2004 Mr. Olympia

Lifting weights whether for bodybuilding, toning, or just for general fitness.

Moderators: hardcore iv, fredrikw, JP, stateofflux, bronco

Postby sensless » Fri Sep 03, 2004 5:56 pm

I think that the 'girlyman' comment was more a play (joke) on the old "Hans and Franz" skit from Saturday Night Live than a homophobic jab. I didn't think of the homosexual community in the slightest bit when I heard that line.

Did you watch the speech or just read about it and listen to media talk about it? It is sad to me that the media tends to focus on a single word/phrase instead of focusing on the intent of the speech and its overall message. Presenting it in such an incomplete fashion allows the statement to be taken out of context and take on a new connotation, one that the re-presenter can choose.

Arnold's father, I believe, was a police officer in Austria. Whatever decisions his father made Arnold had no control over, and I think it is incorrect for people to blame Arnold.

I think statements like:

"Then, to repeat it to a group resembling euphoric KKK members, applauding and cheering at a woman sending her son off to Iraq, at a convention which will be seen around the world, was nothing short of obscene.";

"...bastard, pervert, piece of shit... not however a pig!";


"...since that pig Ronald Regan was in office...";


are, at the very least, just as offensive as someone using the phrase 'girlyman' in a speech. I am not saying I don't agree (or that I do), but these statements I find more offensive because of the harmful and slanderous intent behind them. We all judge, the tough part is to be fair.


Cheers,

John Jr.

(*edited to remove a repeated line*)
poop.
User avatar
sensless
Active Member
 
Posts: 1081
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 8:43 pm
Location: Wisconsin

Postby Mary » Fri Sep 03, 2004 6:08 pm

Well, I respect the fact that he worked very hard to achieve his body. Like sensless I really like some of his films. However, check out the following link. (Sorry about some of the pictures... though it has to be said, it doesn't look like he took steroids in one of them.)

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/enter ... rzenegger/

If Arnold is anti the nazis, why did he invite a convicted war criminal to his wedding?
User avatar
Mary
Active Member
 
Posts: 4623
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2004 6:37 pm
Location: Midlands

Postby Strix » Fri Sep 03, 2004 6:12 pm

My opinion,sensless about how the crowd appeared to me, is just that -- my opinion -- and their actions were obscene. As a government official, AS has a responsibility to refrain from insulting the citizens he is supposed to represent.

And yes, I did watch the convention. AS's sexism and homophobia is well-known -- have you read his speeches, read up on his positions, spent any time researching? I have. I live here and am subject to his "isms" as a resident of California. Perhaps researching both sides on your part would be wise before supporting or defending him. I find him VERY offensive and I have the right and the duty to express it.

And furthermore, one could find your dismissal of a sexist-homophobic remark offensive as well.
"The hand that signed the paper felled a city;
Five sovereign fingers taxed the breath,
Doubled the globe of dead and halved a country;
These five kings did a king to death."
-Dylan Thomas
User avatar
Strix
Active Member
 
Posts: 1072
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2004 10:02 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California, USA

Postby Quizeen » Fri Sep 03, 2004 7:33 pm

Indeed, Strix.

Also, anyone who is given such an incredible amount of power over the lives of others (particularly Regan who did much damage to the populace of this state and ultimately the nation) should be subject to scrutiny and subsequent scorn from those whose lives he/she affects. Regan did a lot of crappy things and as such should and can be called out about it.

One shouldn't confuse disagreeing with someone as taking offense. I disagree with a lot of conservative thought, but I'm not necessarily offended by it. Saying someone is generally a bad person who does terrible things to others is a perfectly legitimate thing to say. If such a concept can be summed up in one, neat little word, wel then, hey.
Quizeen
Active Member
 
Posts: 360
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 5:27 pm
Location: Long Beach, California

Postby sensless » Fri Sep 03, 2004 8:18 pm

I don't have any issue with you stating or sharing your opinion. I do find hypocracy more offensive than name calling. Stating you found it offensive that someone called someone else a name and then doing the exact same thing is, in my opinion, hypocracy at its finest. However, in America, you do have the right to free speech and whether I agree with what you say or not I am willing to defend, with my life, your right to say it. It is too bad that cheering for a young person being sent off to fight for their country and defend (whether it is reactive or proactive defense) the citizens' rights appears offensive to people.

[quote]"Perhaps researching both sides on your part would be wise before supporting or defending him."


Don't fret, I do my research. It is one of the reasons why I enjoy debate so much, it allows me to choose which side to argue whether I believe in my argument or not. It is a fun way to keep my logic skills and the use of language sharp, while learning (hopefully) new ideas and opinions from other people. My question to you was simply a question and not an inference that you did not watch the speech.

Mary, I have a hard time allowing myself to take anything posted on rotten dot com as fact. The web site is a source of comedy and disgust, and the material there may very well be factual and well researched. I just would feel required to research anything stated on that site before I fully accepted it. I also feel that inviting a family friend to one's wedding is a sign of support of dedication to that friend and your family ties, not necessarily to the friends beliefs. To this point, I am friends with many people that think Vegans are crazy zealots that place more importance on animals than they do on humans, and my friendship with them does not mean I share this belief. To sum up, I don't think guilty by association is a good practice.


Regards,

John Jr.

(*edited to remove an extra 'the' in a sentence*)
poop.
User avatar
sensless
Active Member
 
Posts: 1081
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 8:43 pm
Location: Wisconsin

Postby Strix » Fri Sep 03, 2004 8:22 pm

What name are you referring to?

Interesting...chastising me for namecalling then implying that I'm a hypocrite. LOL. I love it.

And you failed to respond to my last observation, which illustrates that you could be seen as a hypocrite.
Last edited by Strix on Fri Sep 03, 2004 9:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"The hand that signed the paper felled a city;
Five sovereign fingers taxed the breath,
Doubled the globe of dead and halved a country;
These five kings did a king to death."
-Dylan Thomas
User avatar
Strix
Active Member
 
Posts: 1072
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2004 10:02 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California, USA

Postby Mary » Fri Sep 03, 2004 8:37 pm

I believe in moral absolutes. If a friend of the family is a nazi war criminal then loyalty to that family is at best a misplaced value, and at worst a sign of sympathy with the nazi cause. Remember millions of jews, gays, gypsies and disabled people - millions - were killed by nazis. It is pissing on their graves to invite their killers to dine with you.
User avatar
Mary
Active Member
 
Posts: 4623
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2004 6:37 pm
Location: Midlands

Postby J » Fri Sep 03, 2004 8:39 pm

Strix
You need to learn how to deal with people who aren't in lock step agreement with you on politics. Just possibly the other person isn't automatically wrong?

Muscle Militia
Actually the ONLY way a lie detector works, is if the person taking it actually thinks it works and just confesses. There currently is no such thing as an actual lie detector. I had to take a LD for getting to work at the National Security Agency by the way. What a joke! Like my breathing, pulse and sweat rate indicates truth and lies!

But functional magnetic resonance imaging is working on developing actual lie detectors. I doubt they will ever be 100% but I bet they will hit mid 90's at least at some point. (Which is probably good enough for enemy combatants in the New America but not for drug testing.)
J
Active Member
 
Posts: 2761
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 6:36 pm
Location: West Virginia

Postby Strix » Fri Sep 03, 2004 8:41 pm

Again, maybe you should take your own advice before so eagerly advising others.
"The hand that signed the paper felled a city;
Five sovereign fingers taxed the breath,
Doubled the globe of dead and halved a country;
These five kings did a king to death."
-Dylan Thomas
User avatar
Strix
Active Member
 
Posts: 1072
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2004 10:02 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California, USA

Postby sensless » Fri Sep 03, 2004 8:44 pm

I did not say you (Strix) were a hypocrit, nor was I attempting to imply that you (Strix) are. I stated that I find hypocracy more offensive than name calling and that stating you finding name calling offensive and responding with name calling is hypocracy at its finest. The 'you' was not meant to be assigned to a specific individual, I should have used the third person "one" instead of just not addressing anyone in particular for the top portion of the post. I apologize for the semantic failure on my behalf. As for name calling that occurred, I quoted it specifically in an earlier post.

As far as your (Strix) comment,

"And furthermore, one could find your dismissal of a sexist-homophobic remark offensive as well.",

I don't have much of a response to that. I don't disagree that people could find my opinion offensive, though I don't see why this,

"I think that the 'girlyman' comment was more a play (joke) on the old "Hans and Franz" skit from Saturday Night Live than a homophobic jab. I didn't think of the homosexual community in the slightest bit when I heard that line.",

reads as offensive. I also don't see the hypocracy that exists from my previous lack of response to your final comment. I did just complete a squat workout before posting this and my previous reply, so I am still a bit lightheaded, maybe that's why I am missing the connection. Would you please explain how my lack of response is hypocracy? If anyone found my commentary regarding my opinion of the source of AS's use of the term 'girlyman' offensive, I'd be interested to hear why.

Regards,

John Jr.

PS I am glad you are laughing while reading and posting. I usually giggle a considerable amount as well.
poop.
User avatar
sensless
Active Member
 
Posts: 1081
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 8:43 pm
Location: Wisconsin

Postby Strix » Fri Sep 03, 2004 8:50 pm

Because you found my comment about how I interpreted the crowd "more offensive" than the "girly man" comment; my contention is that your dismissal of the offense taken by so many women, gays, other minorities, as well as others can be seen just as offensive.

Have you read why people find "girlyman" offensive?

Now, if you're lightheaded, I would think you probably need to eat something. :)

Yes, I'm not upset. I do have a huge smile on my face :P
"The hand that signed the paper felled a city;
Five sovereign fingers taxed the breath,
Doubled the globe of dead and halved a country;
These five kings did a king to death."
-Dylan Thomas
User avatar
Strix
Active Member
 
Posts: 1072
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2004 10:02 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California, USA

Postby Mary » Fri Sep 03, 2004 8:58 pm

I don't think your comment on the girlyman thing was offensive. A wee bit ignorant perhaps (I don't mean that pejoratively - I mean it as a description of your not being aware of a certain set of opinions.) You say you didn't think of the gay community with that remark. I bet a lot of other people did. Your comment seems to me to imply that you don't know any gay men, or that if you do they don't share their political opinions with you.
User avatar
Mary
Active Member
 
Posts: 4623
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2004 6:37 pm
Location: Midlands

Postby sensless » Fri Sep 03, 2004 9:00 pm

Strix,

I did not dismiss the offense taken by individuals. I said I found the quoted statements more offensive because the comments were intended to be harmful. If AS intended to be harmful with his comment then I would put his statement in the same category as the previously quoted comments. To ensure that I was not being dismissive is why I stated that the comments were "...just as offensive as someone using the phrase 'girlyman'..."

Regards,

John Jr.
poop.
User avatar
sensless
Active Member
 
Posts: 1081
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 8:43 pm
Location: Wisconsin

Postby Strix » Fri Sep 03, 2004 9:09 pm

[quote="sensless"]Strix,

I did not dismiss the offense taken by individuals. I said I found the quoted statements more offensive because the comments were intended to be harmful. If AS intended to be harmful with his comment then I would put his statement in the same category as the previously quoted comments. To ensure that I was not being dismissive is why I stated that the comments were "...just as offensive as someone using the phrase 'girlyman'..."

Regards,

John Jr.


Okay, this could get technical, lol.

Let me say this, first, you did imply I was a hypocrite. You stated:

"Stating you found it offensive that someone called someone else a name and then doing the exact same thing is, in my opinion, hypocracy at its finest"

If I am doing the same thing and you have deemed that hypocritical, then I am acting as a hypocrite. Hence, you are implying, I am a hypocrite. :)

Second, I take issue with your earlier word, "slander," as my comments were nothing of the sort. But now you seem to have the knowledge of my intent as well as Arnold's :). Interesting. Care to pass on the secret to this gift? :)

Now, I think it may say something about Arnold to use a word which he knows (because he used it before) was offensive to others. *I* cannot tell you what his specific intent was, but, so far as I'm concerned, the fact that he used it again, shows something, and the connotation isn't good. So that in itself -- the inability -- or worse, the unwillingness -- to refrain from a remark which offends -- is offensive.
"The hand that signed the paper felled a city;
Five sovereign fingers taxed the breath,
Doubled the globe of dead and halved a country;
These five kings did a king to death."
-Dylan Thomas
User avatar
Strix
Active Member
 
Posts: 1072
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2004 10:02 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California, USA

Postby sensless » Sat Sep 04, 2004 12:26 am

Maybe I'll touch on the other stuff after I'm done waking up. So just a quick one here.

I already explained the "you" should have read "one". Beyond that, the particular quoted line is merely a sample of what I think is hypocracy, not an attribution of hypocracy to you (Strix). Yet another step beyond that, people beyond Strix and I have commented about this, so if the current reader isn't the one who called AS or others a name but was offended by his use of 'girlyman', then this example of hypocracy probably shouldn't be applied to that reader.

It gets very ambiguous and tricky when attempting to debate with several people at once. The attribution of lines that aren't meant for all readers can occur easily.

I'm going to go watch Football now.

Always loving,

John Jr.
poop.
User avatar
sensless
Active Member
 
Posts: 1081
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 8:43 pm
Location: Wisconsin

PreviousNext

Return to Bodybuilding and Training with Weights

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests