Chefelf.com Night Life: Tunes for torture - Chefelf.com Night Life

Jump to content

  • (4 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

Tunes for torture musicians are displeased

#16 User is offline   TheOrator Icon

  • Soothsayer
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 508
  • Joined: 25-January 07
  • Gender:Male
  • Country:United States

Posted 11 December 2008 - 06:53 PM

Including, say, Timothy McVeigh? His bombing was an act of revenge against the tyrannical US Government.

We can complain all we want about them being in it for the wrong reasons even if we aren't in it because we're not wrong. However, there's no reason to debate over whether, as they say, the ends justify the means, as such beliefs are generally basic values and not easily argued. However, as you said Deus Against the Machina and Mass Effect were political beforehand, and I guess I didn't realize they are the only ones being mentioned. Honestly, it's unnecessary to say a band called "Rage Against the Machine" is political.

I still say prosecuting these twats for copyright infringement is solving the wrong problem. I don't care if Obama's legal advisers say they aren't going to prosecute anyone, as most of them were just following orders from higher above (and in a place like Guantanamo Bay, I expect you could simply be offed for not following orders), but I do care about whether Obama says he's going to put an end to it.

The US Government still isn't disturbing the peace, so they aren't breaking the same law that obnoxious twat with the stereo is.

Are you saying the threads about Torture and 24 and that other I can't remember weren't popular? I'm pretty sure they were.
"I've come here to chew bubble gum and kick ass. And I'm all out of bubble gum."
-John Carpenter's They Live

"God help us...in the future."
-Plan 9 from Outer Space


nooooo
0

#17 User is offline   Spoon Poetic Icon

  • Pimpin'
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 2,876
  • Joined: 27-September 05
  • Gender:Female
  • Country:United States

Posted 11 December 2008 - 10:59 PM

Okay - so, all your criticism of everything else in the entire world is also baseless. You are not allowed to have an opinion on anything you haven't attended a protest for or some shit.

(And if I had known that giving money, signing petitions, and writing crap counted, I would have listed that, because of course I've done that. But no one's going to notice. In fact, your one person presence at any successful protest didn't make much of a difference either, just sayin'.) Dedicated a book? How does that help anyone? Not even Crichton could have dedicated a book to a cause and it actually done anything.

You can't have an opinion on Cuba because you've never been there. You can't have an opinion on abortions because you've never been pregnant, or blown up an abortion clinic. Give me a break. When have you not criticized people? You're constantly criticizing people whose methods may be wrong but the end result they are looking for is admirable. And what have you done for any of these causes?

What have you done to make life better for those in the Middle East, or Cuba, for instance? Concerning Middle East: No I don't agree with (most of) what has happened/is happening but most people's hearts are in the right place about this stuff. But you criticize what's going on and like hell you have done anything more to help than I. There might not be much I can do for a large cause like this (from Tiny Town, SC), or other such global causes, but I do my damnedest at what I can, locally and otherwise. Don't play that game with me. Besides, I am damn right to have any opinion I want whether I've been in the fucking Peace Corps, or just sat on my ass all day.

And I do believe I've mentioned more than once that I am not just talking about this one particular article here when I say I'm tired of people turning legitimate issues into issues about something as trivial as copyright. This article was just another to add to the stack.

And WTF with all the capitalist smashing again? Do you not know that the kinds of governments you support are MUCH more likely to commit such atrocities as torture? You've fucking defended the Cuban regime's use of torture. On fucking innocent people. But oh, this is different because it's America doing it.

If it weren't for us "damned capitalist pigs," you would not be living the life you are now. You wouldn't have your cushy luxuries like the internet, you wouldn't be publishing books, you wouldn't be attending protests. If you hate the "capitalist regime" so much, why do you insist on profiting from it?
I am writing about Jm in my signature because apparently it's an effective method of ignoring him.
0

#18 User is offline   J m HofMarN Icon

  • Knows All The Girls Named Lola
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7,234
  • Joined: 24-May 04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rural Pahrump Nevada
  • Interests:Tyranny
  • Country:United States

Posted 12 December 2008 - 04:19 AM

QUOTE
Torture is wrong, yes, we get it, but it happens and I'm very sure that it would also happen if there was a Communist America - I mean, after all, you seem to be following a doctrine that accepts polemic and calls for the bloody execution of others.


The statement wasn't to contrast the effectiveness of a capitalist or communist America, but to point out that capitalist society puts a lot of worth on intellectual property, copyright, etc. For instance, the ridiculous amount of propaganda shown at the start of pretty much every movie about how piracy gets you sent to hell forever. So, if we can link the issue of torture up to intellectual property, I say let's go for it, if that's what the powers that be are more interested in.

As for the issue of bloody executions, I really see nothing wrong with the demand that people guilty of crimes against humanity should be executed.

QUOTE
Including, say, Timothy McVeigh? His bombing was an act of revenge against the tyrannical US Government.


Disorganized acts of terrorism have long been condemned by socialist and leftist thinkers alike due to their ineffectiveness and/or moral repugnance. He neither helped the cause of human rights, nor made a dent in the government etiphus. Also, the deaths of hundreds of innocents is a major turn off. There were qualifiers in my statement. Acknowledge them.

QUOTE
I still say prosecuting these twats for copyright infringement is solving the wrong problem. I don't care if Obama's legal advisers say they aren't going to prosecute anyone, as most of them were just following orders from higher above (and in a place like Guantanamo Bay, I expect you could simply be offed for not following orders), but I do care about whether Obama says he's going to put an end to it.


Trying to get them for anything is a step in the right direction. Whether these scum are brought down for torture or copyright infringement persuant to torture, or for not declaring some money they extorted from their victims as income, I really don't care as long as someone does something to them.

I don't care whether Obama makes torture illegal again. You can't make a law and then refuse to enforce it. Bush number three will see that Bush number 2 tortured people and got away with it, and he'll just do it again in four to eight years. Whereas if an example is made, that could act as a clear deterent.

As for the amount of interest, yes, previous discussions on the subject did do well here, but this is a remarkably well informed forum in my opinion, and even still I wouldnt want to start another thread on the same subject. This one presents it in a different way with new bells and whistles thrown in. And to other people, hey, maybe that's what it takes to get them into the issue.

Spoon-

Ok, I may have worded that wrong, or you may have taken it wrong, but that's an overgeneralization. What I was going for was that it's kind of unfair to first say "I am against torture" but in the same breath to belittle the efforts of others who are clearly working to benefit the struggle, and to call their intentions into question, especially when you don't seem to have any greater intent than they do, or a better way to go about it.

QUOTE
You're constantly criticizing people whose methods may be wrong but the end result they are looking for is admirable.


Ah, but I also criticize the end results they're after. The people I criticize I am usually against both their methods and what I percieve to be their goals. If, for some reason, their actions are useful to the causes I support though, I'm not going to go after them, and if their hearts are in the right place and they're helping a cause I support by deed, then I'm certainly not going to criticize them.

QUOTE
Besides, I am damn right to have any opinion I want whether I've been in the fucking Peace Corps, or just sat on my ass all day.


Fair enough, but my point is that you're not helping to free any political prisoners by complaining about other people with the same goals as you, who are just going at it in a different way.

QUOTE
And I do believe I've mentioned more than once that I am not just talking about this one particular article here when I say I'm tired of people turning legitimate issues into issues about something as trivial as copyright. This article was just another to add to the stack.


How is it trivial? People have been fined and imprisoned for copyright infringement at a FAR higher rate than for torture, and no one has ever yet been imprisoned in the US for ordering torture in the war on terror, only for following those orders. So, from a legal standpoint, the copyright argument seems more plausible. If it's easier to give an evil person problems under one law than another, the end effect is still the same.

QUOTE
And WTF with all the capitalist smashing again? Do you not know that the kinds of governments you support are MUCH more likely to commit such atrocities as torture? You've fucking defended the Cuban regime's use of torture. On fucking innocent people. But oh, this is different because it's America doing it.


As I already said, my point was that capitalist society in America is more likely to prosecute over copyright violations than over torture committed by the government. I think it is permissible that the capitalist Randian ideal has something to do with this. It should be the other way around, and I think in other countries, if their government was up to stuff like this, it would be.

Also, when have I defended Cuba using torture? I have defended everything they actually do, but torture isn't part of that. I believe I have gone out of my way to make clear that President Castro does not allow torture, and that his government doesn't condone it.

QUOTE
If it weren't for us "damned capitalist pigs," you would not be living the life you are now. You wouldn't have your cushy luxuries like the internet, you wouldn't be publishing books, you wouldn't be attending protests. If you hate the "capitalist regime" so much, why do you insist on profiting from it?


I propose that I would. Under a socialist system one can be just as secure and comfortable as under a lunatic right wing laisez faire capitalist state, if not more so. Books, protests, internet, etc, all these exist in socialist states, and many dictatorships or other various forms of government. As for profiting from capitalism, I don't know in the least what you're getting at with this. I try to ensure that none of my business interactions take place with war profiteers, or companies based within Israel, Columbia, and a host of other states whose policies I disagree with. I won't cook with produce grown in Israel, I don't drink Columbian coffee, and I surely don't profit from any of the regime's actions.

Quote

I don't know about you but I have never advocated that homosexuals, for any reason, be cut out of their mother's womb and thrown into a bin.
- Deucaon toes a hard line on gay fetus rights.
0

#19 User is offline   Gobbler Icon

  • God damn it, Nappa.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4,560
  • Joined: 26-December 05
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Three octaves down to your left.
  • Interests:Thermonuclear warfare and other pleasantries.
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 12 December 2008 - 06:10 AM

QUOTE (J m HofMarN @ Dec 12 2008, 10:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
As for the issue of bloody executions, I really see nothing wrong with the demand that people guilty of crimes against humanity should be executed.

I do.

  1. You follow a way of thinking that puts you in a position from which you see things like the current situation, people, environment, government, etc. as an extreme.
  2. You do not agree with this extreme and would like to change it as soon as possible.
  3. So you realize that the only way to get change done fast is to take extreme actions.
  4. Extreme actions which normally disregard the opinions of others, fail to recognize their worth and take shortcuts like killing people instead of trying to win them over to your side.


Should you succeed, you'll be left where? You'll be back at point 1, only that this time you're the extreme and the people who you've failed to recognize with your actions will turn against you.

Crying for bloody murder is not a solution. You'll only get stuck in a vicious circle.
Better read up on successful mediation and compromise instead.

Quote

Pop quiz, hotshot. Garry Kasparov is coming to kill you, and the only way to change his mind is for you to beat him at chess. What do you do, what do you do?
0

#20 User is offline   civilian_number_two Icon

  • Canada's Next Top Model.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 3,382
  • Joined: 01-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Your Dreams
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:Canada

Posted 12 December 2008 - 09:37 AM

I'm having a hard time following any of this debate. As I understand it, Spoon thinks that publicly announcing that you are using an artist's music to promote your political view (ie announcing that you are using theiur music to torture Jesus-less infidels) would not be a form of copyright infringement, since you aren't making money from it. So you can just use the Dixie Chicks at your pro-life pep rally, and they can't say a damned thing about it. She has used an analogy of stealing her pottery design and selling it for money to make her point, denying that there is any dissimilarity in her analogy.

Somewhere in there it seems that one is never allowed to protest against the use of one's creative properety, even if the property is being used in a perfectly illegal and therefore actionable way, for fear that one's motives will be called into question. It's ok for artists to go nuts about file sharing, which does not profit those sharing, but they should just suck it up if their music is being used to promote fascism, something they may disagree with, and when this use is disallowed by existing copyright laws. Because if they do that, then you can say they're just after money?

JM has said what we all know: noone is going to jail for torturing people, not even for relentlessly abusing folks who are not guilty of anything for two years and then releasing them after those two years without apology. Nobody is going to jail for that. So if someone can get money out of these merciless assholes, I say take it. As a proportioned response, it beats breaking down the doors of their homes and killing their children while they watch.

"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).
0

#21 User is offline   Otal Nimrodi Icon

  • Miracle Ghost
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5,442
  • Joined: 26-June 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:I like my my little pony characters like I like my suspected criminals. Mirandized.
  • Country:United States

Posted 12 December 2008 - 10:21 AM

The only problem I've seen with the crimes against humanity statement is that, as far as I can tell, what constitutes a crime against humanity is a matter of opinion. I doubt you'd be calling for the same bloody murder had it been revealed that Iraqi insurgents were torturing people. From what I've seen, your arguments have been that crimes against humanity don't count if you've got a good reason for them.
Want a Tarot reading?

PM me, we'll talk.
0

#22 User is offline   Dr Lecter Icon

  • Almighty God Of All Morals
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,132
  • Joined: 03-January 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Crawley/Hull
  • Country:United Kingdom

Posted 12 December 2008 - 11:56 AM

The only people I think should be excuted, are those who think they have the right to decide if someone else is excuted or not.
0

#23 User is offline   J m HofMarN Icon

  • Knows All The Girls Named Lola
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7,234
  • Joined: 24-May 04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rural Pahrump Nevada
  • Interests:Tyranny
  • Country:United States

Posted 12 December 2008 - 02:47 PM

QUOTE
You follow a way of thinking that puts you in a position from which you see things like the current situation, people, environment, government, etc. as an extreme.
You do not agree with this extreme and would like to change it as soon as possible.
So you realize that the only way to get change done fast is to take extreme actions.
Extreme actions which normally disregard the opinions of others, fail to recognize their worth and take shortcuts like killing people instead of trying to win them over to your side.


Sure do.
Yup.
No, not really. I would very much like to see them prosecuted and imprisoned within the normal legal framework. But that just is not happening. So, I'd like to know what you would purpose to do about this problem.
I don't know where you're getting all this. I've only stated that I want those guilty of torture to be executed. Now, to me, the presentation of a radical idea such as this, while I believe it is just, is likely too extreme for some. So, by providing the radical left voice, I hope that people saying these things will show the clear alternative (peoples' justice) to the system's plan of doing nothing. And that, seeing the unpleasantness of the alternative, those in power will endeavour to do something. This was the subject of a letter I wrote a while ago.

QUOTE
Crying for bloody murder is not a solution. You'll only get stuck in a vicious circle.
Better read up on successful mediation and compromise instead.


I believe that it is, and once again international law supports me. People who create systems of widespread torture and kidnapping, and instigate offensive wars, are subject to execution. The fact that not only do they not fear for their lives, but that they do not even fear a penalty so simple as a fine, is an outrage.

QUOTE
The only problem I've seen with the crimes against humanity statement is that, as far as I can tell, what constitutes a crime against humanity is a matter of opinion. I doubt you'd be calling for the same bloody murder had it been revealed that Iraqi insurgents were torturing people. From what I've seen, your arguments have been that crimes against humanity don't count if you've got a good reason for them.


And in your opinion, does instituting a wide spread system of secret prisons and torture facilities, and then filling them by kidnapping people from the middle east, asia, western europe, canada and the USA, only to torture them for years with no semblance of habeaus corpus, constitute a crime against humanity? Cuz I think so.

And actually torture is frequently used in Iraq, chiefly by the government forces. The insurgents clearly would have trouble doing this as they don't control any large amount of territory to build a prison. Yes, they are guilty of brutal tactics as well, but first of all, they didn't start this war, Bush did. Second of all, they and their leaders are getting killed quite often, so if an Iraqi rebel has comitted attrocities, he must know that death is stalking him. While they're being killed for the wrong reasons, those who are guilty are at least being killed.

QUOTE
From what I've seen, your arguments have been that crimes against humanity don't count if you've got a good reason for them


I don't believe I've ever made such an argument. Terrorism, war, violence, execution, all of this is justifiable to me. However war crimes or crimes against humanity, or aggressive warfare, these things are unjustifiable.

Also, why is it that when I make a simple suggestion, backed by UN agreement and historical precedent in war crimes trials, that we execute officials guilty of ordering torture, that suddenly everyone becomes extremely moral and I'm defining crimes against humanity, explaining why the Iraqis and other victims of American aggression don't get the same treatment, and defending my suggestion of the death penalty itself.

I can understand opposition to the death penalty in general, but you're now not only defending the sanctity of their lives, but also the crimes they have committed by trying to defuse them, comparing them to other criminals, and challenging the definition of said crimes. So what is making you so uncomfortable with that idea?

QUOTE
The only people I think should be excuted, are those who think they have the right to decide if someone else is excuted or not.


Lecter Land is going to be mighty short on judges....

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 12 December 2008 - 02:48 PM

Quote

I don't know about you but I have never advocated that homosexuals, for any reason, be cut out of their mother's womb and thrown into a bin.
- Deucaon toes a hard line on gay fetus rights.
0

#24 User is offline   Spoon Poetic Icon

  • Pimpin'
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 2,876
  • Joined: 27-September 05
  • Gender:Female
  • Country:United States

Posted 13 December 2008 - 12:24 AM

Civ - I'm not saying that what's happening is right. I just wish people would make a stand against torture, period. Not turn such a huge, awful issue into something trivial like copyright infringement. Though I guess Jm is right that some kind of twisted attention is better than no attention, I will concede that.

And I'm tired of the whole copyright argument in general. I believe that once you have bought a copy of something, it's yours to do whatever with, except claim as your own or make money off the reproduction of (which could be molds, copies, or playing it to people, as that is in effect, a copy, though not a hard copy...). But these days it seems to be the trend of "let's find something to whine about and call it copyright infringement when it's not," and "let's get attention for ourselves by using copyright as a political tool," and I am tired of that. This particular issue, where it seems to me that an important issue - torture - is getting turned into something trivial and ridiculous - copyright - is like, the icing on the cake, I guess.

There are more important things, and musicians have so much sway - they could definitely be doing more. That is all.

Jm - there was some debate or another where it was brought up that Cuba used torture at some point in the past during some uprising or another, and you defended it, saying it was necessary at the time, or something. Wasn't about the present.
I am writing about Jm in my signature because apparently it's an effective method of ignoring him.
0

#25 User is offline   J m HofMarN Icon

  • Knows All The Girls Named Lola
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7,234
  • Joined: 24-May 04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rural Pahrump Nevada
  • Interests:Tyranny
  • Country:United States

Posted 13 December 2008 - 02:07 PM

Spoon- As I already said, these people are very, very clearly taking a stand against torture by involving Reprieve in their concert. I know that other, unnamed, random people who you oppose are possibly more interested in copy right, and may or may not be making statements about that and may or may not not be making statements about torture, or something. But I was trying to debate, ya know, the facts that we actually have to work with. And I really don't see how this is twisted. The wide spread use of music for torture is pretty twisted, and I would say that standing up against that is, in fact, not at all twisted.

QUOTE
I believe that once you have bought a copy of something, it's yours to do whatever with, except claim as your own or make money off the reproduction of (which could be molds, copies, or playing it to people, as that is in effect, a copy, though not a hard copy...).


QUOTE
torture - is getting turned into something trivial and ridiculous - copyright - is like, the icing on the cake, I guess.


I really don't think copyright issues are trivial and ridiculous in this case. There is nothing trivial or ridiculous when it comes to persuing these assholes. I would like to see them thrown in pound me in the ass prison for torture, but I will accept copyright infringement if they used music to torture people. I will accept tearing the tag off a mattress if that mattress was used to torture people. I will accept jay walking if they were on the way to buy a new car battery at the time.

QUOTE
There are more important things, and musicians have so much sway - they could definitely be doing more. That is all.


And there you see the whole point of my "you're not doing enough" falacy: No one is really doing enough, because this policy hasn't ended, and no one has been put on trial. But I think solidarity with others struggling for that goal is better than blaming anyone else involved in the struggle for not doing enough.

QUOTE
Jm - there was some debate or another where it was brought up that Cuba used torture at some point in the past during some uprising or another, and you defended it, saying it was necessary at the time, or something. Wasn't about the present.


I'm quite sure you're mistaken. I've defended a lot of things Cuba has done. But President Castro has never ordered torture unlike Bush, and more over he watched his men fall victim to torture and summary execution after the first Moncada attack where a majority of his force were slaughtered after capture. I imagine that kind of experience would turn one off to the whole torture thing, and it quite clearly did.

I have read several reports pertaining to Cuba's human rights record, and President Castro's biography. In none of them is torture mentioned as a policy of the current Cuban government. I have defended many controversial policies that do exist as necessary, but I have not defended this non-existent one.

Quote

I don't know about you but I have never advocated that homosexuals, for any reason, be cut out of their mother's womb and thrown into a bin.
- Deucaon toes a hard line on gay fetus rights.
0

#26 User is offline   civilian_number_two Icon

  • Canada's Next Top Model.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 3,382
  • Joined: 01-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Your Dreams
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:Canada

Posted 13 December 2008 - 05:32 PM

Spoon, if I bought a picture of you and then used that picture in my pro-life advertising, and made no money from that adverytising, and in that ad I had photoshopped you licking my balls, would that be ok?

Copyright covers more than just whether you make money from the thing. Good on these guys to find a way to go after people trying to use their music to support fascism.
"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).
0

#27 User is offline   Spoon Poetic Icon

  • Pimpin'
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 2,876
  • Joined: 27-September 05
  • Gender:Female
  • Country:United States

Posted 13 December 2008 - 10:47 PM

That's a bit of a strawman, but whatever. That is actually perfectly okay within copyright laws as far as I know - but the picture had to be public domain, or taken in a public place (you couldn't have come into my house to take it without permission, as that's privacy laws there), also I'm not sure where defamation laws might come in. But copyright wouldn't be the issue in that situation. ...And what would ball-licking have to do with a pro-life campaign?

JM: http://www.chefelf.c...=...st&p=185947
Seems I was mistaken, it's not torture you condone, but imprisoning innocent people "just to be careful" and also massacres. Which to me are all in the same camp, so I got the wrong one. Sorry about the mix up - but it's still an example of how you have said it's cool for one gov't to do something, but America should die for doing the same thing.

And I still think, in Orator's good choice of words, that they are trying to solve the wrong problem. You can't convince me that this is the best these famous dudes can do. But like I said, I concede that some attention is better than no attention.

This post has been edited by Spoon Poetic: 14 December 2008 - 12:39 AM
Reason for edit:: credited wrong person

I am writing about Jm in my signature because apparently it's an effective method of ignoring him.
0

#28 User is offline   Otal Nimrodi Icon

  • Miracle Ghost
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5,442
  • Joined: 26-June 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:I like my my little pony characters like I like my suspected criminals. Mirandized.
  • Country:United States

Posted 13 December 2008 - 11:35 PM

QUOTE
Spoon, if I bought a picture of you and then used that picture in my pro-life advertising, and made no money from that adverytising, and in that ad I had photoshopped you licking my balls, would that be ok?

Copyright covers more than just whether you make money from the thing. Good on these guys to find a way to go after people trying to use their music to support fascism.


That argument is a different situation. This is more if you used a picture of me to... Er... Give someone a paper cut. Maliciously.

Its not like the government is trotting people out and torturing them publicly.

The use of someone's music in a campaign ad is one thing. The use of it in torture is something entirely different.

I don't condone torture. And if you used my image in this ad, and I felt that someone might change their opinion because I was pro-life, I would make clear my non-endorsement. I might also make a few snide comments about how useful a picture of me licking your balls is for pro-life purposes.

Of course, assuming that this is a PICTURE I was aware of having been taken. If I didn't KNOW that a picture had been taken of me, I might be of a different mind. But as far as I can tell, the artists are perfectly aware that their music is available for purchase, right?

I understand why the artists are upset. I just think that they're objecting to the wrong part...

The way I see it (I'm not saying the situation is comparable, but the level of missing the point) is like... If I was a fashion designer, and I found out that someone had been strangled with one of my ties, and I was more upset that one of my ties was used than that someone had been strangled.
Want a Tarot reading?

PM me, we'll talk.
0

#29 User is offline   Mirithorn Icon

  • Expert Misologist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,331
  • Joined: 06-July 05
  • Location:Over There
  • Country:United States

Posted 14 December 2008 - 11:55 AM

I guess I'm for this ultimately. It doesn't seem to be targeting the main issue, but the article didn't really give enough detailed information for me to be sure. Ultimately the same effects could be achieved with public domain music, but mostly what they are doing is raising awareness against torture, which is productive.
"YOU'RE MISSING A PERIOD. YOU THINK IT'S FUNNY, DON'T YOU? YOU THINK IT'S FUNNY THAT YOU FUCK WITH GRAMMAR? WELL, FUCK YOU AND FUCK YOUR MISSING PERIOD! I HOPE IT MEANS YOUR SLUTTY, NON-PUNCTUATED WAYS HAVE GOTTEN YOU TEEN-PREGNANT!"

0

#30 User is offline   J m HofMarN Icon

  • Knows All The Girls Named Lola
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7,234
  • Joined: 24-May 04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rural Pahrump Nevada
  • Interests:Tyranny
  • Country:United States

Posted 14 December 2008 - 02:56 PM

Spoon- I didnt defend massacres of civilians in there either. All I said was that considering the threat under which the Cuban government exists at all time, I consider it natural that they're overly cautious about imprisoning their percieved enemies who may be collaborating with their greatest enemy. In this case it is one where the need for public safety, IE protection from a bloody coup, dictatorship, and so forth, outweighs the need of a few people to be able to screw with the government and maybe take bribes from the American consolate to do so.

There is no comparison between the measures Cuba takes and those taken by the US. If you piss off the so-called dictatorship in Cuba you will, hands down, be treated better than if you piss off the Bush regime in Iraq. Cuba has non-secret, non military trials, habeause corpus, does not torture, does not drug its detainees, and does not kidnap people from all over the world.

QUOTE
And I still think, in Orator's good choice of words, that they are trying to solve the wrong problem. You can't convince me that this is the best these famous dudes can do.


Ok, maybe they should just pop up and say "torture is wrong" then go away. Then everyone will mumble acquiescence to look moral even though they honestly don't give a shit about shoving a light bulb up some darkie's ass, then they'll go back to their normal lives. Yay for taking the standard proper moral stand!

QUOTE
is like... If I was a fashion designer, and I found out that someone had been strangled with one of my ties, and I was more upset that one of my ties was used than that someone had been strangled.


First of all, thats a crappy metaphor. Just the fact that you prefaced it by saying so is no excuse. What we're talking about here is people making it a policy to strangle folks with your ties. "Otal ties, the official ties of strangling towel heads" How does that sound? Think it might hurt your sales when daughter is looking for a new tie for her hard working dad? I do. Therefore, yes, it does create a financial problem for you, and a moral one as well.

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 14 December 2008 - 03:05 PM

Quote

I don't know about you but I have never advocated that homosexuals, for any reason, be cut out of their mother's womb and thrown into a bin.
- Deucaon toes a hard line on gay fetus rights.
0

  • (4 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4


Fast Reply

  • Decrease editor size
  • Increase editor size