by BluePill2 241 Replies latest jw friends
So screw you and that hearing-impaired donkey you rode in on.....KS
LOL!!..
Your not as Sensitive to the Deaf as you Pretend..
You blew your whole arguement(Pages and Pages) with that one line..
Just curious are you using speech recognition program on your computer?..
The computer does all the writing as you speak..
...................... 
...OUTLAW
OUTLAW SAID:
Your not as Sensitive to the Deaf as you Pretend..
You blew your whole arguement(Pages and Pages) with that one line..
Uh, Obvious Guy says to note that the donkey is hearing-impaired, and is an animal: hell, make him blind, too, as animals are not protected under the ADA (unless PETA has something to say about insults to donkeys)....
JP said:
A thing--a word, a gesture, a topic, a discussion, etc.--is only offensive if it offends us, and as obvious as that might sound, we really can choose, if we want, to not be offended by things.
True, within limits: beauty or ugliness is A PERCEPTION that exists in the "eye" of the beholder, and ALL images are inherently neutral, with no meaning if not viewed. The REACTION is based on the pre-existing conceptions of the viewer (and that was the point made by the McGurk video I made, how prior experience with visual input effects what our brain "hears").
BUT the caveat is that certain community standards DO exist, and in a World with bigotry and discrimination exist, there ARE accepted limits for decency that precludes some inflammatory SYMBOLS to be expressed.
Nevertheless, since we seemingly have some 'experts' here who willing to tell the rest of us what WE should find as 'offensive' or not (although they ironically seem to admit that perception IS SUBJECTIVE, and not OBJECTIVE? How can THAT be, then, daring to say what they don't think is offensive?)
Anyway, let's see what the panel of experts say? Which of these images are offensive, or illicit a giggle, mockery, or nothing?
ARNOLD POSE
BOWLING
Baseball
Stride
Soccer
KS - Yes, it is.... Can we just leave it on that note, or can I say one more thing?
One more thing? 4 pages scrolling for one more thing?
You are rapidly becoming a major bore. Between your nasty bedside manner and your self indulgent tirades nobody reads, I have, reflexively, started skipping past your posts.
Glander said:
One more thing? 4 pages scrolling for one more thing?
You are rapidly becoming a major bore. Between your nasty bedside manner and your self indulgent tirades nobody reads, I have, reflexively, started skipping past your posts.
No one forces you to read anything, right? And remember: only YOU have the power to take or avoid offense, right?
One last set of pix: anyone of our outrage judges see anything below that you'd say crosses the line, or warrants getting offended (or not)?
.jpg)
Allow me to guess that there's going to be NO agreement, which is why the wisest course is to NOT use possibly-offensive images for agendas unrelated to the image itself (eg the last one about arguing on the internet, and the chicken image are defo eyebrow raisers). So smeone used a WT video of ALS making a prurient gesture to somehow try to exploit it into a diatribe about the evils of the WT cult. That's silly ideation, and pushing questionable boundaries.
Bottom line: If you cannot anticipate the response from such attempted hijackings of other's content for your own purposes, it only makes YOU look like this guy below when you're simply appealing to the basest brainstems of those who find this guy worth viewing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jl4jeqzdEiI&has_verified=1
THAT'S a demonstration of the power on YT of what a keyword like "masturbation" gets: 100k hits, easily, mostly from pre-pubescent teens looking for shiggles to kill some after-school time (actual nudity/porn is verboten on YT). You gonna take down WT with that? Yeah, sure.... That's not a reasonable premise in anybody's book....
rebel8
The cult should not be talking about this subject under any circumstances.
The cult should not make a video with graphic "jack off" gestures under any circumstances.
The dumbass interpreters shouldn't have agreed to make the video. It defies common sense.
It's that simple.
Well, I think your bias is showing through there just a tad.
1) I don't think this one is quite reasonable, unless you're going to hold all religions to this standard. I think the problem with the Society is that they feel too comfortable to go well beyond what even the Bible says on this topic (in which in this case, it never directly addresses it). People are going to ask, and they have to provide an answer. But I think they could've avoided a lot of criticism if they would simply say something along the lines of, "The Bible does not directly address the topic of masturbation. The Bible does encourage producing the 'fruitages of the spirit' which include self-control, so anything that would distract from us from that should be avoided." Or something.
2) This is a problem that you have with American Sign Language. It is quite graphic. But deaf people don't care, so get used to it (I guess?).
3) The Society ASL interpreters obviously didn't see a problem with the Society's message or with this aspect of ASL. I see your point though (I wouldn't have done it!).
Regards,
Jack
If someone just wants to masturbate gesture I will laugh, if they do it to tell people masturbating will make God sad and then threaten them with annhiliation and shunning, its offensive.
KS..
You did blow yourself out of the water..
All those pages and pages of words..
Then you fall on your sword in one sentence..
LOL!!..
I don`t know how posting pictures of special needs children will help..
They are all winners,but..
They can`t help you hold up,your failing arguement
At this point you may want to post a Chimp in a Tuxedo..
I`d still like to know if your using a voice recognition program..
...................... ...OUTLAW
Professor Newbie / King Solomon - the man who needs 2,300+ words to say "one more thing".
The man who spams this forum with off-topic pictures of people with disabilities to further his twisted agenda, and then accuses others of throwing people under buses in pursuit of theirs.
The man who loves to voice an opinion that people stopped being interested in days ago, but who still wants to ram it down people's throats anyway, because he thinks he knows better.
The man who comes out with such hate-filled venom toward those who dare to disagree with him as this:
empty, soul-sucking people like you nevertheless do manage to DISGUST me
encountering self-entitled people like you don't surprise me a bit, at my age
As far as the JW apologist crap: ever consider that it's petty, self-centered narcissistic individuals like you and BluePill who make it such a bitter, toxic environment in the JWs?
So screw you and that hearing-impaired donkey you rode in on
The man who clearly has no sympathy for the threat of shunning and what it does to individuals and families, and who thinks that all who disagree with the Watchtower should simply "vote with their feet", or are otherwise causing harm to others:
Many here on JWN are self-actualized enough to come up with an exit strategy, and simply vote with their feet and move on with their lives (novel concept, no?), putting on their big-kid undies and pay the price (DF/shun). Others fester in their mire, and try to drag others into their pain, or use ineffectual acting-out tirades that usually just blow up in their faces and hurts them when it's sloppily implemented.
The man who showed his true colours as a Watchtower apologist when, after only two months on the forum, as soon as the first WT scandal broke, he nailed his colors firmly to the mast by defending the Society to the hilt and viciously intimidating and character-assasinating any who saw the funny side or failed to agree with his apologist point of view.
Solomon, you have lost your crown, and you are nothing more than a pompous jerk with too much time on his hands and a burning allegiance to the Watch Tower Society. If you know what's good for you, you'll either apologize for your disgraceful attitude or you'll leave this forum in peace before you REALLY cross the line (assuming you haven't already done so) and the decision is taken from you. In my short time here, I've certainly seen people banned from this forum for less.
If that last part comes across as intimidation, that's how it was intended.
Cedars
I don't think this one is quite reasonable, unless you're going to hold all religions to this standard.
I am. Let me know what religions do the same and I'll start a thread criticizing them for it.
This is a problem that you have with American Sign Language.
I have a problem with "jack off" pantomimes being published on a religious website for anyone of any age to see. Doesn't matter what language it's in--that's totally irrelevant to me.
The Society ASL interpreters obviously didn't see a problem with the Society's message or with this aspect of ASL.
That's because they have no boundaries and common sense.
cedars, this guy isn't a Watchtower apologist, just because he happens to disagree with you on this one point. Yeah, things have gotten heated, but I don't think you can put all that on him.
Maybe we should just take a step back and calm down a little. In the end, nothing's gonna change anyway.
The Watchtower will still be anti-masturbation.
The [ASL using] deaf will still pantomime masturbating when communicating it.
Most of us will still laugh when we see that happen.
Thanks,
Jack
