long live the queen!
this is my tribute to madonna.
there is no one as hip, as cool, or as damn sexy as madonna. no one. not yet. gwen stefani has come close, but hasn’t quite hit the mark yet. we will never forget the rash expression of her sexuality whether it was the videos for ‘like a virgin’, ‘human nature’, ‘erotica’ (the banned version, of course) or ‘music’, her downright alluring sense of honesty, a certain edge, a raw quality that makes everything she sings or says worth listening to. we will never forget how seductive ‘bedtime stories’ was, or how powerful ‘evita’ was. we will never forget her brave fashion statements, from the short, spiky blonde hair and the rock princess look complete with the huge military boots, the short black hair and the sophisticated artiste look in the video for ‘rain’, the geisha look complete with the ironed hair and a dash of the mystic sorceress look thrown in that she tried in ‘frozen’ and ‘nothing really matters’. we will never forget her performing alongside the divas of today, britney spears, christina aguilera and missy elliot, leave alone her kissing the former two in a brazen and electric moment that shocked the world, nor her soul-moving performance at the london live 8 concert last June, alongside the African girl whom she embraced in tears. we will never forget her movie disasters, nor will we get the sheer delirium of seeing her for a feelting period in ‘die another day’. we will never forget her wearing a t shirt that had her child’s name written on it and we weill never forget how she said she’d be honoured to scrub the floors of sir paul mcCartney’s toilets.
being a feminist through word and deed, the experimental and challenging streak in her has lead her to success again and again. whether it was done with a bang like in ‘erotica’ or a whisper in ‘bedtime stories’ madonna’s message was always the same, in the most heartfelt and passionate way possible : ‘express yourself, dont repress yourself.’ amidst much criticism, madonna has risen again and again to prove that she’s here to stay. resoundingly saying ‘fuck off, i’m not done yet’ with each album that topped the charts and pushed the borders, she did evita when people said she was only a performer and not a singer, she came out with ‘ray of light’ when people said she was over, she produced and perfectly mothers two children when people said she’s immature, unstable and reckless.
The girl has a million achievements to rave about but here are some of the biggest:
* According to the Guinness Book of World Records, Madonna is the most successful female recording artist of all time.
* According to Warner Bros. Records, Madonna has sold over 250 million records (75 million singles and 175 million albums), more than any other female recording artist.
* Madonna has 12 No. 1 singles on Billboard’s Hot 100 Singles Chart, the same number as Diana Ross and The Supremes and behind only Mariah Carey’s 16 among female artists.
In the US, Madonna, Britney Spears, Celine Dion, Mariah Carey, Whitney Houston, Shania Twain, and the Dixie Chicks are the only female artists with multiple Diamond (shipped over 10 million copies) albums.
* Madonna is the most successful dance artist in music history; she has 33 #1 singles on Billboard’s Hot Dance/Club Play Singles Chart, more than twice the number of her nearest rival Janet Jackson. Madonna also has 25 #1 singles on Billboard’s Hot Dance Single Sales Chart, more than three times the number of her nearest rivals Michael Jackson, Janet Jackson, Prince, and Notorious B.I.G.
* Madonna has 10 No. 1 singles on the UK singles chart, more than any other female artist.
* Madonna has 12 No. 2 singles on the UK singles chart, more than any other artist ever.
very album Madonna has released has gone Top 10 in the UK and her self-titled debut is the only one to miss the Top 5.
* Madonna has had more music videos played more often on MTV than any other artist.
* Madonna was voted by MTV viewers as the greatest music video icon ever on the network’s 25 Greatest Video Stars.
* Madonna was named the sexiest recording artist ever on VH1’s 100 Sexiest Artists.
* Madonna is the richest female singer in the world with an estimated net worth of over $850 million.
* In 2004 Madonna became one of the five founding members of the UK Music Hall of Fame, joining Elvis Presley, The Beatles, Bob Marley, and U2 as automatic inductees.
however, what madonna probably does best is reinventing herself. just when you think you know which genre of music you can say her music belongs to, just when you think you know what kinda of recording artist she is, she goes and does something that questions exactly how we make distinctions between genres at all. she flows with smoothly along with time, but stays true to herself in a way few artists manage. ever.
dancer, singer, songwriter, performer extraordinaire madonna lives on, in ‘confessions on a dancefloor’. infectiously funky and superbly sophisticated, her new album delivers all the way. everything about everything she ever does is so tasteful and sexy, from every outfit, to every video, to every album cover, to every lyric. unmatchable standards of perfection. madonna is a rocker. long live the queen!
Have you also forgotten that Madonna put her kid on the Atkins diet and also indulges in fox hunting whis is probably one of the most pointless and barbaric activities that Homo Sapiens indulges in? Have you also forgotten her pretensions of being British? The bad accent she acquired pretty much overnight after marrying Guy Ritchie?
I wonder how much contact her first child has with its biological father as well. Madonna is just an icon, sure she’s a succesful businesswoman and there’s a lot of credit given to her for all that she’s achieved but do you really put that much faith in all this hall of fame inductee bollocks? How do we know that it’s not just a generous dontation in the right direction that ensures all of this?
Have you also forgotten that horrible video for “hanging up” and how she’s just stolen an awesome Abba track and raped it for a number one? Have you forgotten her brazen statement at the Oscar’s after Evita where she pretty much said she’d be walking away with an Oscar for Evita and had zilch at the end of the night? Sure she’s rich, but she’s nothing more than a carefully managed media persona. She’s got business acumen, but so does a succesful pimp/madame. She’s just someone who shamelessly exploited her sexuality to become succesful, there’s nothing wrong with that, but it’s nothing amazingly special. People get exploited everyday, for instance, child prostitutes, but nobody gives them kudos for doing what they do. Madonna just allowed herself to be exploited at the right time.
Face it, Madonna’s just a glorified manufactured pop icon, like Michael Jackson but without the kiddie fiddling.
Comment by Curious Yellow — February 7, 2006 @ 11:16 pm
What’s wrong with Fox Hunting? some like to play PS2. Other’s like to shoot. No big deal really. Fox hunting is more than shooting the damn fox. Its more about the whole adventure. At the end of it you get to shoot a gun and kill a fox. its all very cool. Those who know the thrill of huntin will know.
Also, since when do we give a damn about whether anyone’s kid spends time with their biological father? Theirs bound to be someone known to us and we don’t bother abt their kids. why bother about madonna’s kid, who probably doesn’t even bother about the dad.
On the other hand Madonna is well managed. However you have to give her some credit too. Some artists, no matter how they are managed are incapable of doing what madonna has accomplished.
Comment by Scourge — February 8, 2006 @ 6:38 am
curious yellow : i wasnt exalting her as a person, i put her on a pedestal for the artist she is, and just like you aptly put, the icon she is. sure, she’s a well manufactured icon. but isnt that something worth noting with respect? it takes a lot to survive in this industry without fading into the blur of ten million newer, younger artists for more than a decade. she’s made it. face it. sure she’s an icon, but she’s managed to become and moreover STAY the world’s most impressive and successful pop icon for as long as she’s been around. she’s ruthless and obnoxious, true, but doesnt she have reason to be? she is rolling in money and fame at the end of the day. and lets not start slinging mud at michael jackson, who is only the world’s best performer, dancer and entertainer in my opinion. ever. ‘hung up’ is a fantastic #1 and has a great video. have you seen the way she moves in it? how many forty-something-mother-of two women do you know who can move like she did back in the 1980s? people have done worse things than use abba tracks on their own. i’ll tell you what rape is. rape is when jessica simpson decided to cover ‘take my breath away’. rape is when britney spears decided to cover ’satisfaction’. i mean whatever said and done, you have got to know enough to leave ’satisfaction’ the fuck alone.
Comment by electra — February 8, 2006 @ 8:59 am
thats a pretty good picture you got there of hers….
Comment by SpectralCentroid — February 8, 2006 @ 9:40 am
Damn right scourge. There’s nothing wrong with fox hunting. Just that all the foxes in Sri Lanka are up themselves or have boyfriends with greasy hair and body guards.
Electra couldn’t agree with you more. Madonna is worth the mention solely because we are still talking about her. What happened to the other artists that started out in the eighties. Where they be now.
Apart from that she is incredibly sexy. Not beautiful but there is no other woman in the world that I’d rather shag. There was this scene from body of evidence….well, errr - never mind.
Curious Yellow, all the faults you mentioned are attributable to any individual in any walk of life. However, how many of us have become as famous and respected as Madonna? And god knows we’d like to. Knowing what works and running with it is a talent in itself. So don’t trash people who have it.
Gwen Stefani rules!!
Comment by Sophist — February 8, 2006 @ 9:43 am
maddona is a artist and a manufactured icon.
unlike most others, she is and was fully and capably in charge of her own making and remaking of her image. I was a great admirer of her as person. her ever changing and compelling public personae are and were always fakes but until recently she did not pretend they were real. that she was able to ’sell’ each of her endless remakes while at the same time openly remaining the same person is probably her greatest achievement. that is why her present fake self is such a let down., to me at least.
as for her songs, i alway liked them. i believe they will probably last longer than most others (imo longevity is the best judge of any artwork)
btw i think uk fox hunting ban is one of the most stupid, hypocritical, abuses of law ever.
madonna was a phony but a real phony. (apologies to breakfast at tiffany’s). now she has become fake phony. pity.
Comment by sittingnut — February 8, 2006 @ 9:43 am
Sure Madonna is rich, Madonna is famous but apart from the management is there any real talent there? Her singing is mediocre, her dancing is something that most people who are of a reasonable BMI and a good dance coach could learn in a few hours a day. If you want management successes then why not tout Coke or Pepsi? Why not tout Maria Sharapova whom everyone is wetting themselves over despite her having won just one grand slam title and having a face like a pepperoni pizza when she has no make up on? Why praise someone who’s just served to objectify women?
I agree that fox hunting is a waste of lawmakers’ time but would you not agree that hunting an animal for sport is barbaric when it isn’t even for food? Angling is alright, because you have something to eat at the end of it. Also, Scourge, you’re misinformed, there is no gunshot for a quick and clean exit for the fox, it’s chased to the point of exhasution and then torn apart by the hounds, all so a bunch of inbred twats with faces like the horses they ride can feel like men for a few moments. What happened to all those higher thought processes we gained since we started walking on two legs? Are we to sacrifice them so some miniscule membered muppet can chase a fox with some dogs? Come on folks, show some compassion towards the poor dumb animal!
Comment by Curious Yellow — February 8, 2006 @ 1:00 pm
you’re going to judge everything this woman has achieved as an artist because she hunts? because she does something old, rich english men have been doing for centuries before her? get real.
Comment by electra — February 8, 2006 @ 2:04 pm
So are you judging everything she achieved as an artist by the amount of money she makes ? Or by how many records she sold, electra?
Being better at selling records makes her the better artiste, no doubt.
How strange. When counting achievements, dismiss flaws because old, rich english men have been doing it for centuries before her. She should consider invading a few countries and exploiting their natural resources next. Seems to me that old, rich english gentlemen made a pretty penny from that for centuries too.
Comment by don't eat the yellow snow — February 8, 2006 @ 3:26 pm
Fox hunting is taking pleasure in the killing of an animal. That is insensitive and twisted. I don’t think you need some court judge to tell you that. Fishing as a sport is similar, except that the fish doesn’t usually die. But imagine someone putting a hook in your throat, jerking you around, having a giggle and then sending you on your way. Fun no?
Comment by ddm — February 8, 2006 @ 4:41 pm
Her singing is mediocre, her dancing is something that most people who are of a reasonable BMI and a good dance coach could learn in a few hours a day- but they are not successful, she is. why?
if you want management successes then why not tout Coke or Pepsi? - bc they already have brand managers, who make much less?
judging … an artist by the amount of money - well that is the only objective method, all others are subjective.
…hunting an animal for sport is barbaric when it isn’t even for food? - so you would do only ‘useful’ things? how boring
it’s chased to the point of exhasution and then torn apart by the hounds …Fox hunting is taking pleasure in the killing of an animal - imo that is the point. it is supposed to be a bloodsport. if you do not like it don’t do it, but you have no right to impose your values on others.
What happened to all those higher thought processes - why not be honest about oneself and admit to who we are, animals who like to kill. ‘old, rich english gentlemen’ are just practicing a refined version (arrived at by ‘higher thought processes’) of what everyone of us have inside us.
Comment by sittingnut — February 8, 2006 @ 5:05 pm
last night’s grammy ceremony has spoken as evidence to the truth. although madonna didnt walk away with any awards, she did perform with the gorillaz and have the audience getting delirius. people may not like confessions on a dancefloor, but people still love madonna.
Comment by electra — February 9, 2006 @ 8:13 am
aaahh… how did the gorillaz hologram thing go?? must find the video clip..
i personally think fox hunting is stupid, but that has got absolutey nothing to do with the value of madonna as an artiste. just like the fake nose or what he does with little boys doesn’t make michael jackson a lesser artiste than he really is.
what artistes/actors do in their personal life shouldn’t be a factor when judging their professional value. that depends on things like longevity and how much of an influence they have on others to follow in the long run and maybe how much money they make in the short term.
Comment by SpectralCentroid — February 9, 2006 @ 10:00 am
Sittingnut, you answered your first question regarding why other artistes aren’t succesful yourself in your first comment on this when you said maddona is a artist and a manufactured icon.
she had a nice media juggernaut behind her.
I don’t know what kind of crack you smoked to arrive at the conclusion that because I am of the opinion that some things are barbaric and should not be condoned due to that means that I am of the opinion that only useful things should be condoned. If that were true then I would frown on sport or all kinds of entertainment, stop trying to put words in my mouth.
You call fox hunting sport? You really need to stop thinking of it as sport. Sport has rules, sport has rivalries, hunting is about massacre, and fox hunting in particular is about brutality. What would you call it if I hunted your pet with dogs and had it torn apart? Would you say it was ok because my values led me to think it was alright? Maybe these people need to rething their values then. Would you not try and impose your values on someone else’s if their’s seemed blatantly wrong to you? For example, if someone stole from you but exhibited or felt no remorse then would you not question their values? If you wouldn’t then tell me your address and I’ll come rob your ass blind.
If you want bloodsport then go and box, don’t hunt a poor animal to death. Don’t fool yourself with your “arrived at by way of a higher thought process” rubbish. I’m sure most people would agree that war was barbaric, just because we now have AK47s and nukes doesn’t mean that it’s acceptable now. It’s controlling the urges we have that make us human, not giving into them. For example, if I see a good looking woman on the road I don’t hold her down and start rutting, if I see someone in a nice house I don’t beat the crap out of them and invade their home. Stop trying to stir up a hornet’s nest with your radical views. I’m sure all this attention you’re getting from this controversy makes you feel good but stop trying to belittle worthwhile causes you petulant little worm.
Comment by Curious Yellow — February 9, 2006 @ 12:40 pm
curious yellow
what part of ‘and’ in ‘maddona is a artist and a manufactured icon’ do you not understand?
as anybody in pr knows no amount of hype can make a dud in to a real thing. certainly not for so long. accept reality.
you would do better to transfer any new valid anti fox hunting arguments (if you have any) to ddm’s blog.
now for some leftovers,
. the conclusion .. .I am of the opinion that only useful things should be condoned…..stop trying to put words in my mouth.
see your comment before the last
..hunting an animal for sport is barbaric when it isn’t even for food?
since your main argument against fox hunting is it’s supposed barbarity my conclusion is entirely justified. (without any help from crack)
You call fox hunting sport?
yes, i called it a bloodsport (look up definition). more to the point you called it a ’sport’ before me, again see your comment before last.
What would you call it if I hunted your pet with dogs and had it torn apart?
Would you say it was ok because my values led me to think it was alright?
my pet is my property, you have no say whatever with regard to my property.
one has a right to do anything one wants with one’s own person and property as long as they do not interfere with other ppl’s right to do anything with their persons and property. (this is the basic libertarian principle)
Would you not try and impose your values on someone else’s if their’s seemed blatantly wrong to you?
no, i do not consider myself to be god of others. i may try to express my view and even persuade them rationally but ‘impose’, no. For example, if someone stole from you but exhibited or felt no remorse then would you not question their values?
what is the connection with fox hunting?
anyway they have no right (whatever their values) to curtail my rights on my property in the same way you do not have any right to curtail my right to any action (including fox hunting ). whether they feel remorse is immaterial.
.. tell me your address and I’ll come rob your ass blind. -
well try me and survive
fact of the matter is nobody will dare to steal from me, while everyone who read your blog sometime ago know thats same is not the case with you.
as for boxing and war you need to learn some history and meaning of words. i wont elaborate as i am taking too much space as it is in electra’s blog
It’s controlling the urges we have that make us human, not giving into them
- that’s your view. in my view ppl may give in to instincts as long as they not curtail other ppl’s ability to act as they wish.
For example, if I see a good looking woman on the road I don’t hold her down and start rutting, if I see someone in a nice house I don’t beat the crap out of them and invade their home
- so? did i say you should. on the other hand you want to take away other ppl’s ability to hunt.
Stop trying to stir up a hornet’s nest with your radical views.
:-D, why? give me a reason why i should not expose irrational half baked ideas .
I’m sure all this attention you’re getting from this controversy makes you feel good
:-D
stop trying to belittle worthwhile causes you petulant little worm.
isn’t there ban on verbal attacks on little worms? as for worthwhile causes go get some education, foxes can do without your help.
Comment by sittingnut — February 10, 2006 @ 2:07 am
electra sorry for long comment it looked smaller in my editor
you may delete it if you wish.
Comment by sittingnut — February 10, 2006 @ 2:16 am
Well, sittingnut said everything I wanted to tell Curiousyellow.
Fox hunting, don’t think you know much about it curious. A bloodsport? yes. Cruel? perhaps.
Its a sport because the fox is in his home groung, chased by dogs. The hunter on the horse has to persue the fox and the dogs in the most direct route possible (rules). The fox’s insticts are what should keep him allive. Everytime there’s a fox hunt the fox doesn’t get killed. The fox gets away; the fox is cunning.
Anyway, yes mate, learn some history. Every one’s got their heads up their arse about fox hunting and animal testing and animal cruelty and shit. None of these people see the cruelty or take any interest in human issues. that’s cause they have their heads so far up their arses they fail to see.
Comment by Scourge — February 10, 2006 @ 4:47 am
Hmmm, intriguing - it would seem that following the fox by the most direct route possible isn’t so much a “rule” as such, more like common sense - wouldn’t make much sense to go via a roundabout route as you’d simply lose the trail? I’d think it was less a sport, more of a social ‘event’ - not really much challenge except the act of horse riding itself - (which is fun even without foxes
) - just following a large pack of dogs who are trying to rip apart a lone fox. Hmmm. Doesn’t really sound like much fun to ride around for a while just to watch something get killed - it’s not like you’re even the one doing the killing 
Mebbe that’s just me, but it does seem kinda barbaric/just plain dumb.
Heh, enough about fox hunting, Madonna has produced some interesting music, and she did help question social norms with her earlier stuff, but nowadays I can’t help but finds her music *prepares for flames* fairly generic and tedious. To begin with she was about the image and the message, both of which were genuinely challenging, now it seems like she’s just throwing musical ideas at the wall of pop just to see what sticks (okay, that metaphor sounded better in my head!) - not so much representing musical innovation as market probing.
Comment by DudeGoober — February 10, 2006 @ 4:49 pm
Have you ever read that Asimov story about the robot that believed it was a
prophet on a spaceship? If you haven’t here’s the gist of it. The robot assumed
that the stars were nonexistent, that they were spots on a white cloth and not
these giant gasballs as informed because it had no proof, it thought it’s
purpose was to keep this energy beam directed towards the earth on the right
course as it was the will of it’s God, it would not accede that earth was a
planet with life on it as it had no first hand experience of it. Just like that,
you lot can pick your postulates and stick to them till you die because as long
as you refuse to look at the issue a different way there is no way to disprove
them, but by St.Jude I’ll try!
Sittingnut, I did not call fox hunting sport mate, what I said was hunting an
animal for sport is barbaric, if you read post 14 then you’d know that.
What people seem to consider sport needs a serious rethink on some occasions.
Fox hunting is barbarism, which some people seem to think is sport. Sport can be
violent without resorting to barbarism, you’d know that if you watched some
decent rugby.
It’s true, my arguments do lack that extra rational factor sittingnut’s possess
but we are not all born with rational minds. But I would not exchange my
passions for rationalism (I guess it shows hey?). Let me attempt some rational
thinking in the hope that I can win messrs Scourge and sittingnut over.
It’s evident that animals suffer when in pain when being torn into pieces, it’s
something that I would not wish on myself. As a self styled libertarian whose
wish is for your person and property to come to no harm is it so hard for you to
understand that an animal would wish the same for itself as well? Your
libertarian theory is idealistic, it is easy to do no harm when one is in
possession of plenty, but what happens when one’s life is in danger? Can you
still keep your libertarian morality when you starve or would you fall prey to
theft in order to feed yourself? A fox would choose not to harm you unless you
wantonly harmed it, possibly like you (as libertarianism also states that once
someone breaches someone’s liberties their own rights to liberty are lost), it
would not kill or harm an animal except out of necessity, thus a foxes right to
liberty is being challenged, how can you say that your principles only apply to
yourself? You defend the rights of these people to torture animals but not the
right of
the animal to live free while it does no harm to you? You say your dog/pet is
your property, but my pet to me is more than just my property, so I guess
someone like you wouldn’t understand where my objection to the pointless killing
of animals comes from. I guess to you your animal is more of a status symbol
than something which’s company you take pleasure in.
I’m sure you’re able to indulge in your libertarian views while might is on your
side, what will happen when it is not? You say nobody would dare steal from
you, I guess you’re trying to say you’re someone important in Sri Lanka, bully
for you mate! A libertarian in a land where liberties exist only for the rich!
Long may you live. It’s nice to be a big fish in a small pond, and I hope you
never have to go live in a land where things like equal rights and justice
aren’t things you only read about in books.
I don’t understand why you seem to think that not wanting animals to undergo
cruelty is an irrational view. At the same time you don’t seem to understand
with the right marketing behind you you can even polish some crap so it shines,
it’s still crap, but it’s brilliant crap. Like Madonna. Have you seen the Big
Brother series they have in the UK? They take a bunch of boring people and they
put them all under constant observation in isolation from the rest of the
country. Their names are on the lips of everyone in the nation for the amount of
time they’re on the screen. The difference between Madonna and these
unremarkable people is Madonna never left the screen. Get someone who’ll bare
their ass on the screen before it becomes acceptable and that person can be a
celebrity for the amount of time it takes for the controversy regarding it to
die down. Madonna came around in an age where a lot of mainstream television
entertainers were still child friendly, like Michael Jackson (no pun intended).
She did somethin
g that was sure to stir up controversy and was lucky enough to keep public
interest around for her numerous remodels. She followed a specialised route that
worked for her and just her, because she was the first person to do it. When
other people started jumping on the bandwagon it got old, but Madonna is now
less about tits and ass, she’s trying to stir up more controversy, like adopting
the Kaballah, and saying her figure is due to Pilates when a lot of it seems to
be due to a scalpel. Gone is the “raw sexuality” everyone was spouting about, a
feeble lipsmack with Britney Spears (or some other plastic enhanced woman) on a
stage was all she could muster, controversial, to a 13 year old perhaps. She’s
now trying to promote herself as a sophisticated mother of two, who’s not afraid
to shake her “thang” but the image is getting old and the veneer is peeling, or
can you not see that?
Ultimately sittingnut, you seem to be one of those people who tolerates
atrocities in the name of liberties as long as it doesn’t involve you needing to
have some compassion. I’m not saying you need to take an active role in
preventing cruelty towards animals, but at least concede that you are someone
with no sympathy towards “lesser” forms of life and I will understand, do not
hide behind liberties for all while those who cannot protect themselves are
persecuted.
Scourge, war, fox hunting and animal testing are three things we can do without.
I think my argument towards sittingnut probably applies to you in some way as
well. I hope both of you can see this issue the way I look at it.
Comment by Curious Yellow — February 10, 2006 @ 5:53 pm
DudeGoober, I think that’s a pretty rational take on fox hunting, and funny too! I think to a large extent I do agree with what you say about Madonna. I like your metaphor as well!
Sittingnut, your philosophy seems to be pretty much a lazy person’s view on life. Do what you want as long as you don’t fuck with me and mine seems to be the gist, it’s fine if you want to have a good life for yourself, but not very useful if you want to help out your fellow man or beast hey?
I’ve decided to put my reply on my blog as it seemed to be too long for the comments field!
Also, thanks to Electra for starting this post, I’ve learnt some interesting stuff from it!
Comment by Curious Yellow — February 10, 2006 @ 6:25 pm
This comment is crosslinked here for everyone’s benefit.
Curious Yellow,
It’s an accepted fact. He’s just hitting on Electra, and as a libertarian, has every right to do so. 
I like your argument and line of thinking here. It’s just that, um, it’s totally lost on your audience. Next time, spare your fingers the pain. Let bigots be bigots.
Dude, chill out. Everyone knows sittingnut is a tool.
Comment by Anonymous — February 11, 2006 @ 4:43 am
curious yellow : you’re welcome. you make great arguments. but here’s something i’ve been told my whole life too. don’t get carried away. sometimes you need to quit pouring your heart out and get a little more concise, you might get your point across better that way, if people aren’t fazed by all the feeling you’re putting into it, they might actually the core of what you’re saying. i like your blog.
lets try and keep it civilized and mature, everyone…and um…relevant.
dudegoober : you made the most fair, unjudgemental,unassuming comment so far. i like. like i said on curious yellow’s blog, i understand why people maybe disenchanted by madonna now…but my opinion stands. i still like her and admire her perseverence.
anonymous : oh ha ha. that’s an easy way to get out of something. ‘he’s hitting on electra’. right.
Comment by electra — February 11, 2006 @ 5:01 am
Thanks electra, it is hard to make dispassionate arguments about something you feel so strongly about sometimes. I tried to submit that comment 3 times and it wouldn’t let me, I thought it was some word count issue and that’s why I put it up on my blog. You can delete it if you want. The formatting is terrible on it! I’d do it myself, but unlike blogger, blogsome wont let me!
And “Anonymous”, thanks for the X-link!
Comment by Curious Yellow — February 11, 2006 @ 9:11 am
Bloody hell! If you guys so desperately want to be like the English the best way is not to condone fox hunting. I hate to disillusion you but most people in England actually think fox hunting is awful because they have this little thing called compassion. Plus it is now illegal here anyway.
It’s easy to see most people from Sri Lanka have no compassion just from driving around Colombo and seeing beggars starving on the streets while some asshole has spent such an extortionate amount of money on an SUV with tinted windows that he could have fed every beggar in Colombo for about a week. Instead he decides to buy a car that is bigger and uses even more petrol than his neighbour’s so he can drive around thinking what hot shit he is. I don’t know why I’m surprised that you can’t see fox hunting is cruel – you’d probably treat beggars worse in your country.
It’s obvious that you’re all just speaking up for fox hunting because you want to somehow ingratiate yourself with English culture. It’s clear that none of you have ever seen a fox hunt and are nothing to do with the ‘sport’ (ha ha) so why the opinions?
England is not great because of appalling traditions like fox hunting. Those are just remnants of a barbaric past which some people are still trying to hang on to because getting all dressed up in silly clothes and watching some dogs rip a fox to pieces makes them feel like big men. If you want to be more English then maybe you should start with learning some basic human decency and try to change a society that attaches most value to who has the biggest car/most servants/sends theirs kids to the best school/can afford for their kids to play tennis/can buy a husband or wife from the best family.
Comment by socks — February 11, 2006 @ 11:58 am
this is long but since yellow and anon has put their comments here too, i also have to post mine. in fairness electra can delete all three if she so prefers.
it is evident that either because of your preference for ‘passion’ over rationality, or because your instincts consciously or unconsciously told you that none of your arguments can stand on it’s own, you purposely tangle all of them into a mess to give some semblance of strength. and what do you know, some insecure anon nutter fell for it, as is the way with anon cowards all over the internet.
i personally think you would have been better off throwing a personal insult or two at me like the anon above.
to keep this short, you make three arguments.
1) you question the logical method itself ( if that is what you intended with asimov’s robot) and just as quickly abandon it perhaps aware that it cuts both ways.
2) you charge that i use libertarianism as a cover to condone ‘atrocities’ and those who commit ‘barbarism’. well the problem is as i said from the first, what you call barbarism is another person’s sport (btw you used that word first in normal sense just read that original sentence carefully). i do not believe that i or anybody has a right pass judgment between those views. they both have a right to exist. who are you to judge? are you god? or his son sent to give us laws? well i hope they have better schools in heaven when i go there. libertarians on the other hand do not intend to control others by force or law, they have more faith in humans.
3) perhaps aware of your presumption, you then elevate fox in to human level by describing it’s supposed emotions and actions and ask me to judge between the fox hunters and the fox so cruelly killed (instead of between hunters and banners as in 2). problem with this kind of argument (quite apart from scientifically unsound method of ascribing human emotions to animals) is that once you elevate one animal you have to elevate all others.
are you going to ban all animals killings?
or only those that are supposed to be cruel? if so since now animals are on the same level as humans, are you going to allow human killings that are not cruel? shooting is allowed i suppose?
on the other hand what do you say to just as cruel killings that take place in the wild by one animal on another? are you going to ban that too and maybe put lions and cheetahs in to jail after a court hearing? after all they are, according to you, just like us.
you also make A completely irrelevant argument about what would i do if i am poor. well i would try to become rich without breaking the libertarian principle. one does not have to steal to do that, i know because i did it once.
as for my feelings for my pet, that is none of your business. btw i hope your pet is a dog because only a servile animal like that will put up with such an attitude like yours. real foxes definitely wont.
i prefer cats, way cooler and way more independent.
your arguments are a bloody mess like a fox carcass after a hunt. maybe you prefer a ban on all argument that turn them so?
as for madonna all i can say is that other ppl have tried almost everything she did and failed, she succeeded. her songs will be played long after you are dead . accept reality .
reality is interesting, that is why reality shows like big brother succeed. you should get more of it .
Comment by sittingnut — February 11, 2006 @ 3:25 pm
socks
whoever wanted to live in that cold, fox hunting banned, shoot to kill place that is in slow decline? in fact it is over refinements like ban on fox hunting that is responsible for that decline, like in all old civilizations before it. roman empire or even sri lanka.
at least america of george bush does not have time for such decadence and is as some might call it still barbaric. magnificently so imo.
Comment by sittingnut — February 11, 2006 @ 3:32 pm
Errm! align ourselves with the brits? hardly! The defence for fox hunting came about cause that other fellow (yellow) started about madonna and her fox hunting and its bad and all of that…
whatever! there’s no aligning with brits, for me at least, cause those poor sods in that cold country with little moral value or anything humanely or civilised is as important to me as my morning shit.
Comment by Scourge — February 13, 2006 @ 7:51 am
Hmm, how come you say there’s nothing humane or civilised in Britain scourge? I’m guessing you must have spent a fair bit of time there, just interested as to how you came to those opinions? I’ve spent quite a while there myself, it’s far from being a perfect country, but then what country is? There’s still a welfare system , a health service which is still one of the better free ones in the world - even things like public transport - it would seem that a culture which considered things like free medical help and unemployment insurance for all of it’s citizens as be a basic right must have *some* moral grounding, even if a small minority of its citizens still practice somewhat archaic, needlessly bloody rituals from time to time
Can’t argue with the cold comment tho!
It’s interesting what you said about the compassion thing Socks - I think it’s pretty good if you can try and see things from the other person(/animal/whatever)’s point of view then it really makes you think about how your actions affect them. Even if you only try and do it with people not animals then that’s kinda gotta be making the world a better place in some small way. I guess maybe that’s why so many people don’t like fox hunting, they’re trying to make an effort to think about something or someone other than themselves - I gotta admit I don’t know much about the libertarian viewpoint- but from what I’ve read here it does seem to be kinda self-centred, and maybe not in a good way - I’d be interested to know a bit more about it from someone who really believes in it .
p.s
rofl at Sittingnut’s comment on George Bush’s America not being decadent . . . . highest obesity rates, consumption of fossil fuels and luxury items in the world . . . . ?!
Comment by DudeGoober — February 13, 2006 @ 3:24 pm
dudegoober:
for a balanced take on libertarianism go here), it’s from wikipedia and includes criticism.
basically it says you are free to laugh at me as long as you do not coerce me or anyone else laugh with your… joke(?)
.
.
btw be careful about rolling around in floor only fat americans and fat barbarians are allowed to do that. without injury
Comment by sittingnut — February 13, 2006 @ 4:52 pm
Heh, well I could do to shed a few pounds *pokes gut* but rofl was perhaps an exaggeration - just find it kinda weird how anyone could say America is not debauched with a straight face - like saying the moon is bright pink, so blatantly wrong you have to assume it’s a joke. Will try and check out the wikipedia entry with an open mind.
Comment by DudeGoober — February 13, 2006 @ 5:02 pm
aarrrh… is it just me or is it kind of sad when one defines oneself and lives one’s life based on a wikipedia definition…
Comment by SpectralCentroid — February 14, 2006 @ 12:27 pm
yes, one should define oneself and never let others do it , least of all wikipedia.
one can be as free as one like and define oneself in any way one likes, as long as one allows others the same right imo.
libertarianism basically says the same thing.
what a philosophical system does is it allows one to learn from others who have had the same ideas instead of reinventing the wheel from scratch. but one has to come to the main ideas oneself from inside.
Comment by sittingnut — February 14, 2006 @ 4:02 pm
ok.. an independent person may not agree.. but cool..
Comment by SpectralCentroid — February 15, 2006 @ 7:59 am