|
|
 | | 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)
|
|
