--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" jstein@ wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> --- 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.
>
> Judy: 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.
>
> Robin: Well, Judy, is *this* determination you have made that my
categories of objective and subjective "doesn't enter into it" an
objective one?
>
> Objective and subjective get differentiated against the background of
reality. Reality being the way things really are. Now if you will permit
me to bring in the metaphor of God, objective versus subjective would
mean that where God favours one point of view over another, that point
of view would have the value of being more objective than the other
point of view which did not meet with God's favour (remember, we are/I
am using God as a metaphor for some omniscient vantage point from which
to see realitysince this vantage point created that reality).
>
> If someone's point of view about the Benneton ads can only be
subjective, then what is the point of arguing one way or the other? Are
you not, in the very act of arguing for the validity of your own take on
these ads, implying that your point of view is more 'objective' than
feste37's point of view? After all, if one can marshall a whole series
of arguments in support of one's 'subjective' point of view, does that
not add something more objective to that subjective point of view, and
therefore makes it more subjectively objective (if I can use that term)?
>
> I think that we all come at everything from our own subjective point
of view, granted. However the degree to which we feel the realness, the
oughtness, the rightness of that point of view surely has something to
do with our sense of what kind of purchase it is making on reality.
Reality being what really is the case.
>
> Feste37 did not express her point of view with the absolute notion it
was merely subjective. If she did this, she would have already realized
there really is no issue here, since it is just one person's
subjectivity versus another person's subjectivity.
>
> Now you chose to explain how your own point of view seemed more
reasonable, more in line with the facts, more what the Benneton people
were up to, than was feste37s point of view. Is this not in some sense
then putting the issue into a context where fact and truth mean
something? These are hardly concerns that are subjective.
>
> Whether in the final analysis your point of view and feste37's point
of view amount to what is purely subjective, the very need you felt to
buttress your case, to argue on behalf of its validity, must mean that
you deemed your point of view to be, at the very least, more
subjectively objective than feste37's point of view was subjectively
objective.
>
> If it is all a matter of pure subjectivity, and we can never establish
any standard of objective truth in discussing a matter like this, then
why was anything said for or against these different points of view?
>
> I sense that the very decisiveness, authoritativeness, and certainty
of what you have just told me borders on the subjective, and therefore I
am going to say this: Your peremptory assessment that there is nothing
that can be said in defence of my notion of degrees of objectivity
within a subjective point of view, is itself unbeknownst to you, a
subjective point of view.
>
> But I do not wish you become your enemy, Judy!
>
> And if one can decide something is just subjective, that in itself
participates in some certainty that this very assertion is objective.
This being so, in what sense does your judgment of the inapplicability
of my thesis become something other than objective? And moreover how
does this determination originate in a process that is other than the
same process you used to evaluate the tastefulness of the Benneton ads?
>
>
> > --- 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. :-)
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
> >
> >
> > > --- 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. :-)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
