Page 1 of 1

How do people REALLY feel about Christopher Reeves?

PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:24 am
by scrubbo
My comic strip is fun to make in that I get to exaggerate to extremes all sorts of weird ideas. Like Damian saying Jesus is a pedaphile follows logically from the assertation that jesus is the right hand of every man. Like calling Christopher Reeves an asshole for not caring about paralyzed people before he himself got paralyzed.

The truth is, him setting up a foundation and publically speaking everywhere was pretty brave. I dunno if I'd have the nuts to cruise around in a wheelchair in front of the world begging for charity. So Kudos for that.

However, it also isn't true that he was a 'selfless champion of the paralyzed' which is what part of my strip was about. It was also about forced retirement. I thought it was hilarious to have a news anchor getting retired say something offensive for his last broadcast.

So why bash Chris? It's 'taking it to the next level' there. The newscaster needs something to be offensive about, and mocking dead cripples is about as offensive it gets. But you also need a grain of truth because the old saying "It's funny because it's TRUE!" does hold. If I'd reviled CR for being a corpse-fucker, well, it wouldn't have been even slightly true, so it wouldn't be humorous. (Except to a few people who think necrophilia is hilarious no matter what the situation.)

My earlier strips were pretty offensive, but less often had a 'grain of truth' buried in them. I think they're funny, but not as funny as they COULD have been.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2004 3:44 pm
by Anonymousey
Anonymousey perceives vast differences between selfishness and selflessness!

CERTAINLY Mister Reeves did not act selflessly BEFORE the accident, this is no untruth! However, suggesting that by not donating money to wheelchairity before was SELFISH, we must then accuse most of the world of being selfish, as well! CLEARLY there is no way to help all causes.

TRUE, it may have been self-serving to put himself behind wheelchairity ONCE IT AFFECTED HIM, though this is in Anonymousey's eyes merely human nature. OF COURSE he would want to help himself when he was in such discomfort, to this there is no debate. Would you not do the same?

Decidedly, he was no saint... his intentions were influenced by his own aversions! He was a man. A man who aided others while at the same time aiding himself. The benefits Mister Reeves brought about cannot be ignored due to the personal circumstances under which he created them.

Anonymousey proclaims this not to be an act of selflessness, nor of selfishness!

PostPosted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:05 am
by Soap.
Hamish agree with Anonimousey!

Normally making fun of dead cripples is a no no, but since I'm a hipocrit, dead people is funny! This is a perfect example in itself of human nature.We like to endulge ourselfes. I found it funny, so its OK. Even better since you wern't making fun of him for being paraplegic. I was actually quite sad when I heard he died, but this comic lightened my spirits quite a bit. I always looket up to Chris, but that dosn't mean I think him being the objest of fun is nessacerally wrong. Humor is a good way to get over sadness.

In conclution, Sad Christopher Reeves died. Happy comic so funney.

PostPosted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 5:26 pm
by DannyboyO1
How do I feel? I don't, really. The guy didn't have a huge impact on my life. I saw the movies, I thought "Eh." And there is a limit to the amount of sympathy I can drag up for someone who gets injured on a horse. Horses aren't cheap. If you have a risky and expensive hobby, and you injure yourself... you got what you paid for. I'm not paralyzed, but I do know a couple people who are, and I'd be pleased if they got treatment... but that doesn't make me care about this actor.

I do care about the future of a girl I knew in high school. We had the same gym class. Because she had the choice to be in the regular class, or the one with the LD kids. Nothing wrong with her mind, she figured she got patronized enough. So she had to do laps with the rest of us. In her powered wheelchair.

I care about anything that might let us keep Stephen Hawkings around a little longer. Maybe reward him for being a genius for so many years.

But an actor who injured himself during a slightly risky hobby on a rather wild horse? I don't have sympathy for that kind of arrogance. If I did, I'd probably join the many fretting fools who cried over that Kennedy who flew a plane into deadly weather and killed himself and a couple women. Not like the Kennedys don't have a history of killing women in crashes.

PostPosted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 6:23 pm
by Anonymousey
Anonymousey is displeased at this latest response.

Would it have mattered to you more had he not fallen off an "expensive horse", but rather an air conditioner had fallen on him as he walked down the street? THIS would not have been a sign of a "risky and expensive hobby" (walking), and he would have paid nothing, and thus gotten what he did not pay for, which is not to be desired. The poster seems to think riding a horse or flying a plane is arrogant. Would the poster view Reeves' death differently had he been injured in the way of a "common man"?

PostPosted: Sun Oct 17, 2004 2:01 am
by Soap.
I concur.

Does one being slightly richer then us make them any more deserving of such an affliction? I certianly don't think so. The entire point of this argument seens to be that his hobby was 'expencive' and -slightly- dangerous. So what? In the end we are all self serving, and we want to have fun, it just so happens that horse riding was a hobby Christofer reeves could afford and enjoyed. Are any of our hobbies any different?

It seems to me that Danny has a grudge ageanst the man because he had more money then we do.

PostPosted: Mon Oct 18, 2004 11:43 pm
by bunnyThor
CR was a rich man. He could have just quietly worked on rehabilitation. Instead, despite the fact that doing much of anything was very taxing to his broken body, he became a crusader for the paralysed. So he gets points for that.

Was his championing of his cause also self-serving? Of course. Everything one does is self serving, but that's a whole other philosophical debate. However, he became an obvious symbol, so it would be foolish to squander the symbiology and instead go raise money to fight, say, illiteracy.

That it took personal confrontation with the problem to make him rail against the problem is pure human nature. Mothers didn't form MADD until their children were killed due to DUI. Americans in general shrugged and tch-tched about terrorism until the Twin Towers came down. We are all in a light sense of denial about the immanence of tragedy about us, else we would go insane. Nobody gives a shit about a crisis in the future, only a crisis in the present, and then only a crisis that affects *them*.

Even the "saintly" among us only fight for one great cause at a time. Gandhi never chained himself to a redwood. Martin Luther King never fought for women's rights in the Middle East. Mother Teresa never raised money for cancer research. Most of the rest of us just struggle daily with arriving at work in one piece and eating a diet that is not killing us faster than necessary. Even idealogues sometimes have promlems fighting on several fronts at the same time--notice how the War on Terror has trumped the War on Drugs? It's poppy-growing time in Afganistan!

In conclusion, I think that Christopher Reeve should be brought back to life, sold into white slavery, and become America's sweetheart one more time. Then killed by rabid weasels. On film.

PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2004 6:19 am
by scrubbo
I think they grew poppies there even during the war on drugs. Cause the market price was even higher!

PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2004 12:47 pm
by Anonymousey
Anonymousey craves opium as warlruses crave manflesh!

PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2004 10:33 pm
by bunnyThor
scrubbo wrote:I think they grew poppies there even during the war on drugs. Cause the market price was even higher!


Actually one of the reasons that the Taliban was not ousted before 9/11 was because one of the side effects of their nutty zealotry was forbidding the growing of poppies. So up until a very short time ago the Taliban were
allies with us...on the War On Drugs.

Isn't it ironic that this administration has turned the War On Drugs into the War on Canadian drugs?

PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2004 7:27 am
by scrubbo
Damn Canadians! With their cheap derpdrugs!

And you're right. I'd totally forgotten that the Taliban were down on the poppies. And I believe we HELPED them into power, not just tolerated them.

Pretty fuckin' smart, huh? We haven't yet realized that anybody we help into power in the Middle East will turn on us once they don't need our help to stay in power.

PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2004 2:27 pm
by Anonymousey
Anonymousey sees nobility in the actions of President Bush II.

PostPosted: Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:19 pm
by Hard To Figure Out
scrubbo wrote:Damn Canadians! With their cheap derpdrugs!

And you're right. I'd totally forgotten that the Taliban were down on the poppies. And I believe we HELPED them into power, not just tolerated them.

Pretty fuckin' smart, huh? We haven't yet realized that anybody we help into power in the Middle East will turn on us once they don't need our help to stay in power.


Lesser of two evils at the time.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 1:43 pm
by bunnyThor
Hard To Figure Out wrote:
scrubbo wrote:Damn Canadians! With their cheap derpdrugs!

And you're right. I'd totally forgotten that the Taliban were down on the poppies. And I believe we HELPED them into power, not just tolerated them.

Pretty fuckin' smart, huh? We haven't yet realized that anybody we help into power in the Middle East will turn on us once they don't need our help to stay in power.


Lesser of two evils at the time.


No.

The systemic abuse of a nation's entire population by an autocratic gang of fundamentalist hoodlums is never the lesser evil when compared to a much smaller group of hoodlums getting fat and rich off of smuggling home-grown narcotics. Yes, both examples are organized crime, but the latter is combatable by the local government, while the former *is* the government.