The Nehor wrote:So you're saying that if I don't stop I might betray those here to worship those with sub-normal mental capacity? Okay, I'll stop on those grounds. I will bow out of this thread to prevent me from hurting your weak consciences in such a way. Bye now. It's been fun.
God is prompting me to say to you:
'My son: you know very well that what concerns me is that your use of images of my weaker children in the context of mockery will tempt others to mock them directly and perhaps even to their faces. This would grieve me, as does all cruelty to the weak and helpless. I know it is only foolish pride that is stopping you admitting to the disbelievers on this board that you understand this very well. But do you do well to set the other, perhaps silent readers of this board the example of pride standing in the way of open repentance?"
Guys, I know and understand that using an image of some innocent, sub-normal people is offensive in many ways. That being said, I don't think that BCSpace's picture warranted the dogpiling that has resulted. Not everyone sees everything the same way you dogpilers do.
Everyone seems to have their own pet peeves, and whoever violates them gets the book thrown at them. One of the "last straws", if you will, that was mentioned by the mod who banned me at MAD was that I had said that there is no Lord. Ok, pretty ho hum for most of us, but apparently for that mod, and probably some others, publicly stating "there is no Lord" is one of the worst things a person can do. Blasphemy! Denial of the Holy Ghost, or whatever.
Ok, now we have discovered that the use of an image of a sub-normally appearing person with some words on the image intending to be humorous is just the absolute worst thing one could do. I recognize why people would be offended, but I just think some charity and perspective are in order here - not everyone reacts to such a picture with horror. Some thinks it's funny. Are we really all so high and mighty as to look down upon and heap upon such a person eternal scorn and damn them all? I don't think we should. For each person offended by a picture intending to be humorous which includes a retar ded person or a deformed person, there's someone else who is offended by that person's lack of respect for God, or for the Holy Ghost, or who doesn't respect the Prophet, or an Apostle, or the Bible, or whatever.
I realize I'm opening myself up to people saying now they know everything they need to know about me, but I guess I will just have to live with that. But with all of the funny images involving Boyd K. Packer, or God, or Gordon B. Hinckley, or whatever, that we've seen posted, and laughed at, I just think it's hypocritical for us to then spend two or three whole pages in this thread damning to hell someone for posting picture of a girl with an unfortunate visage.
Remember the picture someone posted of the beer label that said "Pay Lay Ale - Oh God, Beer is Good For My Mouth"? I'm sure a great many TBMs would be just as offended by that image, and think that laughing at it tells them all they need to know, as some here are by the photo of this, um, homely girl and guy. Can we really coexist enough to discuss with each other if we respond this way to everyone who trespasses upon our own pet peeves?
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
Sethbag wrote:Remember the picture someone posted of the beer label that said "Pay Lay Ale - Oh God, Beer is Good For My Mouth"?
Oh yeah! That is really funny. I know the artist personally. We're good friends.
And yes, it is really offensive. Still, making fun of the disabled... Sorry. Too close to picking on the helpless.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
Sethbag wrote:Guys, I know and understand that using an image of some innocent, sub-normal people is offensive in many ways. That being said, I don't think that BCSpace's picture warranted the dogpiling that has resulted. Not everyone sees everything the same way you dogpilers do.
Everyone seems to have their own pet peeves, and whoever violates them gets the book thrown at them. One of the "last straws", if you will, that was mentioned by the mod who banned me at MAD was that I had said that there is no Lord. Ok, pretty ho hum for most of us, but apparently for that mod, and probably some others, publicly stating "there is no Lord" is one of the worst things a person can do. Blasphemy! Denial of the Holy Ghost, or whatever.
Ok, now we have discovered that the use of an image of a sub-normally appearing person with some words on the image intending to be humorous is just the absolute worst thing one could do. I recognize why people would be offended, but I just think some charity and perspective are in order here - not everyone reacts to such a picture with horror. Some thinks it's funny. Are we really all so high and mighty as to look down upon and heap upon such a person eternal scorn and damn them all? I don't think we should. For each person offended by a picture intending to be humorous which includes a retar ded person or a deformed person, there's someone else who is offended by that person's lack of respect for God, or for the Holy Ghost, or who doesn't respect the Prophet, or an Apostle, or the Bible, or whatever.
I realize I'm opening myself up to people saying now they know everything they need to know about me, but I guess I will just have to live with that. But with all of the funny images involving Boyd K. Packer, or God, or Gordon B. Hinckley, or whatever, that we've seen posted, and laughed at, I just think it's hypocritical for us to then spend two or three whole pages in this thread damning to hell someone for posting picture of a girl with an unfortunate visage.
Remember the picture someone posted of the beer label that said "Pay Lay Ale - Oh God, Beer is Good For My Mouth"? I'm sure a great many TBMs would be just as offended by that image, and think that laughing at it tells them all they need to know, as some here are by the photo of this, um, homely girl and guy. Can we really coexist enough to discuss with each other if we respond this way to everyone who trespasses upon our own pet peeves?
Well, it's just that I like annoying Christians by reminding them how their religion says they ought to act.
Hell, I had to give up having a good laugh at cripples, robbing blind beggars and molesting little girls for the best years of my life. I gave it up for so long that now I don't even want to do it any more, even though I know nobody is watching me but me!
Now I see Nehor still believing in his neighborhood deity like the nineteenth century hadn't happened, and having all the harmless fun he wants mocking mongols and retards. It's not fair.
Chap wrote:Now I see Nehor still believing in his neighborhood deity like the nineteenth century hadn't happened, and having all the harmless fun he wants mocking mongols and r*****s. It's not fair.
Or something.
So are you saying that the pleasure of being a tasteless jackass isn't worth the guilt to you?
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
Chap wrote:Now I see Nehor still believing in his neighborhood deity like the nineteenth century hadn't happened, and having all the harmless fun he wants mocking mongols and r*****s. It's not fair.
Or something.
So are you saying that the pleasure of being a tasteless jackass isn't worth the guilt to you?
Dammit, yes. And I hate myself for it.
Do you have the address of a good cult de-programmer?
Do you have the address of a good cult de-programmer?
Will a humanity deprogrammer do? I don't recommend it, and I certainly wouldn't try it, but you could take care of all such reservations in one fell swoop!
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
With all due apologies for coming into this thread late:
The girl's face in the picture was merely photoshopped, right?
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
Do you have the address of a good cult de-programmer?
Will a humanity deprogrammer do? I don't recommend it, and I certainly wouldn't try it, but you could take care of all such reservations in one fell swoop!
And that is just the problem I see in some (but not all) religious belief and practice: the believer comes to think that the responsibility for bringing ethics into a universe that is largely indifferent to us does not lie in him or her self as a human being, but belongs elsewhere, in some illusory 'higher' power.
This can indeed have the effect of a 'humanity deprogrammer', with consequences sometime seen (in small but real measure) on this board.
Chap wrote:And that is just the problem I see in some (but not all) religious belief and practice: the believer comes to think that the responsibility for bringing ethics into a universe that is largely indifferent to us does not lie in him or her self as a human being, but belongs elsewhere, in some illusory 'higher' power.
This can indeed have the effect of a 'humanity deprogrammer', with consequences sometime seen (in small but real measure) on this board.
Agreed.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”