Religion, Morals, laws, Life, Death and wine
As most of you might or might not have noticed in the past, I'm around but I don't start threads, I just snicker at them for the most part, but here I am starting one just for kicks.
I've been looking at news items, some on radio, specifically an interview on PBS of an American photographer in Iraq.
I have no names, I was in my truck just toolin' along and listening, waiting for "Prairy Home Companion," One mighty fine show that I like listening to.
The interviewer, a lady, was asking questions of a man who had been taking war pictures in Iraq and making quite a name for himself publishing graphic pictures of Americans who had been killed and mutilated by Iraqi insurgents or whatever you like to call them.
They were discussing two pictures in particular that he had taken, both of a US marine who had been killed, mutilated, and dragged through the streets of whatever God forsaken city he was in.. One showed the marine covered with his scrapped clothing except for a small area where his genitals were visible, the other showing blood, guts, and decapitation, but no sexual organs.
The photographer published the second in a popular magazine, Newsweek maybe, I don't have that information, just the idea.
He and the interviewer seemed to agree on that concept. The first picture was just too "filthy" to publish. They actually used that very word.."filthy," because it showed his genitals.
I need some help here. I can see or at least be aware that every male person, every male animal on this earth has a BallPark Frank and testicles. I can't for the life of me understand why that is considered to be "filthy."
I don't see that as filth. However...If I see blood running from a head wound, if I see a man with his guts strewn about his body, lapping across his chest, his brain spread in a puddle around him, I'm a bit bothered by that.
What the hell is wrong with people?? Why can they not be insulted and horrified by seeing a man torn to bits by an explosion, but feel ashamed if one of his testicles is visible?
I don't get it.,.Not only don't, GD it, I don't want to.
This might get slightly into someones religion, in fact it reminds me of my sister. I remember once when someone showed her a picture of a nude woman. It wasn't provocative, just a dumb ass pic from a nudist colony or something similar. my sis was terribly insulted by that "FILTH." Her word.
I don't get it. I guess I'm a dumbass, a few of you have suggested that, and maybe you're right, but I still don't get it. Someone please straighten my ass out please..
I've been looking at news items, some on radio, specifically an interview on PBS of an American photographer in Iraq.
I have no names, I was in my truck just toolin' along and listening, waiting for "Prairy Home Companion," One mighty fine show that I like listening to.
The interviewer, a lady, was asking questions of a man who had been taking war pictures in Iraq and making quite a name for himself publishing graphic pictures of Americans who had been killed and mutilated by Iraqi insurgents or whatever you like to call them.
They were discussing two pictures in particular that he had taken, both of a US marine who had been killed, mutilated, and dragged through the streets of whatever God forsaken city he was in.. One showed the marine covered with his scrapped clothing except for a small area where his genitals were visible, the other showing blood, guts, and decapitation, but no sexual organs.
The photographer published the second in a popular magazine, Newsweek maybe, I don't have that information, just the idea.
He and the interviewer seemed to agree on that concept. The first picture was just too "filthy" to publish. They actually used that very word.."filthy," because it showed his genitals.
I need some help here. I can see or at least be aware that every male person, every male animal on this earth has a BallPark Frank and testicles. I can't for the life of me understand why that is considered to be "filthy."
I don't see that as filth. However...If I see blood running from a head wound, if I see a man with his guts strewn about his body, lapping across his chest, his brain spread in a puddle around him, I'm a bit bothered by that.
What the hell is wrong with people?? Why can they not be insulted and horrified by seeing a man torn to bits by an explosion, but feel ashamed if one of his testicles is visible?
I don't get it.,.Not only don't, GD it, I don't want to.
This might get slightly into someones religion, in fact it reminds me of my sister. I remember once when someone showed her a picture of a nude woman. It wasn't provocative, just a dumb ass pic from a nudist colony or something similar. my sis was terribly insulted by that "FILTH." Her word.
I don't get it. I guess I'm a dumbass, a few of you have suggested that, and maybe you're right, but I still don't get it. Someone please straighten my ass out please..
0
-
You run into this from all the lower intelligence types. Unless it's dead, a nude body offends the senses of these people. A happy, dancing naked woman is SIN and children must be shielded from watching a woman breastfeed her newborn, even though that is as natural as eating (imagine that!).
Let that same woman and child be riddled with holes or burned up, and it makes Time, True Crime, and your daily paper.
Which do you call porn?0 -
Here again is proof of the pudding so to speak..
This post included lots of blood and guts which went through with no problem, but there was a body part mentioned that got changed by the censor to "Ballpark Frank." It wasn't a dirty word, it was a name of a human male body part.
I just don't get it. Someone explain?0 -
So where does the wine come into it? 0 -
p3, you and I have had a disagreement or two in the past, but dammit, at least you have a mind. I can't say that with confidence in some cases here. 0 -
"The interviewer, a lady, was asking questions of a man who had been taking war pictures in Iraq and making quite a name for himself publishing graphic pictures of Americans who had been killed and mutilated by Iraqi insurgents or whatever you like to call them."
I don't know the guy, but the "name" I have for him can't be repeated here. Can't believe someone hasn't fragged his butt.0 -
rcxs old lady I dunno..But iffn it matters, I'm on my second bottle of Merlot, so it prolly work in there sumplace.. 0 -
It shore wud be easier if ya'd give us a name we could use instead of "rcrxs old lady." My name is Jim. Howdy.. 0 -
I think it has it's beginning with the misconception that sex was the origional sin. Then original sin was that man made a judement that something was bad. Par took of the tree of knowledge of good and evil(bad). As in passed judgement. Also, the early Christian Church needed tools to separate the Christians from the Pagans, this was one that they used. Hell, purgatory, limbo, and Christian holidays were others. I am not saying these were bad. Just that this is part of what happened. For saying this I will be condemmed by some because of their own fear that what they believe might be wrong. 0 -
Agree with ya jimdeere, but you're missing the point. Read it some more.. 0 -
mcaso you might be touching it..But I'm not satisfied. I'm not very religious, but have been taught here and there about that forbidden fruit and all that. I've noted some people insist on it being an apple. Bible calls it a "fruit," not an apple. But even being that general I can't turn a fruit into a sin that is greater than murder, rape, blood, guts and gore.. 0 -
Because it's the almighty male genetilia.
Remember the famous photo of the young, naked Vietnamese girl who was burned by napalm?
While I don't condone publishing pictures of any dead/dismembered soldiers without the consent of the family, it's a cultural double standard...0 -
oldgunner, you are correct. It is not a sin greater than those you described. It is not a sin at all. In the early days of Christianity the Pagans would have celibrations where group orgies, some public if you will, would take place. This is not what God intended. Things just went too far to the extreme. The human body is a creation of God and to say that showing it, or any of God creations, is a sin is to say that God created something sinfull. Man may have become sinfull or some of man's actions are sinfull, but nothing God created is sinfull! Therefore to look upon God's creations can not be sinfull. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by oldgunner
p3, you and I have had a disagreement or two in the past, but dammit, at least you have a mind. I can't say that with confidence in some cases here.
OG,
I live on the fringe of the Bible Belt. Unfortunately, most of the locals get up in arms when Michaelangelo's David is on tour. A church group insisted he wear short pants! When Schindler's List was shown in the high school, the parents had to sign a permission slip for their kids to view it. Most all signed and then threw holy hell after the kids told them the Jews were naked! I guess the parents were unfamiliar with the Best Picture of the year!
What really pisses me off though is I sell adult vids in my shop. EVERYBODY buys them. High state and local politicians, doctors, preachers, nurses, cops, business owners, and women make up about 40% of the actual purchasers. The religious types are funny and easy to spot. If someone else is in the store, they will mill around quietly until that other person has left, then rush over to pick one all the while watching over their shoulder.
The religions create artificial morality for people. Open any Christian book and see a picture of a man crucified on a cross, a death of great suffering by any stretch of the imagination. Nails through both wrist, a nail through both feet. Add a lance wound and thorns pricking his head and you have it, a celebration of inhuman treatment and torture.
Strangely, you seldom see a picture of an innocent Adam or Eve frolicing in their birthday suits in the Garden of Eden.
What kind of message does that send?
Lenin sucked, but he sure got one thing right; "Religion is the opium of mankind" It makes them dopes.0 -
I agree with oldgunner and rxcs oldlady. I was raised a christian and hold to those beliefs. The picture of a human being devastated in that manner is horrible. If people have to endure looking at it to learn something about war, so be it. It is not filth in and off the picture itself. The fact that it happened at all is the filth, not the exposed genitalia. Ever change a diaper? Do you have sisters, brothers, mother, father? They all have genitalia. As owners of said genitalia, are they filthy? People are weird and hung up on the strangest things--mainly because of puritanical and Victorian ideas. Up until the 17th century, people didn't possess such hangups to that degree. It serves a purpose. I'm going to have a glass or two of chardonnay now. 0 -
Well put P3 0 -
Reload..."clink.." My glass to yours.
I'm gone, see ya all tomorrow.0 -
I don't see anything "filthy" about the human body. If it were engaged in some kind of sexual act, the act should not be seen, but the body is normal for all humans. Remember the picture from Vietnam of the nude young girl running down the road after a Napam bomb? Nothing was "filthy" about that. It was truth in its truest form.
Some people need to grow up and get over themselves.0 -
quote:Originally posted by dheffley
I don't see anything "filthy" about the human body. If it were engaged in some kind of sexual act, the act should not be seen, but the body is normal for all humans. Remember the picture from Vietnam of the nude young girl running down the road after a Napam bomb? Nothing was "filthy" about that. It was truth in its truest form.
Some people need to grow up and get over themselves.
Is it ok if everyone here post a picture of their "filth" here? just wondering. I've always wondered how my "filth" stacks up against someone elses "filth"0 -
Reloader..You be better off not to know...[:D][:D][:D] 0 -
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
quote:Originally posted by oldgunner
p3, you and I have had a disagreement or two in the past, but dammit, at least you have a mind. I can't say that with confidence in some cases here.
OG,
I live on the fringe of the Bible Belt. Unfortunately, most of the locals get up in arms when Michaelangelo's David is on tour. A church group insisted he wear short pants! When Schindler's List was shown in the high school, the parents had to sign a permission slip for their kids to view it. Most all signed and then threw holy hell after the kids told them the Jews were naked! I guess the parents were unfamiliar with the Best Picture of the year!
What really pisses me off though is I sell adult vids in my shop. EVERYBODY buys them. High state and local politicians, doctors, preachers, nurses, cops, business owners, and women make up about 40% of the actual purchasers. The religious types are funny and easy to spot. If someone else is in the store, they will mill around quietly until that other person has left, then rush over to pick one all the while watching over their shoulder.
The religions create artificial morality for people. Open any Christian book and see a picture of a man crucified on a cross, a death of great suffering by any stretch of the imagination. Nails through both wrist, a nail through both feet. Add a lance wound and thorns pricking his head and you have it, a celebration of inhuman treatment and torture.
Strangely, you seldom see a picture of an innocent Adam or Eve frolicing in their birthday suits in the Garden of Eden.
What kind of message does that send?
Lenin sucked, but he sure got one thing right; "Religion is the opium of mankind" It makes them dopes.
P3, This is the first time i've totally agreed with you. Now, don't get a big head and expound excessively. I live in a "Bible belt" and have to put up with it too.[:D]0 -
IMO these photo's may be avoided out of sensitivity towards the deceased soldier and his family. Pictures of unfortunant mangled dead soldiers is bad enough. But do we need to humiliate them and their families by showing pics of their exposed genitals? 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
21 comments