Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9176 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,655 Year: 4,912/9,624 Month: 260/427 Week: 6/64 Day: 2/2 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Haggard thread #2
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 106 of 168 (365165)
11-21-2006 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by crashfrog
11-20-2006 5:06 PM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
I don't believe that a reasonable person can be a Christian. I think if you're a Christian, then there's some kind of blockage between the world as we live in it, and your reasoning faculties. For most people I think that blockage is self-imposed and I can't imagine how anybody could choose to do that or be happy living that way.
That's okay. Believe me when I say that I understand your position very, very well. The atheistic position is not unfounded. And I can see how you could formulate your opinions about Christianity, overall. My only concern is, can you truly understand where I am coming from? Are you able to see things from where I am standing? Can you see life from my vantage point? Afterall, I spent most of my life as a pagan. I used to be very gay-friendly in the past. And by and large, I still have homosexual friends. I just don't agree with their lifestyle, nor do I believe they are destined to be gay. I just don't have much commonality with them other than some meaningless chit-chat.
But, hey, that's just my opinion. Maybe you find it upsetting; maybe you find that it's based on a premise you'd like to argue with. I'm sure you don't question my right to hold that opinion, but maybe, just maybe, you find it an opinion that makes you mad, maybe hurts your feelings a little bit; hits you like a total stranger just called you an idiot out of the blue.
I don't think things such as that really hurt my feelings in a traditional sense of the meaning. It takes alot to offend me. What really irks me is intentional disrespect just to try and hurt my feelings. That's childish and it does anger me. I just try hard not to let it get the better of me. The second I forget this, I lose face.
For instance, I am not trying to offend Berberry. I'm actually trying to tread lightly without completely undermining my own point of view. At some point, I can't get around offending him/her in some capacity. But I am not offering that in order to be divisive and disrespectful. I'm just trying to offer my point of view for the sake of a good conversation, which, lets face it, is very unpopular in here. But what am I supposed to do? Pretend that I don't feel that way? I mean, the homosexual movement would never have achieved what it has if they just sat there with their mouth shut. In some respects, I have to tip my hat for the perserverance, even in spite of me personally believing that its not righteous.
If that's true, I apologize. Doubly so, because that's my honest opinion phrased as frankly as I could muster with the explicit purpose of being upsetting to Christians. I've done this for an educational purpose, though. If you found my remarks upsetting, then you might want to cut Berb a little slack when he finds your remarks, which I'm sure you must believe are a totally reasonable position, to be insulting.
A certainly appreciate the candor. I'm not offended. Again, we're not always going to see eye to eye. At some point somebody is always going to be a tleast a bit offended. But I believe there is a difference between simply stating why you feel a certain way, and its far removed from outright disrespect.
If I said, "Ha-ha, you fagz r soooo stupid! OMGZ!!! LOL! LMAO! You're so queer!" Then I would say I need to be booted from this site for such counter productive disrespect.
But because you won me over with your kind approach, I will refrain from engaging in this conversation any longer for the sake of Berberry. I can't promise that the subject will never come up again, but for now, I think I've said my piece.
Aside from which, the thread is technically about Haggard and not so much homosexuality. I guess we were technically OT anyway.

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by crashfrog, posted 11-20-2006 5:06 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by crashfrog, posted 11-22-2006 11:53 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6421
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 107 of 168 (365167)
11-21-2006 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Silent H
11-21-2006 1:19 PM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
Now imagine someone stating that state regulations pertaining to authenticating food as kosher should be expanded. That is hey, my beef sausage is kosher (genuine/all right) so its unfair that these guys get to use that term but I don't.
The reaction from Jewish orgs will be to point out that the regulations on authentication were created based on the traditional definition, and suddenly having a ton of products using the same term but the more broad definition will create confusion for Jews, or anyone else wanting food manufactured using tradionally kosher methods.
Your example well illustrates the irony of what we are seeing.
In the "kosher" case, as you suggest, the Jewish groups would object to the definition of "kosher" being subsumed by the state, because they wish to preserve their traditional meanings. But for marriage, we see evangelicals demanding that the state subsume the definition of "marriage" so as to protect their traditions. I am continually puzzled that they fail to see the absurdity of this.
The proper thing for evangelicals to do, is to fight this out in the culture without attempting to involve the government. And you would think they would have the advantage there, because most people find their traditions to be comforting. Yet the evangelicals are steadily losing ground, most likely because of the hateful methods that they use.

Just say no to McCain 2008; he abandoned principle when he caved on habeus corpus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Silent H, posted 11-21-2006 1:19 PM Silent H has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6421
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 108 of 168 (365168)
11-21-2006 2:13 PM


To get back to the OP, and add a touch of levity, I thought folks might like this link.

Just say no to McCain 2008; he abandoned principle when he caved on habeus corpus

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 5079 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 109 of 168 (365172)
11-21-2006 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Hyroglyphx
11-21-2006 12:50 PM


Answers?
Hi NJ,
Message 101 awaits your attention (as does your great debate with Jazzns).
When did you "decide" you were attracted to women?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-21-2006 12:50 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-21-2006 6:41 PM RickJB has replied

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 5079 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 110 of 168 (365176)
11-21-2006 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Silent H
11-21-2006 1:19 PM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
Holmes writes:
Marriage was to identify a specific kind of union.
Was. The defintion has since broadened in many communities. For better or worse there's little anyone can do about this.
But words aside, I feel that the fuss over the term "marriage" is a smokescreen designed to obscure the purely religous motives of those who feel homosexuality is immoral/unnatural and as such should in no way be condoned even by secular law.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Silent H, posted 11-21-2006 1:19 PM Silent H has not replied

  
IrishRockhound
Member (Idle past 4525 days)
Posts: 569
From: Ireland
Joined: 05-19-2003


Message 111 of 168 (365180)
11-21-2006 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Hyroglyphx
11-21-2006 12:50 PM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
Just a point or two, for the sake of clarity...
quote:
If you redefine what a marriage is to accomodate homosexuality, then another group is going to lobby for the same rights. After awhile the whole institution of marriage will be turned into a mockery, as if it needed any help.
Nemesis, you're living in a country where (apparently, after a quick google) statistically half of all first-time marraiges end in divorce or separation within 15 years. So it looks like the institution of marraige is already several miles past the point of being a mockery and still accelerating.
Hell, I agree with holmes about making a new term for gay marraiges. At least it would get a clean slate, as it were.
quote:
Do you readily here of a heterosexual man referring to his sexuality as being a determinant in who he is as a person? No. He will likely mention his job or his fatherhood, or his marital status, or his interests as defining who he is. Its different for homosexuals. You aren't a sportsman-- you're a 'gay' sportsman. You aren't a lawyer-- you're a 'gay' lawyer. You aren't a racecare driver-- you're a 'gay' racecar driver. Ever heard of heterosexual basketball player? I haven't. I've just heard of a basketball player. Because, really, his sexual preference is inconsequential. So, if homosexuals don't want their sexual prefernece as being the focus of their self-identity, maybe they should not make their sexuality the focus of the attention. Does that make sense?
Funnily enough it seems obvious to me that if you've been suppressing your sexuality for years because of the fear of societal reactions, when you finally do come out your sexuality does seem to become the focus of attention. It's expressing something that you've previously had to hide.
An analogy: say you're very creative, but for years you've hidden it because people look at creative people with distain and disgust for wasting time and resources on frivolous things. Say there is a widespread religion that happens to mention that God will send wasters to hell, so religiously-motivated violence is common against anyone suspected of such tendencies. You will deny your nature to be creative, but you still have the urge to paint, compose, sculpt, write, or whatever and it really chews you up inside that you can't express yourself. But society gradually becomes more enlightened and starts accepting creative people, and accepting that creative activities are ok. So people start to come out and admit that they are creative, and they like to paint, compose, etc. Finally you come out, and you start to express yourself - and the result is a great release of the creative urge you have bottled up for so long.
The situation appears the same here. Homosexuals have had to suppress their very nature for a long time, and now that society is more accepting it's all coming out (pun intended ). Oh and I do think that homosexuality is not a choice - in fact, I happen to agree with a friend of mine that all humans are inherently bisexual, but tend to prefer one sex over the other in general. But anyways...
quote:
As for homosexuals not being 'happier' than their heterosexual counterparts, I think that's obvious. Maybe you can name one set of parents or even prospective gay parents who actually 'want' their child to be gay. I think we all know that having a 'normal' life is optimal here. And by 'normal' I mean it exactly by the word the means. By normal, I am actually referring to the 'norm.' That isn't me saying the opposite of normal = freaks, because it doesn't.
That's a tad misleading, Nemesis. Gays tend not to be happier because of society, not because there's anything detrimental to being gay. If society accepted them as is, they'd be just as happy or unhappy as your average straight person.
Case in point: I know several gay people. My cousin is gay. They're all quite happy and content because their families accept them, their friends like them, and no one gives them grief for being gay.
Oh and the opposite of normal = abnormal, freakish. Regardless of the negative connotations attached to the word "freaks", please don't pretend that this isn't what the opposite of normal is. And consider this: should a parent want their child to live a socially acceptable life (i.e. 'normal'), where they may be desperately unhappy because they must suppress their sexual desires and possibly engage in sexual activity that is repellent to them, or should a parent want their child to live whatever life they choose that grants them the most happiness, and defend them from societal disapproval if they have to?
Having a 'normal' life is not optimal. Having a happy life is.
Edited by IrishRockhound, : fixing spelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-21-2006 12:50 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 112 of 168 (365193)
11-21-2006 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Hyroglyphx
11-21-2006 12:50 PM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
I'm going to leave the subject of gays in the military alone to cut down on topics. I think your position on it is incredibly errant, but we can save it for another thread.
After awhile the whole institution of marriage will be turned into a mockery
I get that one might want to preserve the meaning of a term that has a long tradition. But I don't see how broadening the meaning to allow others to use the term makes it a mockery. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and all that.
Diluted and less defined, yeah. Mockery, which would mean a joke, no.
The sanctity of the institution of marriage is already being regarded flippantly by many people.
Sanctity implies sacredness, religious reverence. If that is the case perhaps the gov't shouldn't be involved at all. What about the solution of just having civil unions, and allow people themselves to have separate sacred ceremonies according to their own style and definition?
they are the ones who segregate themselves by making a big deal about their sexual preference. If one's sexual preference really is no big deal and you don't want to be treated differently, then why would you make it a big deal? Isn't that counter intuitive?
I am actually American, just living overseas. Thus I am in tune with gay imagery in media (even if not the most recent). I think you make a valid point that some gays do embrace the stereotype and that image does seem to be celebrated in the media.
You are also right that there are cases of self-segregation. I have personally been offended when I have not been allowed to bring my gf into some gay bars/clubs, yet there is a demand that gays can go anywhere straights are allowed.
But that is a criticism of some, not all, and I don't think it has anything to do more obvious or open sexual refs in things gays do (which is simply a matter of taste), or what pride parades are about. Most importantly, I don't see how this suggests what they find as most significant issues in their lives.
Do you readily here of a heterosexual man referring to his sexuality as being a determinant in who he is as a person? No. He will likely mention his job or his fatherhood, or his marital status, or his interests as defining who he is. Its different for homosexuals. You aren't a sportsman-- you're a 'gay' sportsman. You aren't a lawyer-- you're a 'gay' lawyer.
I see exactly what you are saying, but I think you are missing why this is happening. I think most gays would be quite happy just being a sportsman, lawyer, etc.
The problem is that they are NOT allowed to be viewed as those things once it is discovered they are gay. Society (in general) suddenly views them as just that. Their sexuality. Most are fighting that by showing they can be gay AND the other thing.
If you want things to return to normal, why not treat homosexuality as insignificant a factor as anything else?
I might add that perhaps you are seeing those that make the most noise, and not what most gays are actually like.
Maybe you can name one set of parents or even prospective gay parents who actually 'want' their child to be gay.
I think many would say they don't care, rather than prefering their child to be gay or straight. It is true many might hope their kids are straight just so they don't have to go through so much heart ache and oppression. Likewise, name the parents that want their children to be interested in pursuing interracial relationships, or a different religion, or a different political persuasion.
an exorbitant amount of suicide by homosexuals is prevalent. Per capita it is extremely disproportionate. I think that speaks highly about the issue.
Uh... they aren't living freely yet, thus the statistic is meaningless to the question.
Gay pride parades seem to an excuse to meet other gay people while prancing around your underwear. Afterall, what purpose does it serve to pat yourself on the back for something that you had no control over?
??? They generate revenue, and they serve as an excuse to drink... like St P and the 4th... as well as prance around naked in underwear (or whatever). As far as being sexual, been to Mardi Gras much?
As far as the rest, are you claiming people have a control over whether they were born Irish, or American?
And people that are not gay can join in the celebrations just as in any other celebration. In Amsterdam I saw many families who brought their kids to enjoy the festivities.
If you are born with something, what sense does it make to exalt that? There is something in Miami called the "Columbus-day regatta." .... Instead, the participants moor their boats together and get naked. Its an excuse to get naked and have sex.
They certainly can have that facet as well, but if you think that is all they are about then my guess is you haven't actually seen a gay pride parade. They usually involve issues such as politics and health, along with the gyrating hardbodies. Heheheh... or is it that you have seen the parades but couldn't get your eyes off the hardbodies?
Yeah, Andrew Cunanan probably wasn't gay. Or John Wayne Gacy, or Jeffrey Dahmer.
Are you claiming that these serial killers were acting out stereotypes of being gay? My statement was that at least those who wrap themselves up in the issue of being gay, as opposed to say a religious zealot, don't end up going on murderous rampages.
Two of those guys were certainly not at one with their being gay and targeted gays. Stereotypical religious zealots feel the call of their religion to kill others. About the only call there is in stereotypical homosexuality is to make passes at any cute guy that moves.

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-21-2006 12:50 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-22-2006 5:06 PM Silent H has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 113 of 168 (365217)
11-21-2006 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by RickJB
11-21-2006 2:34 PM


Re: Answers?
Hi NJ,
Message 101 awaits your attention (as does your great debate with Jazzns).
When did you "decide" you were attracted to women?
Thanks for reminding about my Great Debate thread, however, I already shared with another member that I'm going to leave this thread alone for the sake of being inoffensive. I won't be responding to any more posts on this thread.

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by RickJB, posted 11-21-2006 2:34 PM RickJB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by RickJB, posted 11-22-2006 4:13 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2258 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 114 of 168 (365220)
11-21-2006 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Silent H
11-21-2006 8:57 AM


Re: maturity
quote:
Is it not possible to view the image in an entirely metaphorical context? I honestly did not see any "crime" being hinted at. I saw a statement that whoever this is is joking about using girls for sex in a rather callous manner. Love 'em & Leave 'em = Hump 'em & Dump 'em = Hump&Dump.
To me that was obvious, and I don't see why that would be errant.
Well, to me it alludes very strongly to a serial rapist/murderer of women.
quote:
In any case, assuming it is supposed to be someone's mouth, how is that a statement of people wanting to treat others badly? The thing is smiling and happy. It apparently always likes it.
If there was a smiling mouth on the face of Jesus on each toilet, do you think it would be reasonable for Christians to get offended? I mean, Jesus is smiling and happy while people piss into his mouth; apparently he likes it.
I mean, come on, holmes. "To piss on" somebody or something is a put-down; an insult.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Silent H, posted 11-21-2006 8:57 AM Silent H has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2258 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 115 of 168 (365223)
11-21-2006 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Hyroglyphx
11-21-2006 11:12 AM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
quote:
I am of the belief that no man, woman, or child can choose their race or their gender. I feel differnetly about their sexual preference.
So, when did you choose to be sexually attracted to women and not men?
How old were you, and how many men did you sleep with or get turned on by before turning that off and deciding to get hot with women instead?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-21-2006 11:12 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by RickJB, posted 11-22-2006 4:16 AM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2258 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 116 of 168 (365225)
11-21-2006 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Hyroglyphx
11-21-2006 12:50 PM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
quote:
For a heterosexual, their sexuality is the one of the least important aspects of their life as far as self descriptions go.
Er, speak for yourself, bucko.
quote:
Do you readily here of a heterosexual man referring to his sexuality as being a determinant in who he is as a person? No. He will likely mention his job or his fatherhood, or his marital status, or his interests as defining who he is.
Both marital status and fatherhood are major, major references to sexuality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-21-2006 12:50 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2258 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 117 of 168 (365239)
11-21-2006 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Silent H
11-21-2006 1:42 PM


Re: eye of the beholder
quote:
Do you actually believe that the makers of that shirt meant to sell a shirt implying a men kill women and dump their bodies in dumpsters? Or that such a thing is humorous?
Sure.
People make all sorts of stuff like that and sell it and think it's humorous.
quote:
You say that pissing in a humorous (lets say female) mouth is to be derogatory. Say she had made them in the shape of a flower. Would that mean people should view it as people pissing on nature? Or say she decided to line them with images from famous paintings. Would that then be interpreted as pissing on art, or specific artists?
If these latter cases should not be viewed that way, why should the mouth be viewed that way?
It's a mouth holmes. A person's open mouth.
A human mouth is different than a flower or a bunch of paintings.
It's the same reason people I used to work with had no problem slicing up corned beef but freaked out when they had to slice beef tongue.
The tongue looks exactly like...a tongue. Like, a larger version of what we have, and looking at it gave many people, including myself, a very viceral feeling. We know exactly where that thing used to be in the head of that animal because it's in roughly the same place in our head. To see it disembodied and to peel it and touch it and slice it up is a mite unsettling. The brisket, by contrast, is just some random hunk of cooked meat.
It doesn't bother anybody to cut up a head of broccoli, because we cannot relate to it the way we do the tongue.
Similarly, pretending to piss on a flower is not anywhere close to pretending to piss in a human mouth.
We can relate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Silent H, posted 11-21-2006 1:42 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Silent H, posted 11-22-2006 5:10 AM nator has replied

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 5079 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 118 of 168 (365299)
11-22-2006 4:13 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Hyroglyphx
11-21-2006 6:41 PM


Re: Answers?
nj writes:
I already shared with another member that I'm going to leave this thread alone for the sake of being inoffensive.
And not for the sake of avoiding questions you'd rather not tackle, I assume.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-21-2006 6:41 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 5079 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 119 of 168 (365300)
11-22-2006 4:16 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by nator
11-21-2006 6:52 PM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
To NJ Schraf writes:
So, when did you choose to be sexually attracted to women and not men?
Hi Schraf,
I already tried this back in Message 101! NJ danced away into the night without a response....
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by nator, posted 11-21-2006 6:52 PM nator has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 120 of 168 (365307)
11-22-2006 5:10 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by nator
11-21-2006 7:31 PM


Re: eye of the beholder
Answering last two replies in this one...
Well, to me it alludes very strongly to a serial rapist/murderer of women.
Not alludes... that it can be interpreted as meaning. I think there is an important distinction there. One is about what it is trying to say, the other is how people might respond to it.
For example Marley's 'No Woman, No Cry' is about a man comforting his gf. Many may interpret it as meaning if you don't have any gf you won't have any problems.
I wholly agree the tshirt has symbolry which can be (mis)interpreted from the intended message. But it seems extremely odd to believe it was suggesting killing and dumping women's bodies in dumpsters.
People make all sorts of stuff like that and sell it and think it's humorous.
Yep, but the question is is that really the message these makers were going for with THIS shirt? Your position seems more than a bit strained. It doesn't even mention killing in the phrase which directly mirrors love em n leave em. You've invented that context.
You haven't answered whether the other interpretation I have put forward is valid and perhaps more obvious, given the slogan on it.
What's more this appears to be part of the series of shirts (they are all over the markets here) using common "sign" images remixed into comical contexts. This being the mix of male and female restroom symbols and the trashcan symbol.
I'm sorry to say that the images in your links didn't show up. I couldn't access that site at all.
If there was a smiling mouth on the face of Jesus on each toilet, do you think it would be reasonable for Christians to get offended? I mean, Jesus is smiling and happy while people piss into his mouth; apparently he likes it.
That's a valid point, and I had been thinking of discussing something similar (a line of toilets with various religious symbols) just to point up a difference. The difference in that case is that those are specific identities, which people have lots of invested emotion in.
Personally I think it would be very funny to have such a urinal, especially if it then gave quotes on the flush ("Do unto others...", "Blessed are the pissmakers", etc). But yeah I could see how that would piss some people off.
I mean, come on, holmes. "To piss on" somebody or something is a put-down; an insult.
Again, only if you must view everything in a political context. You have to piss somewhere. It is just as valid to make the receptacle interesting to look at while you are pissing, as purely functional.
A human mouth is different than a flower or a bunch of paintings.
It is not a human mouth. It is comically exaggerated. As I said it is as much the toilet having a mouth, than that the toilet becomes a person.
In any case I don't on what basis you can make the above assertion. What about to the nature freak, or the art freak? Some people might have no problems with pissing on humans, since they are fucking up the world, but be offended having to piss on nature.
Is there a real context, or is it all in the eye of the beholder?
It's the same reason people I used to work with had no problem slicing up corned beef but freaked out when they had to slice beef tongue.
??? I wouldn't. Apparently many people do not, since it is for sale publicly (in whole form). That people can identify with it does not give that an inherent meaning. Or even a likely meaning.
pretending to piss on a flower is not anywhere close to pretending to piss in a human mouth.
But again that is just it. Who says you are pissing into a human mouth? You. That is the context you put on it. It wasn't the intention of the designer, nor apparently was it the view of the people who bought, installed, and used it. Otherwise why would they?
You are pissing into a toilet shaped like a mouth (comical). You are supposed to laugh at the toilet as a work of kitsch art that you piss into.
If I am supposed to inherently believe I am pissing into a human mouth, and that such a thing holds a derogatory context, then that opens the door to all other claims for any other identifiable shape toilet.
To my mind that is just mandating humorless prigishness.
And I might add that not all people find peeing on a person or into a mouth derogatory. Piss sex is a bit more popular here. What if the artist was into that and designed the toilet in the shape of her mouth, for the thought that people were all pissing into her mouth?
Frankly I never met a girl with a mouth that looked like that toilet.

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by nator, posted 11-21-2006 7:31 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by nator, posted 11-22-2006 7:53 AM Silent H has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024