B. C. Sunday strip, 7/4: Hart again lambastes the politically correct

[Winston_Bongo]

@blowero

Um, did I say he had to keep his opinions out of his strip? He can put all the opinions in he likes, and I can call him a douchebag if I like, just as many conservatives like to call Gary Trudeau names. Or does that 1st Amendment thing not apply to me?

Actually, what you said was “Only if they’re douchebag opinions, and you can’t keep them out of your cartoons.” You gave the impression that it wasn’t just his opinions that offended you, but the fact that he cannot keep them to himself. I’m relieved to hear that you don’t actually think he should have to.

You’re the one who’s losing his grip. :rolleyes:

I was expressing disagreement through explanation, while you were, at first, simply name-calling. Which seems more reactionary?

I called him a douchebag. ONE sentence: “Johnny Hart is a douchebag.” That’s it - one sentence. What other claims are you imagining that I made? You need to calm down.

Actually, the specific part you’re referring to wasn’t directed at you, but at **alison ashley ** – she also called him a “douchebag,” while at the same time claiming to be open-minded.

Now the real question is, have we said the word “douchebag” enough?

[blowero]

@Winston Bongo

Actually, what you said was “Only if they’re douchebag opinions, and you can’t keep them out of your cartoons.” You gave the impression that it wasn’t just his opinions that offended you, but the fact that he cannot keep them to himself.

I gave no such impression. If you are a cartoonist, and you constantly put right-wing reactionary drivel into your cartoons, and said cartoons are consistantly devoid of humor, then I am going to critcize you, and yes, maybe even call you a name. There is no implication as to anyone’s First Amendment rights there. xvxdarkknightxvx characterized me as saying that merely having opinions makes one a douchebag, which was complete bullshit. So I countered it. Was it really that hard for you to understand?

I’m relieved to hear that you don’t actually think he should have to.

You shouldn’t have jumped to such a stupid conclusion in the first place.

I was expressing disagreement through explanation, while you were, at first, simply name-calling. Which seems more reactionary?

I’m sorry, when were we discussing who is “reactionary”?

You made a completely unwarranted reference to First Amendment rights that had nothing to do with what I said, and then you said this:

Geez, the hypocrisy here is astounding sometimes.

When there was no hypocrisy. So yes, YOU are the one who needs to get a grip. So please do so, and stop wasting everyone’s time.

Hart is a douchbag, and I will say so any time I feel so inclined, any day of the week, and twice on Tuesday.

[Winston_Bongo]

@blowero

I gave no such impression.

Um, yes, you did. I will repeat, one more time, that you said you would consider someone a (here it comes again, folks!) douchebag if you have “douchebag opinions, and” – pay attention now – “you can’t keep them out of your cartoons.” That does indeed give the impression that Hart’s inability to restrain his own expression offended you as much as his opinions themselves. If that’s not what you meant, fine, but it’s what you said, ergo my sarcastic 1st Amendment comment.

You shouldn’t have jumped to such a stupid conclusion in the first place.

And here I thought I was being courteous by admitting I may have misunderstood you. Yet again you counter by using terms like “stupid.” How classy.

So yes, YOU are the one who needs to get a grip. So please do so, and stop wasting everyone’s time.

“Wasting everyone’s time” here defined as “disagreeing with blowero.”

Since you clearly will not or cannot present a rational argument without losing your temper, I’ll get off the subject now. I’ve presented my views and some, like Eve, have responded with respectable arguments. Others seem to prefer Pit-style tactics, so feel free to call me a douchebag if it will make you feel better. :rolleyes:

[blowero]

Either take it to the pit, or shut the fuck up.

[alison_ashley]

Originally Posted By Winston Bongo
I’m glad you at least acknowledge his right to express himself, but you still sound contradictory. The act of calling someone a douchebag based on his opinions is itself indicative that you do not, in fact, have an open mind about those opinions. Which, by the way, is fine with me – I don’t have an open mind toward the opinions of those I regard as “douchebags” either. But let’s not try to have it both ways, claiming open-mindedness while also engaging in name-calling.

This is very simple. I approach a BC strip with an open mind. I read the strip. I form an opinion on the strip, and after reading many of these strips, I form an opinion on the author. I consider him a douchebag. I am open-minded, but that doesn’t mean I need to be wishy washy. One can be willing to consider other viewpoints and still disagree with these viewpoints. I do not need to choose between agreeing with everyone and being Archie Bunker.

[Winston_Bongo]

@alison ashley

This is very simple. I approach a BC strip with an open mind. I read the strip. I form an opinion on the strip, and after reading many of these strips, I form an opinion on the author. I consider him a douchebag. I am open-minded, but that doesn’t mean I need to be wishy washy. One can be willing to consider other viewpoints and still disagree with these viewpoints. I do not need to choose between agreeing with everyone and being Archie Bunker.

Okay, point taken. If that’s the process you’ve gone through in order to arrive at your negative view of the author, I’ve no argument with you personally. But when some people on the SDMB post brief comments that so-in-so sucks, is a douchebag, probably clubs baby seals, etc., as if such statements are a given and need no justification, it merely gives the impression that the poster hasn’t put much real thought into it. Thus I start to question just how open-minded they really are.

Okay, I’m really done now. Off to buy a great big box of candy for blowero!

[Psycho_Pirate]

@dougie_monty

Incidentally, the notion that God is a “trinity” doesn’t pass muster with me.

It does with me.
John 1:3, 1:10; Eph. 3:9; Col 1:16; Heb 1:2; 2 Cor 13:14; 1 Pet 1:1-2; 1 John 5:7

@blowero

Hart didn’t just say “I believe in God”, he said “If school children aren’t forced to pledge allegiance to God, then the country will fall apart.”

No, he isn’t saying that kids should be “forced” to pledge allegiance to God. He is saying that the words “under God” shouldn’t be removed from the pledge. Kids aren’t forced to say the pledge today. If there are kids who don’t want to say the pledge with the words “under God”, let them sit down or cover their mouths during that part. If they have convictions, they should stand up for them, instead of trying to remove something they (incorrectly, IMHO) consider an establishment of religion.

[Chronos]

If they have convictions, they should stand up for them, instead of trying to remove something they (incorrectly, IMHO) consider an establishment of religion.

I’m confused. Trying to remove something that goes against one’s convictions is somehow not standing up for one’s convictions?

[blowero]

@Winston Bongo

Okay, point taken. If that’s the process you’ve gone through in order to arrive at your negative view of the author, I’ve no argument with you personally. But when some people on the SDMB post brief comments that so-in-so sucks, is a douchebag, probably clubs baby seals, etc., as if such statements are a given and need no justification, it merely gives the impression that the poster hasn’t put much real thought into it. Thus I start to question just how open-minded they really are.

If you have something to say about somebody, you ought to come out and say it. Please stop with this “some people” nonsense. Quit taking these passive-aggressive ambiguous potshots and just be a man.

[blowero]

@Psycho Pirate

No, he isn’t saying that kids should be “forced” to pledge allegiance to God. He is saying that the words “under God” shouldn’t be removed from the pledge. Kids aren’t forced to say the pledge today. If there are kids who don’t want to say the pledge with the words “under God”, let them sit down or cover their mouths during that part. If they have convictions, they should stand up for them, instead of trying to remove something they (incorrectly, IMHO) consider an establishment of religion.

This is clearly disingenuous. You know perfectly well that if the pledge contained the words “under no God”, or “under atheism”, you would NEVER accept the solution of Christian students sitting down or covering their mouths. Never. The only proper solution is for it to be religiously neutral, AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN.

I have absolutely no problem with people being religious, nor do I have a problem with them talking about it. But why do you always have to FORCE it on other people?

[blowero]

And since you refuse to shut up about this, Winston Bongo, I guess I’ll have to SHUT you up.

@Winston Bongo

Um, yes, you did. I will repeat, one more time, that you said you would consider someone a (here it comes again, folks!) douchebag if you have “douchebag opinions, and” – pay attention now – “you can’t keep them out of your cartoons.”

I just can’t tell you how annoying your mock condescension is. You are the one who can’t pay attention. Again, I said merely having an opinion does not make one a douchebag, BUT if your opinions are obnoxious, AND you put them in your cartoons, you will be criticized by me. What exactly is so difficult for you to understand here?

That does indeed give the impression that Hart’s inability to restrain his own expression offended you as much as his opinions themselves. If that’s not what you meant, fine, but it’s what you said, ergo my sarcastic 1st Amendment comment.

No, it is NOT what I said. I am not offended merely by people expressing their opinions. I never said that, I never thought it, and I never implied it. Do you understand these words that I am writing to you now? I think this is pretty much English I am writing.

And here I thought I was being courteous by admitting I may have misunderstood you. Yet again you counter by using terms like “stupid.” How classy.

Sir, you are anything BUT courteous. You need to take a good, hard look at yourself.

“Wasting everyone’s time” here defined as “disagreeing with blowero.”

Is that more of your “courtesy”? I define wasting time as refusing to drop your silly insistence that I not be allowed to express my opinion of Johnny Hart, and your foolish belief that I am violating Hart’s First Amendment rights.

Since you clearly will not or cannot present a rational argument without losing your temper, I’ll get off the subject now.

Promises, promises…

I’ve presented my views and some, like Eve, have responded with respectable arguments. Others seem to prefer Pit-style tactics, so feel free to call me a douchebag if it will make you feel better. :rolleyes:

Physician, heal thyself. :rolleyes:

I’m serious - if you want to do this, start a Pit thread, and I will be more than happy to have a knock-down drag-out with you. Otherwise, you need to drop it. Now.

[Winston_Bongo]

@blowero

I’m serious - if you want to do this, start a Pit thread, and I will be more than happy to have a knock-down drag-out with you. Otherwise, you need to drop it. Now.

Why would I want to Pit a sweet guy like you, blowero? In fact, I might just add a nice big fruit basket to that box of candy.

Spreadin’ the love.

[blowero]

@Winston Bongo

Why would I want to Pit a sweet guy like you, blowero? In fact, I might just add a nice big fruit basket to that box of candy.

Spreadin’ the love.

That’s more like it.

[Yookeroo]

Can’t we just dump the Pledge altogether. I find it somewhat embarassing that we have our kids say it everyday. Are we so insecure as a nation?

[tomndebb]

Kids aren’t forced to say the pledge today. If there are kids who don’t want to say the pledge with the words “under God”, let them sit down or cover their mouths during that part. If they have convictions, they should stand up for them, instead of trying to remove something they (incorrectly, IMHO) consider an establishment of religion.

I suspect that you may wish to pay a bit more attention to the news.

Children in several states (notably in California, whence the current uproar originated), are forced to say the Pledge (the Supreme Court’s ruling during WWII that they should not be so compelled, notwithstanding).

Now, you are sort of correct that, (based on the SCOTUS ruling), any child who objects may opt out. However, there is a long a glorious tradition in this country of subjecting people of concience to harrassment, abuse, and punishment. (Run a search for “pledge AND teacher” and you will easily find several stories of Dopers who were, indeed, harrassed, abused, and even punished at (and by) their schools for simply choosing to sit out the PoA.

Your position is that a small child in a culturally threatening situation should simply paint a target on their forehead and make a principled stand against hypocrisy.

I would prefer to see the schools stop placing children in a position to be harrassed by imposing a loyalty pledge that has no corresponding rite in any free country in the world.

[rjung]

@Yookeroo

Are we so insecure as a nation?

Are you kidding? This country’s so freakin’ insecure that a half-second nipple flash from Janet Jackson sends people into spasms of horror.

This country’s so insecure that Michael Moore gets branded as a traitor for daring to (Gasp!) criticize the President.

This country’s so insecure that when the government tells us the best protection against terrorists and WMDs is to mummify our homes in duct tape and plastic wrap, we believe it.

This country’s so insecure that when a longtime ally like France refuses to support our damn fool war in Iraq, we retaliate by introducing “freedom fries” to the lexicon of dining.

This country’s so insecure that the suggestion of letting gay people get married is cited as an impending sign of Armageddon.
…and just to close the circle…

…this country’s so effing insecure that many folks believe that the only thing preventing it from descending into a neverending spiral of doom and despair are the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.

[dougie_monty]

Originally posted by Psycho Pirate:
It does with me.
John 1:3, 1:10; Eph. 3:9; Col 1:16; Heb 1:2; 2 Cor 13:14; 1 Pet 1:1-2; 1 John 5:7
[/QUOTE]

Here are the verses you cited (not from the King James Version):
John 1:3, 10:
“All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.
“What has come into existence…”
“He was in the world, and the world came into existence through him, but the world did not know him.”
2 Corinthians 13:14:
“The undeserved kindness of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the sharing in the holy spirit be with all of you.”
Ephesians 3:9:
“and should make men see how the sacred secret is administered from, the indefinite past been hidden in God, who created all things.”
Colossians 1:15, 16 [note that I include verse 15]
“He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities.”
Hebrews 1:2:
“[God] has at the end of these days spoken to us by means of a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the systems of things.”
1 Peter 1:1,2:
“Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the temporary residents scattered about in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, to the ones chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, with sanctification by the spirit, for the purpose of their being obedient and sprinkled with the blood of Jesus Christ:
“May undeserved kindness and peace be increased to you.”
As for the “Trinity” itself, my sources for its definition are: The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XV, p. 47; Basis of membership in the World Council of Churches, The Christian Century, January 10, 1962, pp. 44, 46; and The Athanasian Creed, quoted in Cyclopediua of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, by John M’Clintock and James Strong, Vol. II, pp. 560, 561. (These are too voluminous for me to quote here.)
I prepared the Scripture quotations from an interlinear volume that uses the Westcott and Hort Greek Text (1948 Macmillan edition), which has been used for many modern translations of the New Testament, including the Revised Standard Version of 1952.
And the scriptures you have quoted do not, near as I can make out, support the doctrine of the Athanasian Creed of a three-persons-in-one-God entity (cf. John 17:3; Mark 15:34.)