0
jtval

Howard Stern

Recommended Posts

>this conversation will always be reduced to you saying truth is relative
> and me saying that it isn't. I don't think it's demeaning to shoot
> someone in the head.

It may not be; many of our soldiers have recently shot Iraqis in the head. Rather than considering them "demeaned" we often consider them heroes. But in normal societies, some 'moral values' are important to the functioning of society - hence the laws against stealing, murder, drunk driving. These are 'external morals' if you will; they are enforced because the one thing you may never do (under our system of morals) is deprive someone else of _their_ right to life or freedom to do their own thing.

"Internal morals" are a bit different. You think meaningless sex is wrong. That's fine; everyone has their own views on whether that's wrong or not. An Arab may hate Jews for what they are doing to his homeland, or an American may hate Arabs because of 9/11. Again, that's fine - as long as he doesn't act on his hatred. All these are very, very different from shooting someone in the head. Here in the US we believe pretty strongly that you have every right to your opinions, and hence a lot of them are expressed.

Personally, I believe as you do, that sex isn't something you do at a party when you get some woman really drunk. I also believe in monogamy. I would not, however, presume to tell a polygynist that his relationship is wrong, especially if his religion, society or even personal beliefs allow it. That value decision is up to him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

no, they would both be wrong. it is never right to intentionally do something to kill yourself or someone else. who knows... someone may come and save them from their captors. the captors may have a change of heart (humans have thoses, you know). any number of possibilities exist. true, they will likely die at the hands of their captors. that doesn't make suicide and murder acceptable. well, to you maybe.



or you may take the "moral high ground" as exposed by your culture and spend the next 20 years being raped and tortured and wish you have followed your intution and shot your self after your buddy did...

live or die is a personal decision, and there are far to many variables to make blanket statements like "its always wrong or always right"
____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you're a fan of Howard Stern, then I ask how you can enjoy laughing it up at the expense of his targets.

Good Example: His jokes about the Columbine shooters a few years ago. Very funny stuff, as long as you aren't very sensitive to the feelings of murder and major trauma victims, or maybe if you live in Columbine, CO.



I believe Stern's ONLY talent is his unabashedness at being an insensitive shitbag, and I also believe his success speaks volumes about the direction our world is heading.

Irreverance is healthy, but total insensitivity is not. :S ;)


. . =(_8^(1)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I've been arguing that their are values/principles/morals etc. that are universal and govern all persons. One of those principles being that it is wrong for a person to starve when they have food available.



Many Hindus believe that it is morally wrong to kill an animal - any animal; not just a cow - even to eat it, and therefore espouse vegetarianism as a moral imperative.
A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Good Example: His jokes about the Columbine shooters a few years ago. Very funny stuff, as long as you aren't very sensitive to the feelings of murder and major trauma victims, or maybe if you live in Columbine, CO.



What jokes were those? I remember him commenting that he couldn't understand why someone would indiscriminately kill a bunch of people for no understandable reason. He said that he could understand (not condone) why some screwed up kids would use guns to get something out of it, like sex, but not why they would just kill people with no motive.

Then the press said he was making jokes about it and everyone believed the press.

Can you relate what the jokes were that he made about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's see, how about:

affected, bloated, boastful, bombastic, conceited, egotistic, flatulent, flaunting, flowery, fustian, grandiloquent, grandiose, high-flown, highfalutin, hoity-toity, imperious, important, inflated, magisterial, magniloquent, narcissistic, orotund, ostentatious, overbearing, overblown, pontifical, portentous, presumptuous, pretentious, puffed up, puffy, rhetorical, self-centered, self-important, selfish, showy, sonorous, stuck-up, supercilious, turgid, uppity, vain, and vainglorious.:P
You can get a lot more done with a kind word and a gun than with a kind word alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

What jokes were those?



I would look them up word-for-word, but I have to go to the widget factory now to make more widgets. :ph34r:

Basically Stern made jokes about how Dylan and Clebold messed up by not screwing the girls they shot before they shot them.

The jokes were a big deal around Littleton/Denver, and ultimately cost Stern that market.


. . =(_8^(1)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

do you honestly NOT believe that someone like Howard Stern WOULDN'T make such tasteless jokes on the air?



Yes..um...no...um...what? :P

Stern does make jokes about tragedy that could be considered tasteless. But he's not the only one. Lots of people make jokes when confronted with disturbing circumstances as a way to ease the tension. Have you ever been to a funeral or wake where everyone is morose and then someone makes a joke about the deceased that cheers everyone up? Laughing at tragedy is one way of coping.

After 9/11 when David Letterman, et al had to leave the city for a month, Stern stayed on the air, even while the buildings were collapsing. He never even considered abandoning his city or his listeners. Countless people even his detractors, called to thank him for keeping their minds occupied during an incomprehensible tragedy.

Yes, his humor isn't for everyone. But I don't think he's generally an evil or uncaring person. Think about it, spending 5 hours a day talking and trying to remain entertaining at the same time. Making wise cracks and having a sarcastic, biting sense of humor. You're bound to screw up and cross a couple of lines that you don't mean to in an effort to keep talkind and keep entertaining. I'm sure if it was a scripted show with every line written in advance, he never would have made the comment about Columbine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Yes..um...no...um...what?



I even twisted my own feeble brain re-reading my fucked up question of quadruple-zillion negatives.

yeah, I agree w/ you on bringing humor into tragedy to help cope. but I just think he crosses the line TOO often. ah well.

-the artist formerly known as sinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0