 | | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
|
(...) I said why. 3 is in my view too young to get into the anatomical details of how exactly gay love works. Or straight love for that matter. It's frankly, likely to be boring to the 3 year old anyway and not particularly relevant. But the part (...) (23 years ago, 22-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
|
(...) A man and a woman who come with two kids isn't an expressly heterosexual couple? What would they have to do be so? Chris (23 years ago, 22-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
|
(...) it (...) That's because sex is neither good nor evil. (...) What you think of as normal and healthy is not. It is a stunted charicature of humanity. People seek out experiences when they are ready for them. This information isn't being forced (...) (23 years ago, 22-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
|
(...) "Adult content" is a ludicrous phantom. It is a code word for anything that biggotted right-wing Bible thumpers want to excise from society in order to "protect" the ignorance of children. (...) No. Sex is a topic. It is an appropriate topic (...) (23 years ago, 22-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
|
(...) So? (...) John, good point! At least Jason is promoting creativity. (...) Filth is in the eye of the beholder. (...) Sorry to break it to you, but 'porn' and 'quality' are not mutually exclusive. It is an economic happenstance that porn is (...) (23 years ago, 22-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
|
(...) Brickbay, (...) enjoying (...) *Anybody* (...) require (...) your (...) (23 years ago, 22-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
|
(...) Because if kids were to know more and understand more about being an adult, they wouldn't _need_ you as much. They could practice at being adults themselves instead of being kept powerless and ignorant by their aged opressors. Man, that's (...) (23 years ago, 22-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
|
(...) I almost would. (...) The rape and non sex violence is more a problem than the sex. I mean, sex is just sex. (...) Hunh? Why the heck not? Chris (23 years ago, 22-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
|
(...) Wow. (...) I hadn't either, but I went investigating and watched several brickfilms and all of them included either violence or sex. I'd get revved up about the violence long before the sex. After all, violence is bad and sex is good. (...) (...) (23 years ago, 22-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
|
(...) Sure, a computer whiz-kid could probably defeat blocking software, but the real intent of such products, in my mind, is to prevent random hits from search engines when a child is researching breast cancer, for instance. I am more worried about (...) (23 years ago, 22-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
|
"James Powell" <wx732@freenet.victoria.bc.ca> wrote in message news:GoqCy3.F37@lugnet.com... (...) many (...) attacked. (...) people (...) an (...) I'm sorry, I wasn't clear enough and because of that you misinterpreted my intent. I meant to say - I (...) (23 years ago, 22-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
|
(...) I get (from Pocket Oxford) 1. A human creative skill or its application (snipped some stuff about beauty). I would say that the films _do_ represent "a human creative skill or its application", therefore are "art". I think they are at least (...) (23 years ago, 22-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
|
"James Powell" <wx732@freenet.victoria.bc.ca> wrote in message news:Goq2K4.Irv@lugnet.com... (...) material (...) local (...) on (...) are (...) monitor (...) how (...) I never said it wasn't the parent's responsibility to monitor what material a (...) (23 years ago, 22-Dec-01, to lugnet.mediawatch, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
|
(...) Why? Just because the US _tries_ to restrict the showing of "R" rated material -that doesn't mean that the material should be restricted. Go to your local public libary. Ask for a copy of Lolita. I'm fairly sure you can get it on most libary (...) (23 years ago, 22-Dec-01, to lugnet.mediawatch, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
|
"William R Ward" <bill@wards.net> wrote in message news:m23d242o2n.fsf@...rds.net... (...) Well - if according to you its similar to "R" rated films, then they should be treated like "R" rated films. Those films are restricted to people over 18 (...) (23 years ago, 21-Dec-01, to lugnet.mediawatch, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
|
In lugnet.mediawatch, John Neal writes: <snip> I'm having a hard time reconciling "Jason Rowoldt" and "merely another slimeball" as phrases that belong in the same *post*, frankly. Jason has done a great deal of good for the hobby with his efforts, (...) (23 years ago, 21-Dec-01, to lugnet.mediawatch, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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? (...) (23 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. (23 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 (...) (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)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (23 years ago, 20-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
|
(...) Well, (and sorry for straying OT;-) bringing LEGO back into the discussion, fantasy play IMO is best when the stakes are high (saving the world or even better, the universe), from the evil Ogel [the *very* antithesis of LEGO and all that is (...) (23 years ago, 20-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
|
(...) From my particular standpoint, it would only be morally good when the person doing it honestly believed they were doing good. However, it doesn't mean that the person shouldn't be stopped-- nor that one would be morally wrong to try and stop (...) (23 years ago, 20-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
|
(...) Ah-- I agree in principle. That it IS sometimes unavoidable. But making it more commonplace gives it the appearance of not so much of an last-resort, and more of a general solution. (...) Disagree. :) See: evil [below] (...) Evil (ee-vil): 1) (...) (23 years ago, 20-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
|
(...) I suppose at John's response you would question what it means to "develop normally" and what it means to be a "mature healthy adult." I want to throw my name in with those who believe there is a difference between good and evil. I would (...) (23 years ago, 20-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
|
(...) Of course. Sometimew it is *unavoidable* Please provide an acceptable solution to stopping the moral dilemma of the Nazi tyranny in WWII without violence. (...) Disagree. I think good and evil can be distinguished IRL. Sometimes it's harder (...) (23 years ago, 20-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: If you're an AFOL and you know it raise your hand (WAS: Blacksmith Shop)
|
|
(...) Kinda like "IANAL"? (I Am Not A Lawyer) DaveE (FUT fun) (23 years ago, 20-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: If you're an AFOL and you know it raise your hand (WAS: Blacksmith Shop)
|
|
(...) Maggie's already covered this, so I won't re-iterate her response. (...) When I say "AFOL" out loud, it sounds an awful lot like "awful". Sorry I forgot crosspost to .pun. "MOC" is another lugnetish acronym that doesn't make a very good (...) (23 years ago, 20-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
|
(...) Disagree. <!-- heading off-topic... --> Problem #1 - It teaches violent solutions as acceptable solutions (perhaps even encouraged?) to moral dilemmas. Problem #2 - It further solidifies a distinction between good and evil which doesn't exist (...) (23 years ago, 20-Dec-01, to lugnet.mediawatch, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 3 Words For Christmas
|
|
The UK chain Marks and Spencer is running a TV advertisement right now which asks the viewer which three words sum up Christmas for them (the ad concludes that the viewers’ three words should be "Marks and Spencer"). We had a bit of fun with this (...) (23 years ago, 20-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: If you're an AFOL and you know it raise your hand (WAS: Blacksmith Shop)
|
|
(...) The name wasn't arbitrarily chosen like yelling "uncle". I think it has more to do with the tired examples involving Hitler that are invoked whenever someone can't think of anything better to support their argument. Here's a bit about it. (...) (23 years ago, 20-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: If you're an AFOL and you know it raise your hand (WAS: Blacksmith Shop)
|
|
(...) I guess it's not completely understood. ;) I've been posting to LUGNET for over 3 years. This isn't my first appearance in the .debate groups. This is certainly the first time I've seen the use of a name like that. It really seems in poor (...) (23 years ago, 20-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: If you're an AFOL and you know it raise your hand (WAS: Blacksmith Shop)
|
|
(...) Sorry, Maggie, no can do - it's Christmas season! I'll lighten up again in January! Can someone please pass the Vegemite stuffing? ROSCO FUT .fun (23 years ago, 20-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: If you're an AFOL and you know it raise your hand (WAS: Blacksmith Shop)
|
|
(...) It is understood around .debate that if you mention the name Hitler you automatically concede the debate. That's all Steve was referring to. Geez, you guys need to lighten up! Maggie (23 years ago, 20-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: If you're an AFOL and you know it raise your hand (WAS: Blacksmith Shop)
|
|
(...) I have already responded to Steve by indicating that I honestly don't understand his comment. Is there something I'm missing here? (...) That was part of my point. Thank you for seeing it. (...) "come up with the title"? O.K. now you've lost (...) (23 years ago, 20-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
