--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra <no_reply@...> wrote: > > Here I have to disagree with Judy, feste37, because once I caught the quality > of experience that made you say what you said here, I found myself in > agreementat least so far as this: your perception/judgment goes deeper than > Judy's perception/judgmenteven though of course I can entirely understand > the 'truth' of what she sayit certainly is real for her. But what you say > here, just touches upon something I think almost everyone will miss. I felt > the same way about your comments about the segregation of women and men in > the TMO. I don't say I don't understand the extreme views of Mike D, I only > say that you have an honest and true experience, and it obviously gets at a > truth that I think Judy (and more obviously Mike D) miss. For Judy to be > objectively correct would mean your experience was false, imagined, purely > subjectively. This certainly it is not. It is subtle and real. Thank you for > speaking up, feste37.
I really don't get your definitions of "objective" and "subjective," Robin. Seems to me both feste and I are reporting our subjective reactions. I mean, if we could somehow force the Benneton people to tell us honestly whether they did or did not intend to be offensive, we might get at one genuinely objective truth about the campaign. (And even then, if they denied they were trying to offend, we couldn't be positive they were being honest.) But other than that, it's all purely subjective, as far as I can see. Objective correctness just doesn't enter into it. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" <feste37@> wrote: > > > > > > > > It's a disgusting picture and the Vatican is right to sue. Benetton has no > > message of "unhate" at all; it is just trying to get attention for itself > > so it can sell more of its stuff. All the pictures are disgusting, but most > > people have been brainwashed by the liberals into thinking that to protest > > against them would be homophobic. But it's really a matter of decency and > > fairness. Doctoring photos of world leaders in a way that is deliberately > > designed to be offensive is not fair use of the photo. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > The clothing line Benetton has long indulged in...uh...provocative > > > advertising. This time they've hit the jackpot, because the UNHATE > > > campaign showed images of world leaders getting over their hatred of > > > each other and actually kissing. You can see the complete set of images > > > -- the Pope kissing Ahmed Mohamed el-Tayeb, imam of the al-Azhar mosque > > > in Egypt; Obama kissing Hugo Chavez; Benjamin Netanyahu kissing the > > > leader of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas; North Korean dictator > > > Kim Jong-Il kissing South Korean President Lee Myung-bak; German > > > Chancellor Angela Merkel kissing French President Nicolas Sarkozy; and > > > Obama (again) kissing Chinese leader Hu Jintao at the following link > > > (slideshow about halfway down the page). > > > > > > http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/11/16/benetton-unhate-campaign-_n_1\ > > > 097329.html?ref=uk#s477307&title=The_Pope_and > > > > > > <http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/11/16/benetton-unhate-campaign-_n_\ > > > 1097329.html?ref=uk#s477307&title=The_Pope_and> > > > What makes this newsworthy, and interesting, is that Benetton has > > > withdrawn at least one of the campaign photos after protests from an > > > organization representing one of the people shown. Who, you might ask? > > > Could it be noted crazy persons Kim Jong-Il or Netanyahu? Or maybe > > > Obama, possibly feeling as if being portrayed kissing two world leaders > > > might make him seem...uh...promiscuous? > > > > > > Nope. The protest came from the Vatican, ironically defending the most > > > obviously closeted gay Pope in recent history. "Protesting at the > > > mocked-up picture, Federico Lombard, a spokesman for the Pope said: 'We > > > must express the firmest protest for this absolutely unacceptable use > > > of the image of the Holy Father, manipulated and exploited in a > > > publicity campaign with commercial ends. This shows a grave lack of > > > respect for the pope, an offence to the feelings of believers, a clear > > > demonstration of how publicity can violate the basic rules of respect > > > for people by attracting attention with provocation.'" > > > > > > > > > [http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/197241/slide_197241_477307_lar\ > > > ge.jpg?1321442898] > > > > > > Hilarious, if you ask me. It reminds me a little of the overreaction > > > here on FFL yesterday by deadender cultists to the suggestion that > > > they...uh...might belong to a cult. :-) > > > > > > It also reminds me of how a certain obsessive on this forum goes > > > bat-shit crazy every time someone suggests (not unreasonably) that she > > > might just have...uh...hidden reasons for stalking a few of her male > > > victims for decades. Can't have that. Hate is hate and love is love, > > > and never the twain shall meet. :-) > > > > > >
