Sign In

Warbler

User Group
Trusted Members
Join date
7-May-2003
Last activity
23-Oct-2017
Posts
23538

Post History

Post
#1121368
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

She said “Fight the real enemy!” And no, no one was confused.

um, I think the powers that be at SNL were confused enough that they decided to never let back on SNL again and apologized for her actions. I don’t think they did that because they want to hide child molesters.

They did that because they didn’t want to get any negative attention from people who thought that the pope was above criticism even on a subject as severe as child abuse.

Then I assume you think SNL cowardly.

In that instance, of course.

Ok then.

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

The point is that you think it’s getting worse and worse. Which is funny. Because black people would probably say what is getting worse and worse is the police killing them. But you know, protesting during the anthem is the real problem.

I think both are a problem. Obviously the wrongful killing of African Americans is a more serious problem. This does not mean that people protesting the anthem is not a problem.

It isn’t.

In your opinion.

I hate to sound like someone we all can’t stand, but you’re denying the truth here.

agree to disagree

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

I’d be interested in hearing ric_olie_2’s take on the incident.

He might think that SNL is an inappropriate venue for such a statement. I personally think it’s one of the most beautiful and stunning protests ever done by a musician.

I don’t think I’d call it beautiful.

It was a bold, brave, and beautiful action by a bold, brave, and beautiful woman. She timed and planned it all perfectly so that the producers wouldn’t expect it and would be unable to cut it because it was live, and she pulled out the picture as she sang the final lyric, “Evil”. And who could forget, “Fight the real enemy!” It gives me the chills every time I see it. She was so ahead of her time with it too.

agree to disagree.

I would ask why you object to her but I think that would be a can of worms not worth opening.

Somehow tearing up a pic of the Pope on live tv without any explanation given doesn’t seem like a good way of protesting. It also seems to offensive to Catholics that had nothing to do with the scandal. Do you think it would be ok to protest 911 by tearing up a pic of Muhammad on live tv without giving any explanation?

There was an explanation given.

She took the pic, tore it up, said nothing. That is not an explanation.

She changed the lyrics of the Marley song to refer to child abuse before she tore up the picture.

Do you honestly think people really had an idea why she tore up the pic? There is reason why people disliked her for awhile after that pic and it is not because people approve of the Catholic Church covering for child molesters.

Who cares if it’s offensive?

many people.

Well, I’m sure the victims of the priests that got away with rape and abuse have it a little worse than being offended by an SNL stunt.

I would agree. In fact I would say the victims of the priests have it a lot worse.

So then why dumb down the protest to spare the feelings of people who refuse to believe that the Vatican was capable of such horror?

I don’t know that protesting without tearing up a pic of the Pope means you have to dumb it down.

It would have because her point was that the whole scandal was deeper than just a few evil priests.

I think that point could have been made without doing what she did.

How? By saying, “Ladies and gentlemen, please reflect on the potential guilt of the Holy Father in the cover up of the child sex abuse scandals?”

There are other ways.

She only had a couple seconds after singing her song to do it anyway.

So SNL was the only place one could protest back then?

Of course not but it was the best place for her to bring the most attention to the issue? Are you really implying that SNL is too sacred of a place for protests now?

If the person whose picture you’re tearing up was, at least tacitly, involved in the cover up of the scandals, then you shouldn’t fear offending people that respect him.

We are talking about Religion here, its complicated.

I don’t agree.

well we will just have to disagree then. because I don’t think I have the ability to explain it to you. Perhaps RicOlie_2 could, I don’t know.

Something tells me that he couldn’t, because I don’t believe that simply because other people worship somebody then that means we should turn a blind eye, or even go easier on them when they commit atrocities.

I never said we should turn a blind eye to child abuse.

I know. I wasn’t referring to turning a blind eye to child abuse but rather turning a blind eye to the role that supposedly sacred people played in the child abuse.

I never said we should turn a blind eye to that either.

It certainly seems that way. Shouldn’t anyone who played a role in a child sex abuse coverup be criticized incredibly harshly?

Yes, I suppose.

I don’t understand this “suppose” shit. Why would that require any reluctance?

I would also hope you first find out exactly what role the Pope had in this scandal(what did/didn’t he do, what did he know, when did he know it. Those sorts of things).

I don’t see why it’s okay to talk about how evil people like Trump are when we all know plenty of people worship him, but it’s not okay to do the same to the pope or people in positions like his.

President and Pope are two very different things.

Apparently since one can be criticized more harshly than the other, but why?

They can both be criticized. But one is just the President. The other is to Catholics the successor to Peter the Apostle and is given the Keys of Heaven and the powers of “binding and loosing”. More sensitivity is required when dealing with such an entity.

That’s a copout.

It is?

Of course. He’s holy, so you can’t be quite so hard on him. He’s divine. Fuck that, and fuck him.

*sigh*

*yawn*

I don’t care if you’ve got the keys to heaven if you’re, even just tacitly, permitting what he permitted to happen under his tenure.

Again, I am not saying that the Pope shouldn’t be criticized for his role in the scandal.

You’re just saying that he shouldn’t be criticized too harshly.

nope.

Yes. Tearing up his picture is too harsh for you because of how much he was worshiped. That’s been your point the whole time. I don’t like it when people hold a belief and call it something else.

Why does religion get a pass?

I did not say it gets a pass, I said it was complicated.

Especially when we’re talking about a man that is a religious figure. She didn’t tear up a picture of Jesus Christ or anything like that. I would get people’s complaints a little more if that were the case.

She tore up picture of the guy that Catholics believe is the successor to Peter the Apostle, who Catholics believe “Jesus is said to have given the Keys of Heaven and the powers of “binding and loosing”, naming him as the “rock” upon which the church would be built” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope

I know what they believe about the pope, I’m just saying that I don’t care.

Just because you don’t care about something, doesn’t mean it shouldn’t matter.

You realize that attitudes like this are what allow these things to happen?

wanting people to be respectful of other’s religion allowed children to be molested?

Saying that we can’t harshly criticize the covering up and refusal to report child molesters because the people involved are worshiped is horrifying to me.

When did I say you couldn’t harshly criticize them?

You said that you couldn’t criticize them too harshly so as not to offend devout Catholics.

No, I said you needed to be a little more sensitive about it. But I no problem giving the Pope harsh criticism when it is desearved.

How harsh is it allowed to be?

Pretty harsh, especially considering that we are talking about a child abuse scandal and cover up. But somehow tearing up a pic of the Pope on live TV like that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Replace the word Pope with “person that played a role in covering up the child rape scandal”. That sounds pretty sick doesn’t it? Why is the fact that the man that did something that, had anyone else done it, you’d spare him no vitriol, but because other people in a religion you don’t subscribe to worship him, we have to pussyfoot around the issue?

I don’t see why him being respected as a religious figure makes him special. Does Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church deserve to be handled sensitively? People in his sect have a pretty high opinion of him. What about Jim Bakker, noted conman and religious preacher?

When the churches Fred Phelps and Jim Bakker obtain the status the Catholic Church has, has as many followers as the Catholic Church, has been around as long as the Catholic Church, then get back to me on this.

So you have to be old and have a large following to be immune to harsh criticism? Ok.

Also, if someone is involved in a child sex abuse coverup, why should they be handled sensitively? Joe Paterno was in a similar situation, and people treat football like a religion so should they have been a little less hard on him?

While they may sometimes treat football like a religion, it is not a religion.

It might as well be. Since you’re always talking about differing opinions and agreeing to disagree, you should make some effort to realize that I don’t care at all what someone’s religion is. Their religion will not make me change anything that I would otherwise say, just like their political allegiance wouldn’t make me change anything I’d otherwise say. So when a religious figure does some evil stuff, I’m not going to mince words because other people worship him.

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

She said “Fight the real enemy!” And no, no one was confused.

um, I think the powers that be at SNL were confused enough that they decided to never let back on SNL again and apologized for her actions. I don’t think they did that because they want to hide child molesters.

They did that because they didn’t want to get any negative attention from people who thought that the pope was above criticism even on a subject as severe as child abuse.

Then I assume you think SNL cowardly.

In that instance, of course.

Ok then.

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

The point is that you think it’s getting worse and worse. Which is funny. Because black people would probably say what is getting worse and worse is the police killing them. But you know, protesting during the anthem is the real problem.

I think both are a problem. Obviously the wrongful killing of African Americans is a more serious problem. This does not mean that people protesting the anthem is not a problem.

It isn’t.

In your opinion.

I hate to sound like someone we all can’t stand, but you’re denying the truth here.

agree to disagree

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

I’d be interested in hearing ric_olie_2’s take on the incident.

He might think that SNL is an inappropriate venue for such a statement. I personally think it’s one of the most beautiful and stunning protests ever done by a musician.

I don’t think I’d call it beautiful.

It was a bold, brave, and beautiful action by a bold, brave, and beautiful woman. She timed and planned it all perfectly so that the producers wouldn’t expect it and would be unable to cut it because it was live, and she pulled out the picture as she sang the final lyric, “Evil”. And who could forget, “Fight the real enemy!” It gives me the chills every time I see it. She was so ahead of her time with it too.

agree to disagree.

I would ask why you object to her but I think that would be a can of worms not worth opening.

Somehow tearing up a pic of the Pope on live tv without any explanation given doesn’t seem like a good way of protesting. It also seems to offensive to Catholics that had nothing to do with the scandal. Do you think it would be ok to protest 911 by tearing up a pic of Muhammad on live tv without giving any explanation?

There was an explanation given.

She took the pic, tore it up, said nothing. That is not an explanation.

She changed the lyrics of the Marley song to refer to child abuse before she tore up the picture.

Do you honestly think people really had an idea why she tore up the pic? There is reason why people disliked her for awhile after that pic and it is not because people approve of the Catholic Church covering for child molesters.

Who cares if it’s offensive?

many people.

Well, I’m sure the victims of the priests that got away with rape and abuse have it a little worse than being offended by an SNL stunt.

I would agree. In fact I would say the victims of the priests have it a lot worse.

So then why dumb down the protest to spare the feelings of people who refuse to believe that the Vatican was capable of such horror?

I don’t know that protesting without tearing up a pic of the Pope means you have to dumb it down.

It would have because her point was that the whole scandal was deeper than just a few evil priests.

I think that point could have been made without doing what she did.

How? By saying, “Ladies and gentlemen, please reflect on the potential guilt of the Holy Father in the cover up of the child sex abuse scandals?” She only had a couple seconds after singing her song to do it anyway.

Warbler has demonstrated time after time that he doesn’t understand how protests work.

I thought they worked something like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UV1fs8lAbg

But I guess I was wrong.

I’m getting really tired of you revising history to treat MLK like he was some moderate, inoffensive, innocuous protester. He was incredibly controversial. He intentionally stirred up as much trouble as he possibly could. He wanted to offend the people that stood in the way of his goal. That’s why he was so effective for God’s sake!

Your nonsense about the anthem being an inappropriate time or the pope being an inappropriate subject for protest could easily be applied to King at the National Mall. “Our nation’s capital and monuments are no place for a protest, peaceful or otherwise.” It sounds exactly like the same shit you’re saying about the athletes and Sinéad, that the protest is okay but only if it gets no attention and doesn’t do or say anything that might irritate someone.

Anyway, I just wanted to point that out because it’s one of many times that you’ve watered down MLK to support your comments against completely peaceful and harmless protests.

You are putting so many words in my mouth and misunderstanding me so much that it is not worth replying to you.

Post
#1121363
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

She said “Fight the real enemy!” And no, no one was confused.

um, I think the powers that be at SNL were confused enough that they decided to never let back on SNL again and apologized for her actions. I don’t think they did that because they want to hide child molesters.

They did that because they didn’t want to get any negative attention from people who thought that the pope was above criticism even on a subject as severe as child abuse.

Then I assume you think SNL cowardly.

In that instance, of course.

Ok then.

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

The point is that you think it’s getting worse and worse. Which is funny. Because black people would probably say what is getting worse and worse is the police killing them. But you know, protesting during the anthem is the real problem.

I think both are a problem. Obviously the wrongful killing of African Americans is a more serious problem. This does not mean that people protesting the anthem is not a problem.

It isn’t.

In your opinion.

I hate to sound like someone we all can’t stand, but you’re denying the truth here.

agree to disagree

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

I’d be interested in hearing ric_olie_2’s take on the incident.

He might think that SNL is an inappropriate venue for such a statement. I personally think it’s one of the most beautiful and stunning protests ever done by a musician.

I don’t think I’d call it beautiful.

It was a bold, brave, and beautiful action by a bold, brave, and beautiful woman. She timed and planned it all perfectly so that the producers wouldn’t expect it and would be unable to cut it because it was live, and she pulled out the picture as she sang the final lyric, “Evil”. And who could forget, “Fight the real enemy!” It gives me the chills every time I see it. She was so ahead of her time with it too.

agree to disagree.

I would ask why you object to her but I think that would be a can of worms not worth opening.

Somehow tearing up a pic of the Pope on live tv without any explanation given doesn’t seem like a good way of protesting. It also seems to offensive to Catholics that had nothing to do with the scandal. Do you think it would be ok to protest 911 by tearing up a pic of Muhammad on live tv without giving any explanation?

There was an explanation given.

She took the pic, tore it up, said nothing. That is not an explanation.

She changed the lyrics of the Marley song to refer to child abuse before she tore up the picture.

Do you honestly think people really had an idea why she tore up the pic? There is reason why people disliked her for awhile after that pic and it is not because people approve of the Catholic Church covering for child molesters.

Who cares if it’s offensive?

many people.

Well, I’m sure the victims of the priests that got away with rape and abuse have it a little worse than being offended by an SNL stunt.

I would agree. In fact I would say the victims of the priests have it a lot worse.

So then why dumb down the protest to spare the feelings of people who refuse to believe that the Vatican was capable of such horror?

I don’t know that protesting without tearing up a pic of the Pope means you have to dumb it down.

It would have because her point was that the whole scandal was deeper than just a few evil priests.

I think that point could have been made without doing what she did.

How? By saying, “Ladies and gentlemen, please reflect on the potential guilt of the Holy Father in the cover up of the child sex abuse scandals?” She only had a couple seconds after singing her song to do it anyway.

Warbler has demonstrated time after time that he doesn’t understand how protests work.

I thought they worked something like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UV1fs8lAbg

But I guess I was wrong.

Oh, ok, I didn’t realize all protests have to be exactly the same.

That is not what I was saying. I just thought it was a good example a of great protest.

And that things are exactly the same now as they were then. Gotcha.

not sure what this is supposed to me. Things may be different, but still a great strong powerful speech is still a good way of protesting.

Post
#1121362
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

She said “Fight the real enemy!” And no, no one was confused.

um, I think the powers that be at SNL were confused enough that they decided to never let back on SNL again and apologized for her actions. I don’t think they did that because they want to hide child molesters.

They did that because they didn’t want to get any negative attention from people who thought that the pope was above criticism even on a subject as severe as child abuse.

Then I assume you think SNL cowardly.

In that instance, of course.

Ok then.

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

The point is that you think it’s getting worse and worse. Which is funny. Because black people would probably say what is getting worse and worse is the police killing them. But you know, protesting during the anthem is the real problem.

I think both are a problem. Obviously the wrongful killing of African Americans is a more serious problem. This does not mean that people protesting the anthem is not a problem.

It isn’t.

In your opinion.

I hate to sound like someone we all can’t stand, but you’re denying the truth here.

agree to disagree

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

I’d be interested in hearing ric_olie_2’s take on the incident.

He might think that SNL is an inappropriate venue for such a statement. I personally think it’s one of the most beautiful and stunning protests ever done by a musician.

I don’t think I’d call it beautiful.

It was a bold, brave, and beautiful action by a bold, brave, and beautiful woman. She timed and planned it all perfectly so that the producers wouldn’t expect it and would be unable to cut it because it was live, and she pulled out the picture as she sang the final lyric, “Evil”. And who could forget, “Fight the real enemy!” It gives me the chills every time I see it. She was so ahead of her time with it too.

agree to disagree.

I would ask why you object to her but I think that would be a can of worms not worth opening.

Somehow tearing up a pic of the Pope on live tv without any explanation given doesn’t seem like a good way of protesting. It also seems to offensive to Catholics that had nothing to do with the scandal. Do you think it would be ok to protest 911 by tearing up a pic of Muhammad on live tv without giving any explanation?

There was an explanation given.

She took the pic, tore it up, said nothing. That is not an explanation.

She changed the lyrics of the Marley song to refer to child abuse before she tore up the picture.

Do you honestly think people really had an idea why she tore up the pic? There is reason why people disliked her for awhile after that pic and it is not because people approve of the Catholic Church covering for child molesters.

Who cares if it’s offensive?

many people.

Well, I’m sure the victims of the priests that got away with rape and abuse have it a little worse than being offended by an SNL stunt.

I would agree. In fact I would say the victims of the priests have it a lot worse.

So then why dumb down the protest to spare the feelings of people who refuse to believe that the Vatican was capable of such horror?

I don’t know that protesting without tearing up a pic of the Pope means you have to dumb it down.

It would have because her point was that the whole scandal was deeper than just a few evil priests.

I think that point could have been made without doing what she did.

How? By saying, “Ladies and gentlemen, please reflect on the potential guilt of the Holy Father in the cover up of the child sex abuse scandals?”

There are other ways.

She only had a couple seconds after singing her song to do it anyway.

So SNL was the only place one could protest back then?

More proof that you don’t understand how protests work.

Post
#1121358
Topic
All Things Star Trek
Time

DominicCobb said:

Possessed said:

TV’s Frink said:

Are you trying to get banned again? Why would you immediately do what the moderator that banned you last time explicitly said not to do?

I thought his first banning was pretty ridiculous but his behavior recently is more deserving.

Not deserving, but more deserving. Two mods ask you to shorten your sig and instead you just throw a hissy fit and delete the whole thing and then act like you’re being oppressed about it even though nobody even suggested you delete it.

He also replied to a post that said “no more sighs” with a sigh.

Come on warb.

I didn’t read the post carefully enough and missed the “no more sighs” part. I am sorry.

But I do hope it is not any order for all the threads. The “*sigh*” is kinda my thing. I do hope I don’t have to stop entirely.

In any event. To calm things down. I won’t post in this thread for awhile.

Post
#1121357
Topic
All Things Star Trek
Time

chyron8472 said:

Warbler said:

darth_ender said:

Warbler said:

Tobar said:

The established canon for the Kelvin “timeline” is that it is in fact actually an entirely different alternate reality:

That is not the way it appears in Star Trek 2009.

That is exactly how it appeared and was intended to appear.

That is not the meaning I got out of Star Trek 2009.

Just because you did not interpret the intended meaning, that doesn’t mean it only means what your interpretation was. You do not seem to leave any room for the possibility that your interpretation of canon may be wrong; and because canon is apparently so important to you, you argue why it must be what you say that it is.

Now, you can have a headcanon where, to you, Star Trek Prime does not exist. But what you are doing here now is arguing what the official is, in which case your interpretation doesn’t matter, but rather those of the creators of Star Trek. You have been given a boatload of evidence to support that the Prime Universe still exists despite the events of Star Trek '09.

What matters is whether the official canon matters to you (“you” meaning the individual viewer, not just you Warbler). If the official canon matters, then you must seek out the official intent of the canon. If it does not, then you can believe what you want. Regardless, your opinion regarding whether official canon must be observed does not impede me from having a different opinion. As it stands, my headcanon says Discovery is not part of the Trek Prime Universe; and Padme Amidala does not die during Revenge of the Sith.

Again, official canon regarding fiction is not Truth. It is not absolute. And besides that, my understanding of the Truth of my faith is that nitpicking the details in even that regard is missing the point (the point being fostering the relationship, not the adherence to rules.) So either way, your want to enforce your own interpretation on others is unfounded.

tl;dr: Stop arguing about why your interpretation of official canon is valid. If official canon matters, then correct interpretation is not up to you. If it doesn’t, then it is only up to you for your own sake and not for ours. You can’t say Prime doesn’t exist and both use official canon to argue your point, while using your point to argue official canon.

I tried to stop arguing the point multiple times. I will try again.

Post
#1121309
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

She said “Fight the real enemy!” And no, no one was confused.

um, I think the powers that be at SNL were confused enough that they decided to never let back on SNL again and apologized for her actions. I don’t think they did that because they want to hide child molesters.

They did that because they didn’t want to get any negative attention from people who thought that the pope was above criticism even on a subject as severe as child abuse.

Then I assume you think SNL cowardly.

In that instance, of course.

Ok then.

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

The point is that you think it’s getting worse and worse. Which is funny. Because black people would probably say what is getting worse and worse is the police killing them. But you know, protesting during the anthem is the real problem.

I think both are a problem. Obviously the wrongful killing of African Americans is a more serious problem. This does not mean that people protesting the anthem is not a problem.

It isn’t.

In your opinion.

I hate to sound like someone we all can’t stand, but you’re denying the truth here.

agree to disagree

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

I’d be interested in hearing ric_olie_2’s take on the incident.

He might think that SNL is an inappropriate venue for such a statement. I personally think it’s one of the most beautiful and stunning protests ever done by a musician.

I don’t think I’d call it beautiful.

It was a bold, brave, and beautiful action by a bold, brave, and beautiful woman. She timed and planned it all perfectly so that the producers wouldn’t expect it and would be unable to cut it because it was live, and she pulled out the picture as she sang the final lyric, “Evil”. And who could forget, “Fight the real enemy!” It gives me the chills every time I see it. She was so ahead of her time with it too.

agree to disagree.

I would ask why you object to her but I think that would be a can of worms not worth opening.

Somehow tearing up a pic of the Pope on live tv without any explanation given doesn’t seem like a good way of protesting. It also seems to offensive to Catholics that had nothing to do with the scandal. Do you think it would be ok to protest 911 by tearing up a pic of Muhammad on live tv without giving any explanation?

There was an explanation given.

She took the pic, tore it up, said nothing. That is not an explanation.

She changed the lyrics of the Marley song to refer to child abuse before she tore up the picture.

Do you honestly think people really had an idea why she tore up the pic? There is reason why people disliked her for awhile after that pic and it is not because people approve of the Catholic Church covering for child molesters.

Who cares if it’s offensive?

many people.

Well, I’m sure the victims of the priests that got away with rape and abuse have it a little worse than being offended by an SNL stunt.

I would agree. In fact I would say the victims of the priests have it a lot worse.

So then why dumb down the protest to spare the feelings of people who refuse to believe that the Vatican was capable of such horror?

I don’t know that protesting without tearing up a pic of the Pope means you have to dumb it down.

It would have because her point was that the whole scandal was deeper than just a few evil priests.

I think that point could have been made without doing what she did.

How? By saying, “Ladies and gentlemen, please reflect on the potential guilt of the Holy Father in the cover up of the child sex abuse scandals?”

There are other ways.

She only had a couple seconds after singing her song to do it anyway.

So SNL was the only place one could protest back then?

If the person whose picture you’re tearing up was, at least tacitly, involved in the cover up of the scandals, then you shouldn’t fear offending people that respect him.

We are talking about Religion here, its complicated.

I don’t agree.

well we will just have to disagree then. because I don’t think I have the ability to explain it to you. Perhaps RicOlie_2 could, I don’t know.

Something tells me that he couldn’t, because I don’t believe that simply because other people worship somebody then that means we should turn a blind eye, or even go easier on them when they commit atrocities.

I never said we should turn a blind eye to child abuse.

I know. I wasn’t referring to turning a blind eye to child abuse but rather turning a blind eye to the role that supposedly sacred people played in the child abuse.

I never said we should turn a blind eye to that either.

It certainly seems that way. Shouldn’t anyone who played a role in a child sex abuse coverup be criticized incredibly harshly?

Yes, I suppose.

I would also hope you first find out exactly what role the Pope had in this scandal(what did/didn’t he do, what did he know, when did he know it. Those sorts of things).

I don’t see why it’s okay to talk about how evil people like Trump are when we all know plenty of people worship him, but it’s not okay to do the same to the pope or people in positions like his.

President and Pope are two very different things.

Apparently since one can be criticized more harshly than the other, but why?

They can both be criticized. But one is just the President. The other is to Catholics the successor to Peter the Apostle and is given the Keys of Heaven and the powers of “binding and loosing”. More sensitivity is required when dealing with such an entity.

That’s a copout.

It is?

Of course. He’s holy, so you can’t be quite so hard on him. He’s divine. Fuck that, and fuck him.

*sigh*

I don’t care if you’ve got the keys to heaven if you’re, even just tacitly, permitting what he permitted to happen under his tenure.

Again, I am not saying that the Pope shouldn’t be criticized for his role in the scandal.

You’re just saying that he shouldn’t be criticized too harshly.

nope.

Why does religion get a pass?

I did not say it gets a pass, I said it was complicated.

Especially when we’re talking about a man that is a religious figure. She didn’t tear up a picture of Jesus Christ or anything like that. I would get people’s complaints a little more if that were the case.

She tore up picture of the guy that Catholics believe is the successor to Peter the Apostle, who Catholics believe “Jesus is said to have given the Keys of Heaven and the powers of “binding and loosing”, naming him as the “rock” upon which the church would be built” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope

I know what they believe about the pope, I’m just saying that I don’t care.

Just because you don’t care about something, doesn’t mean it shouldn’t matter.

You realize that attitudes like this are what allow these things to happen?

wanting people to be respectful of other’s religion allowed children to be molested?

Saying that we can’t harshly criticize the covering up and refusal to report child molesters because the people involved are worshiped is horrifying to me.

When did I say you couldn’t harshly criticize them?

You said that you couldn’t criticize them too harshly so as not to offend devout Catholics.

No, I said you needed to be a little more sensitive about it. But I no problem giving the Pope harsh criticism when it is desearved.

How harsh is it allowed to be?

Pretty harsh, especially considering that we are talking about a child abuse scandal and cover up. But somehow tearing up a pic of the Pope on live TV like that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

I don’t see why him being respected as a religious figure makes him special. Does Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church deserve to be handled sensitively? People in his sect have a pretty high opinion of him. What about Jim Bakker, noted conman and religious preacher?

When the churches Fred Phelps and Jim Bakker obtain the status the Catholic Church has, has as many followers as the Catholic Church, has been around as long as the Catholic Church, then get back to me on this.

Also, if someone is involved in a child sex abuse coverup, why should they be handled sensitively? Joe Paterno was in a similar situation, and people treat football like a religion so should they have been a little less hard on him?

While they may sometimes treat football like a religion, it is not a religion.

Post
#1121304
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

She said “Fight the real enemy!” And no, no one was confused.

um, I think the powers that be at SNL were confused enough that they decided to never let back on SNL again and apologized for her actions. I don’t think they did that because they want to hide child molesters.

They did that because they didn’t want to get any negative attention from people who thought that the pope was above criticism even on a subject as severe as child abuse.

Then I assume you think SNL cowardly.

In that instance, of course.

Ok then.

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

The point is that you think it’s getting worse and worse. Which is funny. Because black people would probably say what is getting worse and worse is the police killing them. But you know, protesting during the anthem is the real problem.

I think both are a problem. Obviously the wrongful killing of African Americans is a more serious problem. This does not mean that people protesting the anthem is not a problem.

It isn’t.

In your opinion.

I hate to sound like someone we all can’t stand, but you’re denying the truth here.

agree to disagree

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

I’d be interested in hearing ric_olie_2’s take on the incident.

He might think that SNL is an inappropriate venue for such a statement. I personally think it’s one of the most beautiful and stunning protests ever done by a musician.

I don’t think I’d call it beautiful.

It was a bold, brave, and beautiful action by a bold, brave, and beautiful woman. She timed and planned it all perfectly so that the producers wouldn’t expect it and would be unable to cut it because it was live, and she pulled out the picture as she sang the final lyric, “Evil”. And who could forget, “Fight the real enemy!” It gives me the chills every time I see it. She was so ahead of her time with it too.

agree to disagree.

I would ask why you object to her but I think that would be a can of worms not worth opening.

Somehow tearing up a pic of the Pope on live tv without any explanation given doesn’t seem like a good way of protesting. It also seems to offensive to Catholics that had nothing to do with the scandal. Do you think it would be ok to protest 911 by tearing up a pic of Muhammad on live tv without giving any explanation?

There was an explanation given.

She took the pic, tore it up, said nothing. That is not an explanation.

She changed the lyrics of the Marley song to refer to child abuse before she tore up the picture.

Do you honestly think people really had an idea why she tore up the pic? There is reason why people disliked her for awhile after that pic and it is not because people approve of the Catholic Church covering for child molesters.

Who cares if it’s offensive?

many people.

Well, I’m sure the victims of the priests that got away with rape and abuse have it a little worse than being offended by an SNL stunt.

I would agree. In fact I would say the victims of the priests have it a lot worse.

So then why dumb down the protest to spare the feelings of people who refuse to believe that the Vatican was capable of such horror?

I don’t know that protesting without tearing up a pic of the Pope means you have to dumb it down.

It would have because her point was that the whole scandal was deeper than just a few evil priests.

I think that point could have been made without doing what she did.

How? By saying, “Ladies and gentlemen, please reflect on the potential guilt of the Holy Father in the cover up of the child sex abuse scandals?” She only had a couple seconds after singing her song to do it anyway.

Warbler has demonstrated time after time that he doesn’t understand how protests work.

I thought they worked something like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UV1fs8lAbg

But I guess I was wrong.

Post
#1121256
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

She said “Fight the real enemy!” And no, no one was confused.

um, I think the powers that be at SNL were confused enough that they decided to never let back on SNL again and apologized for her actions. I don’t think they did that because they want to hide child molesters.

They did that because they didn’t want to get any negative attention from people who thought that the pope was above criticism even on a subject as severe as child abuse.

Then I assume you think SNL cowardly.

In that instance, of course.

Ok then.

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

The point is that you think it’s getting worse and worse. Which is funny. Because black people would probably say what is getting worse and worse is the police killing them. But you know, protesting during the anthem is the real problem.

I think both are a problem. Obviously the wrongful killing of African Americans is a more serious problem. This does not mean that people protesting the anthem is not a problem.

It isn’t.

In your opinion.

I hate to sound like someone we all can’t stand, but you’re denying the truth here.

agree to disagree

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

I’d be interested in hearing ric_olie_2’s take on the incident.

He might think that SNL is an inappropriate venue for such a statement. I personally think it’s one of the most beautiful and stunning protests ever done by a musician.

I don’t think I’d call it beautiful.

It was a bold, brave, and beautiful action by a bold, brave, and beautiful woman. She timed and planned it all perfectly so that the producers wouldn’t expect it and would be unable to cut it because it was live, and she pulled out the picture as she sang the final lyric, “Evil”. And who could forget, “Fight the real enemy!” It gives me the chills every time I see it. She was so ahead of her time with it too.

agree to disagree.

I would ask why you object to her but I think that would be a can of worms not worth opening.

Somehow tearing up a pic of the Pope on live tv without any explanation given doesn’t seem like a good way of protesting. It also seems to offensive to Catholics that had nothing to do with the scandal. Do you think it would be ok to protest 911 by tearing up a pic of Muhammad on live tv without giving any explanation?

There was an explanation given.

She took the pic, tore it up, said nothing. That is not an explanation.

She changed the lyrics of the Marley song to refer to child abuse before she tore up the picture.

Do you honestly think people really had an idea why she tore up the pic? There is reason why people disliked her for awhile after that pic and it is not because people approve of the Catholic Church covering for child molesters.

Who cares if it’s offensive?

many people.

Well, I’m sure the victims of the priests that got away with rape and abuse have it a little worse than being offended by an SNL stunt.

I would agree. In fact I would say the victims of the priests have it a lot worse.

So then why dumb down the protest to spare the feelings of people who refuse to believe that the Vatican was capable of such horror?

I don’t know that protesting without tearing up a pic of the Pope means you have to dumb it down.

It would have because her point was that the whole scandal was deeper than just a few evil priests.

I think that point could have been made without doing what she did.

If the person whose picture you’re tearing up was, at least tacitly, involved in the cover up of the scandals, then you shouldn’t fear offending people that respect him.

We are talking about Religion here, its complicated.

I don’t agree.

well we will just have to disagree then. because I don’t think I have the ability to explain it to you. Perhaps RicOlie_2 could, I don’t know.

Something tells me that he couldn’t, because I don’t believe that simply because other people worship somebody then that means we should turn a blind eye, or even go easier on them when they commit atrocities.

I never said we should turn a blind eye to child abuse.

I know. I wasn’t referring to turning a blind eye to child abuse but rather turning a blind eye to the role that supposedly sacred people played in the child abuse.

I never said we should turn a blind eye to that either.

I don’t see why it’s okay to talk about how evil people like Trump are when we all know plenty of people worship him, but it’s not okay to do the same to the pope or people in positions like his.

President and Pope are two very different things.

Apparently since one can be criticized more harshly than the other, but why?

They can both be criticized. But one is just the President. The other is to Catholics the successor to Peter the Apostle and is given the Keys of Heaven and the powers of “binding and loosing”. More sensitivity is required when dealing with such an entity.

That’s a copout.

It is?

I don’t care if you’ve got the keys to heaven if you’re, even just tacitly, permitting what he permitted to happen under his tenure.

Again, I am not saying that the Pope shouldn’t be criticized for his role in the scandal.

Why does religion get a pass?

I did not say it gets a pass, I said it was complicated.

Especially when we’re talking about a man that is a religious figure. She didn’t tear up a picture of Jesus Christ or anything like that. I would get people’s complaints a little more if that were the case.

She tore up picture of the guy that Catholics believe is the successor to Peter the Apostle, who Catholics believe “Jesus is said to have given the Keys of Heaven and the powers of “binding and loosing”, naming him as the “rock” upon which the church would be built” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope

I know what they believe about the pope, I’m just saying that I don’t care.

Just because you don’t care about something, doesn’t mean it shouldn’t matter.

You realize that attitudes like this are what allow these things to happen?

wanting people to be respectful of other’s religion allowed children to be molested?

Saying that we can’t harshly criticize the covering up and refusal to report child molesters because the people involved are worshiped is horrifying to me.

When did I say you couldn’t harshly criticize them?

You said that you couldn’t criticize them too harshly so as not to offend devout Catholics.

No, I said you needed to be a little more sensitive about it. But I have no problem giving the Pope harsh criticism when it is deserved.

This post has been edited.

Post
#1121251
Topic
All Things Star Trek
Time

oojason said:

I was knocking this up as a better quality example / suggestion etc for you Warbler:-

and have seen you have totally removed your sig (which I hope you change your mind on, and also re-read the posts made about your signature as to what has actually been said to you) - as well as just having seeing Wook’s cool sig for you above too.

I see nothing funny here.

Post
#1121142
Topic
All Things Star Trek
Time

Possessed said:

Warbler said:

I am telling you it has been unchanged for multiple weeks.

I’m telling you we all believe that, that’s not the issue anybody but you is debating. But carrying on a different argument than the people you are arguing with is kinda your thing I guess.

really?

Post
#1121140
Topic
All Things Star Trek
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

I’m just noticing it now.

How did you miss it for so long? It has been the exact same size minus the one line of text added on 09/13, since before July.

Is the flag really necessary?

I like the flag there. The Uk flag of the same size was there since before July.

Post
#1121137
Topic
All Things Star Trek
Time

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

additionally, the last time I made a change was to change the flag to the American flag. It had been the UK in tribute to the tragedies that happen there some months ago. The time I changed it before the flag switch was went I added the words “It has been a year. I miss you so much Dad. I love you” on 09/13/2017. The sig has been exactly the same as it is now since before summer with the exception of switching the flags(both were the exact same size as each other) and the addition of the sentence. So I really don’t get the problem now all of the sudden.

Not everybody comments on things immediately when they see them. I already told you why I didn’t comment on your signature, which is also why I assume others didn’t. Just because people are commenting now doesn’t mean anything changed.

Not only did no one comment immediately, they didn’t comment for multiple weeks! And minus the one sentence and changing one flag for another of the same exact size, people have complained for multiple months!

Post
#1121132
Topic
All Things Star Trek
Time

additionally, the last time I made a change was to change the flag to the American flag. It had been the UK in tribute to the tragedies that happen there some months ago. The time I changed it before the flag switch was went I added the words “It has been a year. I miss you so much Dad. I love you” on 09/13/2017. The sig has been exactly the same as it is now since before summer with the exception of switching the flags(both were the exact same size as each other) and the addition of the sentence. So I really don’t get the problem now all of the sudden.

Post
#1121125
Topic
All Things Star Trek
Time

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

That is how it has always looked.

It’s just a bit big. It’s bigger than most of your posts.

Well then it must have looked bigger than most of my posts yesterday and last week and two weeks ago.

I don’t get why you’re so bent out of shape about this. I noticed it, but didn’t want to say anything as it might interpreted as offensive due to the portions about your father.

I don’t know why people are complaining now, when I haven’t altered my sig in multiple weeks. If it looks any different than it did yesterday or a week ago, it is not my doing. Maybe Jay is playing around with the forum software or something.

This post has been edited.

Post
#1121121
Topic
All Things Star Trek
Time

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

That is how it has always looked.

It’s just a bit big. It’s bigger than most of your posts.

Well then it must have looked bigger than most of my posts yesterday and last week and two weeks ago.

Post
#1121120
Topic
All Things Star Trek
Time

oojason said:

Warbler said:

oojason said:

Warbler - has your signature grown of late? It seems to be taking up half the screen.

I haven’t changed anything in my sig in while, not since I added the American flag. I did that weeks ago.

Could you consider making it a little less substantial - maybe something like this, please?:-


or

etc.

I don’t know what the problem is. My sig has been this exact same way for awhile. I haven’t altered it in multiple weeks. If it wasn’t a problem two weeks ago, if it wasn’t a problem last week, if it wasn’t a problem yesterday, why it is a problem now?

This post has been edited.

To the top