 | | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) The example you gave above regarding woman being cover is flawed. The woman in that society choose to cover up. We might not see it as choice since Islamic law dictates it, but think of it from their perspective. They were brought up in a (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Corporal punishment (was rah rah, canada!
|
|
(...) One can produce a conditioned response if that is what you mean. I'm not sure the horse (or cat) has understood much else? (...) I, and many others, manage by doing neither. How do you explain that? My kids understand they will not benefit (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
I have read some real nutters along these lines. (...) Yeah, some people think that this sexualization of children bunk starts here. (...) Sadly, some do. It makes light of respectful modesty or somesuch. My wife got into a conversation once with (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) I'll go with RAH's answer "because it scares the horses"... Other than that, no problem. (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Corporal punishment (was rah rah, canada!
|
|
> But it's not neccessary. The last time I advocated something like this here, (...) desire (...) not (...) behavior (we (...) our (...) I was there also. I was impressed with the visible results of your parenting. I had one eye opening experience (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) We tend (...) Hmm, always? Does that mean that breastfeeding is sex? Hmm, I guess there are some prudes in the world that would like to prevent kids from breastfeeding. Certainly there are those who think it's wrong to do so in public. Of (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
"John" <John@TCLTC.org> wrote in message news:HsKsoz.1qu3@lugnet.com... snipped religion (...) citizens (...) frequent (...) the (...) for the (...) we just (...) Only (...) around (...) would (...) and (...) guess (...) what (...) be (...) to (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Oldest constitution still in opperation in the world used to justify same sex marriage
|
|
(...) Yaay. (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) Why Dave? Didn't you agree before that if no one was being harmed, the laws should not interfere? How would it harm you to happen upon a couple (or more, gasp!) having leisure sex in a park near your house? Chris (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Corporal punishment (was rah rah, canada!
|
|
(...) Honestly considering tantrums is a somewhat humbling experience for parents. You can pretty explicitly track the cause of the tantrum to failure to act on the part of the parents. I've been there and done that. It's been my fault. It might be (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) So we pass laws to lower the hemline back to ankles? There should be a difference between sex and, well, not sex. And this issue of toplessness falls on the non-sex side, or at least it should, for there are societies today that have no (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) Please. "Naked"??? He wore shoes and socks! Give me a real Naked Trekker, not this pitiful pretender! JOHN (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) Okay, here goes. First, WRT to religion, I get my values and morals from my religion and they will be reflected in my answer, but they are mine. It is never my intention to force my religion on somebody else. But because I derive my values (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) Ugh! Can we please keep the conversation to humans? Chris ;-) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) Then why not my morality? What makes yours so much better? That's my point. (...) Exactly *which* freedom of yours was abused by Janet Jackson's bare breast? (...) I find ponytails sexy. Is hair a sexual part? Every body part is as sexual as (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) Correct, the bar will be raised, as it was from ankles to breasts. Next will be the sexualization of our youth (which has already begun). What all of this amounts to is the decay of civility-- an amoral route to anarchy. JOHN (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Corporal punishment (was rah rah, canada!
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks wrote: <snip lots of weel thgouht out and implemented stuff> (...) Wow Chris, that's a whole different slant that I hadn't considered. Nicely done. To continue the discussion with maybe a specific (...) (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...
|
|
Ack...I'm being seized by old, bad habits. (...) There shouldn't need to be a law permitting it...such permission is granted by nature. Only the restriction of such default freedom requires laws. (...) Really? (...) Ayup! (...) It's funny that I (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Corporal punishment (was rah rah, canada!
|
|
(...) There are two basic thrusts that I'll take with this. First, and what I expect to me more convincing/interesting to the "pro-spank" or "parents' rights" crowd, is that it produces long-term deleterious motivational effects. It seems that (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Oldest constitution still in opperation in the world used to justify same sex marriage
|
|
(...) Wow! Not only in Canada, eh? Pity (1) Dave K 1-going for humour here (2), not that i think it's a bad decision--I'm in full support. 2-those that don't get the joke, eh, it's not worth explaining but Red Rose tea commercials factor in (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
