 | | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
|
(...) think (...) Yahoo (...) Why not? if it is _legal_ for them to do it, then why not legal to view it? Are you afraid that they might see what sex is? I think there is enough warning that what they are going to see is adult that it should clue (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is Eduardo is out of line? (was: Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms")
|
|
(...) I think the language used in the Danish statement is a lot more, uh, blunt than you'd see in any US statement. I think the objection is to dealing *at all* with issues of overt sexuality--muddy, I know-- because of the minifig's largely (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is Eduardo is out of line? (was: Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms")
|
|
(...) Hmmm... in my dictionary it doesn't say that fear has anything at all to do with bigotry, but rather narrow-mindedness. More specifically, anyone who refuses to see "the big picture" is a bigot. Maybe your dictionary says something different? (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is Eduardo is out of line? (was: Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms")
|
|
(...) It's called "homophobia" because bigotry is fear-based. Hating homosexuals is just as wrong as hating black people or Jews. XFUT: lugnet.off-topic.debate --Bill. (24 years ago, 21-Dec-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (24 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 (...) (24 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 (...) (24 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. (24 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 (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
|
(...) And here I thought it was cuz politicians were more evil than war! :) (...) I will agree that in a fantasy realm it's better than in a realistic-fantasy realm. IE a futuristic fantasy with violence is "better" than a modern fantasy with (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
