Amusing religious cartoons

[Nearly Sane]

And I might agree with you about what is cruel but it is opinion, and it does not mean that something I think of as cruel I might not also find funny. Rowlandson and Gillray spring to mind.

I admit, when I see or read what are blatantly cruel "jokes" or humour, I do laugh;  but feel guilty about it.  I think of how I'd feel if subjected to such humour.

I think the question of guilt should be balanced with whether the joke is 'speaking to power'. If the joke is made against those who have power, it isn't something to feel guilty about even if it is cruel. That said, the then become a a discussion about what power is and who holds it.

[BashfulAnthony]

And I might agree with you about what is cruel but it is opinion, and it does not mean that something I think of as cruel I might not also find funny. Rowlandson and Gillray spring to mind.

I admit, when I see or read what are blatantly cruel "jokes" or humour, I do laugh;  but feel guilty about it.  I think of how I'd feel if subjected to such humour.

I think the question of guilt should be balanced with whether the joke is 'speaking to power'. If the joke is made against those who have power, it isn't something to feel guilty about even if it is cruel. That said, the then become a a discussion about what power is and who holds it.

I think that's right:  Government, politicians, Bankers, etc, are fair game;  though mostly it is impersonal.  When it comes to singly out individuals it is less clear.

[Nearly Sane]

I think that's right:  Government, politicians, Bankers, etc, are fair game;  though mostly it is impersonal.  When it comes to singly out individuals it is less clear.

Yep, agree, but govt, bankers are individuals. If you just treat them as institutions then you end up tarring individuals who may not only have acted with propriety but fought with other members of such institutions to do so as if they had not.

[ProfessorDavey]

I, in turn, agree with you, up to a point  To me the difference is that the likes of Roy Brown are attempting to be funny, even though many find them offensive; but cartoons have an agenda, and often the "humorous" aspect is pretty contrived.

What is this 'attempting to be funny'? You seem to be implying that any humour that has any form of a point e.g. satire - is not humour?

Basically, humour simply has to make you laugh.  If it is satire, fine as long as it's funny, and not cruel.

Satire is usually aimed at people or ideas who have power and are often seem as pompous. And the ridicule that is part of satire is often an exceptionally good weapon when aimed at powerful, establishment pomposity as they often are very poorly equipped to counter it. Satire has an exceptionally long history in the UK and often acts to 'level' the playing field. Satire is usually aimed at people who are in positions (or take a political or other opinion) purely through choice so they have taken the decision to place themselves in the firing line.

That is not the same as cruel attacks on ordinary individuals who haven't taken a decision to place themselves in the firing line. And even further away from generalising and crude stereotyping of groups of people due to a perception of 'attributes' of that group.

[BashfulAnthony]

I, in turn, agree with you, up to a point  To me the difference is that the likes of Roy Brown are attempting to be funny, even though many find them offensive; but cartoons have an agenda, and often the "humorous" aspect is pretty contrived.

What is this 'attempting to be funny'? You seem to be implying that any humour that has any form of a point e.g. satire - is not humour?

Basically, humour simply has to make you laugh.  If it is satire, fine as long as it's funny, and not cruel.

Satire is usually aimed at people or ideas who have power and are often seem as pompous. And the ridicule that is part of satire is often an exceptionally good weapon when aimed at powerful, establishment pomposity as they often are very poorly equipped to counter it. Satire has an exceptionally long history in the UK and often acts to 'level' the playing field. Satire is usually aimed at people who are in positions (or take a political or other opinion) purely through choice so they have taken the decision to place themselves in the firing line.

That is not the same as cruel attacks on ordinary individuals who haven't taken a decision to place themselves in the firing line. And even further away from generalising and crude stereotyping of groups of people due to a perception of 'attributes' of that group.

Spot on.

[Nearly Sane]

]Satire is usually aimed at people or ideas who have power and are often seem as pompous. And the ridicule that is part of satire is often an exceptionally good weapon when aimed at powerful, establishment pomposity as they often are very poorly equipped to counter it. Satire has an exceptionally long history in the UK and often acts to 'level' the playing field. Satire is usually aimed at people who are in positions (or take a political or other opinion) purely through choice so they have taken the decision to place themselves in the firing line.

That is not the same as cruel attacks on ordinary individuals who haven't taken a decision to place themselves in the firing line. And even further away from generalising and crude stereotyping of groups of people due to a perception of 'attributes' of that group.

Spot on.

So this is BA, Prof D and me agreeing! Beats the fact that yesterday I spent nearly all of it agreeing violently with cyberman

[ProfessorDavey]

]Satire is usually aimed at people or ideas who have power and are often seem as pompous. And the ridicule that is part of satire is often an exceptionally good weapon when aimed at powerful, establishment pomposity as they often are very poorly equipped to counter it. Satire has an exceptionally long history in the UK and often acts to 'level' the playing field. Satire is usually aimed at people who are in positions (or take a political or other opinion) purely through choice so they have taken the decision to place themselves in the firing line.

That is not the same as cruel attacks on ordinary individuals who haven't taken a decision to place themselves in the firing line. And even further away from generalising and crude stereotyping of groups of people due to a perception of 'attributes' of that group.

Spot on.

So this is BA, Prof D and me agreeing! Beats the fact that yesterday I spent nearly all of it agreeing violently with cyberman

Just shows that when you scratch below the surface and get beyond the 'theist/atheist pigeonholing' we are all individuals with complex and diverse opinions. And thank goodness - life really would be dull otherwise.

[Nearly Sane]

Just shows that when you scratch below the surface and get beyond the 'theist/atheist pigeonholing' we are all individuals with complex and diverse opinions. And thank goodness - life really would be dull otherwise.

Oh agree - but I wasn't really thinking of the atheist/theist thing

[ProfessorDavey]

Just shows that when you scratch below the surface and get beyond the 'theist/atheist pigeonholing' we are all individuals with complex and diverse opinions. And thank goodness - life really would be dull otherwise.

Oh agree - but I wasn't really thinking of the atheist/theist thing

Sure - really don't matter which 'pigeon-holing badge' you care to mention, scratch the surface and we are more complex than the stereotype suggests.

But yes - have been some interesting reversals of the standard agree/disagree axes in recent days.

On BA, although there are plenty of thing on which we disagree, he isn't the worse type of knee-jerk responder here. There are some on these board that will disagree with me whatever I say, however innocuous (yup you know who you are) - he's not like that in my experience.

[Nearly Sane]

Sure - really don't matter which 'pigeon-holing badge' you care to mention, scratch the surface and we are more complex than the stereotype suggests.

But yes - have been some interesting reversals of the standard agree/disagree axes in recent days.

On BA, although there are plenty of thing on which we disagree, he isn't the worse type of knee-jerk responder here. There are some on these board that will disagree with me whatever I say, however innocuous (yup you know who you are) - he's not like that in my experience.

Indeed, as theists go I have previously noted my liking for BA's brand.

[ProfessorDavey]

Sure - really don't matter which 'pigeon-holing badge' you care to mention, scratch the surface and we are more complex than the stereotype suggests.

But yes - have been some interesting reversals of the standard agree/disagree axes in recent days.

On BA, although there are plenty of thing on which we disagree, he isn't the worse type of knee-jerk responder here. There are some on these board that will disagree with me whatever I say, however innocuous (yup you know who you are) - he's not like that in my experience.

Indeed, as theists go I have previously noted my liking for BA's brand.

Agreed - could imagine sharing a beer with him ... not so some others here!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And lo the theites were mightily relieved.

[Sebastian Toe]

And lo the theites were mightily relieved.

...too many beers?

[ProfessorDavey]

And lo the theites were mightily relieved.

Does anyone have a clue what Vlad is on about.

Hmm - just a minute - does anyone have a clue what Vlad is on about in any of his posts!!

[Owlswing]

And lo the theites were mightily relieved.

Does anyone have a clue what Vlad is on about.

Hmm - just a minute - does anyone have a clue what Vlad is on about in any of his posts!!

Probably not. Probably not even Vlad.

[cyberman]

And lo the theites were mightily relieved.

Does anyone have a clue what Vlad is on about.

Hmm - just a minute - does anyone have a clue what Vlad is on about in any of his posts!!

Probably not. Probably not even Vlad.

It's perfectly clear. Atheists were comparing theists, condescendingly discussing which ones they would deign to have a beer with. Vlad is sarcastically saying "what a relief it is to the theists that some of them are liked by some atheists". He has done this using humorously caricatured KJV OT language, "-ites" being a common suffix for groups of people therein.

Anyone could have figured that out, Matt. Even your wives.

[ProfessorDavey]

And lo the theites were mightily relieved.

Does anyone have a clue what Vlad is on about.

Hmm - just a minute - does anyone have a clue what Vlad is on about in any of his posts!!

Probably not. Probably not even Vlad.

It's perfectly clear. Atheists were comparing theists, condescendingly discussing which ones they would deign to have a beer with. Vlad is sarcastically saying "what a relief it is to the theists that some of them are liked by some atheists". He has done this using humorously caricatured KJV OT language, "-ites" being a common suffix for groups of people therein.

Anyone could have figured that out, Matt. Even your wives.

Glad it is clear to you. Completely lost on the rest of us.

General tip - when making a post, best to make it understandable by everyone - even if people don't agree, at least understandable.

[cyberman]

Completely lost on the rest of us.

The rest of us? Well, two of you anyway. And your companion is this quandary is not what you'd call an intellectual heavyweight, Prof.

[ProfessorDavey]

Completely lost on the rest of us.

The rest of us? Well, two of you anyway. And your companion is this quandary is not what you'd call an intellectual heavyweight, Prof.

Nope - three people commented on the lack of clarity of the post. And it only seems to be you who appears to understand it.

[ProfessorDavey]

It's perfectly clear. Atheists were comparing theists, condescendingly discussing which ones they would deign to have a beer with. Vlad is sarcastically saying "what a relief it is to the theists that some of them are liked by some atheists".

Did you actually read my earlier posts, where I clearly said I wasn't interested in the atheist/theist pigeonholing.

So my comment about BA seeming like a person I could share a beer with was about him as an individual, not him as one of a group of theists. And there are a good number of theists on here that I also say the same about. And also quite a few non theist that I couldn't imagine having a beer with (and some theists).

So get that chip off your shoulder and stop thinking that everyone pigeonholes by religious belief. Perhaps you do, but not everyone.

[cyberman]

It's perfectly clear. Atheists were comparing theists, condescendingly discussing which ones they would deign to have a beer with. Vlad is sarcastically saying "what a relief it is to the theists that some of them are liked by some atheists".

Did you actually read my earlier posts, where I clearly said I wasn't interested in the atheist/theist pigeonholing.

So my comment about BA seeming like a person I could share a beer with was about him as an individual, not him as one of a group of theists. And there are a good number of theists on here that I also say the same about. And also quite a few non theist that I couldn't imagine having a beer with (and some theists).

So get that chip off your shoulder and stop thinking that everyone pigeonholes by religious belief. Perhaps you do, but not everyone.

It's not my chip or my shoulder, chum, so cool your jets. I was just explaining to you something someone else wrote.