Placebo
by meyers

Comment:

Originally posted by OmanOtter: Meyers: Good idea. But you started it with your attack. You got what you asked for.

I'd move this to an email discussion, but apparently OO doesn't feel like it and I think this'll probably be the last post anyway.

Originally posted by OmanOtter: PDF: I'm not questioning homosexuality. Nor am I questioning evolution. I'm questioning your arrogant characterization of over 2 billion people of this Earth as ignorant and stupid. You're arrogant and bigoted.

Ah. I wasn't sure what you were referring to. Thanks for clearing that up.

PS. I said ignorant OR stupid. Very important detail.

Message edited by author 2007-03-18 13:25:40.

Placebo
by meyers

Comment:

Originally posted by OmanOtter: PDF: You need to think about what you say. Those kinds of comments make you sound arrogant and bigoted.

People are entitled to their own opinions (such as whether a photograph is good or not), but not their own facts. The world is round whether you're christian, muslim, or hindu, and evolution is a fact. There IS a scientific consensus that homosexuality is not a choice and is something you're born with. If you want to debate any of those facts then fine, I can cite a statement signed by hundreds of pediatric, psychological, psychiatric, and other associations saying that, and some of the evidence that led them to that conclusion. Or we can talk about transitional fossils, molecular and structural evidence, nested hierarchies, etc... However, Your ad hominem attack really doesn't get us anywhere. And if you think I sound arrogant and bigoted simply because I'm saying that religion doesn't give you a free pass to believe anything regardless of the evidence, then fine. I'll be arrogant and bigoted.

Placebo
by meyers

Comment:
If two billion muslims are creationists, they they ARE ignorant or just plain stupid. I don't care how many people there are or if they are divided by religious or cultural lines, anyone who does not accept evolution either does not know about the overwhelming evidence, or is just plain stupid. It's like believing the world is flat. Religion doesn't give you a free pass to believing flagrant lies.

I haven't heard about the uproar over the general's comments... I'll have to search.

There IS a scientific consensus that homosexuality is something you're born with. Look it up- all the major psychiatric, psychological, etc. associations all take the position that it is not a choice and is not "curable". Talk to biologists, and pretty much all of them will tell you it's a choice, etc. If you want we can continue the homosexuality debate (or any other debate :P) in e-mails.

As for the crossdressing entry... I rated it a 1 because I simply don't like it, and because I don't get the point it is trying to make. Maybe it is an attack, I don't know.

Placebo
by meyers

Comment:
lol. I'm very glad you accept evolution, but that doesn't really mean you're "very" scientific-minded. Only an ignorant or just plain stupid person would deny evolution. Not trying to argue about your scientific-mindedness or anything, I just think it's funny you chose that example :P.

I doubt I'd think twice before doing something similar with symbols of beliefs, but homosexuality is not a belief. It's not a choice, it's something you're born with. Criticizing homosexuality itself (not specific beliefs or acts) is a completely different matter, and WOULD be attacking the people themselves (it'd be like attacking "blackness" or "hispanicness") and I'd be against that.

Again, just nitpicking. I don't mean to imply you meant it that way, I just can't refrain from my rants :P

Placebo
by meyers

Comment:
Interesting. Personally I am very scientifically minded, and love people to criticize (that's what I meant by "attack", for some reason I couldn't come up with the right word then) all ideas because criticism is what drives progress and stops stupidity. I realize a photograph isn't going to convey a very well thought out, point by point argument, but as you can see from the comments it does promote discussion :)... and it is EXACTLY for the reasons you have mentioned (some religious groups not wanting medical treatment but instead resort to prayer only) and things like them that ideas SHOULD be criticized. I think it's amoral NOT to criticize ideas that can lead to harm.

... but like I said, criticizing a whole group of people is another story...

Sometimes yes, religion is very deeply entwined with the culture and the people practicing it, but I don't think that's a valid argument for not criticizing the ideas. If we all impose censorship on ourselves just because people might feel a cultural attachment to certain ideas, then what CAN we criticize? people form groups and cultures around pretty much every political and other belief. Maybe not as strong as religious beliefs, but they're still there anyway.

I'm an atheist who was born in an extremely catholic country (Mexico), raised as a catholic, went to catholic school (it was terrible), and all my friends were catholic, but I don't feel at all culturally a member of that religious group.

Placebo
by meyers

Comment:
Just curious... would you think that "attacking" religion in general (not a specific belief such as "prayer works") would be hatespeech? What about "attacking" a specific belief system (christianity, islam, whatever) if it's not attacking the PEOPLE but the beliefs?

Placebo
by meyers

Comment:
incidentally, I think you were making a straw man argument when you said "a Jewish Woody with a yarmulka or Torah, a Muslim Woody with a beard and a Qur'an, a Native American Woody with feathers and a bud of peyote." in your original post. The woody in the picture wasn't wearing a christian cross, or the robes of a christian priest, or anything else that would say that the woody is a christian. Doing so IMO would imply that it WAS an attack on those people, (not that I'd want it censored or anything) but I think the way the photograph was set up implies that he was attacking the BELIEF (in prayer), and not the PEOPLE. That is a HUGE detail. It's one thing to attack a group of people, and a completely different thing to attack a specific belief.

Placebo
by meyers

Comment:
OmanOtter, courage was ONE of the reasons I gave this a ten. Not the only one. Just like people give points for creativity whatnot, I think that the amount of courage it took is a perfectly fine way of rating a photograph.

about it being an attack... yes, I do think it WAS an attack- It was an attack on the power of prayer. I don't think it was an attack in christianity in general, the bible, or religion in general. Just prayer.

Something doesn't need to be an attack to require courage. Most people are very sensitive when it comes to religion, and something doesn't have to be an attack to offend people. For example, coming out as being homosexual (or an atheist for that matter) might offend many people, but it is not an attack and it takes courage.

I don't think the "same basic picture" wich used the torah or the koran or whatever would be hate speech either.

Quack Quack
by RitaD

Comment:
wow, great picture... but I don't see any noise, or think that it would make this image better. (that's not really a duck btw, looks to me like a cormorant)

lost in thought...
by chugginrail

Comment:
The foot being so close doesn't really work IMO.