Anti-Christian Jeans Are a Trend in Sweden [Archive]

Vladimir

12-30-2005, 15:35

The other day I just read that article about the Muslim rapefest in Sweden and now I see this. Well I guess if you're going to attack religion it's best to attack one that isn't going to blow you up or rape your daughter.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,180171,00.html

Excerpts:

"It is an active statement against Christianity," Atldax told The Associated Press.

The label's makers say it's more of a joke, but Atldax insists his graphic designs have a purpose beyond selling denim: to make young people question Christianity, a "force of evil" that he blames for sparking wars throughout history

Apparently this trend is necessary because:

...Sweden , a secular country that cherishes its free speech and where churchgoing has been declining for decades.

I think OMFG is extremely appropriate in this situation. Oh and somebody [I]please say something about it being from FOX news. :tongueg:

Byzantine Prince

12-30-2005, 17:02

Lazul MF, get me a pair NOW!

LOL

See why I want to be Swedish? :loveg:

So much for my ANTI-Christ shirt. I need to make more.

Beirut

12-30-2005, 17:04

Gah!

To the Backroom and awayyyyyyyy...

Moved!

Rodion Romanovich

12-30-2005, 17:08

Attacking a religion that has been abused by being incorrectly interpreted isn't going to solve anything. The problem is that the catholic faith accepts almost all to bear the name of Christian, which makes the entire faith subjected to criticism when an abuser of the religion abuses it. Clearly, it's important for the Christian church to clarify what is Christianity and what isn't, and let non-Christians who abuse the faith only bear the name of "inspired by Christianity", but not the name "Christians". However, the church hasn't been much else than a system of collecting money for the church leaders during many centuries in history, and that's why they're more interested in as many as possible calling themselves Christian, rather than support moral values and make the faith clear.

What ought to be fought is the mammon-worshipping hypocritical leaders of church, and the preaching of heresy in the name of Christianity which has flourishes since the Nicaea church meeting and roman hijacking of the faith. Not the faith itself. People who fight the faith itself are clearly unable to see the causality, and are naive IMO.

Redleg

12-30-2005, 17:08

I saw it earlier - and I begin to wonder how long the thread would last in the Frontroom.

:ave:

Fragony

12-30-2005, 17:28

Well I guess if you're going to attack religion it's best to attack one that isn't going to blow you up or rape your daughter.

Everybody wants my job nowadays! :gring:

Lazul

12-30-2005, 17:37

Lazul MF, get me a pair NOW!

LOL

See why I want to be Swedish? :loveg:

So much for my ANTI-Christ shirt. I need to make more.

*Tosses BP a pair!*

here you go!

Man that article made me laugh, what are they trying to prove, that Swedes are a bounch of god-hating, homo-commies!? :gring:

*long sigh* Fox news... how I love to hate you.

Just couse we Swedes arent very religius doesnt mean we are perverted freaks, worshiping the christian anti-christ and so on.
We just dont give a crap what the priests have to say. :tongueg:

Vladimir

12-30-2005, 17:48

I don't know if it was trying to "prove" anything other than to report on a fact and some oddball fashon designer. Oh and that story is from the associated press . :tongueg:

Lazul

12-30-2005, 17:57

*puts on his "333 - Half Evil" t-shirt and starts chanting*

No but really, I dont see what the big deal is about. In stores you can easily pick up a t-shirt with some satanic-related symbol on it, maybe a hat with a Melteser Cross on (not nazi I know, but some people think so). Its not like its hard to find someone with a rather semi-offencive print on their cloth. :winkg:

Vladimir

12-30-2005, 18:01

BTW I'm stealing that 333 idea. ~:joker: ~:joker: ~:joker:

Byzantine Mercenary

12-30-2005, 21:41

methinks that there would be more resistance if instead of being anti christian the jeans were racist or sexist, why is it acceptable when its religion? heck it wouldn't even be accepted if the jeans were anti muslim or antisemetic

solypsist

12-30-2005, 21:43

these are no different than tshirts with che guevarra on them. it's only offensive if one has something to be gained politically by being offended by them.

Lazul

12-30-2005, 22:32

BTW I'm stealing that 333 idea. ~:joker: ~:joker: ~:joker:

ahaha go ahead, not my idea from the beginning....

... 665 - The neighbour of the Beast, thats a good one :tongueg:

Rodion Romanovich

12-30-2005, 23:16

I've also seen 555 used occasionally ~:), which I think is more popular than 333... :joker:

Idaho

12-31-2005, 00:18

The neighbour of the beast is 668. 665 would be across the street.

Muslim rapefest? Is the OP a member of combat 18 by any chance?

Alexanderofmacedon

12-31-2005, 00:27

They can really wear whatever they feel like wearing in my opinion...

Snowhobbit

12-31-2005, 01:10

Newer heard of that brand, neither has my trendy brother... Could it be that fox is spinning the story?

Alexanderofmacedon

12-31-2005, 01:39

That's probable...

Ironside

12-31-2005, 10:41

Newer heard of that brand, neither has my trendy brother... Could it be that fox is spinning the story?

They probably picked it up from Expressen. SvD mentions it to.

SvD Nöjesåret 2005 (http://www.svd.se/dynamiskt/noje/did_11423551.asp)
Expressen (http://www.expressen.se/index.jsp?a=490671)

Never heard about ot either, but googling it gives quite a bit of hits.

Lazul

12-31-2005, 11:47

Never seen this jeans myself in person... I live in a rather small town tho, could be couse of it. :gring:

Sjakihata

12-31-2005, 13:07

90% of stockholmians wear them - thats a fact - and you eat babies for breakfast and your skiislopes are covered in the blood of the elderly population and and and... :rtwno:

Meneldil

12-31-2005, 13:24

While I have no issue with the jean itself, I'm fairly sure that this kind of stuff directed to Islam would not be tolerated, and that the designer would get beheaded by some muslim nutjob.

Radier

12-31-2005, 13:49

While I have no issue with the jean itself, I'm fairly sure that this kind of stuff directed to Islam would not be tolerated, and that the designer would get beheaded by some muslim nutjob.

Exactly. As long as you do not disturb the muslim beast, it's ok...

Rodion Romanovich

12-31-2005, 14:42

Yes, that's one of the points in which the Christian church today deserve credits - it's members usually can take criticism about their religion, unlike many, but not all, muslims.

JAG

12-31-2005, 15:41

Get me one of those!

KukriKhan

12-31-2005, 15:48

https://img430.imageshack.us/img430/4921/cheapmondays1ej.th.jpg (https://img430.imageshack.us/my.php?image=cheapmondays1ej.jpg)

Pretty pricey for a pair of jeans.

The neighbour of the beast is 668. 665 would be across the street

Priceless:2thumbsup:

I had to look up C18 (& went: "Oh yeah, I remember"), which led to C786, which led to 786 numerology, which led....Damn you Idaho; you always get me hungry for more. :wink:

solypsist

12-31-2005, 16:20

those look kind of baggy on you - unless that's th style over there in Cali.

Pretty pricey for a pair of jeans.

Lazul

12-31-2005, 16:36

haha, first time i see actuall jeans! Com one! you cant even see the cross and skull unless your head is in the same level as the persons 'member'... and you have to pretty close as well to see it. Come to think of it, if your head is down there... your allready about to do something un-godly, so It wont be a problem with the skull anyway. :laugh4:

KukriKhan

12-31-2005, 17:10

those look kind of baggy on you - unless that's th style over there in Cali.

I've been informed by the local fashionistas that 'round here baggy = boy, tighty = girl, but both MUST have at least 3 inches extra leg length.:dizzy2:

p.s. I stole that pic-sequence from a Florida-based fashion forum, so you'll probably see some of those jeans on your January gig.

@Lazul: there's also a 2x3in leather patch with the skull logo on the right-rear beltline of those.

Soulforged

12-31-2005, 19:24

Not in Sweden, a secular country that cherishes its free speech and where churchgoing has been declining for decades.
Well done Sweden.:2thumbsup:

Byzantine Mercenary

12-31-2005, 20:18

these are no different than tshirts with che guevarra on them. it's only offensive if one has something to be gained politically by being offended by them.
i guess so, i was more talking about the whole issue in general how its somehow alright to hate cristians or talk about them in a way that would be considered racism if it was aimed at other groups such as jews or muslims.

Soulforged

12-31-2005, 20:23

i guess so, i was more talking about the whole issue in general how its somehow alright to hate cristians or talk about them in a way that would be considered racism if it was aimed at other groups such as jews or muslims.
You've a point there. But here we've a frase: "It goes all on tastes, said the old lady". Freedom of speech allows it, wheter you like it or not. I like it very much, though I'll not like one doing the same with "marginals" here. This are just personal opinions, there's nothing to argue here, but I understand your rejection.

Meneldil

12-31-2005, 20:57

i guess so, i was more talking about the whole issue in general how its somehow alright to hate cristians or talk about them in a way that would be considered racism if it was aimed at other groups such as jews or muslims.

Surely this is due to the fact that people who make fun of religious christians are christian themselves and thus can't be labeled as racists, while Muslims rarely make fun of other Muslims/Islam (the ones who do usually get in trouble quite quickly).
OTOH, if a christian makes fun of Islam or Judaism, he's obviously intolerant, racist or revisionist.

Byzantine Mercenary

12-31-2005, 21:21

Surely this is due to the fact that people who make fun of religious christians are christian themselves and thus can't be labeled as racists, while Muslims rarely make fun of other Muslims/Islam (the ones who do usually get in trouble quite quickly).
OTOH, if a christian makes fun of Islam or Judaism, he's obviously intolerant, racist or revisionist.
that is true in some areas, for instance protestants and catholoics have had problems coexisting in ireland but i think at least some of the opposition that i have heard of has come from atheists and agnostics.

AntiochusIII

12-31-2005, 22:01

at least some of the opposition that i have heard of has come from atheists and agnostics.Very few of those vehemently challenged religion beyond words and display of personal principles, especially the agnostic ones. 666 Jeans aren't killing Jesus Christ. Nobody needs to worry about anything.

Byzantine Prince

12-31-2005, 22:25

Let's get some facts straight before we make our "we can do this, why not that".

1. In many predominantly Christian countries Muslims are a minority. If you discriminate against any minorities you automatically get into trouble.

2. Most Muslims generally live in very traditionalist countries which are not so much different from the mideaval kingdoms of Europe where being critical of religion in any way got you tortured or killed, arguably in much worse ways I don't care enough to describe. But they were BAD.

3. Jews have been infamously persecuted by almost every nation in Europe and so they are a touchy subject for critisism, but they are not untouchable if the critisizm is fair.

Now Christianity is different from this because they are a majority and if you are white there is a huge chance you have had ancestors that were Christian, so you are not racist or whatever. Neither are Christians a minority yet, when they become a minority there will be laws against being so vehement towards them.

Byzantine Mercenary

12-31-2005, 23:09

Very few of those vehemently challenged religion beyond words and display of personal principles, especially the agnostic ones. 666 Jeans aren't killing Jesus Christ. Nobody needs to worry about anything.
yes but there is a fair amount of mocking that would be unacceptable if it was aimed at other religions

As i said earlyer im not aginst these trousers particularly just the attitude that christians are fair game to mock.

On the subject of being a minority i would dissagree, where i live in England they are quite a minority among my generation.

Shahed

01-01-2006, 01:06

I don't understand what's so anti-Christian about a pentagram or a Stanist cross, of course it's Satanist but that's it I guess. Did I miss something ?

KukriKhan

01-01-2006, 01:45

I don't understand what's so anti-Christian about a pentagram or a Stanist cross, of course it's Satanist but that's it I guess. Did I miss something ?

I don't think so, brother Sinan. Rather, I think it is anti-something (anything) marketing for highly-marked-up-in-price bluejeans, aimed at the always rebellious 12-25 year old crowd.

Soulforged

01-01-2006, 04:20

I don't understand what's so anti-Christian about a pentagram or a Stanist cross, of course it's Satanist but that's it I guess. Did I miss something ?
I believe that the point is that the same creator of the logo stated that his purpose was to decrease christianity in Sweden, I presume, appealing to the pop sense of the youth. A logo, a banner, a drawing or whatever has no meaning if it's not given by it's creator or by others, I suppose you can give him the meaning you want.

GoreBag

01-01-2006, 11:01

The label's makers say it's more of a joke, but Atldax insists his graphic designs have a purpose beyond selling denim: to make young people question Christianity, a "force of evil" that he blames for sparking wars throughout history.

Cheap Monday jeans are a hot commodity(...)

Is...uh...something not adding up? "Christianity's evil; buy my shiz!" Although worth a laugh, the whole thing is silly at best.

Byzantine Mercenary

01-01-2006, 17:05

i wonder if these jeans are made in sweatshops?

Strike For The South

01-01-2006, 20:05

https://img343.imageshack.us/img343/3378/rw3fm.jpg (https://imageshack.us)

https://img343.imageshack.us/img343/9427/heyfrance7up.th.jpg (https://img343.imageshack.us/my.php?image=heyfrance7up.jpg)

https://img343.imageshack.us/img343/5420/eqweqwewqe8ru.jpg (https://imageshack.us)

https://img343.imageshack.us/img343/8276/2costasqqqq9dj.jpg (https://imageshack.us)

https://img343.imageshack.us/img343/8015/communism7ez.th.jpg (https://img343.imageshack.us/my.php?image=communism7ez.jpg)

There just T-shirts

Strike For The South

01-01-2006, 20:05

Gah posted twice

Kralizec

01-01-2006, 20:44

I know those T shirts are only meant to be fun, but I have to mention a tiny little fact...

France and England (those red bastards in Russia bailed out) would have won WW1 even without the aid of America, it just would have taken longer. Germany, in her isolated position, would have starved in a matter of years and collapsed. France did not lose WW1 by any stretch of your imagination.

hellenes

01-02-2006, 06:57

Lazul

01-02-2006, 16:31

*sigh* France won WW1.... yet again, american ignorance shows its face.

:boxing:

"those red bastards in Russia bailed out"... ever heard of the Russian Revolution? :2thumbsup:

Kralizec

01-02-2006, 16:37

I did. It was Lenin who agreed to the peace of Brest-Litovsk, pulling themselves out of the war, leaving the other allies to fight the central powers (Germany etc), and on top they allowed Germany to keep lots of territories that had been part of Russia for centuries. Great deal there, Lenin ~:rolleyes:. Aside from being cowardly it also was incredibly stupid.

Lazul

01-02-2006, 16:40

so you think the reds could have defeated the whites and the germans at the same time? the war going horrible for them anyway.

Could also be so that at the moment, Lenin didnt give a rats ass about "capitalist" countries. :laugh4:

well never mind this, rather off topic.

Strike For The South

01-02-2006, 17:12

Agian there just T-shirts

Leet Eriksson

01-02-2006, 22:21

I do believe SFTS was being sarcastic.

Strike For The South

01-02-2006, 22:40

AntiochusIII

01-03-2006, 00:00

you are proving my pointWhat point could that be, if any?

Strike For The South

01-03-2006, 03:16

Redleg

01-03-2006, 03:56

Byzantine Prince

01-03-2006, 04:17

Redleg

01-03-2006, 04:40

Yes Redleg, that is a "brilliant" thought.
It kind of reminded me of this "brilliance"(in that it made me laugh):LINK - Colbert (http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=24039)

Notice the key phrases, "Who's britanica to tell me the panama canal was finished in 1914, if I was to say it hapened in 1941 that's my right" even if it is factually incorrect.

Well it didn't take long for someone to actually demonstrate my point, and miss the brilliance of what SFTS statement shows.

Strike For The South

01-03-2006, 04:53

Yes Redleg, that is a "brilliant" thought.
It kind of reminded me of this "brilliance"(in that it made me laugh):LINK - Colbert (http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=24039)

Notice the key phrases, "Who's britanica to tell me the panama canal was finished in 1914, if I was to say it hapened in 1941 that's my right" even if it is factually incorrect.

I didnt get it from there BP. Unfortunatly Im not this back ass hick someof yall think I am. And unless Clobert has copyrighted the pharse my right. Its a moot point

AntiochusIII

01-03-2006, 04:55

people can say whatever they want in most western countries and you shouldnt get worked up about it. So they hate God big deal its there buisness and if I think France lost WW1 or wouldve without gods gift to Earth the same people who were appulading these "free thinkers" for there jeans should appluad my backwardnessAs much as your statement shows an appreciation of one's...freedom of speech and opinion, to demand that people should "applaud" your "backwardness" is not, unfortunately, brilliance. It is spirited, perhaps, but obviously, ignorance should not be "applauded," unless you're gangstalicious. Indeed, their attempt to correct you by posting facts should not be disregarded so easily by the excuse of diversity of opinion. Facts are just facts. While it may be true, and in a way respectable, that they have the right to say you're dead wrong as much as you have the right to say you think you're right, on any other fields away from the basics their words would be more valid than you.

This, of course, is an example. I didn't get worked up about the T-shirt, hey.

Redleg, does your appreciation of strike for the south's statement partially based on your dislike of "free thinkers" based on a percieved hypocrisy? Does it...exist? ~;)

Papewaio

01-03-2006, 04:56

SFTS-san very good point. :bow:

High price jeans... so designer jeans, for the designer rebel.

Kind of reminds me of all the alternatives, wearing all the same alternative outfit.

Strike For The South

01-03-2006, 05:09

As much as your statement shows an appreciation of one's...freedom of speech and opinion, to demand that people should "applaud" your "backwardness" is not, unfortunately, brilliance. It is spirited, perhaps, but obviously, ignorance should not be "applauded," unless you're gangstalicious. Indeed, their attempt to correct you by posting facts should not be disregarded so easily by the excuse of diversity of opinion. Facts are just facts. While it may be true, and in a way respectable, that they have the right to say you're dead wrong as much as you have the right to say you think you're right, on any other fields away from the basics their words would be more valid than you.

I personally think these sweeds are ignorant and backwards to christianity now I am the free thinking rebel. They have no facts just opinons. Never once in this thread did someone refute me with facts. Agian there just T-shirts. I love how many people get a good luagh out of these christians when we get angry over when some one takes shots at our religon but when the tables are turned we are trying to hold the world back.

Alexanderofmacedon

01-03-2006, 05:24

It's cuz no one likes em~;)

Byzantine Prince

01-03-2006, 05:36

I didnt get it from there BP. Unfortunatly Im not this back ass hick someof yall think I am. And unless Clobert has copyrighted the pharse my right. Its a moot point
I never thought you were a hick despite the way you write( I know you do it in jest). I don't think anyone should applaud backwardness on general principle, and I don't see any brilliance in saying that, unles it's the comedic kind.

The reason I brought up Colbert is because that's the act he pulls perfectly and you reminded me of him. I almost took you humoursly but I couldn't be sure. Sorry if that's how you meant it.

Strike For The South

01-03-2006, 05:39

I never thought you were a hick despite the way you write( I know you do it in jest). I don't think anyone should applaud backwardness on general principle, and I don't see any brilliance in saying that, unles it's the comedic kind.

The reason I brought up Colbert is because that's the act he pulls perfectly and you reminded me of him. I almost took you humoursly but I couldn't be sure. Sorry if that's how you meant it.

Oh I thought you were saying I stole it. BP you need not fear for in this thread you are safe:2thumbsup:

AntiochusIII

01-03-2006, 05:40

I personally think these sweeds are ignorant and backwards to christianity now I am the free thinking rebel. They have no facts just opinons. Never once in this thread did someone refute me with facts. Agian there just T-shirts. I love how many people get a good luagh out of these christians when we get angry over when some one takes shots at our religon but when the tables are turned we are trying to hold the world back.I'm not getting a good laugh or getting pissed either way, in case you might percieve me as such. I know, they're just t-shirts to me too.

However...this might be really complicated and would bring myself into the trap of a deadly logical attack that I don't even fully understand (or remember the name... :laugh4: ), but that T-shirt about France losing World War I is factually incorrect because, well, they won World War I, and II, for that matter, if you argue it one way. The statement about France losing the World Wars, thus, is false. While you can appreciate the Freedom of Speech which allows you to say them, your statement is still incorrect. And to "applaud" falsehood based on its side expression as an appreciation of the right to Freedom of Speech alone is fallacy, as you will ignore the context of the statement. For example, neo-Nazis have the right to say that "Jews are evil bastards," but that statement is incorrect, and we cannot appreciate that statement based on it being, in a way, an expression of our Freedom of Speech now, do we?

Now, I haven't personally seen the Scandinavian jeans but if they're just satanic symbols or such, then they are not factually incorrect because they don't make any factual claims. Put it in an offensive way (not mine), "so what if we[not me] ridicule a myth?"

But of course, the logical fallacy I dread is my lack of first-hand experience with the French victory of World War I. :sweatdrop: Or the logical attack that I don't have first-hand experience with these jeans either.

It seems, though, that we are concentrating on two different points of your original statement. You seem to be concentrating on the victimization of Christianity and the percieved unfairness of the world attitude.

Actually it from an appreciation of "free thinkers." Unfortunately you don't seem to understand his point nor my appreciation of the point he is making.(Sorry, I don't want to flood the thread with my double posts, so I'll respond to your post below here) Then I'd appreciated it if you please clarify it in your own words.

Redleg

01-03-2006, 05:44

As much as your statement shows an appreciation of one's...freedom of speech and opinion, to demand that people should "applaud" your "backwardness" is not, unfortunately, brilliance. It is spirited, perhaps, but obviously, ignorance should not be "applauded," unless you're gangstalicious. Indeed, their attempt to correct you by posting facts should not be disregarded so easily by the excuse of diversity of opinion. Facts are just facts. While it may be true, and in a way respectable, that they have the right to say you're dead wrong as much as you have the right to say you think you're right, on any other fields away from the basics their words would be more valid than you.

This, of course, is an example. I didn't get worked up about the T-shirt, hey.

Redleg, does your appreciation of strike for the south's statement partially based on your dislike of "free thinkers" based on a percieved hypocrisy? Does it...exist? ~;)

Actually it from an appreciation of "free thinkers." Unfortunately you don't seem to understand his point nor my appreciation of the point he is making.

Vladimir

01-03-2006, 15:03

In the spirit of religious tolerance and France bashing: I think anti-SUV activists should embrace France's policy on Muslim immigration.

Has anyone read the article a couple weeks back about Swedish politicians claiming that they're safe from terrorism because of their anti-Israeli policies? Maybe this is part of their plan too. I guess this would be true in less you call rape and threats of violence terrorism.

Ja'chyra

01-03-2006, 15:26

A brilliant thought and point SFTS, to bad many will most likely miss your point.

Aye, though punctuation would've helped. :inquisitive: Only kidding STFS

Anyway, who cares, they're jeans for goodness sake. If the designer wants to put an inverted cross on a skull, which looks kind of crap IMHO, then let him, I'd imagine that hardly anyone who has bought them either noticed or cared.

:juggle2: Da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da

Alexanderofmacedon

01-03-2006, 15:54

Aye, though punctuation would've helped. :inquisitive: Only kidding STFS

Anyway, who cares, they're jeans for goodness sake. If the designer wants to put an inverted cross on a skull, which looks kind of crap IMHO, then let him, I'd imagine that hardly anyone who has bought them either noticed or cared.

:juggle2: Da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da

Agreed:2thumbsup:

Redleg

01-03-2006, 16:33

(Sorry, I don't want to flood the thread with my double posts, so I'll respond to your post below here) Then I'd appreciated it if you please clarify it in your own words.

Okay I will humor you since you asked.

From SFTS post

people can say whatever they want in most western countries and you shouldnt get worked up about it. So they hate God big deal its there buisness and if I think France lost WW1 or wouldve without gods gift to Earth the same people who were appulading these "free thinkers" for there jeans should appluad my backwardness.

The first sentence is the keyPeople can say whatever they want in most western countries. People have the ability to state their opinion (STFS used most western countries, but there are many others also) which is the key element in free speech, in most instances unless you are advocating violence against the state or others without fear of governmental prosecution. This is the foundation of free thinking, the ability to say and think whatever is on your mind.

Now for the second part. you shouldn't get worked up about it. Again he is correct, and the two thoughts make a point very well. Disprove his thoughts, ignore his ideas, but one should not become upset because another has a different viewpoint. Violence comes from being upset over another's thoughts, not from the voicing of that opinion. Verbally attacking another because of their thoughts is one of the first steps toward violence.

So they hate God, big deal, its their business Notice what the sentence states. The converse is also true. So they love God, big deal, its their business. However it seems some have a problem with either way those statements are used. There is absolutely no problem with an individual proclaiming his love for God, nor is there a problem with an individual proclaiming God does not exist. Its when one attempts to force his opinion on others that it becomes a problem.

and If I think France lost WW1 or wouldve without God's gift to Earth, the same people who were appulading these "Free Thinker" for their jeans should appluad my backwardness. The sarcasm in this statement is just brilliant.

Kralizec

01-03-2006, 16:35

Alexanderofmacedon

01-03-2006, 17:09

Yeah, what the hell is wrong with the french anyway?:help:

Vladimir

01-03-2006, 17:38

America bashing is popular because we're the biggest kid on the block, French bashing is popular because they think they're the biggest kid on the block, Christianity bashing is popular because it's the "dominant" religion in the West. One of the reasons why I, as an American, make fun of the French is to compare it to Islamist rhetoric. Compare "Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys" to "Death to America". I have a great deal of respect for the French (and of course Christians) so while I will have great fun cracking bad, clichéd jokes, I wish no harm to anyone based on where they were born.

Goofball

01-03-2006, 18:39

What I am finding most surprising about this thread, is that people keep referring to these jeans as "designer" and "incredibly marked up," but the article says they are retailing for about $50 US.

I have never seen designer jeans for $50 US. If I want designer jeans, I end up paying +/- $100 US for them usually. If I only want something for tooling around the park in, I go to The Gap or Old Navy, or even *shudders slightly* Levis. Those are about the only jeans you can buy for under $50 US here.

Papewaio

01-03-2006, 22:52

As I said "I know those T shirts are only meant to be fun, but I have to mention a tiny little fact..."
I'm no French fanboy, but I'm even less charmed of rewriting history like radical rightwingers claiming that France lost every war since before they were even a country.

Well then you should read what he wrote carefully:

and if I think France lost WW1 or wouldve without gods gift to Earth the same people who were appulading these "free thinkers" for there jeans should appluad my backwardness

and if I think France lost WWI ... these "free thinkers" ... should applaud my backwardness.

So he is saying if someone thinks France lost WWI then they are backwards.

More importantly, he is saying the "free thinkers" should give (equal) praise to all forms of rebellion... anti-christian, anti-french, anti-authourity, anti-grammar etc

Redleg

01-03-2006, 22:55

.

More importantly, he is saying the "free thinkers" should give (equal) praise to all forms of rebellion... anti-christian, anti-french, anti-authourity, anti-grammar etc

I question for you Papewaio-san, why is that the two of us reach the same conculsion about STFS post? While others seem to not get it. It can't be because we share the same politic values - since we are often in disagreement.

Vladimir

01-03-2006, 23:00

How do I sign up for the People's Liberation Front against Grammar Oppression?:book:

Kralizec

01-03-2006, 23:10

I don't praise anyone's "backwardsness" as you guys put it. I don't like jeans with an anti christian appeal, and I don't like T-shirts that give a fake version of history. I don't like shirts with the hammer and sickle on it either. People have the right to wear this kind of clothes and I support their right to do so, but I'm going to point out their "backwardness" wether you like it or not.

Papewaio

01-03-2006, 23:19

Irony, Sarcasm, Mordancy (oh I love that word) etc...

I do think making money out of selling Communist symbols is particularly ironic.

The points that SFTS made were that people have the right to choose even if it is backwards. That the prejudice comes about when it is okay to bash one sacred cow but not another.

A sense of humour about symbols will serve people far better then being devout to them to the point of forgetting what the symbols are supposed to represent.

Also if you haven't got it by now SFTS said it is backwards to say that France lost. More importantly he said it is the right of people in most western nations to have the right to free speech even if all they show is their own ignorance.

Reenk Roink

01-03-2006, 23:20

I have been using the same pair of Kenneth Cole Jeans for 6 months now...

There very comfy ~:cool:

Papewaio

01-03-2006, 23:24

I question for you Papewaio-san, why is that the two of us reach the same conculsion about STFS post? While others seem to not get it. It can't be because we share the same politic values - since we are often in disagreement.

Well Redleg-san I think like all people we focus on the differences while forgetting all the agreements.

I don't think we are that different in the wider scheme of things. And I do believe it is more healthy to disagree/debate things then nod ones head and walk in unison without going through the discussion process.

Kralizec

01-03-2006, 23:35

Pape and redleg: It just amazes me that when I started the whole sub-discussion about France, I already added the disclaimer "I know those T-shirts are meant to be fun" yet people STILL feel they need to lecture me about free speech.
Besides I didn't "backwardness" of any jean wearing people, and I don't applaud the "backwardness" of people who try to rewrite history.

STFS: I agree with you. As I already said, people have the right to wear shirts or jeans withstatements written all over them no matter how full of shit they are, it's their free speech. And it's my free speech to tell people they're full of shit. Some people seem to forget the latter.

Redleg

01-04-2006, 00:23

Pape and redleg: It just amazes me that when I started the whole sub-discussion about France, I already added the disclaimer "I know those T-shirts are meant to be fun" yet people STILL feel they need to lecture me about free speech.

If I was going to lecture someone about free speech - I would have taken a different course in my discussion. However you have conducted a strawman in this discussion with this comment.

Besides I didn't "backwardness" of any jean wearing people, and I don't applaud the "backwardness" of people who try to rewrite history.

And your point is, you didn't committ the sin of ommission that Papawaio and I are discussing?

STFS: I agree with you. As I already said, people have the right to wear shirts or jeans withstatements written all over them no matter how full of shit they are, it's their free speech. And it's my free speech to tell people they're full of shit. Some people seem to forget the latter.

Ah but when you inform someone that they are full of crap - without explaining why they are full of crap - all you have done is used an Ad Hominem arguement which does not address the issue with that individual's Speech. So in essence you do not have the right to tell someone they are full of crap - you can only inform them that their arguement is crap. To tell someone they are full of crap - could entail legal issues because without proving they are full of crap by disproving their speech - you have violated one of the principles of free speech and can be held accountable for calling the individual full of crap. (Slander)

Free Speech does not entitle one the right to say whatever they want, however they want.

It seems that maybe a lecture on Free Speech is necessary.

Kralizec

01-04-2006, 12:01

...wear shirts or jeans withstatements written all over them no matter how full of shit they are...

Read it again and tell me how commenting on the statement of a piece of clothing can constitute an ad hominem attack.

Redleg

01-04-2006, 14:16

Read it again and tell me how commenting on the statement of a piece of clothing can constitute an ad hominem attack.

Read it three times before I wrote what I did. Step back from your comment, review it for the content of what and how you stated it, and you might just see what I am talking about.

However what you highligted is not the ad hominem attack - its the second sentence.

And it's my free speech to tell people they're full of shit.

Vladimir

01-04-2006, 14:46

It seems that maybe a lecture on Free Speech is necessary.

Oh please no. :help: :help:

Redleg

01-04-2006, 14:55

Oh please no. :help: :help:

You can read a decent lecture on Free Speech here if you need one

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/

But then the comment was pure sarcasm, much like this post is now.

However the context of the above link provides some insight on the concept of Free Speech and how it should be applied. A good paragraph on just this discussion.

We seem to have reached a paradoxical position. I started by claiming that there can be no such thing as a pure form of free speech: now I seem to be arguing that we are, in fact, free to say anything we like. The paradox is resolved by thinking of free speech in the following terms. I am, indeed, free to say what I like, but the state and other individuals can make that freedom more or less costly to exercise. The issue, therefore, boils down to assessing how cumbersome we wish to make it for people to say certain things. The best way to think about this is to ask whether speech should be protected rather than to ask whether it should be prohibited. This leads us to the recognition that we can and should regulate speech, but ultimately we cannot prevent it if the person is dedicated to making the statement.

Just a thought for pondering

PS I like using the spoiler when I am messing with people.

Kralizec

01-04-2006, 15:40

However what you highligted is not the ad hominem attack - its the second sentence.

And it's my free speech to tell people they're full of shit.

The "full of shit" part was intended to still refer to the statement itself, and not the person. Perhaps I could have been more clear in the wording, but if people like to take apart my wordings to construct an ad hominem attack that's not my problem ~;)

Thanks for your article by the way, it's an interesting read.

Redleg

01-04-2006, 16:20

The "full of shit" part was intended to still refer to the statement itself, and not the person. Perhaps I could have been more clear in the wording, but if people like to take apart my wordings to construct an ad hominem attack that's not my problem ~;)

Actually it was your problem since it was your word use and sentence construction not mine. :oops: :laugh4:

Maybe you should of realized the intent of the conservation between my and Papawiao before taking issue with it. :idea2:

Thanks for your article by the way, it's an interesting read.

Yes indeed - there is several decent reads on issues at that site.

Bulawayo

01-04-2006, 17:41

SFTS-san very good point. :bow:

High price jeans... so designer jeans, for the designer rebel.

Kind of reminds me of all the alternatives, wearing all the same alternative outfit.

These jeans are actually very low price here in Sweden. They are after all made in China. For other jeans you'll have to pay at least USD 100:-

There is a store selling these jeans right next to my apartment, so if anyone is interested maybe we have a deal...

Rodion Romanovich

01-04-2006, 21:11

How do I sign up for the People's Liberation Front against Grammar Oppression?:book:

yo cann start by signing in these thread up

AntiochusIII

01-05-2006, 02:27

Okay I will humor you since you asked.Why, thank you. :bow:

However, from your explications below, I percieve my understanding to be correct, though continue to argue on another point, not directly related to the context of the statement, but is within the statement.

The first sentence is the keyPeople can say whatever they want in most western countries. People have the ability to state their opinion (STFS used most western countries, but there are many others also) which is the key element in free speech, in most instances unless you are advocating violence against the state or others without fear of governmental prosecution. This is the foundation of free thinking, the ability to say and think whatever is on your mind.Aye. And I see that thoroughly the first time. That doesn't lessen the value of your post in the least, though.

However I was making a point (though not in a completely serious intention) that ignorances are meant to be corrected, not STFS' of course, but that of those who actually believe that France lost the First World War, as long as the Free Speech ideals are not being tampered with.

Now for the second part. you shouldn't get worked up about it. Again he is correct, and the two thoughts make a point very well. Disprove his thoughts, ignore his ideas, but one should not become upset because another has a different viewpoint. Violence comes from being upset over another's thoughts, not from the voicing of that opinion. Verbally attacking another because of their thoughts is one of the first steps toward violence.I don't get worked up about it, and wasn't offended, just pointing my opinion. I stated several times that I wasn't offended, just wanted to argue a little bit (and not in an inflammatory manner), though I suspect text alone might not very well be clear.

So they hate God, big deal, its their business Notice what the sentence states. The converse is also true. So they love God, big deal, its their business. However it seems some have a problem with either way those statements are used. There is absolutely no problem with an individual proclaiming his love for God, nor is there a problem with an individual proclaiming God does not exist. Its when one attempts to force his opinion on others that it becomes a problem.This too I recognize.

and If I think France lost WW1 or wouldve without God's gift to Earth, the same people who were appulading these "Free Thinker" for their jeans should appluad my backwardness. The sarcasm in this statement is just brilliant.However, this is where I don't really fully understand, even after your explanation. Why is applauding "backwardness" being praised as good, and, as I've argued earlier, despite parts of that action "celebrates" our ideals of Freedom? Is it not a point that, even when bathed in freedom, ignorance (again, not STFS') remains a dangerous enemy? Christians can, of course, present a case (not legal one, a "debate" kinda one) to those who applaud the "Free Thinkers" that the "Free Thinkers'" beliefs might not be based on the best of grounds.

Redleg

01-05-2006, 03:02

However, this is where I don't really fully understand, even after your explanation. Why is applauding "backwardness" being praised as good, and, as I've argued earlier, despite parts of that action "celebrates" our ideals of Freedom? Is it not a point that, even when bathed in freedom, ignorance (again, not STFS') remains a dangerous enemy? Christians can, of course, present a case (not legal one, a "debate" kinda one) to those who applaud the "Free Thinkers" that the "Free Thinkers'" beliefs might not be based on the best of grounds.

The sarcasm in the statement is brilliant - the play on the words that he used. I don't know how else to explain it. It ridiculous that the statement places in one mind about the idea, the poking of fun at the idea, all of it together in such a little package was just brilliant.