• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

I'm offended and you should care, because why?

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
12,173
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Why is this news? Who gives a fuck?

Nice for them that it's sacred to them. But to the rest of us, for who the mountain isn't sacred, we'll just go ahead and treat it like it's not sacred. Because it isn't.... to us.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39789508

I'm going to create a religion where doing anything at all is offensive. And just send angry letters to anybody doing anything.
 
"It's like someone went into St Peter's Basilica in the Vatican and took a nude photo," Dennis Ngawhare, a spokesperson for the local Maori tribe, told the BBC.
Aren't there artistic nudes in the art at the Vatican?

The entire right wing used to house the papal courtesans. Lots of erotic art was made to get the popes into the mood. I believe that art still hangs there. The naughtiest stuff is on the wall of the popes private quarters.

It would have been removed ages ago ( ie 1910, when the idea started to spread in the Catholic church that it's clergy should be bound by the same rules as everybody else) if it wasn't for the fact that they were painted by Renaissance masters, and are preposterously valuable. Apparently money trumps morals in the church. Who would've thunk?
 
Why is this news? Who gives a fuck?

Nice for them that it's sacred to them. But to the rest of us, for who the mountain isn't sacred, we'll just go ahead and treat it like it's not sacred. Because it isn't.... to us.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39789508

I'm going to create a religion where doing anything at all is offensive. And just send angry letters to anybody doing anything.

Uluru (Ayers Rock) in Australia is a sacred site.
Atheists don't wanna be messin' with indigenous rights downunder.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdaitcha
 
Dr Z - I fully support your right to take of all your clothes on the (cold?) top of holy mountains should you want to, but have to admit that my own yearning to do so is, like the rest of the world's desire to see it, minimal!
 
Dr Z - I fully support your right to take of all your clothes on the (cold?) top of holy mountains should you want to, but have to admit that my own yearning to do so is, like the rest of the world's desire to see it, minimal!

ha ha... I like to climb mountains. When I reach the top I almost always have a strong yearning to take my clothes off. Whenever I'm happy I have a strong urge to take my clothes off. Happens a lot. I must admit though, that I've yet to climb a snow peaked mountain. At most a days trek.
 
"It's like someone went into St Peter's Basilica in the Vatican and took a nude photo," Dennis Ngawhare, a spokesperson for the local Maori tribe, told the BBC.
Aren't there artistic nudes in the art at the Vatican?

Plus, it's nothing like that at all. The Basillica is private property built by people in order to be "sacred" and owned by people who want it to be that way. That mountain is public place built by no one for any purpose, and a person showing their beauty in a place of natural beauty is highly appropriate and no less valid a way to honor the "sacredness" of a place than whatever nonsense the tribe thinks is appropriate.

I'm not merely "insensitive" to the tribes concerns, I think their attitude is moronic and deserves mockery, and they should fuck off.
 
Aren't there artistic nudes in the art at the Vatican?

Plus, it's nothing like that at all. The Basillica is private property built by people in order to be "sacred" and owned by people who want it to be that way. That mountain is public place built by no one for any purpose, and a person showing their beauty in a place of natural beauty is highly appropriate and no less valid a way to honor the "sacredness" of a place than whatever nonsense the tribe thinks is appropriate.

I'm not merely "insensitive" to the tribes concerns, I think their attitude is moronic and deserves mockery, and they should fuck off.

Mmmmm.... well... Sure, S:t Peters is private property. But those who built it, commissioned it and paid for it, are all long dead now. In what way does it still belong to whoever holds the deed, other than for purely tax reasons? I see no ethical or moral right to prevent people getting nude in S:t Peters. I think it's a public space, just like that mountain. A church is and was intended to be a public space.

I am also fine with nudity in public spaces. I don't think there's anything sexual about just being nude. You can be sexually inappropriate with clothes on. Nude or not makes no difference IMHO. I think it would make the world a better place if we just learned to relax a bit about it.
 
Man the BBC is stuffy. The Sun, the Independent, and the Dailymail all left the pic unedited.

Yep, such sniveling...
 
Plus, it's nothing like that at all. The Basillica is private property built by people in order to be "sacred" and owned by people who want it to be that way. ...

Mmmmm.... well... Sure, S:t Peters is private property. But those who built it, commissioned it and paid for it, are all long dead now. In what way does it still belong to whoever holds the deed, other than for purely tax reasons? I see no ethical or moral right to prevent people getting nude in S:t Peters. I think it's a public space, just like that mountain. ...
Hmm. It's not even clear that it's private property. It's owned by the Holy See, and that's a government, which kind of makes everything it owns public property. Sure, the Holy See is an absolute monarchy, L'etat c'est moi, but as absolute monarchies are a crime against humanity it's not clear that it has the right to own a parking space, let alone a basilica.
 
My reaction to shit like this always echoes that of Stephen Fry: "You're offended? So fucking what?" One man's sacred mountain is another man's lump of stone. Grow up.
 
Why is this news? Who gives a fuck?

Nice for them that it's sacred to them. But to the rest of us, for who the mountain isn't sacred, we'll just go ahead and treat it like it's not sacred. Because it isn't.... to us.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39789508

I'm going to create a religion where doing anything at all is offensive. And just send angry letters to anybody doing anything.

You sound offended.... And that is your right!. You, and everyone else, have the right to be offended. I will fight for that right.

What people do not have is the right to NOT be offended.
 
Why is this news? Who gives a fuck?

Nice for them that it's sacred to them. But to the rest of us, for who the mountain isn't sacred, we'll just go ahead and treat it like it's not sacred. Because it isn't.... to us.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39789508

I'm going to create a religion where doing anything at all is offensive. And just send angry letters to anybody doing anything.

You sound offended.... And that is your right!. You, and everyone else, has the right to be offended. I will fight for that right.

What people do not have is the right to NOT be offended.

Not all negative reactions to something qualify as "being offended", especially if the word is to retain any useful meaning. It denotes feeling personally insulted. Thinking that someone is stupid or being angry that someone is seeking to take away your basic liberties is not "being offended" anymore than feeling pain that they punched you in the stomach is to be offended.
 
Why is this news? Who gives a fuck?

Nice for them that it's sacred to them. But to the rest of us, for who the mountain isn't sacred, we'll just go ahead and treat it like it's not sacred. Because it isn't.... to us.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39789508

I'm going to create a religion where doing anything at all is offensive. And just send angry letters to anybody doing anything.

You sound offended.... And that is your right!. You, and everyone else, have the right to be offended. I will fight for that right.

What people do not have is the right to NOT be offended.

That's a brilliant idea. I'm going to create a new religion, the happy religion, where we're offended by anybody being offended. And in true form of the faithful we'll be unable to see the contradiction in that.
 
Why is this news? Who gives a fuck?

Nice for them that it's sacred to them. But to the rest of us, for who the mountain isn't sacred, we'll just go ahead and treat it like it's not sacred. Because it isn't.... to us.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39789508

I'm going to create a religion where doing anything at all is offensive. And just send angry letters to anybody doing anything.

Hmmm...:humph:

I would say "follow the law of the land" and use common sense.

Personally, as a rule, I wouldn't go fucking around with someone's sacred burial ground and that sort of thing, like taking rocks from the Kilauea volcano, etc...

I don't have any problem respecting an ancestral culture's sacred ground.

The common sense here is simply to understand where they're coming from, then establish a dialogue with them to work something out...
 
Last edited:
Why is this news? Who gives a fuck?

Nice for them that it's sacred to them. But to the rest of us, for who the mountain isn't sacred, we'll just go ahead and treat it like it's not sacred. Because it isn't.... to us.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39789508

I'm going to create a religion where doing anything at all is offensive. And just send angry letters to anybody doing anything.

Hmmm...:humph:

I would say "follow the law of the land" and use common sense.

Personally, as a rule, I wouldn't go fucking around with someone's sacred burial ground and that sort of thing, like taking rocks from the Kilauea volcano, etc...

I don't have any problem respecting an ancestral culture's sacred ground.

The common sense here is simply to understand where they're coming from, then establish a dialogue with them to work something out...

They're upset over somebody being naked on it. Where's the offence? It's not like they were throwing garbage on it or drilling into it or anything. I can't see how any kind of reasonable common ground can be found with people like this. This is people who should be ignored IMHO. The more we respect people like this, the more people will keep treating is as reasonable behaviour. If we respect this, how will we ever be able to rid the world of blasphemy laws?
 
Hmmm...:humph:

I would say "follow the law of the land" and use common sense.

Personally, as a rule, I wouldn't go fucking around with someone's sacred burial ground and that sort of thing, like taking rocks from the Kilauea volcano, etc...

I don't have any problem respecting an ancestral culture's sacred ground.

The common sense here is simply to understand where they're coming from, then establish a dialogue with them to work something out...

They're upset over somebody being naked on it. Where's the offence? It's not like they were throwing garbage on it or drilling into it or anything. I can't see how any kind of reasonable common ground can be found with people like this. This is people who should be ignored IMHO. The more we respect people like this, the more people will keep treating is as reasonable behaviour. If we respect this, how will we ever be able to rid the world of blasphemy laws?

Not everyone is upset...Maybe things can be worked out by simply talking and explaining your intentions and your mind set.

Understand that this type of cultures relate to nature in their own particular way, so for you a mountain is just a mountain, but for them it's the abode of their "GOD". American Indians work the same way.

I'm sure Catholics wouldn't like to see a naked model on top of the Vatican. For these people the mountain is their "Vatican". But one can ask for a concession or a special permission to do this that or the other. It can't hurt to ask...

http://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/92206654/Someone-seeing-model-pose-nude-on-Mt-Taranaki-would-be-pretty-horrified-says-DOC
 
Actress Kim Cattrail posed naked on the bridge of the Enterprise and Leonard Nimoy got really pissed off.
 
Back
Top Bottom