 | | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) Who said anything about the majority? I just said "enough people". The problem with your argument is that it implies all laws are bad so long as one person disagrees. Well, if that one person likes to kill people, you've got a problem. Without (...) (21 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Corporal punishment (was rah rah, canada!
|
|
(...) sufficient to (...) behavior is (...) I don't think Chris has ever said that. Now I may be shortcutting Chris's recent posts, but I know in the past that Chris has said that if a kid was about to run in front of a car, he would grab the kid. (...) (21 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) What if I convince enough people that slavery is wonderful? Should we encat a law authorizing slavery? Or, a little less extreme than the above example, what if I convince enough people that men wearing skirts is wonderful? The point I'm (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Wow! A great day of debate!
|
|
What's really surprising is that o-t.d tops the # posts in last 24 hour list right now, even beating out .space. Those naysayers who sprout up every once in a while questioning the existence of o-t.d... this day shows a pretty valid reason ;) Dave K (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) We're catering to the sensibilities of the local culture and the laws they enact. If enough people in one society decide public sex acts should be illegal then they should be free to create laws to that effect. If you can convince enough (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Corporal punishment (was rah rah, canada!
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote: <snip> (...) You leave my Canadian teets alone! <snip> (...) Dave K (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Corporal punishment (was rah rah, canada!
|
|
(...) Hey, don't get all reasonable on me now! I can cut through my verbosity and sum it up this way: 1. I dispute the assertion that verbal instruction is generally sufficient to steer a recalcitrant child away from ultimately self-damaging (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Wow! A great day of debate!
|
|
I just thought I'd mention that. An absolute plethora of good posts, replies and followups, with relatively no 'offense' ('xept by me, but that was yesterday ;) ) Chris is actually swaying me to his slant of child rearing, and the skin thing just (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Corporal punishment (was rah rah, canada!
|
|
Dave, I'm thinking that you are nit-picking by way of purposely failing to read between the lines. If I'm wrong, then I must have communicated rather poorly. If you take a minute to evaluate my notes and your response, and then think that your (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Corporal punishment (was rah rah, canada!
|
|
(...) With respect, it is seldom the case that "simply asking" will result in getting one's way. Why don't you ask your boss to double your salary and increase your benefits? Will you get your way? I grant you, throwing a tantrum probably won't (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote: <snip> (...) Insofar as at one time the female ankle was considered sexual 'cause that was the part that was 'always covered up'. Making laws based on this type of sexual arousing 'finnikyness' seems very (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) That piece by Morris has been widely questioned as relying too heavily post-hoc reasoning based on pre-determined gender roles, but I still enjoy a lot of his work. I don't doubt that breasts have been long-time symbols of fertility and (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) Indeed! The last thing the "ruling class" wants is for the "masses" to be kept informed by a good independent public sector broadcaster. Far better that they get their "infotainment" from Fox! Scott A (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) You may enjoy this: Naked rambler completes his trek (URL) A (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Orion Pobursky wrote: <snip> someone can tell me exactly why public nudity is harmful, without (...) Hear! Hear!! (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
