Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum 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 community, 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!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 7
New Degree Offered By Landover Baptist University
Topic Started: Aug 3 2006, 11:02 PM (2,269 Views)
Daniel\
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
One of the advantagesdisadvantages of being new to a group is not knowing the history of the personalities and conflicts. I don't feel it is my place to judge Rick as to whether or not he is a bigot. My other reason for not doing so is that this label can become more semantic than meaningful and is not generally useful and is personal.

The original post was Rick's and he says it's satire. "In, literature,...etc"

I was a little confused by whether it was supposed to be humor and not sooner than it was discussed as humor it was clarified that it was satire and was not necessarily funny. It was suggested that the post was denigrating, it was not denigrating, Rick clarified that it was meant to denigrate, and the discussion turned to satire. :juggle:

I stand corrected that the post was satire, although it seemed more like 'ethnic humor' than satire to me. I wanted to know about Rick's assertion that the post was Juvenalian satire and emailed a friend of mine who is a literature professor. His answer was:

"It has aspects of Juvenalian satire, but I wouldn’t call it such. There’s not enough invective, contempt, or condemnation. A Juvenalian satire isn’t funny because it’s so mean. This piece is definitely satire, with the serious edge that satire often possesses, but also funny in places. It isn’t as innocuous as many pieces that are called “humorous.” I think it could be crafted into an excellent SNL fake commercial."

Comparisons of this post to "Juvenalian satire" and Voltaire's Candide, and etc. are cloaking it in more merit than it deserves as far as I can tell.

I don't want to make fun of or saterize Baptists, but I'd be interested to know why someone would- what is really being saterized and why.

Rick, you posted it, all I can say is whatever your point- to be funny or to be amusing or to make a point- it went over my head.

Having said all this, when are you going to take your warning system away? Or do you think you will need it?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Rick (and a number of others here) has denigrated fundamentalist Christians on a number of occasions. I cannot but wonder what other reaction he might have been expecting in posting this. It would be the height of arrogance to expect those whom you have belittled at every opportunity to see satire at their expense to be taken with humor.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Rick Zimmer
Aug 5 2006, 12:07 AM
Daniel
Aug 4 2006, 11:51 PM
Rick Zimmer
Aug 4 2006, 10:12 PM
Daniel
Aug 4 2006, 10:57 PM
But do you really think that was funny?  Karl wouldn't!  :tsktsk:

I considered it biting, blunt and stinging social satire.

A valid literary form, which may or may not be funny.

Do you think satire has to be funny?

Well Rick, satire to me is something with a political context and irreverant. I wasn't sure so I looked for the satire entry on wikipedia:

Satire is a literary technique of writing or art which exposes the follies of its subject (for example, individuals, organizations, or states) to ridicule, often as an intended means of provoking or preventing change.

There are two fundamental types of satire: Horatian satire, which is gentle and urbane; and Juvenalian satire, which is biting, bitter invective. The burlesque form of satire can also be segregated into two distinct categories: High burlesque, or taking subject matter which is crude in nature and treating it in a lofty style, or low burlesque, taking subject matter traditionally dealt with in an epic or poetic fashion and degrading it.

I didn't think it was satire and according to these definitions, it wasn't gentle or urbane, it didn't take crude subject matter and treat it in a lofty style, and it didn't take the material of epic or poetry and degrade it.

I don't think satire is the best description. I think it was just humor.

I might have thought it was funny if it had a punchline.

But you missed one of the types of satire, Daniel -- the Juvenalian, which is the category under which I would place all of Landover's stuff.

I don't see where Daniel missed discussing Juvenalian satire. It's in the third paragraph. :shrug:

Regardless, as humor it went over like a fart in church.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
ivorythumper
Aug 5 2006, 08:53 PM
Regardless, as humor it went over like a fart in church.

Oh come on, IT, don't exaggerate. It was good, but it wasn't that good.

:P
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
:tongue:

I forgot the audience.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daniel\
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
ivorythumper
Aug 5 2006, 04:53 PM

I considered it biting, blunt and stinging social satire.

A valid literary form, which may or may not be funny.

:yawn:

It was humor (sort of).




Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Daniel
Aug 5 2006, 07:19 PM
ivorythumper
Aug 5 2006, 04:53 PM

I considered it biting, blunt and stinging social satire.

A valid literary form, which may or may not be funny.

:yawn:

It was humor (sort of).

Those are not my words....
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Daniel
Aug 5 2006, 05:06 PM

Having said all this, when are you going to take your warning system away? Or do you think you will need it?


I am glad to hear your English professor friend agrees that the article is satire.

But now, which warning system are you speaking of? (Now it is YOU who have gone over my head! :D)

As far as I am concerned it is was a valid article to post here. And if, in the future, I find other things by Landover that I feel are valid to post, I will do so. I am sorry of they offend some people, but as I said much earlier in this thead, I would take those people's protestations seriously if they were equally offended when those they agree with attack individual posters -- something I have not done in posting this article and virtually never do in any of my posts. Unless and until they are prepared to do start condemning those who do attack posters personally, their complaints about this article strike me as absurd.

As to the validity of posting this, the moment the fundamentalist evangelicals in America decided to stop being a moral force in the public square but chose to become involved in the full gamut of partisan political activities in order to restructure this society, they made themselves fair game for such criticism.

For them to have leaders and spokespeople who claim such things as 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina are actions by an angry God because of feminists, homosexuals and women exercising their freedom of choice -- thus claiming that these people are to be blamed for evil occuring in America and for turning God, Himself, against us -- and then to feel that sharp, pointed criticism of them is in some way bigoted or unfair is, to me, the height of hypocrisy.

They have publicly and with great fanfare vilified many segments of society with whom they do not agree. They have taken the additional step to become active not just in the public debate, but directly in the politicial system as a politicial force. They cannot now say it is unfair when people are equally vehement in their public criticism of them or to say they are being hit too hard.

They have chosen to take the gloves off and to play hard ball in order to reshape American society in their moral vision. Fair enough. But they should not be surprised or offended or claim bigotry when others also take the gloves off and play hard ball with them.
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daniel\
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Rick Zimmer
Aug 5 2006, 11:40 PM

But now, which warning system are you speaking of?  (Now it is YOU who have gone over my head!  :D)

As far as I am concerned it is was a valid article to post here.  And if, in the future, I find other things by Landover that I feel are valid to post, I will do so.  I am sorry of they offend some people, but as I said much earlier in this thead, I would take those people's protestations seriously if they were equally offended when those they agree with attack individual posters -- something I have not done in posting this article and virtually never do in any of my posts.  Unless and until they are prepared to do start condemning those who do attack posters personally, their complaints about this article strike me as absurd.

As to the validity of posting this, the moment the fundamentalist evangelicals in America decided to stop being a moral force in the public square but chose to become involved in the full gamut of partisan political activities in order to restructure this society, they made themselves fair game for such criticism. 

For them to have leaders and spokespeople who claim such things as 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina are actions by an angry God because of feminists, homosexuals and women exercising their freedom of choice -- thus claiming that these people are to be blamed for evil occuring in America and for turning God, Himself, against us -- and then to feel that sharp, pointed criticism of them is in some way bigoted or unfair is, to me, the height of hypocrisy.

They have publicly and with great fanfare vilified many segments of society with whom they do not agree.  They have taken the additional step to become active not just in the public debate, but directly in the politicial system as a politicial force. They cannot now say it is unfair when people are equally vehement in their public criticism of them or to say they are being hit too hard.

They have chosen to take the gloves off and to play hard ball in order to reshape American society in their moral vision.  Fair enough.  But they should not be surprised or offended  or claim bigotry when others also take the gloves off and play hard ball with them.

(IT, if I can call you that, sorry, I should have made that clear.)

Rick,

The warning system is the red boxes and warn 0% to the left and under my name.

You wrote:

"As far as I am concerned it is was a valid article to post here."

What is off topic for a board with no topic? LOL.

(when I say post I am referring to what was written in it)

----------------------------------
Following are my personal, rambling comments:

It seems to me that Dewey is sincere in his beliefs, and I do not say this to defend Dewey as it would not be for me to do so, but expressing my point of view. Furthermore, it seems to me that everyone who has responded in your thread has done so for their own reasons likewise.

I believe in religious tolerance, and in separation of church and state, as I have expressed in this thread already. I believe I have correctly interpreted the intent of the post to denigrate, and this is not something with which I can agree.

Nice to meet you, Rick. Have a nice weekend. :wave:


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Daniel
Aug 5 2006, 08:06 PM

Having said all this, when are you going to take your warning system away? Or do you think you will need it?

Daniel, are you asking this because you have the 'warn bar' but can't see anybody else's? If so, don't worry, everybody has one, it's just that you can only see your own.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daniel\
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
John D'Oh
Aug 6 2006, 01:50 AM
Daniel
Aug 5 2006, 08:06 PM

Having said all this, when are you going to take your warning system away? Or do you think you will need it?

Daniel, are you asking this because you have the 'warn bar' but can't see anybody else's? If so, don't worry, everybody has one, it's just that you can only see your own.

Yes, thanks.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
David Burton
Senior Carp
Wow, I just read all of this and after reasonable consideration have decided to edit everything I wrote out as irrelevant.

The joke’s on all of us. None of us will know how bad any of it hurt until we leave this experience.

You guys wear me out.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
And so, after a day for the heat to subside, and with a few posts defending his bigotry by some fellow Catholics, Rick boldly picks up right where he left off:

Quote:
 
As far as I am concerned it is was a valid article to post here. And if, in the future, I find other things by Landover that I feel are valid to post, I will do so. I am sorry of they offend some people, but as I said much earlier in this thead, I would take those people's protestations seriously if they were equally offended when those they agree with attack individual posters -- something I have not done in posting this article and virtually never do in any of my posts. Unless and until they are prepared to do start condemning those who do attack posters personally, their complaints about this article strike me as absurd.


and with that, he immediately begins to practice his bigotry once again:

Quote:
 
As to the validity of posting this, the moment the fundamentalist evangelicals in America decided to stop being a moral force in the public square but chose to become involved in the full gamut of partisan political activities in order to restructure this society, they made themselves fair game for such criticism.

For them to have leaders and spokespeople who claim such things as 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina are actions by an angry God because of feminists, homosexuals and women exercising their freedom of choice -- thus claiming that these people are to be blamed for evil occuring in America and for turning God, Himself, against us -- and then to feel that sharp, pointed criticism of them is in some way bigoted or unfair is, to me, the height of hypocrisy.

They have publicly and with great fanfare vilified many segments of society with whom they do not agree. They have taken the additional step to become active not just in the public debate, but directly in the politicial system as a politicial force. They cannot now say it is unfair when people are equally vehement in their public criticism of them or to say they are being hit too hard.

They have chosen to take the gloves off and to play hard ball in order to reshape American society in their moral vision. Fair enough. But they should not be surprised or offended or claim bigotry when others also take the gloves off and play hard ball with them.



Rick, you are a religious bigot. I don't give a damn how many of your Catholic buddies on the forum come to your aid, you are a religious bigot. You have proven this over and over again, not just with your Landover articles, but with other things as well.

Your complaint about attacking individual posters is aimed at me - everyone knows that. But contrary to your claim that "something I have not done in posting this article and virtually never do in any of my posts", which is nothing more than an attempt to sidestep your *own* offensiveness, you have deserved every attack you've received. You are without a doubt the most offensive individual I've ever met. You are condescending. You are self righteous. You are pompous. You are narrow minded. You are intolerant, and you are intolerable. You are a walking representation of everything that is wrong with this country in my opinion - and it may come as a surprise to you, but I'm not the only one who thinks that.

You think attacks have to be personal before they are wrong? You have attacked our military in ways that make you no better than Fred Phelps. You have defended every enemy we've faced. In matters of religion, you have waved your own religion in our faces as superior, and never missed an opportunity to take a mean spirited swipe at Protestants, in a manner and tone that lets your view of your own religious superiority shine through.

That's why I attack you, Rick. You are offended by my attacks. I am offended by you. I'm not just offended by what you say - I'm also offended by the smug self righteousness and condescending manner in which you say it. Politically, you are antiAmerican. Religiously, you are a bigot. So if you want to justify your own vile posts by saying you'll not stop until those who attack you stop attacking you, I'll do the same - I'll not stop attacking you until you stop attacking my country. I'll not stop attacking you until you stop attacking Protestants.

Until recently, I believed completely that the Catholic religion was a tolerant, Christian religion. You have done to the Catholic religion the exact same thing the religious kooks in the Protestant faith have done to Protestants. You bring shame to the Catholic faith, and if you are representative of Catholicism, then I am afraid I must reassess my opinion of your religion.

I'm not a "fundamentalist", as Jolly has pointed out to you. But I believe they have just as much right to express their views as you have to express your's. Their silly views are no different from some of *your* silly views, but when you strip away the silly views, the majority of "fundamentalists" are closer to main stream thought than you'll ever be. It would be to your advantage to drop your pious, pompous self righteousness and take a look around you.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
"...you have deserved every attack you've received. You are without a doubt the most offensive individual I've ever met.... You are a walking representation of everything that is wrong with this country in my opinion - and it may come as a surprise to you, but I'm not the only one who thinks that."

Well don't put my name on that broadside; I certainly do not think that. And this kind of attack is just plain wrong.

I swore that I was done with this thread, but I have to get a few things off my chest.

I do not dislike Rick. Many of you may not believe that, but it's true. The truth is actually quite the opposite. And it's from that basis that any critical comments coming from me, in this or other threads, originates.

My initial criticism of the original post was not because I consider myself part of the specific groups being insulted. For those who may not know it, I'm neither a fundamentalist Christian, nor am I an upper-case "Evangelical" Christian, as that term has come to be defined. I am a mostly conservative member of what is considered a very liberal, "Mainline" Protestant denomination.

But while I'm not a member of either of those two groups (and they are two distinctly different groups, not one, as many people think), I consider them to be "brothers and sisters" in Christ; part of the same body of believers that makes up the Christian Church. I view them as equally valued members of the Church as I view Catholics and members of the Orthodox tradition (that some Catholics wouldn't grant me the same consideration, or that some Protestants wouldn't grant Catholics the same status, is their problem, not mine).

My comments were geared specifically to Rick as a fellow believer - that, if he took issue with some of their beliefs or actions, that there are ways more appropriate - more in accordance with Christian Scriptural instructions - to register disagreement than the mode chosen. To me, this isn't a political thing - it's a Christian thing, related to how we have been instructed to treat each other (that same guideline may very well be able to be extended to how we should treat each other regardless of whether one is a Christian or not, but that's another day's battle).

I did not see the original post in any way to be either harmlessly funny, or meant as constructive critical satire intended to get these groups to critically rethink erroneous positions that they may hold. It was just a turd dropped into the puchbowl.

My comments to Rick were to say that, as one chosen to be part of the body of Christ, he has been instructed to act differently. And I know that he is intelligent enough, and has more than sufficient compassion, as I've seen expressed in other directions, to know better than to forward on such non-constructive and hurtful caracateurs.

And I can say the same thing about you, Larry. By your own profession, you're also a part of the same body of Christ that Rick, Ivory, AC, Jolly, Deb, LD, and many others here are part of. We're all part of the same extended body, and while we're not commanded to agree completely with each other, we are called to love, and respect, support, and yes, at times, lovingly, respectfully, and constructively reprove each other. Outbursts like your most recent post here don't fit that definition, and are just as mean and offensive as the first post in this thread. You have too big a mind, and too big a heart, to make such a personal attack as this. You know better.

I made a big mistake in my first post to this thread. I should have just sent Rick a PM telling him I thought his post was mean and out of line regarding how fellow believers are supposed to deal with differences. I posted it too quickly, and two seconds after I clicked "Submit" I regretted it and wished I'd sent it privately. My inention was not - contrary to what some people, probably including Rick, might suspect - to gleefully try to "make points" against Rick personally in a public forum. Rick, I apologize for saying publicly what I should have said to you privately.

But, Rick AND Larry, do consider the point that Christians have been called to a different set of standards in dealing with each other. We don't have to agree with each other. We don't even always have to like each other. But we do have to love each other, even in the midst of our disagreements. That's something very different, and non-negotiable.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 7