We were recently discussing Irony on the Top 10 Common English Language Errors, so I thought I would do a post of ironic images to clarify the points made there. So, in no particular order, here are 10 images of Irony.
| Notable PangramsBy Nic Swaner | |
Originating from Greek pan gramma, meaning "every letter," a pangram is a sentence using every... | ||
| Nuclear Test SitesBy Michael Affleck | |
For obvious reasons, most of the world's sites for the testing of nuclear weapons are located in... | ||
| Films that Predicted the FutureBy John Waller | |
The world of cinema comes with many movies that failed to predict the future (We didn't get to... | ||
| Amazing Alternative Sports ClipsBy Robert Sliwa | |
The wonderful world of sports has given us numerous moments of joy and pleasure. We love to cheer... | ||
| Unpleasant Facts About John LennonBy Edward Benjamin | |
When you’ve essentially been canonized as a modern secular saint, there’s not way to... | ||
| Famous Mother-In-LawsBy Meg | |
Say what you will about mother-in-laws, there hasn't been a joke or horror story that hasn't been... | ||
| Tacky Automotive Features of the 1970sBy Brian Combs | |
In many ways, the 1970s was a time of both transition and decline. This is especially true with... | ||
| Chilling Quotes During School ShootingsBy Bryan Johnson | |
It baffles the mind how somebody could enter a school and kill innocent students. In 2012... | ||
| Notorious Black Hat HackersBy Chandler Grant | |
To accompany the technological advancements of the computer world and the constant changing... | ||
| Famous Mothers and their DaughtersBy Kate | |
The love between a mother and her daughter is special. A mother takes her daughter under her wing... | ||
| Worst Firearms in HistoryBy Neil Wilson | |
After seeing the list for the 10 best firearms, I decided it would be amusing to do a list of the... | ||
| Unique Ruined Forts and CastlesBy Bryan Johnson | |
Some of the most popular tourist destinations in world are ancient forts, castles, and... | ||
Most Talked About Lists
Categories
- Art & Literature (125)
- Bizarre (165)
- Crime & Mystery (98)
- Entertainment (193)
- Fact & Fiction (112)
- Food & Health (74)
- History (169)
- Leisure & Travel (112)
- Miscellaneous (252)
- Movies (228)
- Music (140)
- People & Politics (175)
- Religion (64)
- Science & Nature (257)
- Site News (68)
113 What?: “Can you please explain how you’re pointing out the irony/funny without picking on a religion/people in this case?”
It’s not picking on a religion/people. It’s picking on the IDEALS of these people. They have a belief/ideal/thought that the pope is unbalanced while “posing” in garb that is a traditional part of the Muslim religion which *some* individuals use to cover themselves for the purpose of hiding their terrorist selves. THAT is why it’s funny/ironic.
More so, I would be more upset that someone is using *that* part of the religion to MOCK it. It would be the same as if a Christian used a cross to kill someone with. Just as wrong.
Hopefully you understand what we see. I can plainly see what you are seeing…can you not do the same?
I know that the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists. But some are and they are giving the rest of the Muslims a bad name. Many groups do this…Nazis and KKK come to mind. Does this mean all Germans are bad? Or that all southern white men? No.
“No. The irony in that picture is clearly his mis-spelling of ‘morons’, suggesting he himself is stupid. It would work equally well with a person of any race, religion or gender, even if the sign was displayed without anyone holding it.”
Not with the same impact. For example, it wouldn’t be ironic if it was a Chinese man or a business man in a suit. Many would dismiss the picture with no importance. It’s ironic because it’s an Southern American man. I could take offense to that since I am originally from the south…but I don’t because it’s funny.
“Think about this: Would number 4 be equally as ‘ironic’ if a white person in a business suit was holding the sign?”
Depends. Based on a picture…maybe not. But what if he was a terrorist. Does it matter what he is wearing? Nope. He would still be ironic.
“Depends. Based on a picture…maybe not. But what if he was a terrorist. Does it matter what he is wearing? Nope. He would still be ironic.”
Are you honestly suggesting the people in this picture are terrorists? Here we go again – it’s prejudiced because you are making an assumption that they are terrorists.
How can you tell if someone is a terrorist?
“*some* individuals use to cover themselves for the purpose of hiding their terrorist selves.”
Erm… no. How are they hiding their ‘terrorist selves’? Again it comes back to how you can tell someone is a terrorist by looking at them. You can’t. Wearing a burkha does not imply they’re terrorists.
Also, your use of ‘some’ hits the nail on the head – some Muslim people have previously carried out terrorist attacks. But so have ‘some’ Irish people. That doesn’t mean you can call all of them unbalanced or that the majority don’t have a right to protest. It’s offensive because it’s profiling ALL muslims to be ‘hiding their terrorist selves’.
“But some are and they are giving the rest of the Muslims a bad name.”
Are they giving Muslims a bad name, or are we because we’re assuming that a minority represents the majority? The only bad name they have is because we’re ascribing that to them.
120:
“Do I find these morals and value judgements about the role of females in a society balanced? No. Do I go out and protest on the streets against them? No, to each his own”
You’re choosing not to protest. You could, if you wanted to. Additionally, these people were protesting against the Pope (someone with significant influence), so it’s not really the same as protesting against a group for personally choosing to cover themselves.
You say to each his own – exactly. To each his/her own right to protest, no?
Saying that you personally object to their morals is one thing, denying them the right to protest or putting up a picture on a popular website then commenting that the irony derives from their support of terrorists is an entirely different (and inflammatory) thing.
122 What?: Are you honestly suggesting the people in this picture are terrorists? Here we go again – it’s prejudiced because you are making an assumption that they are terrorists.
Uh…where did that come from? I said “But what if he was a terrorist?”…and you respond with that.
If you have knowledge that he was a terrorist beforehand…then where is the breakdown there? If you are talking about the picture (different sentence from this one) then how can I tell? I can’t. Just as I can’t tell that the 1st picture might or might not be a southern man or that picture #9 might or might not be in America. However…it’s the implication of it. What we see first.
How about this:
Do I agree that what we see first is right? NO.
Does it bother me? YES
Can I still find humor in it (even if it might be a wee bit wrong)? YES
That’s called human nature.
How can you tell if someone is a terrorist?
Almost all of them will call attention to themselves…that’s how you would know.
Erm… no. How are they hiding their ‘terrorist selves’? Again it comes back to how you can tell someone is a terrorist by looking at them. You can’t. Wearing a burkha does not imply they’re terrorists.
True…I didn’t say that wearing one imply that they are. It’s just they choose to wear them therefore hiding behind other Muslims and giving the rest a bad name. Does that not upset you?
For example…I follow the Shinto religion. If a person wearing the Shinto robes were to be a terrorist, I would be *****ed. How dare that person go against the teachings and bring a mockery of what is being taught. Wouldn’t you feel the same?
Let me ask you a question. Do any of the pictures above upset you other than this one? Or is this the only one that bothers you? I ask not to get a better understanding but to point out that each picture is doing the same as picture #4. No difference. You are basing an opinion on what you see. So if #4 upsets you…then the rest should as well.
119 What? : “…You can’t just make statements like that. Your argument has been that it’s not prejudiced, which Jamie’s comment would seem to show to not be true. And if you think it was poorly articulated, offer up an alternative. (Your use of ‘clear and unbiased’ is also problematic.)…”
a) My use of clear and unbiased isn’t problematic, you’re just picky. That’s not a personal insult, it’s a well documented fact.
b) My arguement has never been that it wasn’t prejudiced, just not unfairly so. As I said, I’m not racist, I’m realist. Assumptions are made everyday by everyone, including yourself, build a brigde mate.
“…Why also do you say it was poorly articulated then in the very next sentence suggest that I should read it?…”
I didn’t call 38 poorly articulated, I called some of Jamie’s other points poorly articulated.\
“…I don’t understand this point. So you’re agreeing now that it’s not ‘ironic for a Muslim to be pointing fingers at other religions at this period in time’? So you agree that it’s not ironic and should be taken off this ironic list?…”
My point is that you invalidated your above arguments about Catholics with your statement in 117. You’re going around in circles, and trying to paint me into a corner, which isn’t working too well for you.
122 What? : “…Are you honestly suggesting the people in this picture are terrorists? Here we go again – it’s prejudiced because you are making an assumption that they are terrorists…”
Are you mentally deficient mate? Can you read? For Christ’s sake, it doesn’t appear so from where I’m sitting… Where did that come from? Nowhere did oouchan say that those woman are terrorists. You’re trying to paint us into a corner as bigots and intolerant, trust me, give up, we’re not.
“…Erm… no. How are they hiding their ‘terrorist selves’? Again it comes back to how you can tell someone is a terrorist by looking at them. You can’t. Wearing a burkha does not imply they’re terrorists…”
No matter which way you look at it, this is a stupid comment. She emphasized *some*, seriously mate, think first.
“…Also, your use of ’some’ hits the nail on the head – some Muslim people have previously carried out terrorist attacks. But so have ’some’ Irish people. That doesn’t mean you can call all of them unbalanced or that the majority don’t have a right to protest. It’s offensive because it’s profiling ALL muslims to be ‘hiding their terrorist selves’…”
Not it’s not, it’s humour. All humour *needs* assumptions to be made. What about the rest of the pictures here? You don’t have any problems with No.1, do you? There are assumptions in it too, as I stated above. But that’s not that bad is it? I mean, he’s just a white, male, American, it’s no where *near* as bad as picking on Muslims. You’re a joke mate, and a bad one at that.
“…To each his/her own right to protest, no?…”
Not quite… I’m pretty sure even the mighty US of A, the bastion of freedom, has laws against inciting hate crimes…
“…Saying that you personally object to their morals is one thing, denying them the right to protest or putting up a picture on a popular website then commenting that the irony derives from their support of terrorists is an entirely different (and inflammatory) thing.”
No it is not. This is a *humour* list – maybe I need to start emphasizing that more – HUMOUR, humour, *humour*, *HUMOUR* it’s not meant to be taken seriously. Although you wouldn’t know it with tools like you lurking. You’re not even the unbiased, anti-bigot you think you are. You’re not complaining about No.1… you’re a joke.
123 oouchan : Well said, that last paragraph was perfect. This guy just doesn’t get it, he’s against the assumptions being made about Muslims, but when it comes to a Southern white man, meh, who cares?
He really doesn’t get it, that’s what annoys me. He’s acting like a valiant crusader against bigotry, but just the ones he – as his seemingly bigoted self – is against.
“Are you mentally deficient mate? Can you read?”
No, and yes. If you read the comment:
“But what if he was a terrorist. Does it matter what he is wearing? Nope”
The point I’m making is that you’re assuming that they are terrorists. You’re seeing the burkha and assuming they’re somehow connected. You say ‘what if he was a terrorist?’ as though we’d be able to tell. Let’s say that in picture 4, these people aren’t terrorists. Where is the irony? Wearing a burkha is not a sign of being morally unbalanced.
“No matter which way you look at it, this is a stupid comment. She emphasized *some*, seriously mate, think first.”
No, it’s not. You don’t even give reasons WHY it’s stupid. Do you understand that you can’t ‘see’ a terrorist because they aren’t distinctive? That a terrorist covering themselves is no different from a terrorist completely naked – they can’t be distinguished from other people based on what they look like.
“My point is that you invalidated your above arguments about Catholics with your statement in 117. You’re going around in circles, and trying to paint me into a corner, which isn’t working too well for you”
Explain how. I’m using examples that don’t work (Catholics) to demonstrate how ridiculous your argument is. Do you understand?
“I mean, he’s just a white, male, American, it’s no where *near* as bad as picking on Muslims. You’re a joke mate, and a bad one at that.”
As I’ve said, you could have anyone holding that sign up and it would work. In number 4 you’re specifically basing the humour on there being some kind of moral deficiency amongst Muslims.
This is prejudiced.
“I didn’t call 38 poorly articulated, I called some of Jamie’s other points poorly articulated.”
but:
“Jamie put his previous thought in a poorly articulated sentence”
Apparently you were referring to one specific sentence. (‘his previous thought’, i.e.: singular). Specifically which one was it you happened to be talking about?
Does that mean you agree with:
Post 38: “it is about the fact that we hear virtually nothing from Islamic people in protest to their own people about the immoral terrorist attacks and threats”
Have you talked to any Muslims? Similarly, does one group of Muslims need to be excused by the rest? This comes back to the Catholic thing: Do Catholics from other countries need to protest against the IRA or are they seen as separate and not responsible?
Similarly, why should these people protest against unrelated attacks?
“You’re a joke mate, and a bad one at that.”
Qualify these comments. You’re saying things that sound nice without backing them up. Explain yourself more without being so petty.
For example:
“I’m not racist, I’m realist”
What does this mean? Saying you’re ‘realist’ doesn’t mean anything in this context.
If I could just go back to something you said earlier:
“It’s ironic for a Muslim to be pointing fingers at other religions at this period in time. Before you comment, that’s a fact. I’m not bigoted at all”
How is that not bigoted? How is that a fact?
Again with the personal comments. Stop doing this. I am not offended in the slightest by your attacks but see them as attempts to avoid the issues I’m raising. Concentrate your efforts on rebutting my points rather than attacking the person you think is writing these comments.
126 Mark: Thank you. You also did a fantastic job of getting your point across.
~sigh
I guess I am exasperated because What? continues to focus only on the one picture, but that arguement can be used for all of them. Hopefully my point helps clarify where we are coming from.
“I guess I am exasperated because What? continues to focus only on the one picture, but that argument can be used for all of them. Hopefully my point helps clarify where we are coming from”
No, the argument can’t be used for other pictures.
Don’t you see that the rest have nothing to do with race/religion but number 4 specifically employs prejudiced stereotypes to derive any ‘irony’ from it.
The first picture is of a person holding a sign complaining about people being dumb, but his SIGN shows that he isn’t smart either.
You could have a man, a woman, a Catholic, an atheist, etc, instead of him. The irony is from his sign – it has nothing to do with him being southern american.
Number 4 bases its humour/irony on two ideas, either that:
1) Muslims are unbalanced because they cover themselves, or;
2) All Muslims should be held responsible for the behaviour of a minority.
Do you see how these are prejudiced?
What? you are taking this way too personally. Chillax. Take a deep breath and move on. Nobody is forcing you to view this site. If something on it deeply and morally offends you, you are free to leave, never to return.
You are the one CHOOSING to be here, thus you are CHOOSING to be offended.
The fault lies with you, not with Jfrater, mark or oouchan
Isn’t freedom of expression a *****?
129 What?: No, the argument can’t be used for other pictures.
Don’t you see that the rest have nothing to do with race/religion but number 4 specifically employs prejudiced stereotypes to derive any ‘irony’ from it.
Actually it can. If we broke each picture down…here is what you get based on what you *see*.
1) Predudice against the southern man and America (clearly seen from background) – racial based
2) Clearly picking on Muslims in this one because of the burkas – religion based
3) Picking on christians for bowing down before an idol – religion based
4) Your argument that it’s terrorists we see in the picture.
5) Picking on Mexicans due to the sign “Dez” – racial based
6) Picking on USA – racial based
7) Discrimination of homeless
8) Picking on the homeless
9) Implied to be a muslim picking on USA – racial based
10) Picking on the obese – I consider this one racial as well.
Now we have a clear picture of what each is implying. Does it make it right? NO….but there is still humor to be found in each one.
Number 4 bases its humour/irony on two ideas, either that:
1) Muslims are unbalanced because they cover themselves, or;
2) All Muslims should be held responsible for the behaviour of a minority.
No…I didn’t get that from the picture. That is where you and I differ. I got a chuckle from it because I saw a group of individuals who didn’t want their faces seen picking on the pope for being unbalanced when they themselves aren’t confident enough to show who they are. I did NOT see them as muslims. I know a few muslims and they are nice people….nothing like what those who portray terrorist tendencies.
Do you see how these are prejudiced?
No…do you see the other pictures that way? Since you answered no in your previous post….then that sums up your whole arguement. You are upset that people are seeing *muslims* as terrorists. I am telling you that I don’t see that and that quite a few others don’t see it that way either.
Don’t know how that smiley ended up there for number 8…oh well.
cym…thank you. Freedom of expression is not only a ***** but also a 300 pound mac-daddy wanting to get up close and personal.
While most of the pictures could be interpreted as a little offensive to somebody, #4 is the only one which relies on an offensive and bigoted assumption in order to have any humor value. #2 is different because the irony comes from the fact that the burkas cover the face; the joke would work for any other face-covering garb. #3 is ironic because people are bowing down to an object that tells them not to bow before objects. The rest are quite a stretch.
No one is saying that the site owner isn’t free to express himself. We’re just trying to point out how a particular image on this post is highly offensive.
If he wishes to smear Muslims, he is free to do so. We are also free to call him on it, hoping that the offense is unintentional, and, failing that, that other readers will learn something and think twice the next time they want to make such a joke.
See 38 for Jfraters own explanation of why the picture was included. It isn’t there to smear muslims at all. Sense of humour differs for different people!
I agree with your final paragraph, but my point is this. As a wilful visitor to this site, if something offends you so badly you find yourself obliged to write post after post repeating yourself, getting angry and more offended that people do not hold your view, then you are free to leave and never visit the site again
Remember, freedom of expression comes with the freedom to be offended. People forgetting the latter part of that are the reason that us in the UK no longer have a Christmas Break anymore (its the Winter break now), and many schools have banned decorating and the singing of religious christmas carols…including my old one which used to go to church on the last day of term as few as 4 years ago.
Now I am not lugging you in with idiots who take PC above and beyond where it needs to go, I am just saying be rational about this. Its not as if this site is inciting religious hatred.
9 isnt insulting america. It is all about the cartoon portraying the prophet mohammed, printed in Holland I believe – you can just see it in one of the cards in the background
Insult
Prophet
That is what I guess it is anyway.
127 What? : “…The point I’m making is that you’re assuming that they are terrorists. You’re seeing the burkha and assuming they’re somehow connected. You say ‘what if he was a terrorist?’ as though we’d be able to tell. Let’s say that in picture 4, these people aren’t terrorists. Where is the irony? Wearing a burkha is not a sign of being morally unbalanced…”
Not only are you slow, you’re also hypocritical. Where did *I* even imply that I thought that these women were terrorists. Mate, I’m not the bigot here, *you* are the one who can’t accept that maybe someone who “doesn’t care” isn’t “evil” or “bad”.
“…No, it’s not. You don’t even give reasons WHY it’s stupid…”
Yes… I did… Maybe your whole “I *can* read” thing was maybe a bit more than you could handle. oouchan empasized *some*, she didn’t say anything about “all Muslims are terrorists”. You need to slow down, you’re going to hurt yourself.
“…Explain how. I’m using examples that don’t work (Catholics) to demonstrate how ridiculous your argument is. Do you understand?…”
Technically, it is my job to get the message through to you, according to “communicating theory”, but if you’re not going to make an effort, neither am I. My argument isn’t ridiculous, at least not compared to yours. Mine’s linear, your’s won’t stop going in circles. I understand, you’re just clinging onto anything you can. You remind me of a certain fundie that I was talking to on another list last month…
“…As I’ve said, you could have anyone holding that sign up and it would work. In number 4 you’re specifically basing the humour on there being some kind of moral deficiency amongst Muslims…”
You’ve just ignored what both oouchan and I have told you. You’re all for “you aren’t refuting my arguments, you’re only attacking me”, they’re not mutually exclusive. You’re the one who’s ignoring and avoiding. Look at some of the comments above, it *does* matter who’s holding that sign. You are utterly breathtaking sometimes… That was a solid effort, I haven’t been this royally peeved for a while.
“…Apparently you were referring to one specific sentence. (’his previous thought’, i.e.: singular). Specifically which one was it you happened to be talking about?…”
The one you quoted and then I replied to with that, dolt!
“…Have you talked to any Muslims? Similarly, does one group of Muslims need to be excused by the rest? This comes back to the Catholic thing: Do Catholics from other countries need to protest against the IRA or are they seen as separate and not responsible?…”
The true colour of your petticoat is showing now. Have you ever heard of Nazi Germany? How about Soviet Russia? Communist North Korea? Fidel Castro? I bet you think they were good ideas? If not, why are you making an effort to restrict one’s rights?
“…Qualify these comments. You’re saying things that sound nice without backing them up. Explain yourself more without being so petty…”
I have been… If you want to ignore what I’m saying, go ahead. But you can’t turn around and reply with a statement like that, that is what I would call a farce.
“…What does this mean? Saying you’re ‘realist’ doesn’t mean anything in this context…”
Yes… it does. Just because you can’t grasp that out in the big, bad world, Muslims *are* blowing people up – in much greater quantities than any Catholics, that is why it’s more relevant – then you should read some newspapers sometime.
“…How is that not bigoted? How is that a fact?…”
Read the news. It’s a fact, and therefore, not a bigoted opinion. Fair enough, these Muslims probably haven’t done the slightest thing wrong. For argument’s sake we’ll assume that they haven’t, but how can they turn around and have a snipe at the Pope? Don’t pretend it’s for any other reason than because he’s a Catholic, that would be a fallacy of the highest order. They could be holding a sign condeming Osama, but are they? No! Why would we care about him? He’s killing infidels! It’s not as if his moral deficiencies are 1000 times greater than Benedicts, oh no. The Pope is obviously *much* worse. That’s my point.
“…Concentrate your efforts on rebutting my points…”
Don’t throw stones from glass houses.
129 What? : “…Don’t you see that the rest have nothing to do with race/religion but number 4 specifically employs prejudiced stereotypes to derive any ‘irony’ from it…”
Yet again? Race, religion? Not equal issues, definitely not fair to call someone bigoted against Muslims as bad as someone bigoted against white people.
“…The first picture is of a person holding a sign complaining about people being dumb, but his SIGN shows that he isn’t smart either.
You could have a man, a woman, a Catholic, an atheist, etc, instead of him. The irony is from his sign – it has nothing to do with him being southern american…”
That’s a fallacy. If Albert Einstein or some other, highly-educated, well-known academic were holding the sign, the implication would not be of a lack of intelligence on their behalf, would it? The Cardinals – up the Redbirds!!! – shirt, and white skin draw on “white Southerner = a bit slow” a racial, cultural and – to an extent – geographical stereotype. Keep up.
“…Number 4 bases its humour/irony on two ideas, either that:
1) Muslims are unbalanced because they cover themselves, or;
2) All Muslims should be held responsible for the behaviour of a minority.
Do you see how these are prejudiced?”
Read 137, for ***** sake read it and actually make an effort to understand it.
134 SuzieQ : “…While most of the pictures could be interpreted as a little offensive to somebody, #4 is the only one which relies on an offensive and bigoted assumption in order to have any humor value…”
No, that’s wrong. For God’s sake, Jamie isn’t saying that those women are terrorists, KEEP UP! He’s saying that Muslims pointing the finger at anyone except Osama or his ilk is a bit, short-sighted.
I found your reasoning confusing and lacking in comment 137/138.
You didn’t articulate anything; you replied to my questions or rebuttals of your points with trivial matters and insults (again).
For example:
“129 What? : “…Don’t you see that the rest have nothing to do with race/religion but number 4 specifically employs prejudiced stereotypes to derive any ‘irony’ from it…”
Yet again? Race, religion? Not equal issues, definitely not fair to call someone bigoted against Muslims as bad as someone bigoted against white people”
Your reply here is completely unrelated to what we’re talking about. You didn’t reply but picked out my ‘race/religion’ part (which was referring generally to other situations) and went off on a tangent. Do you really consider religious persecution so much less offensive than racial? Where do you draw the line as well considering such a large proportion of the Middle east is Muslim?
Picking out some other points:
“The one you quoted and then I replied to with that, dolt!”
Tell me exactly which one. Give the number of the post.
You’re either talking about post 38 (which you deny) or post 12 as those were the two we were talking about.
Give me numbers.
I’ll repeat: Give me numbers.
Do not give vague statements or insult me.
Which one was poorly articulated and which one are you suggesting I read?
“these Muslims probably haven’t done the slightest thing wrong. For argument’s sake we’ll assume that they haven’t, but how can they turn around and have a snipe at the Pope? Don’t pretend it’s for any other reason than because he’s a Catholic”
1. You’re right, they most likely haven’t. You assume innocence, remember?
2. They can have a swipe at the pope because they’re people expressing their right to protest.
3. It’s more likely that he did or said something that offended them rather than the sole fact of him being Catholic. Whatever it is isn’t important – they are protesting and they have a right to.
“For God’s sake, Jamie isn’t saying that those women are terrorists, KEEP UP! He’s saying that Muslims pointing the finger at anyone except Osama or his ilk is a bit, short-sighted.”
In the same way that all catholics shouldn’t point the finger at anyone but IRA bombers, right? (Note: The preceeding sentence was your logic applied to a different situation. It’s been designed to highlight the flaws in your argument.)
“…Number 4 bases its humour/irony on two ideas, either that:
1) Muslims are unbalanced because they cover themselves, or;
2) All Muslims should be held responsible for the behaviour of a minority.
Do you see how these are prejudiced?”
Read 137, for ***** sake read it and actually make an effort to understand it.”
Respond to the question. Do you see how the two points are both prejudiced? And that again, you’re being vague and not concise in your argument?
It’d be a lot easier if you left out the insults and were more specific when you reply.
“Jamie isn’t saying that those women are terrorists, KEEP UP! He’s saying that Muslims pointing the finger at anyone except Osama or his ilk is a bit, short-sighted.”
Jamie – would you like this as listverse’s new motto?
I think it says proudly ‘religious tolerance’.
(/Sarcasm)
140 What? : You are a drop-kick. My God it would please me to no extent to meet you in the flesh. You’re a good troll though, I’m done. Nice try.
141 What? : Not only a troll, a retard! Amazing that…
what? if This site is so intolerant, just leave. I assure you you will not be missed.
Please. Change the record. Its boring now.
“140 What? : You are a drop-kick. My God it would please me to no extent to meet you in the flesh. You’re a good troll though, I’m done. Nice try.”
“141 What? : Not only a troll, a retard! Amazing that…”
These nicely summarise and validate the points I was making about your debating techniques. You need to be specific and not use insults.
Back on topic:
Are you going to give me the numbers of the relevant comments?
Do you see how the picture is prejudiced now?
cymraegbachgen87 – you aren’t being forced to read these comments.
145 What? : Listen, all you’re doing is tactfully ignoring my points. I’ve explained away every weak piece of crap “he shouldn’t be allowed to do this” argument you’ve put in my way. Yet you still manage to think that I’m not rebutting your points. That makes me angry, therefore, you’re a tool, or a very good troll. I’m not bothering with you anymore.
P.S. My arguing technique is 100X whatever you could dream of getting, because I actually *listen* to what the other person is saying, not ignore it when it suits me.
If you believe you’ve done such a good job, finish it off:
Give me the numbers of the comments that Jamie ‘poorly articulated’ his ideas in and the number of the comment that you think I should read.
Give me numbers.
Also, please “explain away” my example involving Catholics. According to your logic, all Catholics shouldn’t protest about anything except the IRA bombings. (As you said yourself, your logic is “Muslims pointing the finger at anyone except Osama or his ilk is a bit short-sighted.”)
Explain it. You shouldn’t need to insult me if your arguing technique is really all you claim it is.
Actually, I am being forced to read your drivel, as it keeps coming up in the recent comments feed. I am glad to see that hypocrisy is also one of your talents. As to the IRA, that was YEARS ago – why is it relevent now? The attacks were also NOT a part of a religious ideal, rather a political one, so the parallels being drawn here are irrlevent. The IRA were fighting to have Britain withdraw from Northern Ireland. SO why should catholics even be bothered by their actions – it wasnt as if they blew up plaecs in britain in the name of god.
Epic argument about no. 4. Didn’t have time read everything but I gathered something intrinsically wrong about the arguments on both sides.
Firstly, What? is right. Assuming something morally wrong with (strictly) wearing a burka is culturally flawed. It’s only clothes after all.
However, for What? to then assume Jfraters intentions that the reason for him putting up the sign is due to the women wearing burkas is wrong too. Perhaps, he did. But to assume that is a big leap.
Mark, its quite narrow to assume that wearing something from head to toe is morally flawed. That’s intrinsically culturally subjective. Like I said, its only fashion. Perhaps had you said that they wore this on the basis of blatant following of religion… it would have had more weight.
Jfrater, the picture is only ironic if viewed from a certain perspective. Perhaps that is the humour of it no?
Such as, a political perspective assuming that these women are forced to wear burkas and are unable to protest against this mandate, but are able to protest against the pope. Assumption yes. Absolutely correct, no. Generally correct, perhaps? Humour, yes – albeit politically charged.
I agree that the women have a right to protest about morality – in liberal society, everyone does. And since the West espouses a global view of such things, then so should these women.
I agree that there was no connotation to terrorism.
It seems that this debate spiralled down too much to the point of misunderstanding. Both parties where shooting bullets at something, but were always missing the point.
Anyway, if I missed something. Don’t be so hard on me. It’s 5am and I don’t have time to read 100 comments.
“The attacks were also NOT a part of a religious ideal, rather a political one, so the parallels being drawn here are irrlevent.”
Do you think attacks carried out by Muslim terrorists are solely religiously motivated, that there’s no political aspects to them at all? Seriously?
“As to the IRA, that was YEARS ago – why is it relevent now?”
I’m using it as an example of the flaws in your logic. If you think the Muslims in this photo shouldn’t protest because other Muslims have carried out attacks, then Catholics can’t protest because some of them have carried out attacks.
“it wasnt as if they blew up plaecs in britain in the name of god.”
Are you sure none of them believed what they were doing was God’s will? None of them said a prayer? Are you sure?
Similarly, are you arguing that all attacks by Muslims are in the name of god?
—–
Archangel, if I could pick up a couple of things:
“to then assume Jfraters intentions that the reason for him putting up the sign is due to the women wearing burkas is wrong too. Perhaps, he did. But to assume that is a big leap.”
and
“I agree that there was no connotation to terrorism.”
Jamie’s own comments:
Comment 12: “they are saying he has lost his moral balance, whilst they support terrorist bombings of innocent people.”
Comment 38: “It is not about them wearing full covering – it is about the fact that we hear virtually nothing from Islamic people in protest to their own people about the immoral terrorist attacks and threats – but in the picture they are complaining about the Pope being immoral. Whether they are covered up or not is not relevant.”
cymraegbachgen87 (136):
I thought is was just because you have a guy shouting his opinion on a megaphone (freedom of speech) all the while carrying a sign that says freedom of expression can go to hell. If he didnt have freedom of expression then he wouldnt be free to carry a sign or shout his opinions on a megaphone now would he?
How would that insult the prophet? The guy in the picture is just an ass because he´s protesting against soemthing that guarantees him the right to protest in the first place!
What? (122)
“Saying that you personally object to their morals is one thing, denying them the right to protest or putting up a picture on a popular website then commenting that the irony derives from their support of terrorists is an entirely different (and inflammatory) thing.”
I am not necessarily denying them the right to protest, I am simply saying that the ireony FOR ME was that they denounced the morals of the Pope while espousing morals and value judegments about females that I find abhorrent.
On a side note, why is it that everytime a negative comment is made about Muslims/Jews/homo*****uals/black people, everyone jumps up and screams BIGOT and yet they themselves jump on the bandwagon when the Christianity bashing begins?
Sorry if this starts a flame war, just honestly curious… I dont find that hatred of Catholics here in LA so I´m curious as to why it exists elsewhere… Why do people feel that being one thing is OK, praise-worthy or whatever and the other is instrisically wrong? Anyone?
“I’m using it as an example of the flaws in your logic.”
You do not know who you are debating anymore do you? I havent been arguing any side other than live and let live. You are attacking me without cause
“If you think the Muslims in this photo shouldn’t protest because other Muslims have carried out attacks, then Catholics can’t protest because some of them have carried out attacks.”
No I do not think that. I have not even argued that!
“Similarly, are you arguing that all attacks by Muslims are in the name of god?”
No. I will say this slowly. I. Have. Not. Been. The. One. Debating. You. I have been constantly saying if you are offended then you are free to leave, but the intention was never to offend. You arse – the ones who have been diligently debating you have been Mark and oouchan.
“Are you sure none of them believed what they were doing was God’s will?”
None of them? That is impossible to verify, but as to it being a POLITICAL extremist group WITH LITTLE TO NO LINKS TO RELIGION I am very certain. I studied it in modern history for two years.
“solely religiously motivated”
Sigh…I never said they were. I alluded that they were PRIMARILY a religious sect. FFS Jihad is a religious term and movement. You are not in possession of the facts here.
You are easily the worst troll I have come across. You cannot keep track of arguments. You cannot keep track of who said what. You cannot even string a congnitive argument together.
151-I am shocked you do not know what I am referring to! This dominated the media for weeks on end. I have posted the general story below of WHY they are saying freedom of expression go to hell. You are correct as to why it is ironic however
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons
152 GTT: I dont find that hatred of Catholics here in LA so I´m curious as to why it exists elsewhere
“Hatred” might be too strong a word (in most cases), but perhaps it comes as a response to Catholics’ open condemnation and/or attempted conversion of non-believers? Not meaning to paint everyone with this broad brush here, but the question is, who initiates the dislike of the other?
Why do people feel that being one thing is OK, praise-worthy or whatever and the other is instrisically wrong?
Good question, can be asked of either side.
cym (153):
hahaha… Sorry, I didnt mean that at all! I do know what you are talking about it´s just that I didnt see the picture as ironic specifically because of the Muhammed cartoons and subsequent controversy…
I saw the irony in the man himself: pretesting against freedom of expression while making use of that freedom!
Sorry again about the laughter… Your word “shocked” actually had me imagining you, and here my mind goes to a guy in blue body paint (sorry!) whose jaw just dropped typing furiously to post that link… It was funny in my head!
153 cym: I agree with your post. He is not really addressing any of the questions and completely ignored my post in it’s entirety! We all have provided our reasons and he refuses to see where we are coming from but instead chooses to turn a blind eye. This is inspite of us seeing where he is coming from.
I will no longer respond to him because I agree with you that he is a troll. If he has further questions, he can re-read our posts above.
Maggot (154):
Thanks, I was half ducking under my desk expecting to find some response that included a generous use of expletives and a whole bunch of caps lock… So, thanks.
In any case, back to your post… I think the problem is that the most fundamentalist Christians are the most vocal but that does not mean that every Bible-believer is some sort of close-minded, anti-science, branwashed simpleton. I dont mean to bring that discussion here but I read a post on the Christ-like figures list about how Christians have the mental capabilities comparable to a two-year old… I´ve also been called a “horse with blinders on” just for stating that I am Catholic by someone who knows absolutely nothing about me and with whom I´ve had very little contact. So I ask you, who initiated the dislike there?
Anyway, I´ll let go of my little rant now.
(Oh, and just as a side note, LA is for Latin America, not Los Angeles…
)
GTT: Oh, and just as a side note, LA is for Latin America, not Los Angeles
I knew that, from other posts of yours.
Maggot: Yeah, I thought you might but you never know with others!
“He is not really addressing any of the questions and completely ignored my post in it’s entirety! We all have provided our reasons and he refuses to see where we are coming from but instead chooses to turn a blind eye. This is inspite of us seeing where he is coming from.”
Give me a list of questions to respond to.
I’ve already addressed how picture number 4 is particularly offensive whereas the others don’t specifically rely on religious or racial stereotypes. The others could be someone of any race, religion, gender, etc, while it’s being assumed in number 4 that there’s something inherently wrong with Muslims.
If you didn’t see them as Muslims, great. But there are some out there who are making prejudiced assumptions about the people in the picture. Do you not see how the picture could be inflammatory and shouldn’t have been posted?
If you think I’ve ignored some point relevant to this discussion please draw my attention to it.
—
Can anyone give good reasons that the logic of
“Muslims should protest about Muslim terrorists”
can’t also be applied to
“Catholics should protest about Catholic terrorists”
or
“Catholics should protest about priests molesting children”
?
160 What? :
116 – “…No, if it was being held by someone who is known to be very intelligent, Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawking for example, it could be taken as merely teasing stupid people by misspelling a word. Much like a written malpropism…”
132 (oouchan’s) – “…1) Predudice against the southern man and America (clearly seen from background) – racial based
2) Clearly picking on Muslims in this one because of the burkas – religion based
3) Picking on christians for bowing down before an idol – religion based
4) Your argument that it’s terrorists we see in the picture.
5) Picking on Mexicans due to the sign “Dez” – racial based
6) Picking on USA – racial based
7) Discrimination of homeless
8) Picking on the homeless
9) Implied to be a muslim picking on USA – racial based
10) Picking on the obese – I consider this one racial as well…”
138 – “…That’s a fallacy. If Albert Einstein or some other, highly-educated, well-known academic were holding the sign, the implication would not be of a lack of intelligence on their behalf, would it? The Cardinals – up the Redbirds!!! – shirt, and white skin draw on “white Southerner = a bit slow” a racial, cultural and – to an extent – geographical stereotype…”
There are my qualifiers, you are a bloody joke.
Like my mother always said back in her newsgroup days, trolling is as trolling does. Maybe it is trolling to point out offensive images on a site where so many seem to like them and be unable to recognize why they are offensive. But I still think there is value in explaining the problem, in the hope that it might help someone think about things a little differently next time.
No one is saying that Jamie should not be allowed to post such an image. But that doesn’t mean he should have posted it, regardless of his intentions. And his comments show that his intentions were clearly bigoted. The first step to a solution is recognizing the problem, and we’re here to help him do just that. ^____^
No, none of those are assuming anything about the people is inherently morally wrong.
Number 4 relies on people assuming Muslims are morally deficient.
The other ones don’t need people to make assumptions about a religion or group of people, they’re self-evident. They would work with anyone else doing the same thing.
Reposting oouchan’s list of the pictures with tacked-on prejudices doesn’t mean anything.
And your point about Albert Einstein etc holding the sign is completely irrelevant. If he were we’d be thinking specifically about one person. My point is that any anonymous person (white, black, Muslim, Christian, male, female) could hold that sign with the same effect.
What about my question:
Can anyone give good reasons that the logic of
“Muslims should protest about Muslim terrorists”
can’t also be applied to
“Catholics should protest about Catholic terrorists”
or
“Catholics should protest about priests molesting children”
?
163 What? : “…And your point about Albert Einstein etc holding the sign is completely irrelevant. If he were we’d be thinking specifically about one person. My point is that any anonymous person (white, black, Muslim, Christian, male, female) could hold that sign with the same effect…”
It works just as well with a guy in a lab coat with glasses on.
I’m not going around in circles with you anymore.
IT IS A *****ING HUMOUR LIST, *LET IT GO*
You are retarded, thinking that the regulars or Jamie are bigoted. Just drop it, you’re really starting to embarrass yourself.
Mark:
Give good reasons that the logic of
“Muslims should protest about Muslim terrorists”
can’t also be applied to
“Catholics should protest about Catholic terrorists”
or
“Catholics should protest about priests molesting children”
?
165 What? Cym already did, they don’t need rehashing. Everyone else here got them, doesn’t that tell you something?
Also, explain to me how Jamie’s comment:
“they are saying he has lost his moral balance, whilst they support terrorist bombings of innocent people.”
isn’t bigoted.
Keep in mind that “they” is specifically referring to the people in the picture.
“Cym already did, they don’t need rehashing. Everyone else here got them, doesn’t that tell you something?”
No, Cym didn’t explain it adequately. How about the second one? Shouldn’t all catholics (by your logic) protest against child molestation?
168 What? : Since when can we directly compare child molestation with murder?
169 Mark: No need to continue with someone who refuses to take of the blinders. We all understand what type of list this is, but he can’t. Must have zero sense of humor.
I have already stated that I will not address him anymore. My points were made clearly but he keeps asking the same things. I suggest we move on to another topic…
soooooo….
Do you have a game this weekend? I had photos from my softball game on my phone and was attempting to upload them to my facebook account, but somehow it erased my photos instead. That ticked me off…so hope to have some new ones when I play in a week.
170 oouchan : “…My points were made clearly but he keeps asking the same things. I suggest we move on to another topic…”
Reminds me of Stizzy and Cym going at it on the Jesus list
That was fun…
“…Do you have a game this weekend?…”
Nah mate, Queen’s Birthday Long Weekend, I think I’m gonng go home for a change!!! Yay!!! Unfortunately for me it’s the middle of exam block, so Mum’s going to make me study
“…I had photos from my softball game on my phone and was attempting to upload them to my facebook account, but somehow it erased my photos instead. That ticked me off…so hope to have some new ones when I play in a week.”
Sounds good to me, tell me when.
By the way, do you watch much baseball?
172 Mark: Not as much as I would like.
(long story on that one) I usually get updates the next day from co-workers. Why do you ask?
“168 What? : Since when can we directly compare child molestation with murder?”
We can compare child molestation with murder as they’re both examples of morally objectionable behaviour.
(Notice that you didn’t actually respond to the question, too. We talked about this earlier, remember?)
Now, back to the question:
Give good reasons that the logic of
“Muslims should protest about Muslim terrorists”
can’t also be applied to
“Catholics should protest about Catholic terrorists”
or
“Catholics should protest about priests molesting children”?
and:
explain to me how Jamie’s comment:
“they are saying he has lost his moral balance, whilst they support terrorist bombings of innocent people.”
isn’t bigoted.
Keep in mind that “they” is specifically referring to the people in the picture.
173 oouchan : “…Not as much as I would like.
(long story on that one) I usually get updates the next day from co-workers…”
I know the feeling – except for the co-worker bit
“…Why do you ask?”
Fantasy Baseball Team – Mark’s Awesomes <- Sweet name eh?
Catcher – Russell Martin
1B – Justin Morneau
2B – Dustin Pedroia
3B – David Wright
SS – Ryan Theriot
OF – Ichiro Suzuki, Vernon Wells and Justin Upton
U – Jorge Cantu
Starting Pitchers – Josh Beckett, Johnny Ceuto, Jon Lester, Jake Peavey and Adam Wainwright
Relief Pitchers – Brad Lidge and Mariano Rivera
Reserve Batters – Stephen Drew (SS), Ryan Ludwick (OF) and Randy Winn (OF)
Reserve Pitchers – Ryan Dempster (SP) and Joakim Soria (RP)
I didn't think I did too badly in the draft. Stephen Drew is playing a bit poorly atm, and I drafted him early, real early
And Randy Winn *facepalm* But Justin Upton in the last round, that was a purdy good catch I think 
174 What? : “…We can compare child molestation with murder as they’re both examples of morally objectionable behaviour…”
Either you’re being intentionally thick, or you’re dumber than I penned you down as. Which is worse, genius? Which one is *was* **way** more frowned upon by society. Terrorism, or touching little kiddies? Which one is a *huge* issue in the media at the moment? We’re bombarded by one of the two, if you can’t tell me which one you must be walking around with your eyes closed. That’s the difference.
“…(Notice that you didn’t actually respond to the question, too. We talked about this earlier, remember?)…”
Notice that I don’t have to if the question itself is flawed? Ready? What makes Muslims evil, burkas or Osama Bin Laden? Take your own advice
Whichever is worse isn’t important.
“What makes Muslims evil, burkas or Osama Bin Laden?”
Neither. Osama bin Laden makes Osama bin Laden evil. He happens to be a Muslim, but does not speak for the majority of them.
Seeing as you have trouble conceptually grasping what I’m getting at, I’ll ask only the first part of the question:
Why is it that
“Muslims should protest about Muslim terrorists”
can’t also be applied to
“Catholics should protest about Catholic terrorists”
And what about the second question:
explain to me how Jamie’s comment:
“they are saying he has lost his moral balance, whilst they support terrorist bombings of innocent people.”
isn’t bigoted.
Keep in mind that “they” is specifically referring to the people in the picture.
177 What? : “…Whichever is worse isn’t important…”
Do you proofread?
“…“What makes Muslims evil, burkas or Osama Bin Laden?”
Neither. Osama bin Laden makes Osama bin Laden evil. He happens to be a Muslim, but does not speak for the majority of them…”
You didn’t answer the question. Holy crap that *is* annoying! I’m getting annoyed just doing it to you.
“…Seeing as you have trouble conceptually grasping what I’m getting at, I’ll ask only the first part of the question:…”
Unlike you, *I* have a solid grip on both reality and logic. I realize the reality of the global situation and my logic is linear. A lot more than we can say about you.
Catholic terrorists? You’ve got your wires crossed mate, the IRA was a *political* movement. You should really listen to cym, he knows what he’s talking about.
Mark, the second this guy realises someone knows what they are talking about he either ignores them, or goes into a cyclical argument.
What?
For the final time. Comparing A-Q and the IRA is stupid as one is RELIGIOUS in motivation, and the other WAS REPEAT WAS political in nature. The only active form of that movement are the radical forms, which are denounced by Irish everywhere – including the political arm of the old IRA, Sinn Fein. Ass.
A recent religious killing of a protestant by a catholic gang was denounced by members of both churches, both communities and political leaders. SO there. Question answered…well. Maybe not for you as I exhuastively answered you quite a while ago and you said I didnt answer satisfactorily
And as for the child molestation. When was the last time you met a catholic who defended a priest who was found guilty of child molestation? I don’t think I have ever met one. If you have, then the circles you live in go somewhat to explain why you are as you are.
Mark, I suggest you leave this troll alone. Hopefully he will just get bored, saunter off and pick his spots for a few hours.
As for me! Home here I come!
“the IRA was a *political* movement. You should really listen to cym, he knows what he’s talking about.”
“Comparing A-Q and the IRA is stupid as one is RELIGIOUS in motivation, and the other WAS REPEAT WAS political in nature.”
Yes but when it comes down to it, the Muslim attacks are political as well. Do you understand the reasons behind the attacks? Are you sure they’re not politically motivated as well?
You (mark) are again failing to grasp the situation properly. I’m using an example to highlight the flaws in your logic. You aren’t treating the examples within the appropriate frame but are dismissing them for unrelated reasons.
Maybe I should phrase it this way:
If there were a terrorist group that identified themselves as Catholic, would you expect all Catholics to protest against that and only that? Or would you acknowledge that there are differences between the different groups of Catholics and that the actions of one does not speak for the whole?
““…“What makes Muslims evil, burkas or Osama Bin Laden?”
Neither. Osama bin Laden makes Osama bin Laden evil. He happens to be a Muslim, but does not speak for the majority of them…”
You didn’t answer the question. Holy crap that *is* annoying! I’m getting annoyed just doing it to you.”
I did. See where it says “neither”? I didn’t give one answer as neither one was appropriate.
You also still haven’t responded to:
explain to me how Jamie’s comment:
“they are saying he has lost his moral balance, whilst they support terrorist bombings of innocent people.”
isn’t bigoted.
Keep in mind that “they” is specifically referring to the people in the picture.