Quick Question; Does This Offened You?

Nailz

Probably has been done here before, but I had a short little rant about an album cover on the Music forum when I presented this particular album cover and mentioned it was banned. One person was curious why, and I gave him the rant/explanation I was talking about. But I want to know, does this album cover by Slayer titled "Christ Illusion" offened you and should it be banned???



I'm not fùcking about or trolling, I'm dead serious!

seanybiker

dont see why that was banned. Tis a cool cover

camel toe

the band slayer offend me.

Nailz

seanybiker wrote: »

dont see why that was banned. Tis a cool cover

Exactly my point...

camel toe wrote: »

the band slayer offend me.

And this post here reminded me to tell you to explain you opinions, even off topic ones. Now pray tell... (no pun intended )

Edit: Just incase somebody cares/wants to know what I said on the Music forum;

malice_ wrote: »

Apologies for going off-topic but I'm curious as to why it's banned here. Any ideas?

... and I said...

Nailz wrote: »

Because the people who ban them are a bunch of oversencitive morons who'd get offened if a man wore a hat to mass!! I'm Catholic (not a good one), but ffs some people should cop on and stop having the idea that everything should be made out of flowers and puppies!! In the time and age that we live in now people should let go of their staunch way of going on and fùcking loosin' their belt, it isn't 1980's Ireland anymore ladies and gentlemen! Why should they seriously give a fùck if a popular metal band decide to have Jesus (and a few other things ) on their album cover!?!

It could be worse... they could have had L. Ron Hubbard on it!

Sorry if you don't like my reaction.

BrianCalgary

It is one ugly and violent album cover. Sickening to look at and I would seriously question someone who found it edifying.

Nailz

So you think the point in it is being edifying??? Wow. Ugly and violent, two words that don't transpire when I think about it, it's art, well painted, detailed art. And violence does not appear at all in this artwork, violence is a turbulent state resulting in injuryies and destruction, but I can only see the aftermath!!

And you didn't answer the questions asked, but you better not think it should be banned because it's "ugly and violent" and not edifying enough! :rolleyes:

Mena

I like it. I like the album too. Although to be fair their earlier work, specifically Reign in Blood is far, far better.

This being said, not sure it's wise to bring any of this up in this forum as it's obvious it would offend the locals.

BrianCalgary

Nailz wrote: »

So you think the point in it is being edifying??? Wow. Ugly and violent, two words that don't transpire when I think about it, it's art, well painted, detailed art. And violence does not appear at all in this artwork, violence it a turbulent state resulting in injuryies and destruction, but I can only see the aftermath!!

And you didn't answer the questions asked, but you better not think it should be banned because it's "ugly and violent" and not edifying enough! :rolleyes:

Lets see: severed heads lying about on the ground. A figure with arms cut off at the elbow and no legs? Presumably severed.

An eye patch, indicatingan eye injury?

And you don't see the violence?

It is a painting and not a very good one. The use of colour is atrocious.

yes it should be banned or restricted to those who wish to go and have a peek at it. It should not be thrust in front of unsuspecting viewers.

seanybiker

ah jaysus cant understand how people find it offensive. Passion of christ had loads of blood in it and no one said anything about that. If anything it had blood for the sake of blood

BrianCalgary

seanybiker wrote: »

ah jaysus cant understand how people find it offensive. Passion of christ had loads of blood in it and no one said anything about that. If anything it had blood for the sake of blood

Didn't think you would. I'm not surprised.

The Passion of the Christ was an historical depiction of what actually happened. This album cover has no redeeming qualities. It is blood for bloods sake. Intended to shock.

Poor artists do this, create a shock piece to hide their lack of talent.

Nailz

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Lets see: severed heads lying about on the ground. A figure with arms cut off at the elbow and no legs? Presumably severed.

An eye patch, indicatingan eye injury?

And you don't see the violence?

It is a painting and not a very good one. The use of colour is atrocious.

yes it should be banned or restricted to those who wish to go and have a peek at it. It should not be thrust in front of unsuspecting viewers.

A. That's not the ground, it's a sea of blood.
B. He does have legs, how do think he is standing in the sea of blood???
C. Violence is when destruction and confrontation occurs (are you blind or did you just not bother reading my definition in my previous post?), like I said then you can only see aftermath.
D. It's well painted, the colours are perfect for the gloomy atmosphere they wanted to create in the artwork, also seeing as you thought that was supposed to be red grass (or something) you shouldn't be the one judging the colour on it. :rolleyes: Well detailed too.
E. We wouldn't wanted those poor innocent grannies looking through all the Metal albums in HMV (or whatever your equivolent is in Canada) to have a heart attack now would we???

Edit: Poor artists??? Fine you can go off and listen to your Petra or whoever the fùck listen ta'!

seanybiker

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Didn't think you would. I'm not surprised.

The Passion of the Christ was an historical depiction of what actually happened. This album cover has no redeeming qualities. It is blood for bloods sake. Intended to shock.

Poor artists do this, create a shock piece to hide their lack of talent.

Wheres the proof it actually happened . Apart from a few books there is no proof.

BrianCalgary

Nailz wrote: »

A. That's not the ground, it's a sea of blood.Thats a brilliant topic and not well painted as I couldn't tell
B. He does have legs, how do think he is standing in the sea of blood???As I said presumably
C. Violence is when destruction and confrontation occurs (are you blind or did you just not bother reading my definition in my previous post?), like I said then you can only see aftermath. I dont accept your definition. A sea of blood and severed heads is violent.
D. It's well painted, the colours are perfect for the gloomy atmosphere they wanted to create in the artwork, also seeing as you thought that was supposed to be red grass (or something) you shouldn't be the one judging the colour on it. :rolleyes: Well detailed too.I certainly can judge the colour if I so desire.
E. We wouldn't wanted those poor innocent grannies looking through all the Metal albums in HMV (or whatever your equivolent is in Canada) to have a heart attack now would we???Not talking about grannies now are we? We are talking about someone who is interested in what this thread is about and there it is thrust upon us.

But being the self centred person that I see you as you wont be bothered and will take great pride in the fact that you offended a bunch of people.

BrianCalgary

seanybiker wrote: »

Wheres the proof it actually happened . Apart from a few books there is no proof.

Now you are getting into dangerous territory here. Apart from a few books there is lots in History that has no proof. Are you prepared to discuss such a topic whilst applying equal historical standards to all events?

Acacia

I don't really find it offensive. I view it as a piece of art meant to complement the tone and style of the album. That said, I understand why other people would find it offensive and I would not think they are being over-sensitive. They are entitled to be offended.

However, I wouldn't like to see certain kinds of art/music banned just because it may be offensive to some people. Freedom of expression, and all that. Of course, those that are offended have every right to complain about it and express their opinions.

That's what's makes things interesting after all- different points of view!

seanybiker

im not on about lots of history im on about 1 thing that supposedly happened.

Nailz

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Didn't think you would. I'm not surprised.

Don't be a condecending (blank), just because you're a staunch (blank) that only see's your own opinion doesn't mean you have to treat him worse. By the looks of things he's more open minded and less tight-arsed than you!

Gareth37

Nailz wrote: »

Probably has been done here before, but I had a short little rant about an album cover on the Music forum when I presented this particular album cover and mentioned it was banned. One person was curious why, and I gave him the rant/explanation I was talking about. But I want to know, does this album cover by Slayer titled "Christ Illusion" offened you and should it be banned???



I'm not fùcking about or trolling, I'm dead serious!

It does offend me personally as a member of your society but it would offend our Father as this is Blasphemy.

Acacia

seanybiker wrote: »

im not on about lots of history im on about 1 thing that supposedly happened.

That's not the point though. Some people do believe it happened, and this belief plays a major role in their lives. Therefore, they have every right to be offended by something which they may view as mocking/insulting this belief.

I say this as a non-religious person, btw.

Nailz

BrianCalgary wrote: »

But being the self centred person that I see you as you wont be bothered and will take great pride in the fact that you offended a bunch of people.

Now if that's the sort of bullshìt you're talking then I'm too fùcking right you shouldn't judge how it's painted. If you wanna look at art, then you should stare at the Last Supper!! Were it so happens he accidently made a dude look like a chick!!!

I don't think it's to clever to make up your own meaning of violent either.

Edit:

Gareth37 wrote: »

It does offend me personally as a member of your society but it would offend our Father as this is Blasphemy.

Well my father finds it funny how easily you people are offened.

seanybiker

i see where your coming from. Im only disagreeing with ya for the sake of it.

Gareth37

Nailz wrote: »

Now if that's the sort of bullshìt you're talking then I'm too fùcking right you shouldn't judge how it's painted. If you wanna look at art, then you should stare at the Last Supper!! Were it so happens he accidently made a dude look like a chick!!!

I don't think it's to clever to make up your own meaning of violent either.

This user should be banned from boards.ie altogether for use of such profanity.

Nailz

Gareth37 wrote: »

This user should be banned from boards.ie altogether for use of such profanity.

Oooohhhh!!! I'd like for you to point out where I said a thing out of line! It isn't my fault, it's Da Vinci's.

BrianCalgary

Nailz wrote: »

Oooohhhh!!! I'd like for you to point out where I said a thing out of line! It isn't my fault, it's Da Vinci's.

Read the charter. You will see where you broke it.

BrianCalgary

seanybiker wrote: »

i see where your coming from. Im only disagreeing with ya for the sake of it.

If that;'s directed at me, then I'm Ok with that.

seanybiker

BrianCalgary wrote: »

If that;'s directed at me, then I'm Ok with that.

twas you bud. Its no fun getting on with everyone all the time lol.

Gareth37

Nailz wrote: »

Oooohhhh!!! I'd like for you to point out where I said a thing out of line! It isn't my fault, it's Da Vinci's.

Your mocking of scripture and Christianity can not be mistaken for the only reason you are here is to mock.

BrianCalgary

seanybiker wrote: »

twas you bud. Its no fun getting on with everyone all the time lol.

Nailz

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Read the charter. You will see where you broke it.

What? "No further discussion of M*D or events hosted by M*D"???

Gareth37 wrote: »

Your mocking of scripture and Christianity can not be mistaken for the only reason you are here is to mock.

No, I was here to ask about the album cover and debate until a couple of you lads came across too staunch and tight-arsed. I'm sure you're nice guys but you take things way way WAY too seriously!!

BrianCalgary

Nailz wrote: »

What? "No further discussion of M*D or events hosted by M*D"???

No, I was here to ask about the album cover and debate until a couple of you lads came across too staunch and tight-arsed. I'm sure you're nice guys but you take things way way WAY too seriously!!

You obviously didn't read the charter. It bans swearing. :rolleyes:

vi⋅o⋅lent   /ˈvaɪələnt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [vahy-uh-luhnt] Show IPA Pronunciation

–adjective 1. acting with or characterized by uncontrolled, strong, rough force: a violent earthquake.
2. caused by injurious or destructive force: a violent death.
3. intense in force, effect, etc.; severe; extreme: violent pain; violent cold.
4. roughly or immoderately vehement or ardent: violent passions.
5. furious in impetuosity, energy, etc.: violent haste.
6. of, pertaining to, or constituting a distortion of meaning or fact.

Nailz

BrianCalgary wrote: »

You obviously didn't read the charter. It bans swearing. :rolleyes:

vi⋅o⋅lent   /ˈvaɪələnt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [vahy-uh-luhnt] Show IPA Pronunciation

–adjective 1. acting with or characterized by uncontrolled, strong, rough force: a violent earthquake.
2. caused by injurious or destructive force: a violent death.
3. intense in force, effect, etc.; severe; extreme: violent pain; violent cold.
4. roughly or immoderately vehement or ardent: violent passions.
5. furious in impetuosity, energy, etc.: violent haste.
6. of, pertaining to, or constituting a distortion of meaning or fact.

I took my definitions off a dictionary too. :rolleyes:

Swearing... what fùcking harm did saying fùck or shìt or bollox ever create???

BrianCalgary

Oh dear.

Nailz

Don't be sad mate, it's only words.

Whatfor

Just logged on and read with interest all points of view. As an open minded person who (in my late forties) has no objections to anything that appears in print as long as it is up to the individual to purchase or view it. Be it porn or violence and as long as it does not include anything that is forced on anyone.
However if say that album cover was placed on a billoard then I would completely understand people being offended.
The beauty of living a free country is that we as individuals can choose what we want to do and see, but nobody should be forced to view or take part in anything that offends or could damage any part of the person either physiall or mentally.

Gareth37

Nailz wrote: »

Don't be sad mate, it's only words.

Words can be powerful both in the right and wrong hands. Those type of words do offend me so please discuss the thread topic without the use of such bad language. Thanks for your understanding.

Hivemind187

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Lets see: severed heads lying about on the ground. A figure with arms cut off at the elbow and no legs? Presumably severed.

An eye patch, indicatingan eye injury?

And you don't see the violence?

It is a painting and not a very good one. The use of colour is atrocious.

yes it should be banned or restricted to those who wish to go and have a peek at it. It should not be thrust in front of unsuspecting viewers.

He is right. It is aftermath, specifically that of the religious variety.

With relation to your critique of the work I would point out that it is a satirical painting illustrating (in no subtle way I might add) a sense of destruction wrought by the the major abrhamic religions (most notably with Slayer those of the Christian persuasion). It is also a damn sight less horrific than many of the accounts given of the atrocities carried out in the name of God or the renaissance paintings depicting armageddon or the so-called seven circles of hell.

You can always stop looking at the image that upsets you. Considering the rest of us (non-puritanicals, you know, the kind of people theists condemn as heathens and like to threaten with stories of fire and brimstone) are stuck listening to your church bells, calls to prayer, evangelists on national television and religions whackos in politics forcing their beliefs down our throats and forcing us to live by their standards its not much to ask is it?

I suppose you would prefer if Slayer didnt exist but since they do, how about suggesting a different cover art?

seanybiker

Whatfor wrote: »

Just logged on and read with interest all points of view. As an open minded person who (in my late forties) has no objections to anything that appears in print as long as it is up to the individual to purchase or view it. Be it porn or violence and as long as it does not include anything that is forced on anyone.
However if say that album cover was placed on a billoard then I would completely understand people being offended.
The beauty of living a free country is that we as individuals can choose what we want to do and see, but nobody should be forced to view or take part in anything that offends or could damage any part of the person either physiall or mentally.

ah there ya go. Us Waterford men know the happs lol.

Nailz

Whatfor wrote: »

Just logged on and read with interest all points of view. As an open minded person who (in my late forties) has no objections to anything that appears in print as long as it is up to the individual to purchase or view it. Be it porn or violence and as long as it does not include anything that is forced on anyone.
However if say that album cover was placed on a billoard then I would completely understand people being offended.
The beauty of living a free country is that we as individuals can choose what we want to do and see, but nobody should be forced to view or take part in anything that offends or could damage any part of the person either physiall or mentally.

I appreciate your opinion sir. That seems to be a good take on this topic and many others. But say, when you first opened this thread, what was your take on the album cover?

seanybiker wrote: »

ah there ya go. Us Waterford men know the happs lol.

Hahaha! Good on ya's lads!

Whatfor

Nailz wrote: »

I took my definitions off a dictionary too. :rolleyes:

Swearing... what fùcking harm did saying fùck or shìt or bollox ever create???

looks like your trying to offend with language by imposing it on someone who prefers more civilised language.
So are doing what I explained in my last post:rolleyes:

Hivemind187

Nailz wrote: »

I took my definitions off a dictionary too. :rolleyes:

Swearing... what fùcking harm did saying fùck or shìt or bollox ever create???

Believe me man, I'm speaking from experience here. They will infract and/or ban you for it regardless of whether you use the actual words or initials.

Try saying things like "prolapsed rectal tissue" or "cervical grease", they cant touch you for it since it doesnt set off the old "swear-dar".

Whatfor

Nailz wrote: »

I appreciate your opinion sir. That seems to be a good take on this topic and many others. But say, when you first opened this thread, what was your take on the album cover?

For the sake of discussion it is absoutely fine in a forum that you don't have to take part in if you are offended

seanybiker

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Try saying things like "prolapsed rectal tissue" or "cervical grease", they cant touch you for it since it doesnt set off the old "swear-dar".

ha ha ha thats brillent.

Hivemind187

Whatfor wrote: »

Just logged on and read with interest all points of view. As an open minded person who (in my late forties) has no objections to anything that appears in print as long as it is up to the individual to purchase or view it. Be it porn or violence and as long as it does not include anything that is forced on anyone.
However if say that album cover was placed on a billoard then I would completely understand people being offended.
The beauty of living a free country is that we as individuals can choose what we want to do and see, but nobody should be forced to view or take part in anything that offends or could damage any part of the person either physiall or mentally.

Great ... can we get those offensive posters about Easter prayers and Christ being risen off the busses, DART's and billboards?

Nailz

Gareth37 wrote: »

Words can be powerful both in the right and wrong hands. Those type of words do offend me so please discuss the thread topic without the use of such bad language. Thanks for your understanding.

Oh sorry, I didn't know anybody could be offened by them. They seem harmless, but may I have your reasons??

seanybiker

Nailz wrote: »

Oh sorry, I didn't know anybody could be offened by them. They seem harmless, but may I have your reasons??

i'd be the same as yourself. Normally I go around and every second word is F""" C"""" etc but I calm down on this place cos they frown upon it and I can understand why people find offence with someone who needs mustard in there mouth lol.

Nailz

seanybiker wrote: »

i'd be the same as yourself. Normally I go around and every second word is F""" C"""" etc but I calm down on this place cos they frown upon it and I can understand why people find offence with someone who needs mustard in there mouth lol.

Right, it's easy to pick up here in Cavan I'm afraid, when there's boggers present atleast. I try not to stoop to their level in public becease I hate boggers, but you have to let it out somewhere.

seanybiker

Nailz wrote: »

Right, it's easy to pick up here in Cavan I'm afraid, when there's boggers present atleast. I try not to stoop to their level in public becease I hate boggers, but you have to let it out somewhere.

Haven't been to Cavan in fecking years boy. Me da is from Redhills. tiny little place full of potholes.

Whatfor

i'm just like that myself I can let a string of f??ks out of when the need arises. But it would be face to face and in response to the same speak to me.
Would go like this "ah go and f??k yourself" (see I'm normal)
But in an interesting conversation I can get my point across perfectly without acting the hard man.
But us Deise men are like that

Lazare

Nailz wrote: »

A. That's not the ground, it's a sea of blood.
B. He does have legs, how do think he is standing in the sea of blood???
C. Violence is when destruction and confrontation occurs (are you blind or did you just not bother reading my definition in my previous post?), like I said then you can only see aftermath.
D. It's well painted, the colours are perfect for the gloomy atmosphere they wanted to create in the artwork, also seeing as you thought that was supposed to be red grass (or something) you shouldn't be the one judging the colour on it. :rolleyes: Well detailed too.
E. We wouldn't wanted those poor innocent grannies looking through all the Metal albums in HMV (or whatever your equivolent is in Canada) to have a heart attack now would we???

Edit: Poor artists??? Fine you can go off and listen to your Petra or whoever the fùck listen ta'!

I don't find the album cover offensive at all, but I don't particularly like it.

You on the other hand I find wholly offensive. Although, judging by your immature posts, you're probably just a stupid kid. Grow up you tool.

Nailz

seanybiker wrote: »

Haven't been to Cavan in fecking years boy. Me da is from Redhills. tiny little place full of potholes.

Aw good man himself, sure wasn't me suspention brok' by one of them not too many years ago! The b@$74£ds beat us (Shercock in the U16's) this year in the Championship!!

Whatfor wrote: »

i'm just like that myself I can let a string of f??ks out of when the need arises. But it would be face to face and in response to the same speak to me.
Would go like this "ah go and f??k yourself" (see I'm normal)
But in an interesting conversation I can get my point across perfectly without acting the hard man.
But us Deise men are like that

Aw that's alright, speak the way you're spoken to. But it doesn't make you hard, it's just something you say.

Nailz

Lazare wrote: »

I don't find the album cover offensive at all, but I don't particularly like it.

You on the other hand I find wholly offensive. Although, judging by your immature posts, you're probably just a stupid kid. Grow up you tool.

Wow, the man who's talking.