View Full Version : Is there such a thing is absolute truth
Is this irony or what ? Even the subject sentence holds a mistake : a typo turned the 'as' into an 'is' and a whole different meaning came over the sentence...
True and false ! Two choises !
Things are so simple if we only have to choose between these two. As a matter of fact, it is the simplest possible of choises because you need two possibilities in order to be able to choose.
But can we split up everything between these two poles or are there more choises ? Is there maybe a continuum between the poles, can the poles be reached ?
Can something be absolutely true or absolutely false ?
One could say that math holds absolute true or false statements but this is only so in relation to certain axiomes that define the kind of math you are working with.
Classical logic offers a framework with which we can tackle a whole set of problems a label them true or false, but again logic needs premises and the argument falls or stands with the truth values of these.
May be I should ask are there absolute premises, who are intrinsicly right or wrong ?
If we are looking for absolutes, we are bound to come up with god, he could be our ultimate reference, the intrinsicly right premise from which all other arguments follow. Right ? Wrong !
See what I am doing ? I'm asking you to agree with me on a certain premise again namely that god is the ultimate premise, anyone is free to agree or not on that so it is not an ultimate premise !
So if there are no extremes of right and wrong, if there only are shades of grey is the question : DOES GOD EXIST answerable ? Not on itself, only in relation to something else, mostly this is ones own experience with life and ideas about this subject. Nobody is free of prejuge, everyone is made by his or her history and experiences sensations and ideas in respect to this background.
------------------
we are midgets standing on the backs of giants,
Plato
[This message has been edited by Plato (edited June 24, 1999).]
Yes, there is an absolute right and wrong. I'm not arrogant enough to assume that I always can recognize the difference. We are also born into a set of circumstances that are the result of many right and wrong decisions that have been snow-balling and rippling for eons that we can not control. But the only decisions that you have to be responsible for are your own. Pick a grey topic, and let's debate. That's my warped idea of a good time. LOL!
------------------
God loves you and so do I!
Come on, Plato. Pick a topic; any topic. Let's go...
Well, I don't know about absolute truth we can all agree on. But I guess there is a class of personal absolute truths.
For example, Plato, are you presently processing information? This can only be 'yes', there can't possibly be a 'no' or anything in between, as long as you are able to come up with _some_ kind of an answer! Hmmm... And actually, if you _are_ able to answer, I think *everybody* would have to conclude that you were processing information at that moment! An absolute, universal truth. So there.
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
Am I processing information ?
What is this, the modern version of the cogito ergo sum of Descartes ? I thought you didn't like the man's idea's ;)
It seems you got me cornered there but what about the 'I' in the sentence ? Suppose 'I' am a schisofraniac with multiple personalities, is it still possible to talk of 'I am processing' or should that be 'we are processing' ?
And Lori, to give you a topic :) how do you see an undividable sole in this psychiatiric phenomenon ? Do schisofraniacs have multiple soles ?
------------------
we are midgets standing on the backs of giants,
Plato
Richilin
06-24-99, 02:56 PM
Hi there Plato.
I can answer that one. If you´d read the bible you´d know that the soul signify the body, or some times the life force, not a spirit who flies up to heaven when you die.
So NO, scitzofrenics doesn´t have more than ONE soul.
What the ...? About processing info; you guys lost me there for a minute. Thanks for the topic, albeit a weird one. I'm not sure it's relevant for debate, but to add my two cents, no, you only have one soul. That soul could ultimately have many personalities, as I am not a multiple, but have many moods to react to different situations in my life. It's like normally I'm a pretty placid person, and it takes a lot for someone to piss me off, but once they do, it's like someone totally different jumps in and handles it. The "in your face bitch from hell", that's who. I think that the psychologists have examined this phenomenon very in-depth, and their findings indicate that this disorder has to do with severe emotional and/or physical abuse. The personality types stem from "turning into" the best personality to handle the situation. With therapy, the personalities can eventually become "blended" into one person, as was originally. When I was thinking about topics for debate, I was thinking more along the lines of every day decisions that we all are faced with. Things like abortion, homosexuality, the death penalty, honesty, marriage, environmentalism, money, murder, prostitution, drugs, strip-tease, birth control, Jerry Springer and Howard Stern (I detest these people), animal rights (I'm sure I'll get a laugh out of that one), women's rights, war, politics, and on and on...
------------------
God loves you and so do I!
Searcher
07-29-00, 05:32 PM
Lori,
Jerry Springer and Howard Stern (I detest these people)...and on and on...
------------------
God loves you and so do I!
Speaking of multiple personalities... ;)
Not to pick on you, Lori, but I was wondering about the concept of Christian love and how "real" that phenomenon is? I rarely see a Christian who truly seems to feel love for his/her fellow man - right now I can only think of one person I know personally who is a Christian and who seems to love everyone. My husband and I were discussing this issue recently, so I wanted to bring it up here if you don't mind. It is my view that this is the most important concept that Christ taught, but the one that is also the most difficult for his disciples to follow. What do you think? Do you think that Jesus wants you to love Jerry Springer and Howard Stern, no matter how unlovable they might seem to you? You might say that you don't really mean that you detest them, only their actions - but don't you think your words have impact?
------------------
An ye harm none, do what ye will.
Well then please allow me to clarify...I detest some of the behaviors of Jerry Springer and Howard Stern. In particular, their chosen means of a profession. Do I really need to go into what I don't like about what they do? I'd really rather not have to have that tantrum right now. Man, I could go on and on for hours about what I hate about what they do and what they stand for! But let me make this perfectly clear...they are human beings just like I am, and God loves them just as much as He does me, and honestly, I love them as fellow sinners as well. But I absolutely detest what they do. You know, there are things about myself that I detest just as much if not more. I could never do what they do. But I've done other things, that in God's eyes, would be just as bad...I still do I'm sure. But I give a shit...I really do. And they don't. They know somewhere down in their hardened hearts that they're doing something wrong, and they don't care. They're making too much money. They're weak...they're not righteous men. I think it's safe to say we all know that right?
------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.
Francis Ritchie
08-02-00, 10:46 PM
The concept of Christian love is something we are called to aim for, this doesn't mean we are expected to achieve it. Most of what Christians were called to do isn't about do's and don'ts, it's about seeing how God is and then striving to be more like that. Along the way it's expected that we will trip up. I've never been perfect since the day I was born, and I never will be, this doesn't mean I shouldn't try and emulate Jesus. This is why many Christians seem to fail, because like everyone else, we're not perfect.
Hey Francis,
Do you think that most christians understand just how far from it we all are? Like born again, spirit-filled christians even, do you think that most people have a realistic perception of just how far from "perfect", or far from Jesus we really are? I don't think that most christians do have a good idea. I get the impression that most think that they're pretty close, or at least closer than they actually are. But I don't. The more I get to know Him, the more I understand just how incredibly far off the mark I am. As humans, we can't really even completely define what "good" is, so how would we even know if we're close? I don't know...I just get the total opposite impression about myself. Getting saved definately isn't about getting "fixed", it's about getting "saved". I mean, my life has changed for the better for sure. I'm not saying there's no peace, no victory, no blessings, no answered prayer. It's just that I'm sure that I'm just scratching the surface of what He is and what He means and what He is capable of and what I am capable of in Him. Does that make sense? What do you think?
------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.
Francis Ritchie
08-04-00, 02:13 AM
Lori,
Excellent point. The more I grow and the more I learn the more I realise how far from perfect I really am and the more I realise how great God's grace is. This is the point of christianity, a realisation of what we are, this was the whole point of the Old Testament law, to help people see their imperfection. We are far from it, that's why God's love is so amazing and I am thankful for it every day.
As for your original question, I don't think many Christians do realise how imperfect we are, this can be observed through church history and our endless shows of arrogance. I'm even guilty of it myself, my topic on some problems with atheism is a perfect example. I jumped in and proclaimed that I know the absolute truth. While I believe there is absolute Truth, I cannot truly proclaim to know it all as I don't know everything. I think as Christians we are so often guilty of looking at ourselves as better than everyone else, and this just isn't so. But even I continually need to be humbled to learn this. That's why I am now going to make myself look stupid by not replying to Onslaughts last post to my topic. While I could, it would not be very productive of me and would once again be a brandishing of my sometimes youthfull arrogance, which is in no way a product of Christlikeness. I do believe it's good for us to voice our opinion, but to rubbish another persons perceptions doesn't acheive anything. If our beliefs are rubbished retaliation in an angry fashion would also be unproductive.
The biggest thing we need to continually remind ourselves as Christians is that like everyone else we are far from perfect, and that includes you and I.
God Loves ya no matter what! :)
[This message has been edited by Francis Ritchie (edited August 03, 2000).]
tablariddim
08-04-00, 10:11 AM
There is always somebody worse off than you!
This is an absolute truth.
Absolute truth. We flounder in an ocean of possibilities, searching for safe harbor. Our absolutes are valid only as far as we can see.
------------------
It's all very large.
Someone7
09-04-00, 05:53 AM
How are Jerry Springer and Howard Stern bad people? I can see how some people like you wouldn’t like Stern, but Jerry? What is wrong with Jerry Springer? He admits time and time again in interviews what a freak show his show is, and he is a pretty religious person. I remember on one flashback episode of his, he gave what I consider to be the best Final Thought that he ever had. It was about his dad and his truck, a beat up old truck he would never get rid of, one that he had since his father come over here from Germany during WW2. If you could have heard it, I’m sure you would think differently of him. It doesn’t matter if he associates himself with the people on his show just by being on his show, if he didn’t take the job someone else would have, and it might have been the “Someone7 Show”. Besides, he basically just walks around asking questions anyway, anyone could do what he does. Judge not least ye be judged you, or are you a hypocritical Christian?
Even Stern isn’t someone to detest. He stayed with his wife for around 2 decades (she wanted the divorce), he has admitted on his show before that most of what he says is just for the show. His opinions on subjects like child abuse and such are probably similar to your own. He isn’t someone to detest just because he makes money, the only reason why he (and Jerry Springer) makes money is because his show is entertaining. Basically, he is just a normal guy who entertains his millions of fans for 4 hours every morning Monday through Friday, he does so much more for many more people than you ever will, that I can guarantee you.
Howard Stern and Jerry Springer might be nice enough people in their private lives. It's their behavior in public that I believe Lori was expressing her opinion on. For my part, I have never gone for that "Lowest Common Denominator" thing. I find them more disgusting and insulting than entertaining. But even though Jerry and Howard are nice enough people in private, what about another man who was a vegetarian, didn't drink, enjoyed the company of good friends, tickling babies, playing with his dog, and fought to maintain the environment in his country while vastly improving the lives of his fellow country men through social change and economic programs? Okay, so in public he ordered the deaths of over 3 million Jews. Still, on the personal level, Adolph Hitler seemed like a pretty swell guy.
Because of their ability to reach so many people, celebrities such as Jerry Springer and Howard Stern have as much influence on people as Adolph Hitler, if not more. The only difference is that Hitler got elected to office. It is my opinion that people who have that much influence should not use that influence to lower the standard of behavior and civilization.
Someone7
09-05-00, 03:24 AM
Howard Stern may behave questionably on his show (though I’m not exactly sure how having a desire to look at naked females is wrong, which is the only really questionable thing he does), but Jerry just cracks jokes at people and asks questions. Howard might warrant complaints about his behavior in public, but any criticism on Jerry Springer’s actions is unfounded. He doesn’t run his show, he didn’t design the show, he just stands there, asks questions, and sometimes cracks a joke (which is always followed by a “just kidding”). Comparing Hitler to HS and JS is totally unwarranted, they are just entertainers, they don’t have a political agenda or anything. Why don’t you say the same thing about Chris Rock? His comedy is much more vulgar, or Eddie Murphey, or any number of stand up comics who ever lived, or ME even (yes, I’ve told dirty jokes before, am I also comparable to Hitler?). Granted, they don’t have as large an audience, but that doesn’t matter.
That is far from the only difference Hitler has with HS and JS (they’re both Jews for crying out loud). Just because you don’t like this type of entertainment, doesn’t allow you to dictate what people can listen or watch. Who are you to decide what a standard of behavior and civilization should be? Maybe you have more in common with Hitler than they do.
Tony H2o
09-06-00, 01:53 AM
Hey Bowser great to see ya, where have you been?
Catch you around.
Allcare
Tony H2o
By comparing Stern and Springer to Hitler, I was demonstrating the fact that a person can have a totally respectable personal life, but if they use their public influence to perpetuate what most people see as wrong with the world, then they are, in my opinion, behaving irresponsibly. They are part of the problem and not the solution. I'm no puritan and I don't try to tell people how to live. I just believe that we don't need to be flaunting our flaws as though they were virtues. We all have our perversions or secret little turn-ons. They might be socially disgusting or they might be totally innocent but fun to get away with. It's good to face these issues, but I'd rather not have it flung in my face. I believe that such issues as are the fare of shows such as Springer's are best dealt with from the psychiatrist's couch. That is my opinion.
Someone7
09-06-00, 03:03 PM
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. Maybe hypocritical Christians judging people so harshly is what is wrong with this world. Maybe religion itself is what is wrong with this world. It’s all subjective isn’t it? What solution to what problem are you referring to? How would you prefer this world to be? You mean the problems that 90% of relationships have are being presented as virtues? How so? How is anything being flung in your face? Is anyone making you watch these shows at gunpoint Monday through Friday?
Only in America, stupid, irresponsible America, do we censor everything. HS and JS’s shows are censored in the extreme, they aren’t anything they could be like. In Europe and Asia (Japan especially), they only censor hardcore pornography on television. Do they have problems like America does? Of course not. What’s wrong with our society goes so much deeper than what these shows are showing us. Here’s a few “flaws” for ya, I believe it was 230 million pornographic videos are sold here every year. 90% of all pornography worldwide is filmed in LA. In the civilized world, we have by far the highest crime rates, and we also censor everything. Not saying censorship is the reasons for this, but it sure as hell hasn’t stopped these things has it?
Emerald
09-06-00, 11:19 PM
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.
Someone7
09-07-00, 12:21 AM
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.)
Someone7
09-07-00, 10:30 AM
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?
MoonCat
09-07-00, 01:38 PM
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...... http://www.geocities.com/rancid242/homer.gif
though i also enjoy howard sterns taste... http://www.geocities.com/rancid242/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?
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
Emerald
09-08-00, 12:23 AM
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.
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.
Someone7
09-08-00, 06:26 PM
“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.
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
MoonCat
09-11-00, 01:33 PM
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).]
Someone7
09-11-00, 06:51 PM
“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
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.