Total Posts:46|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The "Flipper"

Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 10:41:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I was watching "The Matrix" last night... or more accurately, pieces of it. The entire movie was shredded by religiously motivated censorship. They completely gutted the drama and intent of the original dialog. People tend not to realize how important the dialog is to the content, effect and atmosphere of a movie. Even the best actors can't overcome bad writing.

But we now live in a society so over-run with religious control that I couldn't even finish watching it. At one point in the movie, "Neo" (Mr. Anderson), is in the custody of the agents. Agent Smith offers him a deal - an exchange; they'll forget all of his computer crimes if he helps them capture Morpheus.

Neo responds by saying, "That sounds like a pretty good deal. But I've got a better one. How about if I give you the finger, and you give me my phone call."

For reference, the word "finger" is not profanity, and even if it were, it's no business of religious prudes. If they don't like it, they can switch to war coverage and witness the fruits of their ignorance.

But that's not what Neo said in this cut-up, distorted, and destroyed, corroded remnant of the movie. The Christian controllers of our society have so completely spread their religious manure across public media access that I had to listen to him say, "That sounds like a pretty good deal. But I've got a better one. How about if I give you the flipper, and you give me my phone call."

The religious have so completely lost any recognition of reality that now "finger" is profanity, when connected with a particular gesture. And they're so afraid of genuine expression, that they thought this had to be changed to "flipper" which makes no sense whatsoever. Keanu Reeves isn't a dolphin.

And while this may seem like a minor complaint; it's actually a fairly major issue. Once you can begin destroying the hard work of talented actors, producers and writers in pursuit of applying your religious standards on every member of society, you've engaged in the modern version of book-burning.

Tell Christians to get their infantile, religious standards out of our faces, and off of our fine arts. No one appointed them the entertainment police, and if they don't back off, they have no grounds upon which to complain about the results.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 10:49:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
What channel was it on?
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 10:59:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/30/2014 10:41:24 PM, Beastt wrote:
I was watching "The Matrix" last night... or more accurately, pieces of it. The entire movie was shredded by religiously motivated censorship. They completely gutted the drama and intent of the original dialog. People tend not to realize how important the dialog is to the content, effect and atmosphere of a movie. Even the best actors can't overcome bad writing.

But we now live in a society so over-run with religious control that I couldn't even finish watching it. At one point in the movie, "Neo" (Mr. Anderson), is in the custody of the agents. Agent Smith offers him a deal - an exchange; they'll forget all of his computer crimes if he helps them capture Morpheus.

Neo responds by saying, "That sounds like a pretty good deal. But I've got a better one. How about if I give you the finger, and you give me my phone call."

For reference, the word "finger" is not profanity, and even if it were, it's no business of religious prudes. If they don't like it, they can switch to war coverage and witness the fruits of their ignorance.

But that's not what Neo said in this cut-up, distorted, and destroyed, corroded remnant of the movie. The Christian controllers of our society have so completely spread their religious manure across public media access that I had to listen to him say, "That sounds like a pretty good deal. But I've got a better one. How about if I give you the flipper, and you give me my phone call."

The religious have so completely lost any recognition of reality that now "finger" is profanity, when connected with a particular gesture. And they're so afraid of genuine expression, that they thought this had to be changed to "flipper" which makes no sense whatsoever. Keanu Reeves isn't a dolphin.

Flipper the dolphin was probably a better actor, but I agree you are right that Reeves isn't a dolphin and has no flippers.

And while this may seem like a minor complaint; it's actually a fairly major issue. Once you can begin destroying the hard work of talented actors, producers and writers in pursuit of applying your religious standards on every member of society, you've engaged in the modern version of book-burning.

Tell Christians to get their infantile, religious standards out of our faces, and off of our fine arts. No one appointed them the entertainment police, and if they don't back off, they have no grounds upon which to complain about the results.

But they have an inherent right to judge just for wearing a badge that says "christian". Didn't you know that?

"You take the blue pill, the story ends. You wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes."

Would you say most Christians have chosen the blue pill?
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 11:04:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/30/2014 10:59:04 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/30/2014 10:41:24 PM, Beastt wrote:
I was watching "The Matrix" last night... or more accurately, pieces of it. The entire movie was shredded by religiously motivated censorship. They completely gutted the drama and intent of the original dialog. People tend not to realize how important the dialog is to the content, effect and atmosphere of a movie. Even the best actors can't overcome bad writing.

But we now live in a society so over-run with religious control that I couldn't even finish watching it. At one point in the movie, "Neo" (Mr. Anderson), is in the custody of the agents. Agent Smith offers him a deal - an exchange; they'll forget all of his computer crimes if he helps them capture Morpheus.

Neo responds by saying, "That sounds like a pretty good deal. But I've got a better one. How about if I give you the finger, and you give me my phone call."

For reference, the word "finger" is not profanity, and even if it were, it's no business of religious prudes. If they don't like it, they can switch to war coverage and witness the fruits of their ignorance.

But that's not what Neo said in this cut-up, distorted, and destroyed, corroded remnant of the movie. The Christian controllers of our society have so completely spread their religious manure across public media access that I had to listen to him say, "That sounds like a pretty good deal. But I've got a better one. How about if I give you the flipper, and you give me my phone call."

The religious have so completely lost any recognition of reality that now "finger" is profanity, when connected with a particular gesture. And they're so afraid of genuine expression, that they thought this had to be changed to "flipper" which makes no sense whatsoever. Keanu Reeves isn't a dolphin.

Flipper the dolphin was probably a better actor, but I agree you are right that Reeves isn't a dolphin and has no flippers.
Flipper had an unfair advantage; he had fewer speaking parts.

And while this may seem like a minor complaint; it's actually a fairly major issue. Once you can begin destroying the hard work of talented actors, producers and writers in pursuit of applying your religious standards on every member of society, you've engaged in the modern version of book-burning.

Tell Christians to get their infantile, religious standards out of our faces, and off of our fine arts. No one appointed them the entertainment police, and if they don't back off, they have no grounds upon which to complain about the results.

But they have an inherent right to judge just for wearing a badge that says "christian". Didn't you know that?

"You take the blue pill, the story ends. You wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes."

Would you say most Christians have chosen the blue pill?
I can't think of one who hasn't. The sad thing is that as much as I love those movies, they do infuse them with continual and unnecessary religious fundamentals like unevidenced belief, and making Morpheus out to be a sort of prophet.

If you watch some of the newer animated Dr. Seuss stories, they're even worse.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 11:10:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/30/2014 11:04:25 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/30/2014 10:59:04 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/30/2014 10:41:24 PM, Beastt wrote:
I was watching "The Matrix" last night... or more accurately, pieces of it. The entire movie was shredded by religiously motivated censorship. They completely gutted the drama and intent of the original dialog. People tend not to realize how important the dialog is to the content, effect and atmosphere of a movie. Even the best actors can't overcome bad writing.

But we now live in a society so over-run with religious control that I couldn't even finish watching it. At one point in the movie, "Neo" (Mr. Anderson), is in the custody of the agents. Agent Smith offers him a deal - an exchange; they'll forget all of his computer crimes if he helps them capture Morpheus.

Neo responds by saying, "That sounds like a pretty good deal. But I've got a better one. How about if I give you the finger, and you give me my phone call."

For reference, the word "finger" is not profanity, and even if it were, it's no business of religious prudes. If they don't like it, they can switch to war coverage and witness the fruits of their ignorance.

But that's not what Neo said in this cut-up, distorted, and destroyed, corroded remnant of the movie. The Christian controllers of our society have so completely spread their religious manure across public media access that I had to listen to him say, "That sounds like a pretty good deal. But I've got a better one. How about if I give you the flipper, and you give me my phone call."

The religious have so completely lost any recognition of reality that now "finger" is profanity, when connected with a particular gesture. And they're so afraid of genuine expression, that they thought this had to be changed to "flipper" which makes no sense whatsoever. Keanu Reeves isn't a dolphin.

Flipper the dolphin was probably a better actor, but I agree you are right that Reeves isn't a dolphin and has no flippers.
Flipper had an unfair advantage; he had fewer speaking parts.

And while this may seem like a minor complaint; it's actually a fairly major issue. Once you can begin destroying the hard work of talented actors, producers and writers in pursuit of applying your religious standards on every member of society, you've engaged in the modern version of book-burning.

Tell Christians to get their infantile, religious standards out of our faces, and off of our fine arts. No one appointed them the entertainment police, and if they don't back off, they have no grounds upon which to complain about the results.

But they have an inherent right to judge just for wearing a badge that says "christian". Didn't you know that?

"You take the blue pill, the story ends. You wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes."

Would you say most Christians have chosen the blue pill?
I can't think of one who hasn't. The sad thing is that as much as I love those movies, they do infuse them with continual and unnecessary religious fundamentals like unevidenced belief, and making Morpheus out to be a sort of prophet.

If you watch some of the newer animated Dr. Seuss stories, they're even worse.

Well... they are fictitious stories. I think adding a little religion adds to the fantasy. The Bible should be sold in and among other books in the fantasy and sci-fi section at the book stores. I bet some Christian is going to give me the "flipper" for that.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 11:13:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/30/2014 10:49:19 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
What channel was it on?

I have no clue. It was on satellite... about 200 channels to choose from, (and rarely anything to watch). If their app would quit crashing, I could probably tell you which channel. It was like Syfy or something.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 11:16:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Aw, come on. Without such stupid prudishness, I never would have gotten my favorite TV edit of all time. I'm sure everyone is familiar with the scene in The Big Lebowski when Walter (John Goodman) is beating on a car that he thinks belongs to a teenager and he's yelling "See what happens when you f*** a stranger in the a**?!" On some TV station, his dialog was replaced with "See what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?!" It's so ridiculous!

I mostly agree, though. Decent movies are almost unwatchable when they're hacked up like this. In Mallrats, I'm pretty sure Jason Mewes has less of his original lines than the overdubs. No movie deserves that.
a_drumming_dog
Posts: 93
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 11:17:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/30/2014 10:41:24 PM, Beastt wrote:
The Christian controllers of our society have so completely spread their religious manure across public media access that I had to listen to him say, "That sounds like a pretty good deal. But I've got a better one. How about if I give you the flipper, and you give me my phone call."

You are seriously starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist. Christians control the media?? Have you looked at what Hollywood has produced recently? Most of it is far from what we Christians would support. You've just also put a huge burden of proof on yourself. You say Christians control society. I'm really not sure why I should accept that, you didn't really back up your claim.

The religious have so completely lost any recognition of reality that now "finger" is profanity, when connected with a particular gesture. And they're so afraid of genuine expression, that they thought this had to be changed to "flipper" which makes no sense whatsoever. Keanu Reeves isn't a dolphin.

Tell Christians to get their infantile, religious standards out of our faces, and off of our fine arts. No one appointed them the entertainment police, and if they don't back off, they have no grounds upon which to complain about the results.

So, some channel decided to change the word "finger" to "flipper" because the Christians control the media... Sure...
The truth will set you free
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 11:18:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/30/2014 10:49:19 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
What channel was it on?

It looks like IFC (Independent Films Channel).
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 11:20:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/30/2014 11:18:13 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/30/2014 10:49:19 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
What channel was it on?

It looks like IFC (Independent Films Channel).

They started censoring everything a couple years ago.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 11:27:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I agree that kind of censorship is retarded...

But What the hell does this have to do with Religion?

There are religious folk who are into censorship, but it's not exclusively the prerogative of religion, and unless you have some specific reason that you think this particular act of censorship has religious motivations you're a dummy ;)
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 11:28:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/30/2014 11:17:22 PM, a_drumming_dog wrote:
At 11/30/2014 10:41:24 PM, Beastt wrote:
The Christian controllers of our society have so completely spread their religious manure across public media access that I had to listen to him say, "That sounds like a pretty good deal. But I've got a better one. How about if I give you the flipper, and you give me my phone call."

You are seriously starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist. Christians control the media?? Have you looked at what Hollywood has produced recently? Most of it is far from what we Christians would support. You've just also put a huge burden of proof on yourself. You say Christians control society. I'm really not sure why I should accept that, you didn't really back up your claim.
Learn a little about the history of censorship in this country before you begin to speak. That way you an avoid exposing your ignorance. Censorship began on radio because a minister wrote a letter of complaint to the FCC stating that he was offended by something he heard on the radio. It was in response to this type of complaint that the FCC (which is a body of appointed - NOT ELECTED - officials), decided that the First Amendment right to freedom of speech doesn't apply to radio and television. They have no such actual authority to do so, and only maintain that level of control with the majority support of the public - who are mostly CHRISTIAN!

The religious have so completely lost any recognition of reality that now "finger" is profanity, when connected with a particular gesture. And they're so afraid of genuine expression, that they thought this had to be changed to "flipper" which makes no sense whatsoever. Keanu Reeves isn't a dolphin.

Tell Christians to get their infantile, religious standards out of our faces, and off of our fine arts. No one appointed them the entertainment police, and if they don't back off, they have no grounds upon which to complain about the results.

So, some channel decided to change the word "finger" to "flipper" because the Christians control the media... Sure...
It's always telling when strawmen are tossed into a debate. Where did I say that Christians control the media? Oh, that's right... I didn't. YOU did. It's your assertion, not mine. But Christians accept this fascist form of censorship because it meets with their prudish religious fundamentals, and you - it appears - must be one of them or you'd be recognizing the violation of your Constitutional rights, instead of promoting the violation of everyone's Constitutional rights.

If the Christians in this country would wake up to the fact that this kind of censorship is completely inappropriate, it would be discontinued rather quickly. But as long as politicians have the majority support, they're not going to serve the founding ideals of the country in contrary to that majority.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 11:31:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/30/2014 11:28:01 PM, Beastt wrote:
you - it appears - must be one of them or you'd be recognizing the violation of your Constitutional rights

IFC censoring the matrix =/= your constitutional rights have been violated.

you're a dummy.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 11:33:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/30/2014 10:41:24 PM, Beastt wrote:
I was watching "The Matrix" last night... or more accurately, pieces of it. The entire movie was shredded by religiously motivated censorship. They completely gutted the drama and intent of the original dialog. People tend not to realize how important the dialog is to the content, effect and atmosphere of a movie. Even the best actors can't overcome bad writing.

But we now live in a society so over-run with religious control that I couldn't even finish watching it. At one point in the movie, "Neo" (Mr. Anderson), is in the custody of the agents. Agent Smith offers him a deal - an exchange; they'll forget all of his computer crimes if he helps them capture Morpheus.

Neo responds by saying, "That sounds like a pretty good deal. But I've got a better one. How about if I give you the finger, and you give me my phone call."

For reference, the word "finger" is not profanity, and even if it were, it's no business of religious prudes. If they don't like it, they can switch to war coverage and witness the fruits of their ignorance.

But that's not what Neo said in this cut-up, distorted, and destroyed, corroded remnant of the movie. The Christian controllers of our society have so completely spread their religious manure across public media access that I had to listen to him say, "That sounds like a pretty good deal. But I've got a better one. How about if I give you the flipper, and you give me my phone call."

The religious have so completely lost any recognition of reality that now "finger" is profanity, when connected with a particular gesture. And they're so afraid of genuine expression, that they thought this had to be changed to "flipper" which makes no sense whatsoever. Keanu Reeves isn't a dolphin.

And while this may seem like a minor complaint; it's actually a fairly major issue. Once you can begin destroying the hard work of talented actors, producers and writers in pursuit of applying your religious standards on every member of society, you've engaged in the modern version of book-burning.

Tell Christians to get their infantile, religious standards out of our faces, and off of our fine arts. No one appointed them the entertainment police, and if they don't back off, they have no grounds upon which to complain about the results.

Agreed. The parental guidance warning before the movie should be all that is required. Actual responsible viewers should have the freedom to do their own editing as necessary (mute/changing the channel/ leaving the room) instead of having blanket editing done on the basis of possible juvenile viewers with irresponsible parents or immature adults.

Anyone who feels "the flipper" was necessary - my middle finger salutes you.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
a_drumming_dog
Posts: 93
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 11:44:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/30/2014 11:28:01 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/30/2014 11:17:22 PM, a_drumming_dog wrote:
At 11/30/2014 10:41:24 PM, Beastt wrote:
Learn a little about the history of censorship in this country before you begin to speak. That way you an avoid exposing your ignorance. Censorship began on radio because a minister wrote a letter of complaint to the FCC stating that he was offended by something he heard on the radio. It was in response to this type of complaint that the FCC (which is a body of appointed - NOT ELECTED - officials), decided that the First Amendment right to freedom of speech doesn't apply to radio and television. They have no such actual authority to do so, and only maintain that level of control with the majority support of the public - who are mostly CHRISTIAN!

Can I at least have a citation from where you are getting all of this?
Why don't you write a letter to the FCC and protest the FCC instead of rambling on debate.org? If what you said is true, then I firmly agree with you. Censorship is bad. However, I listen to the radio quite regularly, and I can tell you without out a doubt that if you listen to any hip hop station, you're going to here some stuff that will be offensive to Christians. Obviously, if there is any censorship in the radio, its minimal.

It's always telling when strawmen are tossed into a debate. Where did I say that Christians control the media? Oh, that's right... I didn't. YOU did. It's your assertion, not mine. But Christians accept this fascist form of censorship because it meets with their prudish religious fundamentals, and you - it appears - must be one of them or you'd be recognizing the violation of your Constitutional rights, instead of promoting the violation of everyone's Constitutional rights.

My bad, you're right in that you didn't say that christian control the media, HOWEVER, you did mention the "christian controllers of society" in your previous post. What evidence do you have to support that Christians control society? And I'm not promoting censorship by disagreeing with what you said. I hate censorship. I fully support the constitution. I am just challenging you because much of what you said is unsupported and you're conclusion as to why the censorship in that movie took place is completely idiotic.
The truth will set you free
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 11:45:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/30/2014 11:31:16 PM, mortsdor wrote:
At 11/30/2014 11:28:01 PM, Beastt wrote:
you - it appears - must be one of them or you'd be recognizing the violation of your Constitutional rights

IFC censoring the matrix =/= your constitutional rights have been violated.

you're a dummy.

And where did I say that? Again... another strawman.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 11:53:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/30/2014 11:17:22 PM, a_drumming_dog wrote:
So, some channel decided to change the word "finger" to "flipper" because the Christians control the media... Sure...

At 11/30/2014 11:28:01 PM, Beastt wrote:
It's always telling when strawmen are tossed into a debate. Where did I say that Christians control the media? Oh, that's right... I didn't. YOU did. It's your assertion, not mine. But Christians accept this fascist form of censorship because it meets with their prudish religious fundamentals, and you - it appears - must be one of them or you'd be recognizing the violation of your Constitutional rights, instead of promoting the violation of everyone's Constitutional rights.

Yeah, drumming_dog was saying that IFC censoring the matrix is not indicative of Christian censorship of the matrix.

you respond by suggesting that he doesn't recognize that his constitutional rights are being violated in this... and is promoting the violation of other's rights.

following your lead, He was talking about IFC's Censorship
You responded by saying that he's not recognizing the violation of constitutional rights going on.

If you're not suggesting that this censorship referred to involves such a violation, You're Incoherent.

Either way, if you are or aren't suggesting this censorship is such a violation, you're a dummy.
a_drumming_dog
Posts: 93
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 12:00:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/30/2014 11:53:29 PM, mortsdor wrote:
At 11/30/2014 11:17:22 PM, a_drumming_dog wrote:
So, some channel decided to change the word "finger" to "flipper" because the Christians control the media... Sure...

At 11/30/2014 11:28:01 PM, Beastt wrote:
It's always telling when strawmen are tossed into a debate. Where did I say that Christians control the media? Oh, that's right... I didn't. YOU did. It's your assertion, not mine. But Christians accept this fascist form of censorship because it meets with their prudish religious fundamentals, and you - it appears - must be one of them or you'd be recognizing the violation of your Constitutional rights, instead of promoting the violation of everyone's Constitutional rights.

Yeah, drumming_dog was saying that IFC censoring the matrix is not indicative of Christian censorship of the matrix.

you respond by suggesting that he doesn't recognize that his constitutional rights are being violated in this... and is promoting the violation of other's rights.

following your lead, He was talking about IFC's Censorship
You responded by saying that he's not recognizing the violation of constitutional rights going on.

If you're not suggesting that this censorship referred to involves such a violation, You're Incoherent.

Either way, if you are or aren't suggesting this censorship is such a violation, you're a dummy.

You hit the nail on the head, thank you.
The truth will set you free
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 12:13:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/30/2014 11:44:45 PM, a_drumming_dog wrote:
At 11/30/2014 11:28:01 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/30/2014 11:17:22 PM, a_drumming_dog wrote:
At 11/30/2014 10:41:24 PM, Beastt wrote:
Learn a little about the history of censorship in this country before you begin to speak. That way you an avoid exposing your ignorance. Censorship began on radio because a minister wrote a letter of complaint to the FCC stating that he was offended by something he heard on the radio. It was in response to this type of complaint that the FCC (which is a body of appointed - NOT ELECTED - officials), decided that the First Amendment right to freedom of speech doesn't apply to radio and television. They have no such actual authority to do so, and only maintain that level of control with the majority support of the public - who are mostly CHRISTIAN!

By the way, i wrote a letter to IFC offering my opinion of the way they butchered the movies.

Can I at least have a citation from where you are getting all of this?
Why don't you write a letter to the FCC and protest the FCC instead of rambling on debate.org? If what you said is true, then I firmly agree with you.
Why not check the FCC website? They openly state that it is illegal to broadcast anything obscene. Now show me that in the Constitution. It's a complete distortion of what the Constitution says.

Censorship is bad. However, I listen to the radio quite regularly, and I can tell you without out a doubt that if you listen to any hip hop station, you're going to here some stuff that will be offensive to Christians. Obviously, if there is any censorship in the radio, its minimal.
Radio is subject to the same censorship as television. Some stations simply manage to "get away with" exercising their Constitutional rights longer than others.

It's always telling when strawmen are tossed into a debate. Where did I say that Christians control the media? Oh, that's right... I didn't. YOU did. It's your assertion, not mine. But Christians accept this fascist form of censorship because it meets with their prudish religious fundamentals, and you - it appears - must be one of them or you'd be recognizing the violation of your Constitutional rights, instead of promoting the violation of everyone's Constitutional rights.

My bad, you're right in that you didn't say that christian control the media, HOWEVER, you did mention the "christian controllers of society" in your previous post.
Because, as the majority, the do have a greater level of control than any other religious group, and they regularly demonstrate practices of persecution They have majority influence, rather than control.

What evidence do you have to support that Christians control society? And I'm not promoting censorship by disagreeing with what you said. I hate censorship. I fully support the constitution. I am just challenging you because much of what you said is unsupported and you're conclusion as to why the censorship in that movie took place is completely idiotic.
Well, let's look at the 10-Commandments erected on a marquee outside of an Oklahoma court house. Atheists have asked for equal space on that public property, have been denied. So they asked that the Christian message be removed from the site, and the court ruled against that request. So it's fine for Christians to post their messages on public lands, but not anyone else.

The same thing happened in the area where I live. A Korean group opened a small shop and erected a statue of one of their gods on the property. Their shop is right across the road from a huge (and ugly) Catholic Church, and the members of the church petitioned the county to make them take the statue of their god down.

This is typical Christian behavior.

It's often copied by people who worship carcass and sauce.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 12:17:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/30/2014 11:27:21 PM, mortsdor wrote:
I agree that kind of censorship is retarded...


But What the hell does this have to do with Religion?


There are religious folk who are into censorship, but it's not exclusively the prerogative of religion, and unless you have some specific reason that you think this particular act of censorship has religious motivations you're a dummy ;)

Do I really have to point out the fact that the religious are the ones who tend to object to "bad words" and skin shown on television?

Or can we just cut to the chase and point out that you STILL can't get over the fact that you have a digestive system consistent with a herbivorous diet? Because we both know that's what this is really about. Ever since I provided you with the evidence you didn't want to see regarding human digestive physiology, you've been jumping on everything I post, every chance you get. Before you found out I was a vegan and promote an appropriate human diet, you treated me the way you treat most other atheists. But from the moment you started commenting on that thread, you turned into annanicole, thinking that you can hound me into making the evidence go away.

Grow up, mortsdor. I didn't create your digestive system. I only showed it to you. DEAL with it!
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
a_drumming_dog
Posts: 93
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 12:26:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/1/2014 12:13:16 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/30/2014 11:44:45 PM, a_drumming_dog wrote:
At 11/30/2014 11:28:01 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/30/2014 11:17:22 PM, a_drumming_dog wrote:
At 11/30/2014 10:41:24 PM, Beastt wrote:
Learn a little about the history of censorship in this country before you begin to speak. That way you an avoid exposing your ignorance. Censorship began on radio because a minister wrote a letter of complaint to the FCC stating that he was offended by something he heard on the radio. It was in response to this type of complaint that the FCC (which is a body of appointed - NOT ELECTED - officials), decided that the First Amendment right to freedom of speech doesn't apply to radio and television. They have no such actual authority to do so, and only maintain that level of control with the majority support of the public - who are mostly CHRISTIAN!

By the way, i wrote a letter to IFC offering my opinion of the way they butchered the movies.

Can I at least have a citation from where you are getting all of this?
Why don't you write a letter to the FCC and protest the FCC instead of rambling on debate.org? If what you said is true, then I firmly agree with you.
Why not check the FCC website? They openly state that it is illegal to broadcast anything obscene. Now show me that in the Constitution. It's a complete distortion of what the Constitution says.

Censorship is bad. However, I listen to the radio quite regularly, and I can tell you without out a doubt that if you listen to any hip hop station, you're going to here some stuff that will be offensive to Christians. Obviously, if there is any censorship in the radio, its minimal.
Radio is subject to the same censorship as television. Some stations simply manage to "get away with" exercising their Constitutional rights longer than others.

It's always telling when strawmen are tossed into a debate. Where did I say that Christians control the media? Oh, that's right... I didn't. YOU did. It's your assertion, not mine. But Christians accept this fascist form of censorship because it meets with their prudish religious fundamentals, and you - it appears - must be one of them or you'd be recognizing the violation of your Constitutional rights, instead of promoting the violation of everyone's Constitutional rights.

My bad, you're right in that you didn't say that christian control the media, HOWEVER, you did mention the "christian controllers of society" in your previous post.

What evidence do you have to support that Christians control society? And I'm not promoting censorship by disagreeing with what you said. I hate censorship. I fully support the constitution. I am just challenging you because much of what you said is unsupported and you're conclusion as to why the censorship in that movie took place is completely idiotic.
Well, let's look at the 10-Commandments erected on a marquee outside of an Oklahoma court house. Atheists have asked for equal space on that public property, have been denied. So they asked that the Christian message be removed from the site, and the court ruled against that request. So it's fine for Christians to post their messages on public lands, but not anyone else.

The same thing happened in the area where I live. A Korean group opened a small shop and erected a statue of one of their gods on the property. Their shop is right across the road from a huge (and ugly) Catholic Church, and the members of the church petitioned the county to make them take the statue of their god down.

This is typical Christian behavior.

It's often copied by people who worship carcass and sauce.

Okay, lets get back to the point. In your first post this is basically what you put forward.

"Censorship in the Matrix movie (on that specific channel that you were watching) was a result of christian influence on the channel. "

Correct? Now if that's not right, then please correct it.
The truth will set you free
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 12:28:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/30/2014 10:41:24 PM, Beastt wrote:
I was watching "The Matrix" last night... or more accurately, pieces of it. The entire movie was shredded by religiously motivated censorship. They completely gutted the drama and intent of the original dialog. People tend not to realize how important the dialog is to the content, effect and atmosphere of a movie. Even the best actors can't overcome bad writing.

But we now live in a society so over-run with religious control that I couldn't even finish watching it. At one point in the movie, "Neo" (Mr. Anderson), is in the custody of the agents. Agent Smith offers him a deal - an exchange; they'll forget all of his computer crimes if he helps them capture Morpheus.

Neo responds by saying, "That sounds like a pretty good deal. But I've got a better one. How about if I give you the finger, and you give me my phone call."

For reference, the word "finger" is not profanity, and even if it were, it's no business of religious prudes. If they don't like it, they can switch to war coverage and witness the fruits of their ignorance.

Poor little fella! You didn't get to here the words "give you the finger", and you're all upset.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 12:32:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/1/2014 12:17:31 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/30/2014 11:27:21 PM, mortsdor wrote:
I agree that kind of censorship is retarded...


But What the hell does this have to do with Religion?


There are religious folk who are into censorship, but it's not exclusively the prerogative of religion, and unless you have some specific reason that you think this particular act of censorship has religious motivations you're a dummy ;)

Do I really have to point out the fact that the religious are the ones who tend to object to "bad words" and skin shown on television?

Constitutional violations he was ignoring and encouraging?

You're a moron.

Or can we just cut to the chase and point out that you STILL can't get over the fact that you have a digestive system consistent with a herbivorous diet? Because we both know that's what this is really about.

Ever since I provided you with the evidence you didn't want to see regarding human digestive physiology
You provided zero evidence.

I'm still waiting on your giving a SINGLE supporting source for any factual claim you made...

and, of course, such support still wouldn't make your arguments based on those Claimed, but wholly unsupported, 'facts' anything but the non-sequiturs they were.

, you've been jumping on everything I post, every chance you get. Before you found out I was a vegan and promote an appropriate human diet, you treated me the way you treat most other atheists. But from the moment you started commenting on that thread, you turned into annanicole, thinking that you can hound me into making the evidence go away.


Grow up, mortsdor. I didn't create your digestive system. I only showed it to you. DEAL with it!

To tell the truth...

I found your constant, belligerent, harping on people in the religion forum to be moronic in the first place...

However, the horrible, unsupported, non-sequiturs you made in that Herbivore-thread of yours was demonstration of your utter hypocrisy in constantly attacking the religious on the strength of their arguments.

This thread, calling out IFC's censorship of the matrix, doesn't have any ostensible relation to christianity....

And your suggesting that drumming_dog was ignoring constitutional violations in his claiming that IFC's censorship was not caused by the religious is More evidence of your beligerance...

You're a dummy all the way around ;)
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 12:40:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Before you found out I was a vegan and promote an appropriate human diet, you treated me the way you treat most other atheists.

At 12/1/2014 12:32:02 AM, mortsdor wrote:
To tell the truth...

I found your constant, belligerent, harping on people in the religion forum to be moronic in the first place...

I don't recall having any interaction with you before your herbivorism thread.

I thought you were silly before then, but your ridiculousness in that thread, and thereafter, really made it clear.

and just to be clear, I'm a thorough-going atheist, and one might say anti-theist/anti-religionist... but you're just beligerent in your condemnations of the religious. :/
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 12:43:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/1/2014 12:13:16 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/30/2014 11:44:45 PM, a_drumming_dog wrote:
At 11/30/2014 11:28:01 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/30/2014 11:17:22 PM, a_drumming_dog wrote:
At 11/30/2014 10:41:24 PM, Beastt wrote:
Learn a little about the history of censorship in this country before you begin to speak. That way you an avoid exposing your ignorance. Censorship began on radio because a minister wrote a letter of complaint to the FCC stating that he was offended by something he heard on the radio. It was in response to this type of complaint that the FCC (which is a body of appointed - NOT ELECTED - officials), decided that the First Amendment right to freedom of speech doesn't apply to radio and television. They have no such actual authority to do so, and only maintain that level of control with the majority support of the public - who are mostly CHRISTIAN!

By the way, i wrote a letter to IFC offering my opinion of the way they butchered the movies.

Can I at least have a citation from where you are getting all of this?
Why don't you write a letter to the FCC and protest the FCC instead of rambling on debate.org? If what you said is true, then I firmly agree with you.
Why not check the FCC website? They openly state that it is illegal to broadcast anything obscene. Now show me that in the Constitution. It's a complete distortion of what the Constitution says.

Censorship is bad. However, I listen to the radio quite regularly, and I can tell you without out a doubt that if you listen to any hip hop station, you're going to here some stuff that will be offensive to Christians. Obviously, if there is any censorship in the radio, its minimal.
Radio is subject to the same censorship as television. Some stations simply manage to "get away with" exercising their Constitutional rights longer than others.

It's always telling when strawmen are tossed into a debate. Where did I say that Christians control the media? Oh, that's right... I didn't. YOU did. It's your assertion, not mine. But Christians accept this fascist form of censorship because it meets with their prudish religious fundamentals, and you - it appears - must be one of them or you'd be recognizing the violation of your Constitutional rights, instead of promoting the violation of everyone's Constitutional rights.

My bad, you're right in that you didn't say that christian control the media, HOWEVER, you did mention the "christian controllers of society" in your previous post.
Because, as the majority, the do have a greater level of control than any other religious group, and they regularly demonstrate practices of persecution They have majority influence, rather than control.

What evidence do you have to support that Christians control society? And I'm not promoting censorship by disagreeing with what you said. I hate censorship. I fully support the constitution. I am just challenging you because much of what you said is unsupported and you're conclusion as to why the censorship in that movie took place is completely idiotic.
Well, let's look at the 10-Commandments erected on a marquee outside of an Oklahoma court house. Atheists have asked for equal space on that public property, have been denied. So they asked that the Christian message be removed from the site, and the court ruled against that request. So it's fine for Christians to post their messages on public lands, but not anyone else.

The same thing happened in the area where I live. A Korean group opened a small shop and erected a statue of one of their gods on the property. Their shop is right across the road from a huge (and ugly) Catholic Church, and the members of the church petitioned the county to make them take the statue of their god down.

This is typical Christian behavior.

It's often copied by people who worship carcass and sauce.

I eat meat because I have a special place in my heart for broccoli and carrots. I can't support the senseless rape of vegetation. It's a travesty.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 12:53:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/1/2014 12:43:59 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
I eat meat because I have a special place in my heart for broccoli and carrots. I can't support the senseless rape of vegetation. It's a travesty.

I think most people have empathy for creatures in pain, and have empathy for mammals in stressful situations..
I am a supporter of animal rights... though perhaps not so far for most animals as Beastt might have them.

you may or may not care for animal's suffering... But similarly some may not care for people's suffering...
Those who do (seemingly most people) will support animal-rights in some capacity, and will try to enforce such...
If you are dissimilar from most in not caring at all, well that's just too bad for you :P

Also, eating a lot of meat in our diets has proved to have Clear and Serious health consequences.

However, we are not natural Herbivores as Beastt claims... and his arguments for such are complete trash, and are based on wholly unsupported claims anyways.
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 12:56:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/1/2014 12:53:38 AM, mortsdor wrote:
Also, eating a lot of meat in our diets has proved to have Clear and Serious health consequences.

eating the amount of meat in the American diet, and living as long as we do...

these health consequences of today's particular extreme circumstances DO NOT go to show that we're not Omnivorous as Beastt has previously claimed.
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 1:01:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/1/2014 12:53:38 AM, mortsdor wrote:
At 12/1/2014 12:43:59 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
I eat meat because I have a special place in my heart for broccoli and carrots. I can't support the senseless rape of vegetation. It's a travesty.

I think most people have empathy for creatures in pain, and have empathy for mammals in stressful situations..
I am a supporter of animal rights... though perhaps not so far for most animals as Beastt might have them.

you may or may not care for animal's suffering... But similarly some may not care for people's suffering...
Those who do (seemingly most people) will support animal-rights in some capacity, and will try to enforce such...
If you are dissimilar from most in not caring at all, well that's just too bad for you :P

Also, eating a lot of meat in our diets has proved to have Clear and Serious health consequences.

However, we are not natural Herbivores as Beastt claims... and his arguments for such are complete trash, and are based on wholly unsupported claims anyways.

We can eat meat just like a carnivore can eat vegetables. It doesn't mean our bodies are built for it. He's correct about the digestive tract of a human. We are technically healthier without red meat especially.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 1:14:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/1/2014 1:01:02 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
We are technically healthier without red meat especially.

Today, with a modern understanding of nutritional needs, and the availability of a great variety of plant foods, and vitamin supplements where necessary (ie: B12), it may very well be the case that a properly constructed Vegan diet may be more healthy.

However, throughout the history of our species, the easiest manner in which we could attain our nutritional needs was Without a Doubt through regularly supplementing our diet with meat/animal products.

Our hominid ancestors were omnivores, we evolved into what we are through, and was dependent upon our, being omnivores
and we absolutely CAN digest fresh meat of practically any variety raw... and can digest meat after COOKING it which we've been doing since before Homo Sapien Sapiens fully evolved.

Meat offers a great variety of easy Necessary nutrients, and we were Built through Evolution to take advantage of it.

Do you Jodybirdy think that we are naturally Strict Herbivores as Beastt has claimed?

Have you Jodybirdy seen any of Beastt's supposed sources for any of his claims?

Do you think his discussion of Human's not having weaponized canines/jaws or claws the least bit relevant to whether we Humans, that Tool-using species, are capable of eating?
( keep in mind that Herbivores like Gorillas also have weaponized canines, and that our Hominid ancestors have been using spears, handaxes, and butchering devices long before modern humans evolved)
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 1:21:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/1/2014 12:53:38 AM, mortsdor wrote:
At 12/1/2014 12:43:59 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
I eat meat because I have a special place in my heart for broccoli and carrots. I can't support the senseless rape of vegetation. It's a travesty.

I think most people have empathy for creatures in pain, and have empathy for mammals in stressful situations..
I am a supporter of animal rights... though perhaps not so far for most animals as Beastt might have them.

you may or may not care for animal's suffering... But similarly some may not care for people's suffering...
Those who do (seemingly most people) will support animal-rights in some capacity, and will try to enforce such...
If you are dissimilar from most in not caring at all, well that's just too bad for you :P

Also, eating a lot of meat in our diets has proved to have Clear and Serious health consequences.

However, we are not natural Herbivores as Beastt claims... and his arguments for such are complete trash, and are based on wholly unsupported claims anyways.

I was poking fun, bud. There really needs to be a "joking" font.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten