Christian censorship: Atheist billboard taken down

[Granite]

So just to be clear, you think they should wait until a month with no religious holidays to post this?

In that case, Christians should wait until the pagan winter solstice celebrations (which were in place first) are over to celebrate Jesus' birthday, instead of plopping it down right on top of it.

I know how Christians hate when other people copy their ideas of theft.

He's essentially asking non-believers to sit down and shut up. Because, ya know, a billboard might be construed as "tasteless."

You know what else could be called tasteless? The garish, hideous, carnal, money-driven, manic, crass, and brutal "holiday" season, along with all the ads filthy lucre can buy.

Or perhaps an objective observer could call billboards featuring the corpses of children somewhat "tasteless." Just a thought.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

I find it tasteless in its timing, as I'd find someone discussing their opposition to marriage in the midst of one...

We've already been over this, Town, more than once. Atheism says nothing about Christmas specifically. Many atheists, as people, have no problem with Christmas, and in fact many atheists celebrate it (despite rejecting the narrative basis for the holiday).


When you talk about 'discussing their opposition to marriage' you are talking about the ideological content of that discussion. You are talking about the opposition of the message under a certain context. Let us see what you said about that earlier.

It's not that they're atheists or have an atheistic message...

lain:

Very clearly it is. You betray your true sentiments.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

He's essentially asking non-believers to sit down and shut up.

That was the nature of my rebuke. His usage of the term "Dominant culture" evokes that sense of entitlement.

 

[Dialogos]

And atheists remain the most misunderstood and feared minority in this country...as badly as you guys seem to want that title.

Misunderstood?

You deny the existence of God. And place extreme faith in naturalistic means to explain the complexities in the face of the paucity o scientific evidence to verify those presuppositions.

Not much to misunderstand.

As far as being "feared."

That's silly.

you are a bunch of annoying whiners that are constantly crying about the slightest public demonstrations of faith.

 

[Granite]

Misunderstood?

You deny the existence of God. And place extreme faith in naturalistic means to explain the complexities in the face of the paucity o scientific evidence to verify those presuppositions.

Not much to misunderstand.

As far as being "feared."

That's silly.

you are a bunch of annoying whiners that are constantly crying about the slightest public demonstrations of faith.

Public opinion polls bear out what I said. So does your bizarre post.

 

[Town Heretic]

So just to be clear, you think they should wait until a month with no religious holidays to post this?

No, I think you should try to organize an anti marriage group right slap dab in the middle of a wedding party if it suits you. But if and when you do, when you specifically aim to do that, it speaks to something and I'll speak to that, as I did.

Okay let us recap this:

TOWN: It's not that they're atheists or have an atheistic message, I find the timing tasteless.

In a nutshell. The why I set out among the three or four differing objections by you and rex and fool and fly and others.

DS: Nonsense, If it were an iPhone advert, with the same timing, you wouldn't be calling it tasteless.

I'm not sure why you decided to truncate a full answer on this point and pretend the incomplete was a complete answer, but you might want to omit the "A)" next time. It sort of gives what you're doing away. And if you're going to do that I'll just direct anyone reading that misrepresentation of my response to my prior posts.

He's essentially asking non-believers to sit down and shut up.

No, not even a little.

We've already been over this, Town, more than once. Atheism says nothing about Christmas specifically.

I answered on this point, DS, more than once.

Many atheists, as people, have no problem with Christmas, and in fact many atheists celebrate it (despite rejecting the narrative basis for the holiday).

I also mentioned that as an atheist I worked with the faithful and had no particular problem with them, just a disagreement.

When you talk about 'discussing their opposition to marriage' you are talking about the ideological content of that discussion.

No, I'm speaking to the crassness of picking a wedding to hold up a sign saying, "Don't believe in marriage? You're not alone."

Very clearly it is. You betray your true sentiments.

Rather, you illustrate a certain level of frustration by insisting I must believe the thing you need me to so you can attack it.

That was the nature of my rebuke. His usage of the term "Dominant culture" evokes that sense of entitlement.

Rather, it's part of a larger statement, without the odd capitalization and as with your last lends an impression that can be easily dispelled by actually and fairly reading me, which doesn't seem to be your wheel house on this topic, sadly.

Gentlemen. :e4e:

 

[shagster01]

No, I think you should try to organize an anti marriage group right slap dab in the middle of a wedding party if it suits you. But if and when you do, when you specifically aim to do that, it speaks to something and I'll speak to that, as I did.

Again, much like religion likes to put their stuff right over other celebrations.

 

[Town Heretic]

Again, much like religion likes to put their stuff right over other celebrations.

A different animal. You're talking about the historical practice of more than one religion and most conquerors who carry their culture and faith with them and tend to strong arm the conquered. But the people who did that are generations dead and the practices are now part of the indigenous culture and practice of most.

Or, I suppose if you want to ignore that the easiest response is that two wrongs don't make an airplane.

 

[shagster01]

A different animal. You're talking about the historical practice of more than one religion and most conquerors who carry their culture and faith with them and tend to strong arm the conquered. But the people who did that are generations dead and the practices are now part of the indigenous culture and practice of most.

Or, I suppose if you want to ignore that the easiest response is that two wrongs don't make an airplane.

The argument that, "what we did needs to stop before you do it because..."

 

[quip]

What insidious nonsense!

It's nothing of the sort. I've set out why.

I tend to agree with the former. You've set out at a rather myopic and disappointing display of partisan rationalization TH.

 

[quip]

That's the OP's goal.....just borrowing a motif from a ready supply.

 

[Town Heretic]

The argument that, "what we did needs to stop before you do it because..."

We? I never did. I know a long time ago a lot of dead people co-opted and conquered. History is replete with that sort of thing. Those of us born generations later grow up in the impact and traditions. None of us had our lands or beliefs taken from us or took them from another.

Now if the aim of the atheists here is to co-opt you should train your ire on them. But if the aim of the billboard isn't to co-opt, as a few on your side have argued, if it's to offer comfort to those distressed or alienated I've suggested waiting until the week of Christmas seems ill suited and worse, it runs into the perception that offends you.

And I've noted by illustration of the sign and the wedding party that trading needlessly on the celebration of others is in poor taste, which remains my objection.

I tend to agree with the former. You've set out at a rather myopic and disappointing display of partisan rationalization TH.

I was just thinking the exact same thing about this response at least as it involves consideration of a small but sustainable objection. That's life for you.

I think, in short the makers of the sign were being calculatedly rude and that the objections to my noting it have been all over the board, but rarely touching upon that actual point. So if you want to defend holding up that sign in the midst of the wedding party go to, but I think it doesn't make you free or progressive or open minded.

 

[quip]

I was just thinking the exact same thing about this response at least as it involves consideration of a small but sustainable objection. That's life for you.

Appropriate statured objection to a likewise personal take of the matter. :idunno:

I think, in short the makers of the sign were being calculatedly rude and that the objections to my noting it have been all over the board, but rarely touching upon that actual point. So if you want to defend holding up that sign in the midst of the wedding party go to, but I think it doesn't make you free or progressive or open minded.

TH: the arbitrator of rudeness?

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

No, I think you should try to organize an anti marriage group right slap dab in the middle of a wedding party if it suits you. But if and when you do, when you specifically aim to do that, it speaks to something and I'll speak to that, as I did.

This is a false analogy, as has been copiously demonstrated.
Atheism is not Anti-Christmas. The comparison is utter hogwash. You still have yet to address this point head on, and probably never will.

If eliciting negative responses and/or outrage, were a prerequisite for a tasteless billboard, then atheist billboards would be "tasteless" year-round.

I'm not sure why you decided to truncate a full answer on this point and pretend the incomplete was a complete answer, but you might want to omit the "A)" next time. It sort of gives what you're doing away.

I didn't omit "A)" precisely so that people would know that it was part of a three part answer. This was intentional, your assumption of deception notwithstanding. You gave a three part answer, and I addressed all three parts, but Part A was the only part you denied being part of your argument. So allow me to lay it out for you.

You said that the billboard in question was tasteless, and in defense of that statement you stated that the timing is central to that statement, though obviously timing alone (as the iPhone example illustrated) wasn't the issue. You also included motive in that defense, though remaining vague on what exactly that entailed. So from this it appears that timing + Motive, is what makes the ad in poor taste. So in questioning you on what motive you suppose is behind the ad you gave a three part response: A, B, and C.

I responded to all three points, to which you gave a counter-response to only two. In essence, both points A & B are implicit in all ads, and I've said as much. You haven't argued or disputed that, and you don't appear to object to all ads. So what gives?

The argument being that the Timing, Motive A, and Motive B, are all non-specific to the atheist billboard in question, this only leaves Motive C. So why include A and B, at all?

From that I expected that perhaps you would then claim that points A, B, and C, were bad only in conjunction with each other; That on their own, each individual point could be benign. I was waiting for you to say something along those lines, but you never did. So neither did you offer any response regarding my rebuttal to point A, nor did you claim that "A on its own isn't bad, only in conjunction with the other points" (though I have a rebuttal for that claim as well). Instead you simply said "Not my argument" absent of any explanation of why point A was included at all if that wasn't your argument. lain:

From my perceptive, this just looks like you stonewalling.

No, I'm speaking to the crassness of picking a wedding to hold up a sign saying, "Don't believe in marriage? You're not alone."

The message is the necessary cause of the crass-ness of the act, right? If the sign had said something else, it would not have been crass. A sign that had said "Chapel this way ->" would not have been crass at a wedding. The message on the sign is what makes the difference. Denial of this is just bizarre.

 

[PureX]

Atheist Billboard in Alabama Gets Taken Down Two Weeks Early Following Complaints from Local Residents

First, that's not an offensive billboard.

Second, if the billboard company took it down, that's their own issue and responsibility. They may be held liable to the client, in a court, for that decision, … and maybe not.

If the government forced the sign to be taken down, that would clearly be a violation of free speech, and both the billboard company and the client should sue them for redress.

 

[shagster01]

We? I never did. I know a long time ago a lot of dead people co-opted and conquered. History is replete with that sort of thing. Those of us born generations later grow up in the impact and traditions. None of us had our lands or beliefs taken from us or took them from another.

So just to be clear. . .

Say your dad stole a car in his youth from another guy. You get the car in his will. His kids then claim the car and come to steal it back.

Your position on that would be, "Hey I didn't steal the car. I should be able to drive it without you bothering me about it since the person who stole it and passed it to me is dead. If you try to steal it back I'll tell you that two wrongs don't make an airplane. So leave me alone and quit trying to be offensive."

 

[Town Heretic]

This is a false analogy, as has been copiously demonstrated.

Not even once. I didn't say the guy holding the sign lacked a website plastered on it.

Atheism is not Anti-Christmas.

It is anti Christian in context. I didn't say it was anti Christmas, which has a strong secular component as well. You have this odd habit of straw shaping.

If eliciting negative responses and/or outrage, were a prerequisite for a tasteless billboard, then atheist billboards would be "tasteless" year-round.

I didn't say that was what made it tasteless. I said the timing and the calculated trading on that did. A bit different.

I didn't omit "A)" precisely so that people would know that it was part of a three part answer.

But then you treated it as though it was the answer, which is disingenuous.

You said that the billboard in question was tasteless

No, I said the timing was, repeatedly.

, and in defense of that statement you stated that the timing is central to that statement, though obviously timing alone (as the iPhone example illustrated) wasn't the issue.

The iphone attempt wasn't a parallel in any meaningful sense. It was only parallel in that it was an example of something you might find on a billboard. I wasn't objecting to billboards (though it wouldn't bother me if there weren't any).

You also included motive in that defense, though remaining vague on what exactly that entailed. So from this it appears that timing + Motive, is what makes the ad in poor taste.

Rather it's what the timing says about the placement, what their intent was in choosing that particular and that's where my wedding analogy comes in.

I'd differ with the billboard whenever it went up, but placing it, like that sign in my actual parallel, inside the particular context and willfully, calculatedly is both insensitive and tasteless.

 

[Town Heretic]

So just to be clear. . .

Say your dad stole a car in his youth from another guy. You get the car in his will. His kids then claim the car and come to steal it back.

Not quite on point. The law would say if you took possession without knowledge then you'd forfeit the car. But if you sold the car, then used part of that money to pay for you kids education and several generations later one of the victim's descendants tried to sue one of yours for money owed neither justice nor equity would be served and the claim would be dismissed. Time can mitigate obligation and establish different consequences.

Or to be closer, our nation builds an economic engine on the back of slavery and, a few hundred years later a descendant suggests you owe them a great deal of money. Do you?

 

[genuineoriginal]

So just to be clear. . .

Say your dad stole a car in his youth from another guy. You get the car in his will. His kids then claim the car and come to steal it back.

Your position on that would be, "Hey I didn't steal the car. I should be able to drive it without you bothering me about it since the person who stole it and passed it to me is dead. If you try to steal it back I'll tell you that two wrongs don't make an airplane. So leave me alone and quit trying to be offensive."

Your analogy does not hold up because you are comparing chattel (the car) with real property (land).

 

[Town Heretic]

TH: the arbitrator of rudeness?

TH, the arbiter of what he finds offensive and with reason. Sure. As are you and anyone who disparages and/or differs with it within the confines of your own noggins, which is a little bit funny when you think about it.

Okay, that's about as clear as I think I should have to be. I've spoken at length with a number of you and done my best to make my subjective valuation understood, share it or not. I can't think of what else there is for me to say, so if I don't get back to this anytime soon or at all don't be offended and I refer you to my many posts on point.

Enjoyed the heck out of that and many thanks. :cheers: