Is there such a thing is absolute truth

Someone,

Uh, maybe it's just me, but you're coming across in your post as being very angry with Oxygen. Why is that? And the way you presented your hypotheses that "Maybe hypocritical Christians judging people so harshly is what is wrong with this world", and "Maybe religion itself is what is wrong with this world", makes it sound as if you believe Oxygen is a Christian, or an otherwise religious person. The last time I checked, Oxygen was an atheist, so your anger in this case appears to be misdirected. (I'm sure Oxygen will correct me if I'm wrong.)

So please clarify, if you would be so kind: Is your issue with censorship, Christianity, religion in general, or all of the above?

Blessings,

Emerald

------------------
An ye harm none, do what ye will.
 
Yes, I know Oxygen is an atheist, he told me that in his post to my thread where I announced my coming to the forum. It was merely an expression of the subjectivity of his statements. Not misdirected, but granted, somewhat misleading. I can see how someone would think I thought Oxygen was a Christian with those statements, your confusion on the matter is my fault, forgive me. I’m not angry, I probably just come off stronger, mainly because I’m a fan of HS. There is bias in my argument I admit, but I still can think critically about the issue.

My issue is with people downing people like HS and JS.
 
<bold>LOL!!!!!</BOLD> OXYGEN, tehy thing ur a guy!!!!lol!!!!LMAO!!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!! OH GOD, THATS FUNNY!

------------------
when christianity ruled the world, it was called the dark ages!
THANK GOD FOR ATHEISM!

voice mail: 1-800-222-6000
pin#- 2442235
 
Springer and Stern are icons. They symbolize something that myself and others find distasteful. I'm not saying that you can't enjoy them if you want. My original intent (and it seems I've missed the mark, but give me a break, I'm trying to find a house in Silicon Valley, and these prices are far more obscene than anything Springer or Stern could ever think up) was to defend Lori's use of them as symbols. My use of Hitler as a yardstick was to illustrate how a person with a perfectly respectable private life can do a lot of damage with his or her public influence. You don't find Springer and Stern distasteful, that's your right. I do. That's my right. Just don't come to my house for an evening of TV. You'll fall asleep during the police forensics shows. ;)

By the way, my two X chromosomes politely inform you that "I am woman, hear me roar, send me to the grocery store..." :)

(I know I know. These friggin' androgynous screen names! It's all cool, though.)
 
How exactly are HS and JS distasteful? Do you even listen to HS or watch JS? Let me guess, you watched or listened to maybe 15 minutes of their shows and made an opinion? Or did you even do that? I know people who find HS “distasteful” who haven’t even listened to his damn show. Are you suggesting that I don’t enjoy other shows that have educational value just because I happen to enjoy HS (though, I don’t particularly care for JS, or any daytime talkshows for that matter)? It’s a matter of what I find humorous and entertaining. I find The Simpsons (and other fox cartoon shows) to be humorous and entertaining also, and I enjoy many programs on TLC and TDC (I don’t know how many times I’ve watched The Justice Files). I like Oz, wrestling, anime, etc, etc, all for various reasons. HS’s radio is just one of the many types of shows that I like, and I doubt you have actually even listened to his show enough to even remotely have an opinion that is critical of it. How exactly has JS and HS damaged society? Can you attribute 1 single death because of these shows? I know I can attribute millions of people being entertained because of them. If anything they have had a positive benefit on society with their ability to entertain. Your analogy is irrelevant in the extreme, and your lack of justifying your opinion on HS and JS speaks for itself.

I’ll make a note for future reference about your femininity.
 
Are you Howard Stern? You seem to be taking this awfully personally. I don't decry the guy for liking to look at women's nude bodies. It shows a normal sex drive. It's his way of going about it. I had the misfortune of having to listen to his show for quite awhile because the boss controlled the radio station we listened to at work. I haven't seen evidence of anybody's life being improved by the show. They may enjoy it while it's on, but for them to say something like "If not for Howard Stern I wouldn't be where I am today..." is probably not what you meant.

What I don't understand is why you have a problem with my not liking Howard Stern or Jerry Springer? In an earlier post you accused me of telling people how to live, yet you seem to be genuinely offended because I voiced my opinion (and said as much that it was my opinion) of distaste for such forms of LCD entertainment. By the tone of your posts, it's as though I have no right to NOT like these shows. Who, exactly, is censoring whom? I haven't said "You shouldn't enjoy these shows because...". What I have said is "I don't enjoy these shows because...". My only other crime is agreeing with Lori on her choice of symbolism. Tell me again how I'm dictating?
 
Someone,

?? Where do you get that Oxygen thought HS was a creep just because he likes nekkid women??

I don't like him either, personally. Yes, I've listened to him on the radio, watched his stupid movie, and even read part of his book. Still don't like the guy. Why? Because he disrespected his relationship with his wife. THAT's why she wanted a divorce, the guy can't keep his mouth shut about things his wife wanted to keep private about their marriage (like her miscarriage) - and I don't blame her a bit. I'd divorce him too. His desire to stare at girl-flesh is normal, his disregard for his wife's emotional distress is despicable. HS exists for HS, and nobody else - I find that to be a mark of a person I'd want to avoid in life.

Do I think he should be banned from the air? No, I don't believe in censorship. I DO, however, believe in my (and other's) right to speak out against a pop icon that I/we believe is leading folk down the wrong road. To do otherwise would be to censor myself, see?

Jerry Springer I don't care so much about either way. He is very much the freak show manager. I don't watch his show either, it bores me more than anything else. My own family is disfuntional enough, I don't need to be fed shows with people sleeping with their grandmothers and women getting into bitch-fights over some toothless rube. :rolleyes: I don't really see much harm in it though, so I don't worry me pretty head about it.

Simpsons on the other hand, is (in my opinion) about the only show worth watching nowadays. Right Tiassa?? :D
 
i wholy agree with you......
homer.gif


though i also enjoy howard sterns taste...
mybitch.jpg


though simpsons are still the best, D'OH!!!

------------------
when christianity ruled the world, it was called the dark ages!
THANK GOD FOR ATHEISM!

voice mail: 1-800-222-6000
pin#- 2442235
 
How exactly are HS and JS distasteful? Do you even listen to HS or watch JS? Let me guess, you watched or listened to maybe 15 minutes of their shows and made an opinion?
Click to expand...

Okay ...

Moon

Imho, it's the best show currently in production. I like South Park, and I think it's devilishly hilarious, but it's not a great show. It could be, but, unlike The Simpsons, their political exhortations usually miss a critical point, which I think might be part of the point. (Okay, I'm confused on that. Wait, no, I'm not .... Anyway ...) Keep an eye on McFarlane (Family Guy), as well; I haven't figured out yet why I like his show. And Gennady Tartakovsky, over at Cartoon Network, is putting together some reasonable cartoon shorts for his PowerPuffs and for Dexter, to say the least; I would imagine the next generation will gobble up PPG and Dexter's Lab the way my friends and I literally, figuratively, and otherwise, inhale Scooby-Doo.

General ... sticking my nose into it

Part of the value of a show like The Simpsons is that its humor also has a point. I mean, I thought it was hilarious, in South Park when Stan said to Cartman: "Dude, don't say pigf***er to Jesus!" But, to be fair, it's hardly high comedy. It's comedy for being high. I thought Chong's "Cherokee-Hair Tampons" bit was seam-splittingly hilarious, but it's hardly a deep joke.

But when Dr. Hibbert, on The Simpsons tells Marge, "Anytime you need a prescription, no questions asked ...." there's a commentary there. When Homer responds, "Drugs, yeah, you gotta have your drugs," there's commentary there. When Homer goes berserk all over New York City, there's commentary there.

When Cartman has an 80-foot satellite dish sticking out of his ass, there's not much commentary.

And that's where I stick my nose in re: Springer and Stern. Mind you, when topless women were baby-oiling each other on his TV show, I didn't object. Howard Stern, furthermore, has busted open the First Amendment for me (and any American, really). But his show has no real redemptive value.

I think it's very fair to say Howard Stern is extremely, perhaps ludicrously, distasteful. But, then again, that's why we pay him to do what he does. A performance artist by the name of Hans Wedeker (I believe I have the last name right) used to get up on stage, cuss out the government, wet his pants, defecate on stage, and carry on for a couple of hours in that mode. This, of course, in approximately 1907, and he got paid to do it. Of coure Stern is distasteful. But that's his job.

My problem with Springer is that he knows exactly how in-the-gutter his show is. To compare talk shows, from the year or so I watched them after dropping out of college, I remember an episode of Maury Povich in which he had the participants in a major HIV-treatment operation which the government opposes despite promising (at the time) results (I have no idea what ever happened to O2 Bloodstream Therapy; for whatever reasons, it's just not around). What did I see that week on Springer? And I need not exaggerate: nineteen people from a circle of friends and, possibly relations; all of whom came to the show expecting to tell their immediate partner that they had cheated sexually, only to find out that all nineteen people on the stage have had sex with all nineteen others. I know for a fact that Springer knows he's not making any positive impact, but given the potential of the medium, I think Springer's selling himself short. Of course we, the audience, apparently love our distasteful sides enough to pay people to act them out. I think Stern and Springer are both a waste of time, but so is most of what's on the airwaves.

How are Springer or Stern distasteful? What's tasteful about them? Neither one of them gives a rat's behind about their fellow man, else they would devote some effort of their celebrity to something more noble than their own marketing combines. But why do we care? I think the absolute lack of dignity our celebrities maintain is exactly what we, the consumers, want.

But I do need about five years to reflect on The Simpsons; I watched M*A*S*H in its first post-closure re-run season, when I was 11 or 12. I watched it faithfully until I was 20, when I figured out why I watched it. But I always wondered what would knock off the 4077th as the best sitcom I've ever seen. I'd say Homer, Bart, & co., have a darn fine chance.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

PS--Does any of this have to do with ... oh, heck, never mind. ;)

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot
 
simpsons are over, 2 min ago, it was teh one with bart and ralph get the key to the whole town.... it was awsome!!!!! mabe we should ask dave to make a simpsons/futurama forum, lol oh well, jus t thought i'd let u know!

------------------
when christianity ruled the world, it was called the dark ages!
THANK GOD FOR ATHEISM!

voice mail: 1-800-222-6000
pin#- 2442235
 
Someone,

Can you attribute 1 single death because of these shows? I know I can attribute millions of people being entertained because of them. If anything they have had a positive benefit on society with their ability to entertain.
Click to expand...

Please click on the following links below to find the answer to your question, and to see exactly what it is that millions of people are entertained by these days:


<A HREF="http://www.cnn.com/2000/LAW/07/28/talkshow.killing/index.html">Jerry Springer"</A>

<A HREF="http://www.cnn.com/US/9908/26/talkshow.slaying.01/index.html">Jenny Jones</A>

I'm aware that nobody mentioned Jenny Jones previously in this thread, but since her show falls in the same category as Jerry Springer's show, and since you asked about deaths that can be attributed to these kinds of shows, I felt it was appropriate to include the "Jenny Jones incident" here.

Personally, I don't find this sort of "entertainment" to be in any better taste than some of the "entertainment" held in the Roman Colosseum before the fall of the Roman Empire, but that's just my opinion.

Blessings,

Emerald

------------------
An ye harm none, do what ye will.
 
<hr>

"Hey Bowser great to see ya, where have you been?
Catch you around.

Allcare

Tony H2o



Hey H2o,

Tiassa and I were having a queerish argument over in "World Affairs/Another Round in Oregon." Thanks for the warm welcome. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon7.gif">

------------------
It's all very large.
 
“Are you Howard Stern? You seem to be taking this awfully personally. I don't decry the guy for liking to look at women's nude bodies. It shows a normal sex drive. It's his way of going about it. I had the misfortune of having to listen to his show for quite awhile because the boss controlled the radio station we listened to at work. I haven't seen evidence of anybody's life being improved by the show. They may enjoy it while it's on, but for them to say something like "If not for Howard Stern I wouldn't be where I am today..." is probably not what you meant.”

I never said that they improved the lives of anyone, I said they entertain millions of people. This entertainment is what I attribute to a positive influence on society, certainly making people laugh is beneficial (even if it usually is at someone else’s expense). And yes, I take it personally when someone that I find genuinely funny is compared to Hitler for his comedy.

“What I don't understand is why you have a problem with my not liking Howard Stern or Jerry Springer? In an earlier post you accused me of telling people how to live, yet you seem to be genuinely offended because I voiced my opinion (and said as much that it was my opinion) of distaste for such forms of LCD entertainment. By the tone of your posts, it's as though I have no right to NOT like these shows. Who, exactly, is censoring whom? I haven't said "You shouldn't enjoy these shows because...". What I have said is "I don't enjoy these shows because...". My only other crime is agreeing with Lori on her choice of symbolism. Tell me again how I'm dictating?”

This is what you said “It is my opinion that people who have that much influence should not use that influence to lower the standard of behavior and civilization”. You don’t voice just an opinion on whether you prefer that type of comedy or not, you actually go as far as saying that type of comedy is bad for society. I’m not censoring you, I’m asking for validation of this opinion (more like an assertion), so far you haven’t provided.

“I don't like him either, personally. Yes, I've listened to him on the radio, watched his stupid movie, and even read part of his book. Still don't like the guy. Why? Because he disrespected his relationship with his wife. THAT's why she wanted a divorce, the guy can't keep his mouth shut about things his wife wanted to keep private about their marriage (like her miscarriage) - and I don't blame her a bit. I'd divorce him too. His desire to stare at girl-flesh is normal, his disregard for his wife's emotional distress is despicable. HS exists for HS, and nobody else - I find that to be a mark of a person I'd want to avoid in life.”

I’m pretty sure she wasn’t complaining when he made them filthy rich. You make this assertion without justification. In the movie where that happened, didn’t explain say why he did it? Didn’t he seem like he felt guilty about it? It doesn’t matter, you don’t know his wife, and you don’t know all the reasons why she wanted a divorce. You make a claim with no evidence (i.e. on a guess), so this statement can be disregarded.

“Do I think he should be banned from the air? No, I don't believe in censorship. I DO, however, believe in my (and other's) right to speak out against a pop icon that I/we believe is leading folk down the wrong road. To do otherwise would be to censor myself, see?”

Yes, now validate this claim with some form of argument, otherwise it’s just a useless assertion.

Emerald, those deaths really have nothing to do with those shows. They didn’t die because they went on the show, they died because someone killed them because of what they did on the show. It’s not the shows fault anymore than it’s the fault of the victim they are dead. Your comparison to what the Romans did to entertain themselves to what HS and JS does is laughable. Their entertainment usually comes in the form of comedy, which makes the comparison totally invalid.

Tiassa, I can’t complain about much of what you say, because you generally didn’t make any assertions (well, you do, but nothing like Oxygen did). You’re right in saying people watch these shows because they want to hear/listen to things of that nature. Just because they don’t waste their time doing something more “noble” doesn’t mean they don’t give care about their fellow man, and not caring about everyone isn’t a bad thing in my eyes anyway. I don’t care about bettering this world. I am worm food. I don’t believe in heaven or hell, I don’t believe in souls, reincarnation, or any of that stuff. I will die, in probably around 50-60 years, if an accident doesn’t cut my life short. Then that is the end of my existence, why the hell should I give a damn about the rest of humanity? They all suffer the same fate as do I, it really doesn’t matter to me. You’re right, shows like that are a waste of time, but so is nearly everything there is to do. Watching TV, playing video games, talking to people online, etc, etc are all complete wastes of time. Does that stop me from doing these things? No it doesn’t, and I don’t really care what anyone else thinks is distasteful, bad, etc, etc, it’s all subjective. What people may think is a perfect world is probably different from what 99% of people think is a perfect world. What one thinks is “leading folk down the wrong road” is simply seen by me as entertainment. It’s subjective, I don’t need to validate that I find him funny, though it’s up to people to valid their opinion that HS is indeed “leading folk down the wrong road”, or else it’s just a useless assertion.

And I also find it funny when Christians are being hypocritical.
 
And I also find it funny when Christians are being hypocritical.
Click to expand...

On this matter, I'll join you, and assume that you're as morbidly tickled as I am by hypocrisy in general. Though, yes, I do feel a greater twinge of amusement when the hypocrites claim to be improving the state of things.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot
 
Someone,

"I’m pretty sure she wasn’t complaining when he made them filthy rich. You make this assertion without justification."

Actually, no, she was complaining to him the whole time and threatening divorce. Tell me, did you read his book? He admits this himself.

"In the movie where that happened, didn’t explain say why he did it?"

Yes, he had excuses, pretty much along the lines of "howard stern does what howard stern does, what's the matter with you?" Not very worthy, in my opinion.

"Didn’t he seem like he felt guilty about it?"

Nope, not really. He seemed to feel bad she left him, but not bad about what he did to make her leave.

"It doesn’t matter, you don’t know his wife, and you don’t know all the reasons why she wanted a divorce. You make a claim with no evidence (i.e. on a guess), so this statement can be disregarded."

Wrong, sorry. I make this claim on evidence that HS himself provided, along with a nice long interview of his (ex)wife I have also watched. Please try to find the facts before you decide to disregard my statements. Nice try.

" (my quote: )“Do I think he should be banned from the air? No, I don't believe in censorship. I DO, however, believe in my (and other's) right to speak out against a pop icon that I/we believe is leading folk down the wrong road. To do otherwise would be to censor myself, see?”

(your reply : ) Yes, now validate this claim with some form of argument, otherwise it’s just a useless assertion."

Some form of argument?? Shall I describe the first amendment to you and what it means to me, in 100 words or less? Or are you having trouble understanding what I'm saying? What claim is it exactly that you wish me to validate? That I believe in our First Amendment rights? Okay, teacher, I'll pass in the report ASAP :rolleyes: Why don't we do this instead:

"Just because you don’t like this type of entertainment, doesn’t allow you to dictate what people can listen or watch."

Yes, Someone, now validate that claim with some kind of arguement, otherwise it's a worthless assertion.


"What do people see as wrong with the world? That there are people in it, who have relationship problems? That males like to see naked women? Some extremely minor “problems” indeed."

Can you validate that last sentence with proof? How do you know these are minor problems in society? What studies have you read, what statistics can you provide?


And this one from your reply to me:
"I’m pretty sure she wasn’t complaining when he made them filthy rich. "

Care to prove/validate that one? Have YOU spoken to her either? Were you there, have you read or seen any of the interviews with her?? I didn't think so. 'You make a claim with no evidence (i.e. on a guess), so this statement can be disregarded.' - Sound familiar??


It's much easier to just try and disregard someone else's posts than to actually refute the information contained within, isn't it?? Do you have any real points to make? Just curious.


[This message has been edited by MoonCat (edited September 11, 2000).]
 
“Actually, no, she was complaining to him the whole time and threatening divorce. Tell me, did you read his book? He admits this himself.”

No, I didn’t read his book. I’ll concede the point.

“Yes, he had excuses, pretty much along the lines of "howard stern does what howard stern does, what's the matter with you?" Not very worthy, in my opinion.”

No, more like “I do it because I have to, or else I won’t make any money”.


“Nope, not really. He seemed to feel bad she left him, but not bad about what he did to make her leave.”

I was referring to that part in the movie, where he made the joke about the miscarriage.

“Wrong, sorry. I make this claim on evidence that HS himself provided, along with a nice long interview of his (ex)wife I have also watched. Please try to find the facts before you decide to disregard my statements. Nice try.”

Point conceded.

“Some form of argument?? Shall I describe the first amendment to you and what it means to me, in 100 words or less? Or are you having trouble understanding what I'm saying? What claim is it exactly that you wish me to validate? That I believe in our First Amendment rights? Okay, teacher, I'll pass in the report ASAP. Why don't we do this instead:”

Maybe you don’t understand, I want you to make a rational argument on why/how people like HS and JS are “leading folk down the wrong road”, otherwise it’s an empty statement. I’m not telling you to shut up if you can’t validate that claim, I’m just telling you it can be ignored as an useless assertion if you don’t. Understand? And yes, I’m aware of the subjectivity of such a claim.

“Yes, Someone, now validate that claim with some kind of arguement, otherwise it's a worthless assertion.”

Apparently you misunderstand, I don’t need to validate that you or anyone doesn’t have the right to dictate that people can or can’t listen/watch, we already know that people can’t do that (at least in America that is).

“Can you validate that last sentence with proof? How do you know these are minor problems in society? What studies have you read, what statistics can you provide?”

I don’t need to, it’s an extremely subjective statement.

“Care to prove/validate that one? Have YOU spoken to her either? Were you there, have you read or seen any of the interviews with her?? I didn't think so. 'You make a claim with no evidence (i.e. on a guess), so this statement can be disregarded.' - Sound familiar??”

I didn’t make a definite statement, I said “I’m pretty sure”, not that “she wasn’t complaining”, unlike yourself, I didn’t make any assertions.

“It's much easier to just try and disregard someone else's posts than to actually refute the information contained within, isn't it?? Do you have any real points to make? Just curious.”

I disregarded your statements because you claimed nothing about where you got knowledge to make your statements from, which leads me to believe that you just put yourself in her place and decided why you would divorce him. You can’t make statements of that nature without giving proof why, otherwise people will do what I did, disregard them as irrelevant because of ignorance. My point in posting in this thread was to argue whether or not HS and JS are worthy of detest, and I continue posting in it when people make invalidated assertions such as HS and JS are “leading folk down the wrong road”.
 
Since we're digging in and trashing talk shows in the name of Absolute Truth, I would say that Ricki Lake and Oprah Winfrey need to take the long train down the short track, perhaps even more than Springer.

Does Lake even have a show anymore? The last time I saw her show (about '94, I think), she was bringing dysfunctional marriages on her show, enraging the women, and then ordering her bodyguards to beat up male guests who attempted to defend themselves by so much as raising their hands against the blows. I saw this three times on her show.

Oprah, on the other hand, last I saw her excuse for a show, seemed to enjoy asking criminals why they commit their crimes, only to cut them off and use partial explanations to springboard up onto her self-righteous soapbox. To wit: once upon a time, she had a young man via video link from prison; he had killed his high school sweetheart. Oprah asked him how he was spending his days in jail; among his answers was "psychiatric counseling". Oprah asked him what for; he responded that prison counselors had diagnosed Attention Deficit Disorder, and before the words are out of his mouth, Oprah's stomping around the stage, shaking her head and hips, waving that damn hand in the air and yelling, "Do you think that excuses you, you creep!"

Well, to be honest, Ms. Winfrey, this guy, like the hundreds you've treated that way on the show, offered no excuses, but only answered the questions you asked.

See ... Oprah likes to present the illusion of decency. I gotta respect Howard Stern, at least, for not mincing words. People see Stern and they know whether they agree with him or not. They see the likes of Ricki Lake or Oprah Winfrey, and they're bombarded with this idea that the host has society's better interests in mind. This lie, fostered by the likes of Oprah "I'll Tell You What To Read" Winfrey, is perhaps less decent and less moral than anything Stern could muster.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot
 
Yes, there is absulute TRUTH !
For the heavens declare the Glory of God !
And to say 'it is not' does not change anything. Amen!

------------------
Loone
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top