get someone to have their shirt torn off it could be a singer who is young, lithe and attractive.[/glow]
Can I try too? I'll color the sarcasm GREEN:
Dickhead.
Now, from where I sit, I don't see any sarcasm in either my statement or yours. So maybe you can ****ing well help and EXPLAIN your obviously ****ed up attempt at sarcasm. I completely missed it.
-
Whee! Ban-fest!
-
Let him try it, anyone can see Shrikes being an ass this time ;)
-
What? You mean you can only ban people if they deserve it?
NOOOO!!!!!!!!!
*runs screaming over to NW and barricades it against all this blasphemous heathen-idiocy*
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Can I try too? I'll color the sarcasm GREEN:
Dickhead.
Now, from where I sit, I don't see any sarcasm in either my statement or yours. So maybe you can ****ing well help and EXPLAIN your obviously ****ed up attempt at sarcasm. I completely missed it.
You probably can't see it because you've been acting like mister boo ****ing humorless hoo for gods knows how long now. Maybe you should lighten up a tad, you were much more pleasant when you weren't angerman 5000.
To be completely serious, what is your problem? You've been pissy for quite a while now and it's really starting to get annoying. You act like everything is a personal attack and let it get under your skin. Why don't you, I dunno, do something fun and relaxing, calm yourself down some, because it certainly doesn't seem like you're calm or enjoying yourself here.
-
Give him a break - he doesn't have FS2 installed.
-
Well geez, that's an easy problem to fix then. ;)
Next stop, solving world hunger! The world is made of love and peace!
-
Bit of a desperate old tart, isn't she?
Especially as it was apparently her idea (and indeed intentional).
-
Desperate is the right word... Personally I can't really imagine wanting to appear in public without a top for any reason at all... But hey, she's supposed to be a star, they got their own world
-
Gah, I've given up on all this. Give me a good book to read and I'll be happy. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Setekh
Gah, I've given up on all this. Give me a good book to read and I'll be happy. :rolleyes:
*gives steak a small library*
-
Originally posted by mikhael
I find it rather entertaining that girls' breasts are secondary sexual organs, whilst mens breasts--which are in every biologically important way identical to women's breasts, including the ability to lactate--are not.
//hmm, very good question indeed.
Why are sexual characteristics bad and bloody corpses okay, Hot?
What moral system would you like to use as a reference/starting point? I use the Bible.
-
This isn't what you guys are talking about now, but I'd just throw it in there. It's not that Janet is looking a lot like Michael. It's Michael that's starting to look a lot like her. He's the one you should be calling wierd, not her.
Janet Jackson has been hot for the last 10 years. You guys have been saturated with Britney's and Beyonce and have forgotten one of the hottest women in music.
-
well then lets kill micheal for ruining her
-
Originally posted by J3Vr6
This isn't what you guys are talking about now, but I'd just throw it in there. It's not that Janet is looking a lot like Michael. It's Michael that's starting to look a lot like her. He's the one you should be calling wierd, not her.
Janet Jackson has been hot for the last 10 years. You guys have been saturated with Britney's and Beyonce and have forgotten one of the hottest women in music.
IMHO she looks like a right old tramp.
The fact that it has Michael Jackson has taken several decades of botched plastic surgery to start to resemble her supports this.
-
:wtf:
who cares if janet is hot or not.
The whole show was ****ing lame.
Janet actually did the best performance there...the rest was Nelly lip syncing the "hot in herr" (a 2 year old song) ching-e lip synching to "holidae inn" (another overplayed song that everyone has heard a bajillion times) and justin timberlake lip synching to "rock your body" then exposing janets boobie.
nothing the target audience (me) hasnt heard or seen before.
:blah:
now the pregame show......
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
What moral system would you like to use as a reference/starting point? I use the Bible.
In all seriousness, HotSnoJ, the Bible's moral system is pretty much limited to "do what God says or he'll send you to hell".
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
What moral system would you like to use as a reference/starting point? I use the Bible.
Well Hooooooo Doggy! Lets go Kill us some fags and rape us some *****es!
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
In all seriousness, HotSnoJ, the Bible's moral system is pretty much limited to "do what God says or he'll send you to hell".
ever read it?
no?
then shut up
-
I've read it, and that's prety much what I got out of it
/*went to a catholic high school*/
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
IMHO she looks like a right old tramp.
Yeah, but a hot tramp :D I'd tap that any day.
But Drew is right, halftime show sucked. I think it was better when it was just one artist performing at halftime and not when they throw in 5 different artists. Kid rock didn't do so bad, even though I'm not a kid rock fan. I was expecting Justin Timberlake to start dancing and he didn't. Janet stole the show.
-
Originally posted by Drew
ever read it?
no?
then shut up
Go read the Old Testament and then put your foot in your mouth.
-
go read the new testament and learn why christians dont really care that much about the old testament
-
You can try to evade the truth all you want, but you can't make the Old Testament just go away.
Also, there were actually TWO sets of Ten Commandments. After Moses smashed the first set upon seeing the golden calf, he went back to Mount Sinai and received a very different second set (Exodus 34:12 to 34:26):
1. Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee: But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves: For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God: Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice; And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods.
2. Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.
3. The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep. Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, as I commanded thee, in the time of the month Abib: for in the month Abib thou camest out from Egypt.
4. All that openeth the matrix is mine; and every firstling among thy cattle, whether ox or sheep, that is male. But the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him not, then shalt thou break his neck. All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before me empty.
5. Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest: in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest.
6. And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end.
7. Thrice in the year shall all your menchildren appear before the LORD God, the God of Israel. For I will cast out the nations before thee, and enlarge thy borders: neither shall any man desire thy land, when thou shalt go up to appear before the LORD thy God thrice in the year.
8. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning.
9. The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the LORD thy God.
10. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk
-
Hehe, yea, I thought that MJ was starting to look a lot like JJ :D
But, anyway, who cares? I did a google image search for "Janet Jackson", and came up with about five pr0n pics on the front page :D
So let's just relegate this to the "wierd" category :)
-
the wierd catagory is getting a bit full, though. Can we use the 'bizarre' or 'inexplicable' boxes instead?
-
Originally posted by Drew
go read the new testament and learn why christians dont really care that much about the old testament
Funny, because the Old Testament is used when it suits people for their own ends.
-
Gooooooooooooooood dammit. ENOUGH WITH THE ****IN JANETTE JACKSON BOOB!!!! F
or ****s sake people, WHO CARES?! Oh nooooooooooo you saw a tittie on television, ooooohohohohohohohohoh. Gah. We americans are so stuck up on this ****..... I
love how there is a ton of campaiging going on for the next presidential election, and what is on the front page of the paper? Not the results of the last stop on the primary trail, nooooo, its about Janettes ****ing boob.... God damn it, I'd rather be beaten about the head with a stone than listen to one more word about her nasty ass tit.
-
Then don't read.
-
Janet Jackson was hot in the 80's - mid 90s. Let's face it JJ is getting old, and she's probably going to try and Live forever like Joan Rivers. (whoever hosted the E! Academy awards red carpet crap!)
-
I'd rather be beaten about the head by her tits.
-
If I went in for signatures longer than my posts, I'd quote that
-
Who cares if she's getting old? Vivica A. Fox is hitting 40 and I wouldn't throw her outta bed.
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
What moral system would you like to use as a reference/starting point? I use the Bible.
Is that the same Bible that considers women to be chattel and tells you not to mix fabrics or eat pork -- and lists these as moral injunctions?
Seriously, HotSnoJ, if you're going to use the Bible as your moral standard, I want you to re-examine my question. A careful examination of the Bible will reveal NO (that's ZERO) entries that disallow a woman showing her breasts. It will, however, reveal several places where God says "KILLING IS BAD, MMMM'KAY?" and "THOU SHALT NOT KILL." and "LOOK, THIS KILLING THING: DID I MENTION IT WAS WRONG?"
So uh, which Bible are you talking about?
-
I bet I could get top dollar for a research paper on how a discussion on Janet Jackson's boob turned into one on religion and morals...
-
Damn, I hate it when someone shows me something I can't right away prove or disprove.
After some reading I concede that sometimes nudity can be 'ok' and others not. The superbowl however isn't one of the 'ok' times. It was lude, crude, and totally uncalled for.
"Thou shall not kill", isn't a good translation of the orginal text. A better translation is, "Thou shall not murder". Not only does it better reflect the original, but it also makes sense since the Israelites were told to kill in war and to serve out justice.
-
Originally posted by Shrike
You probably can't see it because you've been acting like mister boo ****ing humorless hoo for gods knows how long now. Maybe you should lighten up a tad, you were much more pleasant when you weren't angerman 5000.
You may be right.
To be completely serious, what is your problem? You've been pissy for quite a while now and it's really starting to get annoying. You act like everything is a personal attack and let it get under your skin. Why don't you, I dunno, do something fun and relaxing, calm yourself down some, because it certainly doesn't seem like you're calm or enjoying yourself here.
I don't think I've been pissy for "quite a while now", but I know I've been grumpy lately. I'll try to relax. Despite appearances, I do enjoy this place. That's why I hang out here and talk about a game I don't even play, discuss politics, and make models. This is as fun I can get right now.
I've got two main problems, Shrike, and other lesser ones. The whys and wherefores of that are not for you. Those who need to know, and those who don't don't. You're in the latter camp. As for doing something fun and relaxing and calming myself down in general, sorry, no can do. I'll try to cool it, though.
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
It was lude, crude, and totally uncalled for.
Absolutely, but it doesn't make it immoral. By the way, that's 'lewd'.
"Thou shall not kill", isn't a good translation of the orginal text. A better translation is, "Thou shall not murder". Not only does it better reflect the original, but it also makes sense since the Israelites were told to kill in war and to serve out justice.
Obviously, killing when God gives you the green light is not a problem morally. But I think you'll find that your minister, reverend, preacher, or other liturgical leader will tell you, in all circumstances, the glorification of killing is morally wrong. Go on. Ask him (or her).
Thus, I say again, America's priorities are screwed up. We're riled up about a bare, nipple-shielded breast, but its okay to trot out dead and bloody bodies to show the world how proud we are about killing a couple of guys.
-
Ok, I'm gonna drop the funnyman act...
First of all, the United States of America is a country which is so curtailed by rules and regulations, that it is hard for ANYONE to understand her. In fact, I have often thought that the US's power has been weakened, not by complacence (spelling?), but instead by the rules and regulations that it agreed to. But that's off-topic.
Back to Uday and Qusay:
The public wanted to see these two men dead. They wanted to. If they didn't, they would have never believed that it was actually done. Be honest with yourselves: would YOU have believed us if we HADN'T shown those pictures? I don't think you would have, and maybe I wouldn't have, either.
You were warned that if you did not like violence, that you should look away, am I correct? You were warned that the images might be disturbing.
And you know what's really, really rich? Everyone I know that was in the area when the pics first came on, stopped and looked. When they heard "gruesome pictures," everyone around at the place I was working at (a vet's office, ironically), stopped what they were doing, and turned to look. Says something about human nature, does it not?
It's not morals, it's the fact that they needed proof, and something to drive the point home. When you hear about a firebombing at a children's hospital, you go "Oh, no, that's so sad," but when you see a PICTURE of the bombed building, it really drives the point home.
About JJ's boob:
Oh ****ing GROW UP people. Whether accidental or deliberate, it still happened, and NO ONE knew about it (unless it was deliberate, then JJ and what's-his-face did, but the network producers DIDN'T). So it's not like they could have stopped recording before it happened.
And you know what happened next? CBS offered an apology to it's viewers. They said that they were sorry to anyone who might be offended.
True, America IS uptight when it comes to skin. However, is there a problem with this? Do you really wanna go outside naked? No? Then what are you complaining about? It's not like everyone in the US gets on their hands and knees and prays to God for the forgiveness of those two people, they just go "Oh, that's interesting, show it again. It's not the people that are uptight about skin, it's the governement.
I have more points to make, but I'm out of time, and I shall make them later.
-
I know I'd like to go outside naked.
:nervous:
-
I'm naked right now :nod:
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
I'm naked right now :nod:
Ok.......i got a very wrong mental image from that.
*dies*
-
Now, for my contribution to the Bible/10 Commandments thing:
If you read the part of the Bible about POWs, it definitely contradicts the spirit of the Geneva Convention. Specifically, the part about killing all of the men you capture. That kind of cements the "Thou shalt not murder." version.
But anyway, we're forgetting the most important part of this entire discussion: The show was pathetic anyway, and the entire culture of "popular" music is also rather pathetic.
-
wait, so without reading the whole 4 pages, you're now trying to compare the Bible's 10 commandments and POWs?
you've got to be kidding me!!!
-
No, of course not. I'm just making a comment on the "Thou shall not kill"/"Thou shall not murder" argument that was present on the last page. That section basically shows that the author of that part of the Bible obviously interpreted it as "Thou shall not murder."
-
I read that Aerosmith played before the game - now that I'd have risked seeing Janet's boobie for :nod:
One, two, three four! *launches into Walk This Way on air guitar*
-
Originally posted by PhReAk
I have a feeling Disposable Heroes or Damage Inc during SB halftime would be awesome
that should scare all those pop stars to death
Metallica? Scare?
Hah.
Maybe if they had Static - X play The Only or Cold..
As for the "incident".. What. The. Bloody. Fork?
At least half of the people on the WHOLE ****ING PLANET have seen something very similar to that every time they bathe.
At least half of the other half have seen something very similar.
As for the rest? Well, I have two words for you. BREAST FEEDING.
-
they would have scared people back in the 80s
they should play So What! on live TV again
-
At the very least, it would have meant people wouldn't have been pissed off about the boob any more :D
-
Originally posted by Thorn
Metallica? Scare?
Ok, what about Slayer, Pantera, or Children of Bodom? Cannibal Corpse?
Don't tell me that wouldn't scare the general public to hear Angel of Death at a halftime show...
:p
EDIT: Heck, they play Fuel by Metallica at Nascar races all the time.
-
I have a sneaky suspicion Janet herself planned this all alone with not a word to anyone else cause it would have meant someone whould have nixed her appearence..
I mean seriously, no way would ANY MTV employee greenlight her little nip slip for JUST the reason that happened, CBS(?) came down on them like a ton os bricks and the FCC is talking about fines I hear. BIG FINES
As for poor Justin is he really was clueless he'll hopefully get off, but if not he may be fined as well...
As for Janet I hope the sales of her new album outpace her future fine... See if the pre-release "publicity" was worth it...
In my mind she was counting onteh old business practice of "sex sells"... Unfortunately she forgot the 11th commandment "Thou shall not cause controversy during teh Super Bowl"... :lol:
I found this amusing:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by mikhael
American culture has the most screwy bias ever: BREASTS BAD and BLOODY CORPSES GOOD.
Lets see if our priorities are wrong by doing a 180 and re-arrainging the words like so:
Corpses Bad, Bloody Breasts good! (gee I like this type of world better! as dead bodies ARE bad and Brittish people LIKE Breasts so their slang for describing them is cool)
Thoughts?
oh yeah, I missed the super bowl (whoopie) anyone got a pic of the breast in question? ;7
-
Originally posted by Solatar
Ok, what about Slayer, Pantera, or Children of Bodom? Cannibal Corpse?
Don't tell me that wouldn't scare the general public to hear Angel of Death at a halftime show...
:p
EDIT: Heck, they play Fuel by Metallica at Nascar races all the time.
well met sure is alot "scarier" than some random britney spears/jackson/timberlake song.
Back to the front
you will die when I say, you must die
don't have any slayer though. any good albums i can look at? (im thinking late-80s era)
and i think fuel kinda fits with the theme of nascar and all. not to mention they tend to like rock/country more often than pop
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
Damn, I hate it when someone shows me something I can't right away prove or disprove.
After some reading I concede that sometimes nudity can be 'ok' and others not. The superbowl however isn't one of the 'ok' times. It was lude, crude, and totally uncalled for.
"Thou shall not kill", isn't a good translation of the orginal text. A better translation is, "Thou shall not murder". Not only does it better reflect the original, but it also makes sense since the Israelites were told to kill in war and to serve out justice.
The "justice" they served out to enemy kingdoms was killing the men, slaughtering the livestock, destroying and looting any cities or towns they came across, and enslaving the women and children. That sounds more barbaric than just.
The Bible is a relic from a more savage time, and its morality is obsolete.
-
Originally posted by Thorn
At least half of the other half have seen something very similar.
As for the rest? Well, I have two words for you. BREAST FEEDING.
That witch is so old her kids are probably all adults now.
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
Back to Uday and Qusay:
The public wanted to see these two men dead. They wanted to. If they didn't, they would have never believed that it was actually done. Be honest with yourselves: would YOU have believed us if we HADN'T shown those pictures? I don't think you would have, and maybe I wouldn't have, either.
You were warned that if you did not like violence, that you should look away, am I correct? You were warned that the images might be disturbing.
Wow. Way to miss the point.
Actually, given that NO ONE HERE KNOWS WHAT UDAY AND QUSAY LOOK LIKE, they could have shot up a couple of mexicans and put dish towels on their heads and the average american would eat it up. Get a clue. It doesn't matter whether we would have believed it or not. Before Bush decided to play at being a military man (which is rich considering his military record) no one on this side of the planet knew, or gave a damn who Uday and Qusay were. And guess what: we still don't. The whole thing was a publicity ploy: "Oh look! We gots teh bad mans kids! guess who is next!"
That however WAS NOT THE POINT. The point is that the bloodied, bloated corpses of two men, no matter who they were, weren't just shown on TV. They PARADED. The images were trotted out every half hour. The media gloried in showing the photos.
If it'll make you feel better, we'll drop Uday and Qusay and I'll direct you to the local television from the last week and a half for my area. You can't watch a single channel around here without seeing them playing and replaying cars sliding around on ice and crashing into each other. You can't seem to avoid the images of cars mangled and the discussion--in intimate detail--about the injuries of people you've never met and never knew. Carnage is good.
So let's try to put things back into perspective: bloody bloated corpses and wrecks are okay, and a woman's breast is bad. Glorying in killing and the misfortunes of others is okay, the proper source of a child's nourishment is bad. Violence and injury is good, sex is bad.
Its skewed, screwy priorities.
-
I didn't really mind it, although I thought it was in bad taste...
-
uh, realy we do have quite a lot of sex,
being potraied as a good thing that you would want to be involved in.
I'm not makeing this **** up, realy.
don't beleve me? enter a random IP address into your web broser, of the ones form America I'd say 10 to 1 you'd be getting a porno page
-
Originally posted by mikhael
That however WAS NOT THE POINT. The point is that the bloodied, bloated corpses of two men, no matter who they were, weren't just shown on TV. They PARADED. The images were trotted out every half hour. The media gloried in showing the photos.
What really annoyed me about this was that when american POW's were shown on Iraqi TV it was a breach of the Geneva Convention. When it was Iraqis, that was fine.
-
Firstly: If you people had any lives at all you wouldn't care about seeing a woman's boob.
Secondly: The Bible is not a 'relic'. It's full of common-sense, which is good. But people quote it selectively and out of context to suit their own needs, which is 'bad'. Bible = Good, Religion = Bad.
Thirdly: The Bible is basically an Israeli Kama Sutra. Although most of you are probably too stupid to know, the Kama Sutra contains more than just sex and gives detailed instructions on how to live a good, fulfilling and happy life. Just as the Bible does. Only the Bible does it with examplative stories and metaphors to help stupid people understand why they should do as it says.
Finally: Uday and Qusay's "parade" wasn't about showing they were dead or even about stiring up crappy patriotism. It was purely about diverting attention away from the piss-poor state of American society. Which sounds best: "American troops finally shoot the enemy" or "Five hundred people died today because of lax fire-arms laws" or "Seven children found dead in paedophile's sex-dungeon"?
-
Originally posted by Turnsky
*gives steak a small library*
Thanks, Turnsky. :)
an0n, you raise some pretty good points there. Not sure I totally agree with it, but thanks for the rationality.
@ both Mik and SnoJ: I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding here. I'd acknowledge that murder = bad, sexual immorality = bad...
(There's nothing wrong with nudity itself. The human body is a beautiful thing, and God knows that - He invented the thing! However, as Jesus teaches that looking at a woman lustfully is tantamount to adultery, and adultery is a sin that twists the human soul into a terrible form, therefore causing others to stumble by being showing excessive flesh that could arouse us blokes is a bad thing. On a Pacific island where the women wear hardly anything, where guys could conceivably not look at a woman lustfully if she was half naked, then this would not be a problem. But in our circumstances, it is. There's more to say, but I'll leave it for now.)
... but the Bible says that all sins are bad. It's not like any particular one is better to show on TV or not. Basically, the whole world's sense of morality has been broken up since the Fall, and even in Christians it hasn't quite been restored - so this argument, from my POV, is basically over which lethal poison is less healthy for you. My two cents. If this is worth discussing, I'll split off the posts into a new thread.
-
Sins are not relative.
You either sin or you don't.
So if you wanna see JJ's titties you gotta put up with the corpses too and vice-versa.
-
True dat. And it turns out, everyone has (except for One), so no use pretending.
-
Unless you think that there is no good reason to follow christian morality and say that seeing a woman naked is a sin.
As far as I'm concerned if a woman wants to show her tits then there is nothing morally wrong with looking at them. If you're in a relationship then it's up to the two of you to set the boundries where ever you want.
-
It's a choice based on personal preferences, both to show your private parts, and to look at other people's.
That's what I dislike so much about Christian fundamentalists. They bring religion into everything, calling everything that isn't stated in the Bible as a sin.
Of course, that's my personal opinion.
-
As for me, well I'm just tagging along for the ride.
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
....That's what I dislike so much about Christian fundamentalists. They bring religion into everything, calling everything that isn't stated in the Bible as a sin.
Of course, that's my personal opinion.
And it's an opinion that I share. But, as I'm sure UT is well aware, it's not only Christian fundamentalists that do it, Muslim and Jewish fundamentalists do it as well.
And the concept of sin, as I define it as the act of doing something so horrible it invites divine retribution from God himself, is one that I find completely ludicrous.
But then again, I'm an atheist, so go figure. And I'm a lawyer, too, so I know all about abiding by the law; I just think the law becomes too easily perverted (especially) when it's used as a basis for enforcing morality. The law is NOT a moral tool, folks, especially here in the USA. There's a reason we have a First Amendment forbidding the mixture of church and state.
I still remember the flap that happened a few weeks ago when Bush was asked if Muslims and Christians worshipped the same God and Bush said essentially yes. The Christian evangelicals threw a huge hissy fit and complained that Muslims "worship only an idol. WE worship the real thing." They also said, "well, the President made a mistake and isn't a theologian, so we'll forgive him this gaffe."
One major reason I became an atheist was because I got so sick and tired of each religion shouting that it was the One True Faith. I basically decided that they're all a bunch of incompetent, intolerant, sadomasochist bastards who don't know the first thing about treating everybody equally regardless of religion, skin color or sexual orientation.
Besides, I got better things to do on my Sunday mornings than sit in a boring, stuffy room with a bunch of other people listening to another tired cliche, fire-and-brimstone sermon about how we're all destined to go to hell "because we're all sinners." Like sleeping in, for one.
I hate the concept of sin because it implies that we are all fundamentally flawed from birth. Bullsh*t. I have done nothing to warrant going to hell. I'm not a murderer or a madman or a rapist. I have nothing to atone for. And the concept that I have to atone for myself just because I was born is total crap. The idea that Man "fell" from a state of divine "grace" is nothing but a farcical illusion. We descended from monkeys, peeps. Monkeys don't have a concept of grace. Religion says we were at a high state when we were first created, then fell to a lower one and have been trying (and mostly failing) to make up for it ever since. Evolution says that we started out as a lower form of life and have been gaining knowledge and wisdom ever since. Which concept better sustains your self-esteem and self-worth?
F*ck all religions, I say. If your faith sustains you, great. When my mom got sick with cancer, her faith kept her strong enough to fight for five years, so I know firsthand how faith can make people stronger.
But the moment anyone tries to use his religion to justify making another group of people into second class citizens (like women, gays, minorities or "non-believers") is the same moment that I sue that person for discrimination. Or it's the same moment I cheer on the deaths of Muslim fundamentalists who fight on behalf of Osama bin laden. Either one is good. *shrugs*
*Rant mode disengaged*
Note to UT: I wasn't ranting at anything you said, I was just ranting NEAR you. Your comment just reminded me why I hate religions in general.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
What really annoyed me about this was that when american POW's were shown on Iraqi TV it was a breach of the Geneva Convention. When it was Iraqis, that was fine.
The Geneva Convention applied to prisoners of war. Uday and Qusay were killed outright, not taken prisoner.
Generally, whether looking lustfully at naked chicks is bad or not depends on who the woman is, whether or not your wife finds it acceptable, and whether or not she can find out.:p
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
I still remember the flap that happened a few weeks ago when Bush was asked if Muslims and Christians worshipped the same God and Bush said essentially yes. The Christian evangelicals threw a huge hissy fit and complained that Muslims "worship only an idol. WE worship the real thing." They also said, "well, the President made a mistake and isn't a theologian, so we'll forgive him this gaffe."
He said that? I'm shocked. It might be the smartest thing he ever said.
Any theologian who studies judeochristian and muslim dogma knows, as a matter of fact, they DO worship the same God.
I'm with you, Su, on most of what you said, though I'm not an atheist.
-
Apparently you're not allowed to show close-ups of POWs' faces. A shot of a crowd of 'em is fine. Some thing about the relatives possibly seeing the pictures and learning about a soldier's captivity that way. IIRC, the Merkins stuck to this rule pretty much. I do remember thinking 'aren't they breaking their own rules?', but I'm not certain having learned that fact that the Merkins did broadcast close-ups of POws. And certainly, for what it's worth, the Iraqis did it first and did it hell of a lot more.
-
Ok, from Janet's boob to religion...? :p
Anywayz, whats the big deal? I mean a boob! It's that round thing (ok, at least it's supposed to be roundish) on a woman's chest. I see all kinds of stuff happening in the US about this so-called 'outrage' but really... whats all the fuss about? Again: a boob.
Ow, I'm so glad I live in Holland :D At least here we think: "A boob on TV... Ok, is something else on?" I usually think that unless boobs are within arms length, they're just... boobs... No big deal :p
-
Personally, I am disgusted not because it's a boob but because it's an exceptionally hideous boob with a big ugly nipple ring on it.:p
Janet Jackson's breasts are too aestheticaly offensive to be shown on TV.
-
*resists comment on offensive behavior...*
The problem lies in the fact that, like it or not, every station that aired the Superbowl halftime show was in effect in violation of the contractual agreement they signed on to when they took out a broadcast license, and none of them knew it was coming. I will also state that I find little wrong with the content, provided there is some sort of restriction on who is watching. By performing a lude act on a nationally (live) aired event, even if it was showing a little skin, was terribly disrespectful to the morals of their audience (I have some major qualms with basketball fans at University of Maryland games for the same reasons, but that doesn't belong on this board). That doesn't mean that everyone watching was or should have been offended by what happened, it simply means that some of the audience was and they were not given fair warning that it was coming. No "kids, cover your eyes" for the conservative families out there, not even a notice that said the broadcast would contain a sexually suggestive performance, and that is a problem. I mean, that's not the sort of thing you want your 11-year-old kid watching. It's the Superbowl, the most-watched TV show in America, not some late night, semi-porn flick. There is a difference.
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
The Geneva Convention applied to prisoners of war. Uday and Qusay were killed outright, not taken prisoner.
And what about their daddy dearest? The man is a complete scumbag but considering how loudly the americans complained when Saddam paraded their soldiers on the TV I found it a little rich of them to do the same thing to him.
DG : I don't know what war footage you saw but I clearly remember seeing footage of Iraqi soldiers surrendering and being searched on national TV. If you had known the guy you certainly could have recognised him.
Strat : That's pretty much my feelings on the matter. I don't particularly like seeing nudity on TV at the wrong time. If I want to see a naked woman I've got a broadband connection to the internet. I don't particularly want to be sitting watching TV with grandma and see that sort of thing :D
-
Originally posted by karajorma
The man is a complete scumbag but considering how loudly the americans complained when Saddam paraded their soldiers on the TV I found it a little rich of them to do the same thing to him.
[/b]
You could just as easily take the other end of the stick and say he had it comming
I don't know what war footage you saw but I clearly remember seeing footage of Iraqi soldiers surrendering and being searched on national TV. If you had known the guy you certainly could have recognised him.
Me neither. It was nearly a year ago. I remember seeing wide-angle shots of a row of guys, or guys lying on their faces as they were being made prisoner. Which is why I said I wasn't sure if they did or did not show anti-Geneva pictures.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
And what about their daddy dearest? The man is a complete scumbag but considering how loudly the americans complained when Saddam paraded their soldiers on the TV I found it a little rich of them to do the same thing to him.
That's a little different, actually.
Why?
A) The US soldiers were just regular soldiers, nothing special about them. Also, they were forced to read lines stating that Iraq is superior or whatever, I'm not sure.
B) The US soldiers were beaten. Sadam was not. He was poked and prodded (to ascertain his health), but not beaten.
C) The US does not parade capture Iraqi POWs, does it?
EDIT: In the fasion Sadam did, I mean.
-
IT doesn't matter who was beaten and who wasn't. Showing them at all is the violation.
And lets move back to Janet's boob: Why is it okay to show DENNIS FRANZ FAT NASTY HAIRY NAKED ASS on NYPD Blue, but Janet's boob is bad? Don't give me the 'most watched show' thing, because NYPD Blue gets syndication and reruns and is in primetime most of the year. And it wasn't even just one shot of his ass. It was several.
-
On the Dennis Franz thing, there appears to be something that makes people want to see disgusting things or people being embarassed. That, really, is the source of many of the shows on TV, especially all of the reality shows.
The reason why it doesn't make as big of a splash is because they warn you about it before it happens. The Janet Jackson thing? No warning.
Personally, I feel the real problem with that halftime show was that the music was horrible.
-
Ah, so having warning makes it better?
In that case, Jackson's statement before the Superbowl that she had something interesting in mind should have been plenty of warning.
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
On the Dennis Franz thing, there appears to be something that makes people want to see disgusting things or people being embarassed. That, really, is the source of many of the shows on TV, especially all of the reality shows.
The reason why it doesn't make as big of a splash is because they warn you about it before it happens. The Janet Jackson thing? No warning.
Personally, I feel the real problem with that halftime show was that the music was horrible.
What? You expect MTV's music to NOT be horrible?:wtf:
-
I got so caught up in my anti-religion rant, I forgot to rant about Janet Jackson's boob.
Brace yourself while I take a deep breath in preparation for my rant.
*takes a deep breath*
I didn't watch the half-time show. As soon as it came on, I switched to CNN to see the MoveOn.org Bush deficit ad that CBS refused to air during the halftime show because CBS said it was "too controversial."
(Incidentally, if you want to see the ad, you can find it here (http://www.moveon.org/front/). Just look for the "Child's pay" ad on the upper left of the screen. If anyone can find ANYTHING controversial about this ad, please tell me.)
So, because of CBS's desire to avoid controversy, instead of seeing a relatively harmless political ad about 10-year olds working off the national debt, we got commercials about flatulent horses and erectile dysfunction and a halftime show featuring crappy pop music lyricizing mostly about teens having sex and also (inadvertently?) featuring Janet Jackson's boob, all while 14 million children were watching.
Man, I LOVE irony.
Personally, I think everyone's overreacting about this whole boob thing; I couldn't really care less. I tried to watch the rest of the Super Bowl but lost interest by the end of the 3rd quarter and went back to doing something far more worthwhile with my time: I played Freelancer.
All the same, I can't help but feel CBS deserved this controversy because they squelched the Reagan miniseres when conservatives complained that it was an insult to Reagan and they squelched the MoveOn.org ad. Basically, CBS is turning into FOX, but with significantly less testicular fortitude. (And all the evidence I've seen tells me that Dan Rather doesn't even have any balls, if indeed he ever had them.) Whatever, with the exception of "The Simpsons," it's not like I watch anything on either channel; they both suck.
CBS tried to sidestep a piece of dog-turd and wound up falling into a cesspool instead. Whoopsie! :wtf: :hopping: :lol: :p :rolleyes:
EDIT: Oh, yeah, I forgot to mention that the FCC is going to investigate the boob incident and see if any laws were broken. If so, CBS and MTV could get fined something fierce.
Gee, maybe my geopolitical priorities are out of step with the rest of the American public, but couldn't we find a better use for spending that taxpayer money? Like, say, oh gee, I don't know, finding Osama bin Laden???? :hopping: :nervous: :hopping:
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
You could just as easily take the other end of the stick and say he had it comming
And the Iraqis in Saddam's government could just as easily argue that any soldier captured fighting a war against them several thousend miles from home when Iraq posed no real threat to the US also had it coming.
That's why the convention bans all such displays. So that political rhetoric can't be used to sidestep the issue that it is a violation.
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
but couldn't we find a better use for spending that taxpayer money? Like, say, oh gee, I don't know, finding Osama bin Laden???? :hopping: :nervous: :hopping:
It's not like the Manhatten project, where you can just throw money at it. We knew that was possible. We don't know if this is.
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
I tried to watch the rest of the Super Bowl but lost interest by the end of the 3rd quarter and went back to doing something far more worthwhile with my time: I played Freelancer.
Man, did you get screwed. Not only did you miss the end of a damned good game, but you missed it to play the worst space shooter in the history of the genre.
I've lost all respect for you, Su. ;)
Just kidding. But Freelancer does suck. *heh*
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Ah, so having warning makes it better?
In that case, Jackson's statement before the Superbowl that she had something interesting in mind should have been plenty of warning.
Warning means I can change the channel.
-
So the Superbowl Goon Squad came in and tied you down and took away your remote?
-
Meh, if I'd heard 'This show contains Janet Jackson Topless' I'd certainly change the channel ;)
It's a storm in a bloody teacup, So JT ripped JJ's dress... wow, no-one shouted loud when Xena's boob popped out at a Disney show, but then Xena IS worth staying tuned for ;)
-
Originally posted by mikhael
So the Superbowl Goon Squad came in and tied you down and took away your remote?
I was pointing out the flaw in your Dennis Franz argument.
-
Funny, I had pretty much exactly as much warning wtih Dennis Franz' ass as I did with Janet Jackson's boob. The difference is that Janet Jackson's boob is something worth seeing and Dennis Franz' ass is not.
Look, I'm really not defending Jackson here. I'm saying that the whole thing is blown out of proportion. I just don't get why its so important that a breast was shown. Its just a breast. Even in the context it was shown (blatantly sexual) its not terribly remarkable. But its overshadowed the real issues of the day, somehow. So what' the big deal? Its a damn breast. Nothing more.
-
I find the whole thing incredibly amusing. Also remember when I was ten or eleven years old, sneaking off with a stolen porn mag to stare at the laydeez. I'm pretty sure that for most kids it's a normal course of affairs.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Funny, I had pretty much exactly as much warning wtih Dennis Franz' ass as I did with Janet Jackson's boob. The difference is that Janet Jackson's boob is something worth seeing and Dennis Franz' ass is not.
I agree with you about Dennis Franz' ass, but I'm not sure that I would call Janet Jackson's boob as "something worth seeing." :wtf:
But then again, I didn't see it at all (Thank God/Jehovah/YHWH/Allah/whatever-the-dingleberry-is-called-nowadays), so I wouldn't know either way.
And Freelancer multiplayer doesn't suck (much). :p :D
-
yes multi is fun, even if the single player story has a lame ending.
but mik is just sour since he can't use his $300 HOTAS setup
-
Well I didn't have the sweetsweet HOTAS when I played Freelancer. I'm just sour because they removed PILOTING FROM A SPACE PILOTING GAME.
-
It's not a space piloting game. It can't be a space piloting game! It's not a space piloting game... *goes off, muttering to himself*
-
Originally posted by 01010
I find the whole thing incredibly amusing. Also remember when I was ten or eleven years old, sneaking off with a stolen porn mag to stare at the laydeez. I'm pretty sure that for most kids it's a normal course of affairs.
The money's in the resale value, though...........ran a minor racket with my older brother at primary school :thepimp:
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
The money's in the resale value, though...........ran a minor racket with my older brother at primary school :thepimp:
I remember one guy in high school brought in a briefcase full of porn mags which instantly resulted in us throwing around the entire class leaving aforementioned blokey with severe embarassment, a week of isolation (does exactly what it says on the tin) and a parent teacher meeting.
I'd have felt bad for him if it wasn't so god damn funny and he wasn't so god damn stupid.
At least 15 porn mags in pieces covering every part of a classroom is art in my opinion, especially when the teacher walked in.
-
:lol: