Easyjet Holocaust gaffe - Page 3

heartc · 11-23-09, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schroeder

It is a randomly picked place for some concrete blocks that are dedicated to something yes, but it is not like shooting those pictures in Auschwitz or any place were the murdering took place. So yes, it is a poor choice for a location but I wouldn't label anyone
or similar just because they are taking pictures there or don't mind pictures being taken there.

Why would it only be bad enough for you if the shooting had taken place in Auschwitz instead of a memorial that is dedicated to the memories of those who were in Auschwitz or similar places?
I don't get your point. Maybe you don't like the memorial? That's fine. I even think it's pretty pointless when at the same time a majority of Europeans think that not e.g. a dictator who is killing his own people and developing nuclear bombs, but instead Israel is the biggest threat to world peace and other antisemitic bull****. I guess caring about the dead is easier than taking a stand for the living. Same story 65+ years ago.
That doesn't mean however that it's OK to take fashion shots at this site. I don't see any difference had they taken the shots right in Auschwitz, since that memorial is dedicated to all the people who were murdered in many different places all over the world, including Auschwitz.

heartc · 11-23-09, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

What?
Take a look at my post again, I am in no way trying to downplay it because it is a memorial for the jews, I was talking about memorials in general, I would not throw a fit if they decided to do a fashion shoot on a memorial dedicated to Estonian soldiers who died in our war for independence.

Would they mind? Or their relatives?
It ever crossed your mind that not everything's about what you think?

Shearwater · 11-23-09, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbuna

"The magazine is produced by INK -- an external publishing house, and easyJet were not aware of the images until they appeared in print. As a consequence we are now reviewing our relationship with the publisher and are withdrawing this month's issue from all flights."

Nuff said, isn't it?
I think nobody needs to be told why it was in very bad taste, so I wonder where this issue warrants further debate.

antikristuseke · 11-23-09, 05:14 PM

I don't know if they would mind, I can't talk to dead people. And their relatives might mind or might not.
But this is irrelevant to you accusing someone else of

Quote:

Originally Posted by heartc

Man, you gota live in Disneyland to not see a problem with it. Or you are
a) one of those who think it never happened.
b) on a crusade to downplay it because in your head "the Jews" are too powerfull and need to be...reduced...in their power only you mean of course...or some similar crap.

when that person did state that

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus

I totally agree with Biggles, I don't know why they would shoot there.

But if the law allows it, they should be able to.

Basically, you are accusing someone for what amounts to holocaust denial or antisemitism for having a different opinion to yours when it comes to the use of monuments. And when I present my opinion on the mater you do the same thing again. Instead of arguing my opinion you attack my character by calling me an anti semite, which I am not.

heartc · 11-23-09, 05:33 PM

Allright, in the clear: Not seeing a problem with or making a debate on why it is OK to make a fashion shooting at a holocaust memorial site to me is antisemitic indeed, because it is pretty f*cking disrespectful, if not contemptuous, towards the victims. Please excuse if I'm just a tad old fashioned in that and may not yet have arrived in the 21st century, where everything is O.K.

antikristuseke · 11-23-09, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by heartc

Allright, in the clear: Not seeing a problem with or making a debate on why it is OK to make a fashion shooting at a holocaust memorial site to me is antisemitic indeed, because it is pretty f*cking disrespectful, if not contemptuous, towards the victims. Please excuse if I'm just a tad old fashioned in that and may not yet have arrived in the 21st century, where everything is O.K.

You missed my point completely. Just because you think it is disrespectful doe not mean it is ok for you to accuse others of something they are not. I can respect your opinion even though I disagree with it, but your baseless attacks are what I have a problem with.

heartc · 11-23-09, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

You missed my point completely. Just because you think it is disrespectful doe not mean it is ok for you to accuse others of something they are not. I can respect your opinion even though I disagree with it, but your baseless attacks are what I have a problem with.

Sorry for cutting through the BS.

At least you have a problem with something.

Skybird · 11-23-09, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

I can't believe this. The same guy who thinks the morality of war can be compared to that of a game of chess is now getting his knickers in a right old twist over a photo shoot, and how it "profanes the death of 6 million people"! I agree the shoot was in bad taste, but I marvel at your priorities, Skybird.

Mind to link to the source of where I compared the ethics of war, or lack of, to that of a match of chess? I said a lot of tough things about war and that I see many ethical concerns as self-contradictions once war is there, but comparing ethics of war to that of chess I cannot remember, because I do not see what chess has to do with ethics. Maybe I have comopared tactics and strategy.

Quote:

And that post about class and sensibility bordered on flame bait, even though I agree with what you were basically saying.

So you agreed to something that you see as flame-baiting, making you agreeing with flame baiting itself. Which is illustrating an interesting attitude, but okay, that is not my beer.

I certainly do not see it as flame-baiting what I said. And I still think that tolerating the profaning of 6 million deaths for the sake of commercial advertising - or wanting to debate why that is a profaning - as something that shows a stunning lack of sensibility and moral class in the person in question.

If you would go to a funeral, at the grave lower your pants and piss onto the coffin, you would be in severe legal trouble. Without any debate about whether what you did was within the standards of tact and morals, or not. Whether or not you understand what it is about, would not be of interest, but you would be held legally responsible for your offense. Even if you think it was harmless, or funny.

I also find it extremely difficult to imagine you go to the holocaust memorial at Berlin and do not know where you are and what it is about. That is like visiting Yad Vashem and thinking of it as a warming room for homeless people.

Not that I care much for both places. But if you think you must go there, then behave yourself and follow the general rules of piety. I do not believe somebody going to such a place and then claiming to not know where he is. When he is behaving in an offending, ridiculing, minimising manner, it therefore is intentional. And that's why I think those shooting the advertisment campaign at the Stelenfeld, really deserve a spanking. they considered it to be an interesting motive and made use of it in explicit disregard for the meaning of that place. I am sure they knew in full what they were doing.

JU_88 · 11-23-09, 06:02 PM

Dunno what all the arguing is above above me and i cant bothered to read it all either

Back to the orginal post, it is in poor taste yes - but it is forgivable, it was just abit of stupid idea to shoot there thats all.
Now to put it in to perspective, what about people who go around vandalising memorials (of any kind)
Those are the guys need to be lynched.

Remember the VE memorial getting vadalised here in the UK, man.. what I would give to teleport that idiots sorry ass on to Omar beach in 1944.

Skybird · 11-23-09, 06:05 PM

Lynched...???

Jimbuna · 11-23-09, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JU_88

Dunno what all the arguing is above above me and i cant bothered to read it all either

Back to the orginal post, it is in poor taste yes - but it is forgivable, it was just abit of stupid idea to shoot there thats all.
Now to put it in to perspective, what about people who go around vandalising memorials (of any kind)
Those are the guys need to be lynched.

Remember the VE memorial getting vadalised here in the UK, man.. what I would give to teleport that idiots sorry ass on to Omar beach in 1944.

I'd send him to Omaha....without a rifle

Platapus · 11-23-09, 08:12 PM

I appreciate the effort guys, but no need.

11-23-09, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schroeder

Well it's ca. 8 million actually. Ca. 6milion Jews and round about 2 million Sinti, Roma, political opponents, homosexuals etc.

Well according to the Wikipedia-article on the Holocaust, from 11 to 17 million. This including at least some Soviet civilian casualties. However there is debate about whether or not the term Holocaust should be used to describe just the Jewish victims or all of the victims.

JU_88 · 11-24-09, 04:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

Lynched...???

Dont take me too literally...
Its like me saying 'Id rather eat pins and remove my own eyeballs with a fork -than watch the X factor'.... doesnt mean I actually would

@Jim yes its Omaha no Omah - whoops!

papa_smurf · 11-24-09, 06:09 AM

Well to coin the phrase..... Whoops!

11-23-09, 05:33 PM	#35
heartc Samurai Navy Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Munich Posts: 562 Downloads: 71 Uploads: 0	Allright, in the clear: Not seeing a problem with or making a debate on why it is OK to make a fashion shooting at a holocaust memorial site to me is antisemitic indeed, because it is pretty f*cking disrespectful, if not contemptuous, towards the victims. Please excuse if I'm just a tad old fashioned in that and may not yet have arrived in the 21st century, where everything is O.K. __________________

11-23-09, 06:05 PM	#40
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,615 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Lynched...??? __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

11-23-09, 08:12 PM	#42
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,362 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	I appreciate the effort guys, but no need. __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

11-24-09, 06:09 AM	#45
papa_smurf Ocean Warrior Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: High Peak, Derbyshire Posts: 2,851 Downloads: 33 Uploads: 0	Well to coin the phrase..... Whoops! __________________

11-23-09, 06:02 PM	#39
JU_88 Silent Hunter Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: UK Posts: 3,803 Downloads: 11 Uploads: 0	Dunno what all the arguing is above above me and i cant bothered to read it all either Back to the orginal post, it is in poor taste yes - but it is forgivable, it was just abit of stupid idea to shoot there thats all. Now to put it in to perspective, what about people who go around vandalising memorials (of any kind) Those are the guys need to be lynched. Remember the VE memorial getting vadalised here in the UK, man.. what I would give to teleport that idiots sorry ass on to Omar beach in 1944.