Just trolling: It's OK to poke fun at Christians, says ASA The fact that trolls can smell Christian blood is well-known, the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) has ruled, and a reference to it in a fake job advert used to promote a film was unlikely to cause widespread offence, it said today. After receiving two complaints about the advert "Troll Hunters Required" listed in The …
Well, it's a bit like your comment peppered with outdated terminology and language that has been handed down from previous generations and extrapolated from their original meanings faith-based or otherwise.
I am glad to see, at least, you use the word "lesson" in context, but what word do you use when you want to spread eduction other than the bible?
"Leaving aside the CE/BCE error there, why should a non-aligned organisation be expected to continue to use a description that is effectively aligned with one specific faith?"
Just because it has been part of the culture of the western world is a good reason alone to leave the BC/AC as it is.
Following your logic I suggest we all stop using the Gregorian Calendar which is also a Christian invention.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorian_calendar
BC is a very specific time reference, and CE and BCE are thoughtful substitutes to be used in a world that is not 100% Christian. It acknowledges the dominance of the European world on our historical understanding without using a word that not all people use with comfort.
Surely a true Christian would not insist that a non-Christian use his or her faith-words. It would be unloving, prideful. Surely no true Christian can be baited. Their Saviour taught them to be meek, gentle, and to turn the other cheek. Paul urged them to glory in the opportunity to share the bruising He endured for them. But then, true Christians are thin on the ground...
BC and AD when such references are required. The reason is because, although I am not a Christian, the year is 2011 years after the *putative* birth of Christ. What else is it supposed to be 2011 years after? I maintain that if people don't want to use the Christian calendar, then instead of burying such use under a mantle of political correctness such the BCE/CE bullshit, that they adopt another calendar altogether.
My vote is for a calendar with the year 0 being the birth year of Nicholaus Copernicus - the first scientist to challenge the Church's Earth-centric universe, thus starting the rise of science in the face of religion. Since Copernicus was born in 1473 AD, that would make this the year 538 ANC, so dates would then be listed as BNC/ANC. Something like that, I'd rather use than a religious calendar thinly veiled in political correctness.
... like the kind you get in the Daily Mail. The BBC did not "change BC to BCE" at all, that was complete nonsense: see for example
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/content/response/useofdatetermsbcandad
"Whilst the BBC uses BC and AD like most people as standard terminology, it is possible to use different terminology, particularly as it is now commonly used in historical research. The BBC has issued no editorial guidance on date systems, and the decision rests with the individual editorial and production teams."
or http://blog.dave.org.uk/2011/09/bbc-bce-addendum.html
" * The BBC does not have a policy in place forcing programmes to use BCE and CE in place of BC and AD
* There is a policy on the BBC Religion web site to use BCE and CE on that site[1].
* The Religion web site policy has been in place for at least four years
[ . . . ]
[1] However, it’s worth noting that every page on that site which talks about Christianity seems to break that policy and uses BC and AD. "
Of course, someone who is in the frame of mind that they have to believe what they're told by a book, regardless of evidence or logic, is at risk of carrying over the same attitude to what they read in the newspapers, but really, how many times are you going to fall for the same trick before you learn to stop trusting the tabloids? Pretty much every supposed "political correctness" scandal they've reported has been fabricated; nobody's banned christmas, that school a couple of years back didn't ban the kids from giving christmas cards, the EU didn't rule that bananas had to be straight, etc., etc., etc., the list goes on. People believe these stories not because they're true, but because they want them to be true and are willing to suspend their critical faculties when presented with something that appears to confirm their preconceived notions. Much like the way they pick and choose those bits of the bible that agree with their political-moral agenda.
Here endeth the lesson.
There was I thinking under EU `lawl's`(sic) that religion of no matter what faith should be treated equaly and fairly. Would if not be fair to now have adverts making fun of starwars figures and other lesser faiths? Standards have been laid down, would be wrong not to follow them fully :-).
"The Trollhunter". singular form with the definite article baked in to the end of the word. I.e Trollhunter is "Trolljeger" contra The Trollhunter, "Trolljegeren". The Trollhunter*s* would in fact be "Trolljegerne" being the way you spell a word which ends in "r" anyway when you wish to express plural form with a definite article, otherwise the ending would be "ene".
There, I am sure absolutely everybody was dying to know that.
This is the movie where I guy runs around talking about "bearn" (bjørn).
It is used so many times, that when I see a bear on TV, all I hear in my head now is "Bearn".
Also, why is this coming out now, that movie is kind of old now by movie standards isn't it. Much like my comment on this thread.
Having skimmed through the comments, it is obvious that many are missing the point. The real story here is that there are still a handful of morons out there who insist on whining about everything.
"I read something about (insert deity/religion), I was offended.
Signed X"
Thankfully someone at the ASA found the rarest of commodities, common sense. Hurrah!
If you want to believe in a God, I couldn't care less. As the great William Melvin Hicks once said,
"beliefs are neat, cherish them, just don't go around sharing them like they're the truth", and he was raised Southern Baptist.
We all need to accept everything is fair game to have a laugh at and you can't be punished for doing so, true democracies promote freedom of speech.
Of course, if you cross the line into hateful and offensive remarks you will be ridiculed and ignored by the sane majority - see Nick Griffin.
You've managed to pull two totally unrelated passages from a book, completely out of context and shown that they are contradictory.
Why not also use the bit (I can't remember where they are) that talk about beating swords into ploughshares and then the other bit that talks about beating ploughshares into swords.
Or you could talk about eye-for-an-eye and then about Love thy Neighbour or Turn the other cheek.
Space-time is discrete.
Space-time is continuous.
Cue ridiculous, emotional battles between proponents of string theories, brane theories, etc.
And don't get me started on holding fast to unprovable assertions about the world, eg the principles of universality and parsimony.
Something about motes and beams springs to mind ...
Umm, which part of that statement is considered true?
1. That Trolls (of the Scandinavian kind) exist
2. That christian blood has a particular smell
3. That god exists
4. That these facts, together, are well known.
Fail on all 4 methinks. With maybe a pass for those who enjoy myths.
The ASA are a complete waste of space who make up the rules as they go along and are completely unable to apply those rules evenly across the board. Now regardless of what you think in this particular case I think any reasonable person would surely think it's long sice time the ASA was abolished and replaced with something that could do the job properly.
The issue isn't the contravention of any old blasphemy laws still hanging around, its a result of the anti-christian multiculturalist oversensitivity which holds that all religions are equally valid and that a pseudo-governmental committee is the best way to determine what you are allowed to laugh at.
The real news item: censorship hasn't been applied *in this case.*
How is that, "as long as you don't hurt anyone you can do what you like," philosophy working out?
>>"...its a result of the anti-christian multiculturalist oversensitivity which holds that all religions are equally valid.."
What a /classic/ example of bias and 'oversensitivity' - 'even-handedness' == 'anti-Christian'.
If the best evidence someone can find for being persecuted is that people aren't giving them the special treatment they think you deserve, maybe they'd be best advised to keep their mouth shut if they don't want to look like an idiot.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
