+- Qbasicnews.com (http://qbasicnews.com/newforum)
+-- Forum: General (http://qbasicnews.com/newforum/forum-6.html)
+--- Forum: General/Misc (http://qbasicnews.com/newforum/forum-18.html)
+--- Thread: death penalty (/thread-3242.html)
death penalty - RST - 03-04-2004
So did you want the controversy to be about violence being more accepted than sex, or about how you refered to Christianity as a "infection"? Maybe it's just me, but that seems to contradict your statement of "I didn't insult any religions".
death penalty - na_th_an - 03-04-2004
He didn't insult any religions. He just said that Christianity has infected the society.
death penalty - RST - 03-04-2004
In English, "Infected" is derogatory. But if no offfense was meant, than none was taken. :wink:
death penalty - adosorken - 03-04-2004
Quote:So did you want the controversy to be about violence being more accepted than sex, or about how you refered to Christianity as a "infection"? Maybe it's just me, but that seems to contradict your statement of "I didn't insult any religions".Christianity is not a religion. Therefore, I did not insult a religion. In fact, an insult is generally accepted as a false statement intended to hurt someone. What I said wasn't false, so therefore it couldn't even be considered an insult.
death penalty - SJ Zero - 03-05-2004
Quote:In English, "Infected" is derogatory. But if no offfense was meant, than none was taken. :wink:
Not really. It's generally taken in a negative fashion, but there's nothing inherently derogatory about the word. After all, a laugh can be infectious, does that mean that you hate laughing?
death penalty - RST - 03-05-2004
Heh. Point taken.
But regarding the comment about the US caring more about sex than violence.... I think you're right. It hadn't occured to me to think about it that way before, and it was kind of surprising.
But in the specific context of the Superbowl event, I think most of the problem was it wasn't expected. It's certainly understandable that parents would like to have control over what basically amounts to pornography.
If by violence you meant on TV, video games, etc. then perhaps one of the reasons why Americans think it's ok to watch people being killed but not nudity is that you know the killing isn't real, but porn is porn, regardless of whether you're seeing it on TV or in "real life".
If you meant violence as in actual crimes.... well, human nature, man. Violence is, unfortunatly, an everyday occurence; it's not like the media is going to report on every mugging or shooting. They wouldn't have time, and people would get bored of it. So what the media does report on as when something unexpected or interesting happens (e.g., the superbowl).
As others have mentioned, the stir the superbowl caused is more from the media's reaction, not the public's. While the two do influence eachother, there is a difference.[/b]
death penalty - adosorken - 03-05-2004
Sex is also a natural element of humankind. In fact, it is the only constant in human existence. Nature in and of itself is very violent. Justice is a "human" concept, as is "fairness". Nature isn't fair, and nature isn't kind. So the fact that humans are violent is, as you stated, just the way humans are. However, humans are THE most sexual of all creatures on this planet. To show disregard and utter contempt for this basic human element which is the very essence of our survival as a race is just sheer idiocy.
The more civilized humans think they are...the more they stray from nature's laws.
death penalty - Rhiannon - 03-05-2004
I found the whole thing utterly silly. Here's an article that expresses what adosorken and others were saying about violence versus sex:
http://www.msu.mcmaster.ca/sil/oped/030404making.html
Enjoy
Edit: I saw a pic of Janet's breast when it was "exposed" and you cant even see her nipple considering she has a huge nipple shield on it which pierces the nipple. She's only exposing a tad more than what you would normally see at the beach. That is hardly porn. That's the same reason I was pissed off when nathan's "Jill" was classed as a "guilty pleasure" because it had artful and very tasteful nudity. There was nothing raunchy or pornographic about it.
Btw, only about 200,000 people complained, out of the 140 million that watched it. For all you non-math gurus, that's a .1%. I guess noone really gave a fuck huh? :roll:
death penalty - na_th_an - 03-05-2004
Quote:[...] It's certainly understandable that parents would like to have control over what basically amounts to pornography.
Showing a nipple is pornography? IT'S JUST A BODY PART!
I've been seeing tits all my life (as every other normal child here) and I am not crazy or a raper!
death penalty - Z!re - 03-05-2004
I'm not trying to say sweden is better or anything but.... we have commercials (for shows) feauturing naked guys and girls.
I fail to see what the big deal is, I mean it's not like a kid has never seen his/her parents naked. Is it?
I know I've seen my parents, if nothing else when we are at the beach. So whats the big deal?
I thibk that I have seen a "sexual" ("sexual" = nipple, but, penis, breast, aso.) body part atleast twice every year through my entire life.
On the other hand, learning a 5year old how to fire a gun is illegal (I think, not really sure, but it is not accepted)
Seeing a nipple on TV is an outrage? But firing a gun is ok?... Errr
Z!re fails to see the logic and in the attempt to grasp it his brain melts of overuse. *staring at random atom (which just happens to be the tip of a nipple), drooling*