|
|
 | | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote: <snip> (...) We're just touching on every topic now, aren't we? Publically funded television is a wonderful thing. Never *ever* get rid of it. My local PBS station (local even though it's in a differnt (...) (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...
|
| (...) Well then that's a differnet kettle of fish, isn't it? Sex, in mono-or partner form, is different than, well, what we're talking about here. There are laws about being 'sexual' in public, which falls outside the purview of the laws we're (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Oldest constitution still in opperation in the world used to justify same sex marriage
|
| The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has just clarified it's ruling. Nothing short of full marriage rights for same sex couples is acceptable under the Massachusetts constitution, the oldest constitution in the world. (URL) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
| (...) Hmmm. I'm thinking of clay Ashtarte fetishes that are 1,000s of years old which are basically a human form with gigantic breasts. Breasts have always been a symbol for sexuality and fertility that is cross-cultural, which leads me to conclude (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
| (...) I agree that most in the US are "modest" by your definition, but what about those who don't fit your definition? Don't they have just as much of a right to be "immodest"? Until someone can tell me exactly why public nudity is harmful, without (...) (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...
|
| (...) 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)
|
|
