Christian groups slam Golden Compass

[Not Afraid]

Originally Posted by Nephythys

How does Narnia do that- you yourself have said you did not pick up on the religious undertones when you read the book. The movie is even less obvious-

No, and I didn't pick up that the Pullman books were anti-Catholic. So, that means the Catholic argument is moot.

[Tref]

Originally Posted by Chernabog

Maybe I should hand you some extra lynchin' rope for that march, because your strawman is losing its stuffing.

We are not talking about child pornography, we are talking about themes that may or may not exist in a movie -- but you wouldn't know that because you haven't seen it (and, FYI reviews of the film indicate that those themes aren't there). I mean, at the very LEAST read some detailed reviews and analysis before deciding whether to protest. I tried to point out that although you may have objections to the source material, that doesn't mean it was translated to screen in that same way.

But yes, we can all agree that child pornography is bad stuff. I guess you've won there.

Edit: OK so perhaps "idiots" was too strong a word. I'll just say "fundamentally misguided" and leave it at that.

Haha! Bully for you! I have been taken down a peg, what?

Hmm, but methinks, somebody has been been into the sugarbowl again! So, pull up your little rocking chair and let's have a talk.

Yes, yes, my little one, child pornography is bad. Very bad. Made by the bad-man.

But you see, lil' punkin', what I was really saying was ... well ... I just don't want you to worry about the protests, OK? There really aren't any. Nobody is going to get lynched and the strawmen are just figures of speech.

You see, some Catholics, not all, but some, are worried that this film could influence children to read the books by which the movie was based and they contain a lot of anti-Catholic rhetoric. Heavy stuff that the movie intentionally watered down. These concerned parents want their children to know the teachings of Jesus and the Church He founded before they set them loose on the world to discover the other side on their own. And you know what? That's their right because they are the parents. The Catholic Church, or, people purportedly speaking for them have come out and warned these parents against taking their children to the movie. That's all.

And you know what, despite what you might think, these parents do not have to view the film to come to this conclusion. Nope. They are free to do what they want.

And you are too!

That's right -- you!

Oh yeh, one more thing: now, I do not where you get off responding to me as you did. I only questioned if the word, "idiot" was not a little strong. I can see you are clearly passionate about something, Chern' --- I am just not sure what.

[Chernabog]

Originally Posted by Tref

But you see, lil' punkin', what I was really saying was ... well ... I just don't want you to worry about the protests, OK? There really aren't any. Nobody is going to get lynched and the strawmen are just figures of speech.

Sorry, DEAR, but you were the one with the "onward march" statement. I just ran with the imagery. My reference to a "straw man" referred to your strawman argument where you changed the argument to something that everyone could agree upon (child porn is bad!) in an attempt to discredit the unrelated argument.

The Catholic Church, or, people purportedly speaking for them have come out and warned these parents against taking their children to the movie. That's all.

Sure. And I still think their reasoning is baseless, for reasons I've already said in this thread.

And you know what, despite what you might think, these parents do not have to view the film to come to this conclusion. Nope. They are free to do what they want.

And you are too!

That's right -- you!

You're really working on this type of argument technique aren't you? Yes, of course the parents are free to do what they want. Everyone can agree on that. So I guess you've "won" again! (And I never argued your first sentence, so you're putting words into my mouth also *sigh*)

Oh yeh, one more thing: now, I do not where you get off responding to me as you did. I only questioned if the word, "idiot" was not a little strong. I can see you are clearly passionate about something, Chern' --- I am just not sure what.

You responded in a manner that read like you not only took great offense to what I said, but that you indeed were one of the "idiots".... err "fundamentally misguided" persons that were protesting the film. So really, pardon me for responding in kind.

[Snowflake]

Gotta say it Cherny, those non-Bjork b00bies are sort of freakin me out. Will you be going back to a regularly scheduled avatar sometime? Assuming, of course, that those are non-Bjork

[Tref]

Originally Posted by Chernabog

...

My response had nothing to do with child abuse, Chern. I gave an extreme example and a simplistic example about an apple. Thankfully, you have nothing against apples. So here it is again: I don't need to see it to know what is inside. That's it. That's all I was saying.

Now do you get it?

I don't know if we have ever talked before but maybe we shouldn't talk again. To my way of thinking, all this pettifoggery is just not worth it. I think your reply was overly reactionary and mean-spirited. Clearly, I failed in getting my point across and I apologise, but there are not enough hours in the day for me to want to answer anger-fueled crap like this. If you want to debate something I said -- go ahead, but make sure you know what I am talking before you get on your soapbox.

The second most annoying aspect of this whole thing is that, so far as I can see -- nobody ever protested anything. But if a group of "idiots" want to -- they can and with my blessing, because, really, who gives a sh*t? Not me. Why should I? I may disaprove but so what?

Relax, Chern. Pick and choose your fights. Clearly, this was not the right one for you.

Now, if you want to disect this post -- go ahead. If it makes you feel smarter then me -- cool. But this is the end of line for me.

[Chernabog]

Originally Posted by Tref

My response had nothing to do with child abuse, Chern. I gave an extreme example and a simplistic example about an apple. Thankfully, you have nothing against apples. So here it is again: I don't need to see it to know what is inside. That's it. That's all I was saying.

Now do you get it?

I understood what you were saying. I disagreed and gave an example of why it was off topic. Obviously, there's some kind of communication error between what I am writing and what you are reading, and perhaps I am just not clear enough in my intent, which was not to be mean, hurtful, or anything like that. I picked apart an argument that I found invalid, and you took that as a personal attack.

I don't know if we have ever talked before but maybe we shouldn't talk again. ...

Actually I find your usual posts completely hysterical (when they're meant to be funny, of course). I do find it odd that you hate me after a few posts, but if you want to stick me on ignore, so be it.

Relax, Chern. Pick and choose your fights. Clearly, this was not the right one for you.

It isn't like I'm horrifically upset over this issue; I just gave my opinion... so I'm thoroughly confused by this statement.

Now, if you want to disect this post -- go ahead. If it makes you feel smarter then me -- cool. But this is the end of line for me.

Me too, because I've obviously struck a nerve and this is slightly out of hand (especially for this board).