DebateGate
General Category => Matters of Faith => Topic started by: Cynthia on December 17, 2008, 01:41:15 AM
-
http://christianpost.com/article/20081215/playboy-issues-non-apology-apology-for-virgin-mary-cover.htm (http://christianpost.com/article/20081215/playboy-issues-non-apology-apology-for-virgin-mary-cover.htm)
-
Whole lotta hoopla about something trivial.
-
Whole lotta hoopla about something trivial.
well, actually, no this isn't so trivial, Ami.
It's no different from someone throwing shoes to show disdain, or hate. Cultural or religious disrepect is unconscionable.
-
well, actually, no this isn't so trivial, Ami.
It's no different from someone throwing shoes to show disdain, or hate. Cultural or religious disrepect is unconscionable.
Throwing shoes is a physical attack. Art that you don't like doesn't hurt you physically. Like what someone on TV or radio says, you don't have to look or listen to it. If you don't like the cover of that Playboy, don't buy it. Nobody is hitting you over the head with it.
-
well, actually, no this isn't so trivial, Ami.
It's no different from someone throwing shoes to show disdain, or hate. Cultural or religious disrepect is unconscionable.
Throwing shoes is a physical attack. Art that you don't like doesn't hurt you physically. Like what someone on TV or radio says, you don't have to look or listen to it. If you don't like the cover of that Playboy, don't buy it. Nobody is hitting you over the head with it.
This unconscionable act is something you wouldn't understand, Ami. You are not a Catholic.
-
This unconscionable act is something you wouldn't understand, Ami. You are not a Catholic.
Perhaps you should look up the state religion of Austria sometime.
-
This unconscionable act is something you wouldn't understand, Ami. You are not a Catholic.
Perhaps you should look up the state religion of Austria sometime.
Playboy magazine apologized for a controversial cover featuring a scantily-clad woman resembling the Virgin Mary, Reuters reported.
The December edition was published Thursday, just before the Mexican festival honoring Mary known as the Day of the Virgin of Guadalupe.
Playboy Enterprises Inc., based in Chicago, released a statement Friday explaining that the company did not approve the cover because the Mexican version of the magazine is published by a licensee, according to Reuters.
"While Playboy Mexico never meant for the cover or images to offend anyone, we recognize that it has created offense, and we as well as Playboy Mexico offer our sincerest apologies," the company said.
The magazine features model Maria Florencia Onori wearing nothing but a white cloth over her head and chest.
The release was timed to coincide with the annual pilgrimage to Mexico City celebrating an apparition of the Virgin. The magazine's headline reads in Spanish: "We love you, Mary." About 100,000 copies were printed, Reuters said.
"The image is not and never was intended to portray the Virgin of Guadalupe or any other religious figure," Raul Sayrols, publisher of Playboy Mexico, said in a prepared statement. "The intent was to reflect a Renaissance-like mood on the cover."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,466565,00.html (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,466565,00.html)
Ami,
This Mexican Playboy cover at the very least shows very poor taste. I don't have to look up nada.
-
This Mexican Playboy cover at the very least shows very poor taste. I don't have to look up nada.
Since you won't bother, I'll clue you in. It's Roman Catholicism. That's the way I was raised, and believed, for many years.
And perhaps you should stop using that argument; it's specious at best.
-
Playboy magazine apologized for a controversial cover featuring a scantily-clad woman resembling the Virgin Mary, Reuters reported.
"Raul Sayrols, publisher of Playboy Mexico, meanwhile claimed the image 'is not and never was intended to portray the Virgin of Guadalupe or any other religious figure.'"
-
This Mexican Playboy cover at the very least shows very poor taste. I don't have to look up nada.
Since you won't bother, I'll clue you in. It's Roman Catholicism. That's the way I was raised, and believed, for many years.
And perhaps you should stop using that argument; it's specious at best.
I just don't agree with your take on this issue, Ami. You tend to force the hand of another poster by insisting that they LOOK UP something, all the while a bit patronizing----get a clue? LOL What's up Ami? You seem a bit pissy today.
It's not about being clued in to Roman or not Roman. I live in NM. Our Lady of Guadalupe is not trivial. Your original point, as I read it. Trivial ??? I just dont' agree that it is so trivial. There is room for argument on trivial vs bad taste. I just believe it to be in very poor taste.
-
Playboy magazine apologized for a controversial cover featuring a scantily-clad woman resembling the Virgin Mary, Reuters reported.
"Raul Sayrols, publisher of Playboy Mexico, meanwhile claimed the image 'is not and never was intended to portray the Virgin of Guadalupe or any other religious figure.'"
So they say. Of course they say!! They printed the thing...duh!
Playboy magazine apologized for a controversial cover featuring a scantily-clad woman resembling the Virgin Mary, Reuters reported.
-
The nation of the offended should get over it.
Does It Offend Rick Sanchez, Yeah?
Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 09:00:00 AM
Oh No! Someone's mixed Catholic imagery and sex! How provocative! How controversial! How unoriginal.
Rick Sanchez, everyone's favorite former Channel Seven newsman, dedicated a good portion of his Twitter-fueled CNN show yesterday to the latest cover of Mexican Playboy that shows a model who may be channeling the Virgin Mary (though, the publisher denies this ...but considering some people see Mary in window stains and grilled cheese he should have known better).
We know, we know. Yesterday was a slow news day, believe us we know, but Sanchez gets outraged (well, he reads outraged Twitter and Facebook comments in an outraged tone) about the cover before bringing in a correspondent from CNN en Espa?ol who admits that there really isn't much of a reaction to the cover in Mexico, where its been on newsstands for a week, before getting outraged herself. Then, to complete the outrage trifecta, Sanchez brings on media-loving Miami priest Father Cutie (aka Father Oprah), who predictably is even more outraged. The video is after the jump.
We understand why it's offensive, we're not saying it isn't, but come on, this is nothing new. More blasphemous Virgin Mary smut after the jump.
This is just the tip of the iceberg:
- In 1982, some lady calling herself Madonna burst onto the pop scene humping floors in rosary beads and singing "Like a Virgin." Catholics were outraged.
- In 1999, a portrait of Virgin Mary surrounded by tiny vaginas and covered in elephant dung was on display at New York's Brooklyn Museum of Art. Catholics were outraged.
- In 2000, an adult toy company called "Divine Interventions" starts selling Virgin Mary shaped dildos. Catholics were outraged.
- In 2002, Italy shuts down adult internet sites that feature Virgin Mary porn, becuase Catholics were outraged.
- In 2005, apparel company T-Shirt Hell offers a t-shirt that says "Mary Was Only A Virgin If You Don't Count Anal." Catholics were outraged.
- In 2006, Courtney Love poses for the cover of David LaChapelle's book Heavan and Hell as the Virgin Mary. Catholics. Outraged.
- Just last month, Brtinery Spears allegedly turned down a role as the Virgin Mary, there by avoiding Catholic outrage.
One of the Twitter comments, tweets as they're know, Rick reads says "The December cover of Playboy is not obscene, it's a cry for publicity. Congrats Playboy, it worked." Haha, exactly.
Because nothing is guaranteed to generate more controversy than offending the religious, and that is why people will continue to do it. Maybe the offended should stop giving the offenders so much publicity, and accept that stunts like this are going to continue. Plus, hey, the perpetrators are all going to Hell anyway, right?
--Kyle Munzenrieder
http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2008/12/does_it_offend_rick_sanchez_ye.php (http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2008/12/does_it_offend_rick_sanchez_ye.php)
Cover is at the other end of the link. It's so tame that it's even SFW. (http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/mexicanplayboy.jpg)
-
The nation of the offended should get over it.
Does It Offend Rick Sanchez, Yeah?
Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 09:00:00 AM
Oh No! Someone's mixed Catholic imagery and sex! How provocative! How controversial! How unoriginal.
Rick Sanchez, everyone's favorite former Channel Seven newsman, dedicated a good portion of his Twitter-fueled CNN show yesterday to the latest cover of Mexican Playboy that shows a model who may be channeling the Virgin Mary (though, the publisher denies this ...but considering some people see Mary in window stains and grilled cheese he should have known better).
We know, we know. Yesterday was a slow news day, believe us we know, but Sanchez gets outraged (well, he reads outraged Twitter and Facebook comments in an outraged tone) about the cover before bringing in a correspondent from CNN en Espa?ol who admits that there really isn't much of a reaction to the cover in Mexico, where its been on newsstands for a week, before getting outraged herself. Then, to complete the outrage trifecta, Sanchez brings on media-loving Miami priest Father Cutie (aka Father Oprah), who predictably is even more outraged. The video is after the jump.
We understand why it's offensive, we're not saying it isn't, but come on, this is nothing new. More blasphemous Virgin Mary smut after the jump.
This is just the tip of the iceberg:
- In 1982, some lady calling herself Madonna burst onto the pop scene humping floors in rosary beads and singing "Like a Virgin." Catholics were outraged.
- In 1999, a portrait of Virgin Mary surrounded by tiny vaginas and covered in elephant dung was on display at New York's Brooklyn Museum of Art. Catholics were outraged.
- In 2000, an adult toy company called "Divine Interventions" starts selling Virgin Mary shaped dildos. Catholics were outraged.
- In 2002, Italy shuts down adult internet sites that feature Virgin Mary porn, becuase Catholics were outraged.
- In 2005, apparel company T-Shirt Hell offers a t-shirt that says "Mary Was Only A Virgin If You Don't Count Anal." Catholics were outraged.
- In 2006, Courtney Love poses for the cover of David LaChapelle's book Heavan and Hell as the Virgin Mary. Catholics. Outraged.
- Just last month, Brtinery Spears allegedly turned down a role as the Virgin Mary, there by avoiding Catholic outrage.
One of the Twitter comments, tweets as they're know, Rick reads says "The December cover of Playboy is not obscene, it's a cry for publicity. Congrats Playboy, it worked." Haha, exactly.
Because nothing is guaranteed to generate more controversy than offending the religious, and that is why people will continue to do it. Maybe the offended should stop giving the offenders so much publicity, and accept that stunts like this are going to continue. Plus, hey, the perpetrators are all going to Hell anyway, right?
--Kyle Munzenrieder
http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2008/12/does_it_offend_rick_sanchez_ye.php (http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2008/12/does_it_offend_rick_sanchez_ye.php)
Cover is at the other end of the link. It's so tame that it's even SFW. (http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/mexicanplayboy.jpg)
We just disagree on this point of morality, Ami.
-
We just disagree on this point of morality, Ami.
Doing or saying something that another might find offensive is not immoral. If it were, then ANYTHING you did or said could be found to be offensive to SOMEONE, and hence immoral.
Some people find the concept of a public school to be offensive - does that mean that you should be condemned as immoral because you work for one?
-
We just disagree on this point of morality, Ami.
Doing or saying something that another might find offensive is not immoral. If it were, then ANYTHING you did or said could be found to be offensive to SOMEONE, and hence immoral.
Some people find the concept of a public school to be offensive - does that mean that you should be condemned as immoral because you work for one?
THe cover of the Playboy clearly makes something which is sacred to many Catholic people and places it in context of sleezy which is also personally offensive and yes, immoral. It is also blasphemous.
Immoral in this case is defined by me as wrong. I can make that call. I have that right. I believe the cover to be immoral.
-
immoral yes ,but in a subjective context.
what seems obvious to you will not seem so to others.
this article is a clear example,if the intention was to offend the majority religious population of that country.
then it did it`s job,but that action is clearly stupid.
so more likely a clear case of really bad judgement and not beyound forgiveness.
note a I said majority religion.
until someone can explain getting people to boycott or destroy your product is good business.
than bad judgement is the only way you can view this
I`m not saying you should forgive them but to think it`s intentional is wrong till you a copy of a office memo stating thery want to get mexicans angry
-
immoral yes ,but in a subjective context.
what seems obvious to you will not seem so to others.
this article is a clear example,if the intention was to offend the majority religious population of that country.
then it did it`s job,but that action is clearly stupid.
so more likely a clear case of really bad judgement and not beyound forgiveness.
note a I said majority religion.
until someone can explain getting people to boycott or destroy your product is good business.
than bad judgement is the only way you can view this
I`m not saying you should forgive them but to think it`s intentional is wrong till you a copy of a office memo stating thery want to get mexicans angry
Listen, Kimba....it slapped the face of every Catholic, Roman or otherwise.....period.
There is NO room for discussion on this point. Forgive what? Horney bastards with bad taste. Give me a break.
-
uhm
that`s the point
you just proved it can`t be intentional by saying a business has angered instead of buying thier product.
I would believe it would be a cheap stunt if it was done in the U.S. ,but not in mexico
I`ve seen this done too often to believe this otherwise,but normally in racial context.
-
There is NO room for discussion on this point.
Bullshit. You may not want to discuss it, but that may not apply to everyone. Some folks could give a crap about a 'slap in the face to Catholics', or anyone else for that matter. Why not get over yourself and realize not everyone shares your sense of outrage over trivial matters?
-
There is NO room for discussion on this point.
Bullshit. You may not want to discuss it, but that may not apply to everyone. Some folks could give a crap about a 'slap in the face to Catholics', or anyone else for that matter. Why not get over yourself and realize not everyone shares your sense of outrage over trivial matters?
Well, you are obviously among those who doesn't care about matters that are not trivial to many in this world. So, you get over yourself. . . Or better yet, pray that God graces you with some morals.
-
I wonder when we will see the Playgirl "Mohammed" issue?
-
it`s a gamble but it might work.
I kinda doubt playgirl has a sizable muslim fanbase to cause a bad reaction.
it barely has a female fanbase .