 | | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) Well, it speaks (Looking at my CATO supplied Constitution & Bill of Rights) , "the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God...." for one (In the Declaration of Independence). The concept of natural law, in (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
<38741B0A.4F62FC4B@c...anweb.net> <slrn879752.341.matt...ia.bu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Yes. Unless you're a big fan of "the ends justify the means". Good outcomes do not justify (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) But this, too, is circular, since your question implies that a human being who doesn't say "That's sick!" is not normal and decent. Dave! (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) Fair enough -- I admit to joining the debate in progress. There's several thousand posts in this newsgroup; discussing them all becomes an ever-increasing burden to entry. Could you point me to several in particular that you'd like me to (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) Yeah. But I disagree. The founding fathers may have had this belief, but they very carefully didn't write it into the constitution. (...) So if the government does something good, it's still evil? I guess I'm concerned with making things work. (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) I don't think you're going to find such a thing, because "vile and contemptuous" isn't something that makes something art or not. If a thing is truely vile and contemptuous, it might be something that, as you say, no one ever should be exposed (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) Isn't there a difference of _depth_ as well? (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
I'm sure to regret getting into this at all, but... (...) why stop at art? -S (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) I'm not so sure (see my post above). Can't I come up with an idea so obscene that every normal, decent human being will say, "That's sick!" -John (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) No, I am waving around the term because I'm searching for something so vile and contemptuous that it is an example of something that art isn't. And I'm not talking about photos of nude, newborn babies. I'm talking about depictions of sexual (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
Although I agree with Kevin (how could I not, he's agreeing with me) I am honor bound to point out: (...) that the starving artists I see on TV (you know, on those 1/2 hour ads and such) seem to produce mostly Elvis on velvet... :-) Not that there's (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) I don't follow you. There isn't a difference except in style of expression-- both are saying the same thing. -John (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
<38741A57.AE0161C3@voyager.net> <slrn8787ug.nkk.matt...ia.bu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Well, if you don't know the difference, or don't know that some of us feel there is a difference, and (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) So are you saying that we can only recognize art in retrospect? And since we cannot know how the future will deem our (the present) work, then we shall not try and judge it now? (...) I'm searching for a definition, not an inclusive data (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) Why??? This statement seems more lazy than profound. Try. -John (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Swearing?
|
|
(...) Well, generally speaking, a nude is not pornographic *because* it is nude. *What* the nude is doing or how it's being portrayed are important considerations. When I refer to child pornography, I am referring to portrayals of sexual acts by (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) Mine as well! (...) Amen, brother! :) Scott S. (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) Not to mention on shaky accuracy ground! The Constitution doesn't speak of either god or rights. And the first ten amendments don't attribute the rights they speak of to any specific external source. The Declaration of Independence mentions (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) Hear, Hear!!! Time to vote. Who is in favor of un-funding all federal art subsidies?? It sure gets my vote. I prefer starving artists who have to work a little bit at their trade and thus, create much better art. If private individuals wish to (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) Very shaky ground, my eyes certainly are! (...) Yes sir. Larry has the unique ability to clean up what rambling I have, and make it a clear and concise point. All hail Larry! Scott "losing the ability to type" S. ___...___ Scott E. Sanburn-> (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
