|
|
 | | Re: Once again, even with all our problems, Canada--a great place to live...
|
| (...) Ahh, the loverly internet... (not that Page 3 is a bookmark in my browser... ;) ) That said, newspapers in Canada are not legally allowed to show topless models, even in adverts, if these newspapers are sold to the general populace. So there (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Once again, even with all our problems, Canada--a great place to live...
|
| (...) So you would be okay with a law that permitted, say, fornication or masterbation in public places? (...) I'm fine with the stuff people do in private-- we are talking about public behavior here. (...) Ah, so a brother and sister, or two (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Corporal punishment (was rah rah, canada!
|
| (...) You can, however, teach a horse. (...) You can, however, teach a cat (...) A 5 year old, as Larry mentioned, throwing a tantrum, as far as my personal experience goes, is pretty much unreasonable, and will either stop the tantrum when a) (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
| (...) Well, they're sexual parts because we've fetishized them to be sexual parts, much like tiny (bound) feet used to be in China. Beyond that, breasts are no more "sexual parts" than the rest of our bodies (and less so than certain other body (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
| (...) Yes. When they are necessary. You haven't proven the case that this particular law (banning public nudity) is *necessary* yet, though. If a law isn't protecting the rights of citizens from being infringed, it is not necessary. (not every law (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Corporal punishment (was rah rah, canada!
|
| (...) You can't reason with a horse. (...) You can't reason with a cat. (...) You can reason with a child. Parenthood can be very difficult. However, I can't see how resorting to violence will give a parent anything other than short-term gain and (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Once again, even with all our problems, Canada--a great place to live...
|
| (...) Indeed. (...) 8 Year old Canadians can even see it online: (URL) A (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
| (...) Laws need to be based on something (...) Of what value is freedom if nobody respects it? We don't have "absolute freedom" in this country (which is anarchy). If people aren't willing to respect others freedoms, the concept is moot. (...) In (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Corporal punishment (was rah rah, canada!
|
| (...) Careful there, Chris... he's been seen going around asserting that the sun rises in the east again. (...) er, oops. Nevermind. :-) Now, a bit more on track, we're not much on hitting our kids, and we didn't, much, especially now that both of (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Once again, even with all our problems, Canada--a great place to live...
|
| (...) What makes the court decision remarkable is that they actually made a decision that's rational, instead of politically expedient. You may have found the writing sub-par, but then you may not know the actual author of the article, Rachel Sa. (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Once again, even with all our problems, Canada--a great place to live...
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur wrote: <snip> (...) *cough* Page 3 *cough* (1) Dave K -not that it's a poster, but I bet it sells newspapers, so any 8 year old in a coffee shop paging thru a legally purchased at any age paper can catch a (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Once again, even with all our problems, Canada--a great place to live...
|
| Hi all, it's been a while! The subject of this post seems curious to me. Canada is a great place...why? Dave, are you reacting to the court's decision or to this journalist's gushing? The way I see it, the writing in that piece was sub par in that (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Once again, even with all our problems, Canada--a great place to live...
|
| (...) In the UK we are allowed "(URL) chastisement>", but it is not something I condone. I have 4 kids, and I've never even thought about it; although I have been bitten and nipped by them at times. (...) Not in my part of Europe! Like you, in the (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Once again etc etc etc
|
| Without quoting Dave, with whose sentiment I agree, even if my experience seems to be less in relation to public nudity in Europe, John's response made me chuckle. (...) Heinously over-rated. "conformity to standards of taste, propriety, or quality" (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
| (...) Great idea. Teach your children well and all that. Not seeing the connection to drug laws or public nudity laws though. (...) Eh, what? ... (was dozing off for a sec, this all seems familiar to me somehow) Oh! Yes! Morality, inasmuch as it (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Once again, even with all our problems, Canada--a great place to live...
|
| (...) Well, before we get into what I personally consider decent, the Ontario courts ruled a while back that the exposure of breasts in certain public areas (basically any public area where, say, a man can legally go topless) is decent, and is now (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
| (...) Morality issue, out of bounds for legislators - shouldn't it be so? Larry? (...) Would you be kind enough to ellaborate? I seem to recall you advocating some sort of "absolute freedom" concept earlier in o-t.d, but my memory may be failing. It (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Once again, even with all our problems, Canada--a great place to live...
|
| (...) I'm curious. What do you think about the concept of "decency"? Freedom without respect and responsibility is meaningless. (...) You obviously don't have kids and are trying to raise them to become decent people. (...) Of course you are an (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Once again, even with all our problems, Canada--a great place to live...
|
| (URL) within 'common sense' reasons, is legal, according to the Supreme Court of Canada. You can't use a shoe aor a belt, you can't hit the kid in the head, can't spank if they're under the age of 2... THey actually laid out pretty specific (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Magnificent!
|
| (...) WEll, maybe not quite 'nuff said after all. (URL) Here's> a prescient article from very early in Dubya's monarchy. (21 years ago, 29-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
|
