Anyone here a fan of moral equivalency? Do you enjoy it?

[Ransom]

Seems to me that if you think overeating is as bad a sin compared to sexual immorality that seeing it portrayed on screen should be equally offensive, let's test the limits of your assumptions.

Shoplifting is a sin.. So is first-degree murder.  Should the penalty for shoplifting be as severe as the penalty for first-degree murder? Why or why not?

If I see a man call his wife a demeaning name on the street corner, should I be as outraged as if he had stabbed her? Why or why not?

Should a persistent litterer be charged with war crimes like someone who committed genocide? Why or why not?

 

[ALAYMAN]

That's a call each person has to make on their own.  Let 'em be fully persuaded in their own mind I say.  Who am I to judge another man's servant?

 

[Ransom]

That's a call each person has to make on their own.  Let 'em be fully persuaded in their own mind I say.  Who am I to judge another man's servant?

I am fully persuaded in my own mind that people who don't turn off their cells in church are no better than child rapists, and in the future will treat them accordingly.

 

[Tim]

That's a call each person has to make on their own.  Let 'em be fully persuaded in their own mind I say.  Who am I to judge another man's servant?

I am fully persuaded in my own mind that people who don't turn off their cells in church are no better than child rapists, and in the future will treat them accordingly.

No. You have it wrong. We should treat the child rapist like the one who leaves their phone on. Each his own, right?

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Seems to me that if you think overeating is as bad a sin compared to sexual immorality that seeing it portrayed on screen should be equally offensive, let's test the limits of your assumptions.

Shoplifting is a sin.. So is first-degree murder.  Should the penalty for shoplifting be as severe as the penalty for first-degree murder? Why or why not?

If I see a man call his wife a demeaning name on the street corner, should I be as outraged as if he had stabbed her? Why or why not?

Should a persistent litterer be charged with war crimes like someone who committed genocide? Why or why not?

You construct the most beautiful straw men.  You're just still butthurt about being called out on your attempt to define nudity in fine art as not nudity. 

 

[Ransom]

You construct the most beautiful straw men.  You're just still butthurt about being called out on your attempt to define nudity in fine art as not nudity. 

What was that you were saying about straw men?

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

You construct the most beautiful straw men.  You're just still butthurt about being called out on your attempt to define nudity in fine art as not nudity. 

What was that you were saying about straw men?

Well, the thread is deleted now, so the evidence is gone.  But when I posted pictures of fine art NUDES you said almost exactly, "Why are you changing the subject from nudity to fine art?"

Art is in the eye of the beholder, but nudity is nudity.  Tim challenged me to post a nude picture, and I obliged.  You just wanted to pretend those "fine art" pictures don't really qualify as nudity.  So you asked me why I changed the subject from nudity to fine art. 

To demonstrate you were just trolling with that question, I posted a picture from a fine art photography studio with different lighting poses of a nude woman.  It was fine art.  And it was nudity.  And the thread got deleted. 

Give up, Ransom.  You lost this one.  Go soak your but in a hot bath. 

 

[Ransom]

Well, the thread is deleted now, so the evidence is gone.  But when I posted pictures of fine art NUDES you said almost exactly, "Why are you changing the subject from nudity to fine art?"

Yes, almost exactly.  But the exact turn of phrase was "movie nudity to fine art nudity."

Your paraphrase is pretty good, though, apart from omitting some vital words, meaning something completely different, and missing the point entirely.

What was that other thing you kept saying? Oh yeah. Learn to read.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Well, the thread is deleted now, so the evidence is gone.  But when I posted pictures of fine art NUDES you said almost exactly, "Why are you changing the subject from nudity to fine art?"

Yes, almost exactly.  But the exact turn of phrase was "movie nudity to fine art nudity."

Your paraphrase is pretty good, though, apart from omitting some vital words, meaning something completely different, and missing the point entirely.

What was that other thing you kept saying? Oh yeah. Learn to read.

Law of Ransom one....

Never admit you're wrong...

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Well, the thread is deleted now, so the evidence is gone.  But when I posted pictures of fine art NUDES you said almost exactly, "Why are you changing the subject from nudity to fine art?"

Yes, almost exactly.  But the exact turn of phrase was "movie nudity to fine art nudity."

It was not.  You in no way said "fine art nudity".  You didn't even say "movie nudity".  You said from nudity to fine art. 

Good for you that the evidence is gone now.  Liar. 

You want Christians to be shocked at something?  I'm shocked at the number of liars on this forum. 

 

[Ransom]

Law of Ransom one....

Never admit you're wrong...

If you know for a fact I'm wrong, post the text proving it. If not, stop pretending you know what I meant better than I did. You're no better at reading someone else's mind than your own 40 minutes later.

 

[Ransom]

It was not.

Why should I believe you more than myself?

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

It was not.

Why should I believe you more than myself?

I don't care who liars believe.  I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're remembering it wrong.  But my response to you was a lesson on the fact that nudity is nudity, no matter what form it takes.  If you had said, "Why did you change the topic from movie nudity to fine art nudity?" that response would have made no sense because you were already calling both nudity. 

Maybe you edited your response later, but your original response was, "Why are you changing the subject from nudity to fine art?" 

Your whole reaction to that thread was out in left field.  The thread was about watching gluttony vs. watching sex scenes.  You and Tim wanted to hijack it into a nudity thread. 

 

[Ransom]

I don't care who liars believe.

And I'm not going to lose sleep over not being believed by you. Go watch a nudie film and pretend it's the same as watching the Dukes of Hazzard.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

I don't care who liars believe.

And I'm not going to lose sleep over not being believed by you. Go watch a nudie film and pretend it's the same as watching the Dukes of Hazzard.

And go put your nose in your ear and sneeze, liar.  And welcome to my ignore list.  I ignore liars like you, ALAYMAN, and others. 

 

[Ransom]

And go put your nose in your ear and sneeze, liar.  And welcome to my ignore list.

Hm.

No, still not losing sleep.

 

[Ransom]

A mea culpa:

Yes, almost exactly.  But the exact turn of phrase was "movie nudity to fine art nudity."

In wondering why it was that the moderation controls aren't appearing on my view of the forum (it turns out that the default skin doesn't show them), I had a look at the moderation log, which includes deleted posts. Turns out my exact exact words were:

You started this thread discussing movie nudity.  When pressed for an example, you present fine art.

You changed the subject. Why?

So, I was mistaken that "movie nudity to fine art nudity" was exactly what I said.  However, in my defense, I feel it was clearly implied, and that is certainly closer to my intended meaning than Rogue's claim that I was contrasting "nudity" with "fine art."

I should also add that if I were the board owner, the photographic nudes Rogue posted in response (which was posted and deleted while I was away from the Internet, but was also preserved in the moderation log) would have been the last straw. However, it was FSSL's call, and I'll back him up. It seems I have a lower threshold of tolerance for the kind of envelope-pushing nonsense Rogue has been doing on this board for ages.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Seems to me that if you think overeating is as bad a sin compared to sexual immorality that seeing it portrayed on screen should be equally offensive, let's test the limits of your assumptions.

Shoplifting is a sin.. So is first-degree murder.  Should the penalty for shoplifting be as severe as the penalty for first-degree murder? Why or why not?

If I see a man call his wife a demeaning name on the street corner, should I be as outraged as if he had stabbed her? Why or why not?

Should a persistent litterer be charged with war crimes like someone who committed genocide? Why or why not?

moral equivalency is always wrong....... i have been fighting it on these various forums since the day i joined........ 

but that being said..... i am the one who originally posted the boss hogg picture and brought up his gluttony issue... ... to ask a couple of posters who were equating the wearing of daisy duke shorts with dressing like a whore why they only jumped on that one thing they saw wrong in the dukes of hazzard show and not anything else............ ........ i never intended images of boss hogg and his gluttony to be compared to displays of sex on screen or the posting of full nudity on this forum.......  and i think anyone who would say it;s the same thing is off their rocker...............

however......... i also think any man who would accuse a woman who is wearing what he thinks is "daisy duke" shorts... regardless of the culture she lives in...  of dressing like a whore is also off his rocker..... .. .....  and i believe that is also a type of moral equivalency...... 

I've already said many times I find sex scenes boring and needless and I tune them out when watching a show or movie. 

They may not be morally equivalent, but a sex scene between two committed lovers is, at least in my opinion, less offensive than massive gluttony.  Now, keep in mind, they're both fake.  Nobody's actually having sex.  They're faking it for the film.  And a glutton isn't actually eating a mountain of donuts.  He's faking it for the show.  If you can't enjoy the fiction, tune it out, or just don't go see it. 

My point is, why do Christians get all bent out of shape because a movie has fake sex scenes, but not when a movie has fake gluttony, fake murder, fake torture, etc., etc.?  Even worse, I remember when Christians got all bent out of shape over Harry Potter.  It's FAKE, people!  It's a movie. 

As an aside, I actually like fake murder when it's funny (which it is in Deadpool). 

 

[Tim]

This was after Tim asked for an example of nudity (won't go there)

I was assuming nobody in their right mind would actually post a photo with nudity since clearly it would violate the forum rules. The question was to make a point - as Ransom clearly presents as moral equivalency.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

This was after Tim asked for an example of nudity (won't go there)

I was assuming nobody in their right mind would actually post a photo with nudity since clearly it would violate the forum rules. The question was to make a point - as Ransom clearly presents as moral equivalency.

Really?  Ransom didn't say he had a problem with the pictures of the Sistine Chapel ceiling, or the statue of David.  And that was nudity.