Sign In

moviefreakedmind

User Group
Trusted Members
Join date
22-Jul-2014
Last activity
23-Oct-2017
Posts
6887

Post History

Post
#1121323
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

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.

This post has been edited.

Post
#1121277
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

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.

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?

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.

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.

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? 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? 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?

Post
#1121273
Topic
Drugs, ranked
Time

darthrush said:

About to try a combo in the next few weeks which will be a lot of pot, kratom, and vicodin. And throw in a few monsters for a speedy edge to the experience.

I don’t want to be an asshole or anything, but for whatever reason it pains me to see you talk about in many of your posts how you’re basically pursuing a desire to become addicted to substances. As someone who genuinely hates his life, I’d rather you didn’t throw yours away at such a young age. Normally I don’t care about other people so I don’t tend to give advice, but I’m just saying, you’re young enough to not lead a miserable life so please don’t ruin it before it’s too late.

I don’t doubt that you won’t listen to this so:

TL;DR - If you do want to throw your life away, can you at least not do it quite so proudly?

Post
#1121242
Topic
All Things Star Trek
Time

SilverWook said:

Loved how Riker’s flashbacks contained cutaways he couldn’t possibly have seen!

This must have been the easiest episode to remaster in HD, for obvious reasons. 😉

Speaking of reused footage, do you think they remastered the theme song in every single episode? Or did they just restore one from each version of the theme and use it for the relevant episodes?

Post
#1121200
Topic
Last song you listened to.
Time

TV’s Frink said:

^You’ll have to forgive yhwx, he thinks we invented fireworks when we made ourselves a country over your protestation.

The American Revolution is an inappropriate venue for jokes.

Post
#1121135
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

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.

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.

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 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. 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.

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.

Post
#1121107
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

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.

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?

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 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?

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. You realize that attitudes like this are what allow these things to happen? 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. I think that it’s a rare example of the rape culture that people bring up when talking about things are often much less serious than this.

This post has been edited.

Post
#1121090
Topic
All Things Star Trek
Time

SilverWook said:

oojason said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Troi is laughably ridiculous in Farpoint. What did she say at the end? “Good tidings and joy for all!” or something like that. SAD!

‘Great joy and gratitude…’ eurgh!

I did think ‘The Boy’ Wesley was going to end being Picard’s son in the first few seasons - Picard and Beverley always seemed have that awkward thing going on, and it seemed the obvious place for the writers to go with Picard really not liking children…

She was translating the emotional vibes she was getting from giant matter transforming space jellyfish. She probably didn’t have to say it three times.
They did tone down her getting too emotional all the time after the pilot.

Yeah, they seemed to have planned to have her actually experience and act out the emotions she sensed at first. I’m glad that she never got more than just a little overwhelmed at times from then on.

Post
#1121089
Topic
All Things Star Trek
Time

oojason said:

moviefreakedmind said:

oojason said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Troi is laughably ridiculous in Farpoint. What did she say at the end? “Good tidings and joy for all!” or something like that. SAD!

‘Great joy and gratitude…’ eurgh!

I did think ‘The Boy’ Wesley was going to end being Picard’s son in the first few seasons - Picard and Beverley always seemed have that awkward thing going on, and it seemed the obvious place for the writers to go with Picard really not liking children…

I didn’t think that was going to happen. It would’ve made Picard and Crusher seem like pretty big piles of shit to have an affair and let the child and man think that Beverly’s husband was his father.

You’re right - though it could have made for some interesting stories/arcs - especially given just how moral and ‘stiff’ Picard was in the early seasons.

That is true. Maybe in a different show it could’ve worked but it just seems to soap opera-ey for Star Trek in my opinion. Plus I just don’t see Picard or Crusher, even in the former’s young rebellious days as being that heartless.

Post
#1121082
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

SilverWook said:

Warbler said:

SilverWook 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.

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.

Hell, I think it’d all be okay even without cause and explanation honestly. They’re men, not gods. That said, in the context of protest, it’s fair, effective, intense, and powerful. In the case of Sinéad’s performance, beautiful.

agree to disagree

By the way, I’m rarely into the whole “agree to disagree” thing. I don’t like opinions that dramatically differ from mine. Who does?

too bad.

Don’t you think that’s offensive to insane people like me that don’t like opinions that dramatically differ from my own?

*sigh*

IIRC, she said Fight the real power when she tore up the photo.

I forgot about that. In any case, I am pretty sure people at the time were confused as to why she did what she did.

Or were too busy being outraged to bother finding out why she did what she did.

Exactly. It’s a very similar case with the athletes. I really don’t even care if people are going to still complain about the protests, but refuse to acknowledge the reality behind it is what gets me.

Post
#1121080
Topic
All Things Star Trek
Time

oojason said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Troi is laughably ridiculous in Farpoint. What did she say at the end? “Good tidings and joy for all!” or something like that. SAD!

‘Great joy and gratitude…’ eurgh!

I did think ‘The Boy’ Wesley was going to end being Picard’s son in the first few seasons - Picard and Beverley always seemed have that awkward thing going on, and it seemed the obvious place for the writers to go with Picard really not liking children…

I didn’t think that was going to happen. It would’ve made Picard and Crusher seem like pretty big piles of shit to have an affair and let the child and man think that Beverly’s husband was his father.

This post has been edited.

Post
#1121078
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

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.

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. 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. Why does religion get a pass? 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.

Hell, I think it’d all be okay even without cause and explanation honestly. They’re men, not gods. That said, in the context of protest, it’s fair, effective, intense, and powerful. In the case of Sinéad’s performance, beautiful.

agree to disagree

Nope. I don’t agree to disagree. If you don’t want to talk about this then you’ll just have to admit that you’re walking away from the discussion. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that, but agreeing to disagree tends to be a mutual decision.

By the way, I’m rarely into the whole “agree to disagree” thing. I don’t like opinions that dramatically differ from mine. Who does?

too bad.

Don’t you think that’s offensive to insane people like me that don’t like opinions that dramatically differ from my own?

*sigh*

What? I thought you cared about being offensive?

Warbler said:

SilverWook 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.

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.

Hell, I think it’d all be okay even without cause and explanation honestly. They’re men, not gods. That said, in the context of protest, it’s fair, effective, intense, and powerful. In the case of Sinéad’s performance, beautiful.

agree to disagree

By the way, I’m rarely into the whole “agree to disagree” thing. I don’t like opinions that dramatically differ from mine. Who does?

too bad.

Don’t you think that’s offensive to insane people like me that don’t like opinions that dramatically differ from my own?

*sigh*

IIRC, she said Fight the real power when she tore up the photo.

I forgot about that. In any case, I am pretty sure people at the time were confused as to why she did what she did.

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

This post has been edited.

To the top