Quote Originally Posted by IDCrewDawg View Post
Ok, so I would like to have a little debate about the right to offend.

The following link goes to a rather offensive (not illegal) photo of bin laden, and what would be a mock representation of our flag. I know it's offensive, cause I was offended.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2095/...6a052c82_b.jpg

However, I recently had a debate on MDS about the San Fransisco last supper advertisement that was done, and someone told me that it was in bad taste, and shouldn't have been done. My response was, well if you feel that way about that representation of the last supper, then you understand about the Muhammad drawing with a bomb for a turban.

I am curious to know what the folks here think of each situation?
Offensive art is so last century. Pop-art is dead. It's a really cheap way for an artist to get attention. What was the artist trying to say with that Bin Laden painting? I didn't find it offensive in the least. All I saw was a pop-art collection of strong symbols, (including porn) thrown together. My only thought was "meh, why?" Warhol did it better.

The Mohammed pictures where from an article series on what people find offensive today. The week before they had offensive pictures of Jesus. It's the same there. Why? They sucked. They weren't controversial, they weren't clever, they weren't funny and they weren't pretty. The fact that they stirred up a controversy in the Middle East I'd say is proof that they've had a really slow season for Jihads. There's a victim culture just looking for things to take offence at. But that doesn't mean we should give a rats ass. If they get offended by shit like this, that's purely their problem they'll have to deal with. Fucking backward culture.

The gay one I thought was funny. I thought they where using the symbology of the original painting to their benefit, to make a stronger photo. Anybody taking offence at that, really needs to get a life.