Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 66425	2006-02-22 09:05:00	Reactions to South Park?	imarubberducky (7230)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
432889	2006-02-22 20:41:00	Not particularly funny, but anything that pokes religion in the eye get's my vote.	Mackin_NZ (6958)
432890	2006-02-22 20:41:00	The most attacked organization in that episode was AA, and good one to that.. That bunch of morons killed a friend of mine here and i'll never forgive the cult for that. And how good to see the true observation that AA are a cult, first time i've ever seen them called what they are publicly... As for the religious attack, if you could call it that... SouthPark attack EVERYTHING, they've put Sudan Whatshisface in hell shacked up with his lover Satan who he calls his ***** and who Sudan is exploiting in order to take over the world. I Found it hillarious. When me and my best friend went and saw the movie together, we both hurt from laughing so much.. I thought the Catholic church got of rather lightly, given their history. Nothing is sacred, not with South Park I could quote biblical references to false gods and icons, which allmost every church seems to have, and how SP does it's duty to firmly laugh at all. #2 You shall have no other gods besides Me...Do not make a sculpted image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above..." And as for Menstral blood being offensive, Those of whom have had girlfriends, or are girl beings will probably be aware firsthand that it's something that happens every moon or so, so what on earth is so offensive about it? The only thing that makes it funny/offesive is that we as a species are such prudes about it. Pity it was such a lame episode :(	personthingy (1670)
432891	2006-02-22 20:48:00	Some simple biological facts seem to have escaped the protestors and other commentators, not to mention the script writers. Since when did menstrual blood squirt out of a woman's butt, or squirt at all for that matter? I can understand the Pope not knowing too much about women, but most males past "that" age have a fair understanding of basic female anatomy, and the functions of part 2 in particular. :D Anyway, representing "Mary" as a tall, good-looking caucasian woman is a gross fabrication in its own right; if she existed at all she would have been a shortish, brown skinned Mother Teresa-ish figure. If you chose a fictional figure as an object of worship, you can't complain too much if she appears in other fictional productions. Any copyright expired centuries ago. Bah Humbug! Cheers Billy 8-{) :groan:	Billy T (70)
432892	2006-02-22 21:05:00	Didn't see it. The real issue is whether consideration for the views and feelings of other people should over-ride freedom of expression. Just because we can be deliberately offensive, doesn't mean we should. For example, if a member here started raving on about kikes, coons, coconuts and choags, that would be grossly offensive to many people. And the post would be removed. So why is it acceptable to distress Catholics but not racial groups? :2cents:	Winston001 (3612)
432893	2006-02-22 21:06:00	Of course its not anatomically correct, it's a cartoon representation of a statue Statues don't, as a rule, bleed anywhere. :D	personthingy (1670)
432894	2006-02-22 21:16:00	For example, if a member here started raving on about kikes, coons, coconuts and choags, that would be grossly offensive to many people. And the post would be removed. So why is it acceptable to distress Catholics but not racial groups? :2cents:#1 Southpark attack traditions and establishments. They do not attack any ethnic group, all though they sometimes attack ethnic traditions #2 This is PF1, we don't actually come here to laugh at the world and ourselves, where as thats exactly what Southpark is about #3 Anyone who can't handle their beliefs being mocked or criticized really needs to have a damn good look at themselves, and what they believe in. #4 Catholisism beyond critisism? I think that status fell away along with the Spanish Inquisition.. That compares with what Hitler and the lads got up to with the Jews, blacks , and Gypsys. Yet we are expected to respect the Catholic church still?	personthingy (1670)
432895	2006-02-22 21:32:00	#3 Anyone who can't handle their beliefs being mocked or criticized really needs to have a damn good look at themselves, and what they believe in. darn right. they also should GET A LIFE !	tweak'e (69)
432896	2006-02-22 21:41:00	Hmmmmmmmmm I didnt watch it, never really liked SP anyway . But the thing is it is their choice to watch or not, there is an off button? Im probably just as bad about judging people, but can we not live and let live in today's world? I think a lot of us have enough problems in our own lives without broadcasting and bleeting on about a stupid program that you have a choice to watch or not . Does it really matter so much if it is correct or not? SP has always been radical? and it wont change . . . . . . . . . . similar to telecom really isnt it . :waughh: beetle	beetle (243)
432897	2006-02-22 21:54:00	Didn't bother to watch it. But I'm all in favour of anything that will embarras the catholic church.	JJJJJ (528)
432898	2006-02-22 22:27:00	#3 Anyone who can't handle their beliefs being mocked or criticized really needs to have a damn good look at themselves, and what they believe in. Well actually, that's a pretty contentous statement. Beliefs, by their very nature, are often firmly held, and do not take lightly to being "mocked". Even here at F1 -- where in theory discussions on topics like Mac vs PC, Telecom, Trademe et al should be conducted in the realm of logic -- they often end up with firmly held opinions resulting in frayed tempers and insults. And that's without introducing big questions like "god". Religion is a fundamental aspect of the human condtion, and encompasses the most important of questions about life. Beliefs don't come any stronger than beliefs in a god or gods. So to simply dismiss people's beliefs with a comment that if they can't face them being "mocked" then they have a problem, is a fairly shallow response. If you don't share the belief, and find it funny that others do, then you don't see what the problem is with mocking it. But for someone who believes deeply, mocking their beliefs is no different to mocking them, or their loved ones. It is a personal insult. The better question is whether in an open and democratic society, that has prospered through the fundamental process of questioning previously rigidly held positions -- be they religious, political, economic or social -- it is not more important to maintain that freedom of speech than it is to surpress it on the grounds that it may give offense. When I look at the world, I think the answer is clear that we all prosper by maintaining that freedom to question, criticse and even mock our own establishments, and that it is very important to maintainn this right, even when doing so does give offense to some. But don't tell people they have a problem if they take offense and choose to voice that concern. Because it is also their right in a free society to be offended, and to say so.	Biggles (121)
1 2 3 4 5