Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit!
You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.
Join our community!
Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language.
If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Locked Topic
The telly and the radio
Topic Started: Monday, 27. October 2008, 15:48 (1,054 Views)
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Joseph Dylong
Thursday, 30. October 2008, 03:15
Yes, my generation and younger do want and like more hard hitting programmes and comedy, however, that doesnt mean the older generations do not like such comedy.
How does that make it right?
S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Clare
Thursday, 30. October 2008, 10:51
Joseph Dylong
Thursday, 30. October 2008, 01:00
Their comedy is artistic. Would you ban the statue of David or naked paintings or nude photos (art and lust)?
No. There's no comparison. Their "comedy" is not artistic. It is puerile and juvenile.
Art is for the individual to decide. Brand is certainly a talent and a master with words, their comedy is funny, and yes, juvenile, but thats why its funny.
Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Mary Whitehouse comes to mind, she tried to 'clean up tv', but for her standards but what about everyone else.

Where does banning someone end. Maybe Priests should no longer be allowed to go on TV as they may offends someone, maybe a garden show or house show should go because they offend someone.

I believe TV should be free and open, every voice should be heard, because if you start banning one then anything can go, and who decides?

TV has become so PC. Take racism, which is vile, however, rather than such views being discussed and addressed in the open, that hate material is pushed underground, and whilst many people have such racist views, they never hear an good honest conversation on TV regarding the issue, instead all they get is BNP material etc that links in with their false belief.

If you push certain views underground it can cause resentment, and long term problems for society.

As long as that info doesnt create hate.
Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Quote:
 
Sacha Baron Cohen is also talented and clever. Does that give him the right to humiliate and exploit a whole community,


He didnt, he insulted his audience who found his actions true and representative without question. Thats the whole point about Cohen, some people he interviews, dont come accross as stupid, but the audience do for believing what they see, although, he did question some racists etc, and he made them look like a bunch of muppets, which was funny.
Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Joseph Dylong
Thursday, 30. October 2008, 12:20
Mary Whitehouse comes to mind, she tried to 'clean up tv', but for her standards but what about everyone else.
What about Christian standards?

Mary Whitehouse was right, and that is proved more and more each year.

Quote:
 
I believe TV should be free and open, every voice should be heard, because if you start banning one then anything can go, and who decides?

Not the current crop of morally bankrupt, godless Pagans, that's for sure.

Quote:
 
If you push certain views underground it can cause resentment, and long term problems for society.

As long as that info doesnt create hate.

So there is a line to be drawn then?
S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Joseph Dylong
Thursday, 30. October 2008, 12:22
Quote:
 
Sacha Baron Cohen is also talented and clever. Does that give him the right to humiliate and exploit a whole community,


He didnt, he insulted his audience who found his actions true and representative without question. Thats the whole point about Cohen, some people he interviews, dont come accross as stupid, but the audience do for believing what they see, although, he did question some racists etc, and he made them look like a bunch of muppets, which was funny.
Did you read the article I linked to?

Quote:
 
The Romanian village that served as a stand in for the glorious nation of Kazahkstan in the hit movie BORAT are furious with the deception set up to dupe the unwitting country into portraying themselves as food:

A $30 million lawsuit filed Monday accused the makers of the hit movie Borat of misleading residents of a remote Romanian village to think they were participating in a documentary that would benefit them when they were actually deceived and defrauded.

The lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Manhattan was filed on behalf of Nicolae Todorache and Spiridom Ciorebea, two residents of Glod, Romania, a remote Romanian village whose Gypsies were used as stand-ins for Kazakhs in Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan.

The lawsuit alleged that 20th Century Fox Film Corp. and others involved in the film knew that the plaintiffs and other residents of Glod live in incredibly difficult circumstances and have historically been the targets of racial, ethnic and other discrimination.

Yet, it said, the film’s makers exploited them, telling them the film was a documentary about extreme poverty in Romania that would fairly depict their lives, living conditions, occupations, community, heritage and beliefs.

"Nothing could have been further from the truth," the lawsuit said. "The project was not a documentary. The project was not about poverty in Romania — it was supposedly about Kazakhstan. The project was intended to portray the plaintiffs Todorache and Ciorebea and other villagers as rapists, abortionists, prostitutes, thieves, racists, bigots, simpletons and/or boors."

The defendants, it added, were solely motivated by money and personal gain and intended to hold the plaintiffs and their people up to public ridicule and humiliation.

S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

The village missed the plot, and the real target was the ignorant audience.

They lost in court.
Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Quote:
 
So there is a line to be drawn then?


One cant shout fire in a crowded room, one cant shout bomb in an airport and expect to get away from it. Where speech encourages people to be violent - murder etc, or causes a stampeded in the crowded room, then yes, free speech has limits.

Quote:
 
Mary Whitehouse was right, and that is proved more and more each year.


Mary Whitehouse had her version of what was right or wrong, but what made her or anyone else the acceptable face of morality.
Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
Joseph Dylong
Thursday, 30. October 2008, 00:56
Besides, I believe in free speech, and the right to offend.
JD you worry me. I held back from saying this yesterday but I feel it needs to be said.

You hope to be a priest yet you stand up for the right to free speech, claiming artistic license for crudity, and for revealing the sins of another (the grand daughter), you even defend some perceived "right" to ridicule Catholics, in the name of humour.

One day somebody might ask you for absolution, for causing distress by publicly ridiculing a neighbour, for "fun". If that were me, I would not expect the confessor to say "That is not a sin, you have a right to offend your neighbour."
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
Joseph Dylong
Thursday, 30. October 2008, 14:20
Mary Whitehouse had her version of what was right or wrong, but what made her or anyone else the acceptable face of morality.
Christianity.

http://www.indcatholicnews.com/mwgu564.html
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Quote:
 
You hope to be a priest yet you stand up for the right to free speech, claiming artistic license for crudity, and for revealing the sins of another (the grand daughter), you even defend some perceived "right" to ridicule Catholics, in the name of humour.


I dont agree with the comments, and found them quite wrong, however, sometimes comedy goes to far, and people should apologise, which they have done. But I dont think they should be sacked, and the outrage is manufactured.

Somethings are just funny, but if the object of humour is offended, then an apology should be made, however, where such humour is legitimate like joking about Lord Archer, then its justified and no apology is needed. However, against Andrew, the humour was off base, and an apology should have been made earlier.

But certainly not sack them or the witch hunt that is taking place, which is initself un-Christian.

Quote:
 
you even defend some perceived "right" to ridicule Catholics, in the name of humour.


I always complain to the BBC when such comments are made, like on Mock the Week, but I dont want the show removed or people sacked. Any religion has to accept the right of people to offend, and we have the right to argue back with Truth and love.

Where does one draw the line. If I want to joke about Islam for example, I should be allowed without the fear of protests, or is it the case that no jokes about religion are acceptable.

What I dont like is not having balance and the chance for the opposing viewpoint, which is where Brand and Ross got it wrong. They should have said those things to his face and not on an answering machine.

One thinks because it was a machine, they just didnt think.

Quote:
 
One day somebody might ask you for absolution, for causing distress by publicly ridiculing a neighbour, for "fun". If that were me, I would not expect the confessor to say "That is not a sin, you have a right to offend your neighbour."


What they did was objectively sinful, and wrong. However, they apologise so lets move on. The person offended obviously thinks it has done to far, the only issue is with some public getting involved in what is an issue between Brand, Ross, the BBC and the individuals offended.[redit][/redit]
Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Rose of York
Thursday, 30. October 2008, 14:36
Joseph Dylong
Thursday, 30. October 2008, 14:20
Mary Whitehouse had her version of what was right or wrong, but what made her or anyone else the acceptable face of morality.
Christianity.

http://www.indcatholicnews.com/mwgu564.html
Mary Whitehouse attemped to ban things that werent even truely offensive. An argument can be made that TV is a mirror on society, on real life, so Mary should have worked to clean up society and not TV.
Goto Top
 
SeanJ
Member Avatar
Administrator
Rose,
Thank you for the link to the story on Mary Whitehouse. I was living in the USA when she was active, and though I knew her name, I didn't know the whole story.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
SeanJ
Member Avatar
Administrator
Joseph Dylong
Thursday, 30. October 2008, 14:48
Mary Whitehouse attemped to ban things that werent even truely offensive.
Has the Church ever suggested banning anything that was wan't offending anybody?
A lot of people would answer Yes to that question.
Does that mean that the Church was wrong?
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
SeanJ
Member Avatar
Administrator
Joseph Dylong
Thursday, 30. October 2008, 14:48
Mary Whitehouse attemped to ban things that werent even truely offensive. An argument can be made that TV is a mirror on society, on real life, so Mary should have worked to clean up society and not TV.
Perhaps the first step in cleaning up society is to clean up what people watch on TV.[redit][/redit]
Edited by SeanJ, Thursday, 30. October 2008, 15:03.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Archived Discussions · Next Topic »
Locked Topic