 | | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
|
(...) Based on what criterion, exactly? Is it still evil to do the same in a different medium? If I, say, posted something similar using crayola crayons, is it still evil? How about if I use a purposely falic novelty pen? IE, is it the connection (...) (23 years ago, 20-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
|
(...) I agree with you that past standards or changes in standards is no reason to permit something now, but I disagree with your idea of evil. Just why is LEGO intercourse evil? Now if you meant people forwarding thier own ideas about the mores of (...) (23 years ago, 20-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
|
(...) No matter what the standards of reavealing parts of one's body, depictions of LEGO minifigs being gay and doing you-know-what-else is evil and immoral. (...) A member of The Church of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints. In other words, a (...) (23 years ago, 20-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
|
(...) (Church of Jesus Christ of) Latter Day Saints; commonly refered to as Mormons. (23 years ago, 20-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
|
(...) Well, 1st off, I have to defend free speech. I mean, after all, back in the 50's (or so) bikinis were indecent. Way back in the 20's, showing your calves (or was it knees?) in public was a disgrace. Supposedly there's blue laws in Boston about (...) (23 years ago, 20-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
