Debate : 11606


Off-Topic / Debate / 11606

Re: More LP S P A M : (was Re: Scary Survey results about the US First Amendment) —Duane Hess

(...) What is your basis to the claim that acts depicted in pornography are different than those done in real life behind closed doors? (...) The crow-bar incident stemmed from my attempt to help a woman in a neighboring apartment who was being (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More LP S P A M : (was Re: Scary Survey results about the US First Amendment) —Scott Arthur

(...) This is a family forum. Like I said before, it may just be that I am a prude. (...) Just what war torn coutry do you live in? (...) Not more violent, but more realistic. There is a clear distinction between the two. Movies have the stylised (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More LP S P A M : (was Re: Scary Survey results about the US First Amendment) —Duane Hess

(...) Alright, I'll put this topic to bed (Oooo, that pun's just bad) (...) I'm just wondering what the difference is in your mind. (...) OK, I'll give you that. (...) Then why is there such a hunger for the media to lay their hands on (to use the (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More LP S P A M : (was Re: Scary Survey results about the US First Amendment) —Dave Schuler

(...) Hmm.. It strikes me as a contradiction to call for reality as a stylized representation of reality, but I'm nitpicking (and, anyway, I know what you're saying). But overall I think people want realism in their fiction, moreso than (but not to (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More LP S P A M : (was Re: Scary Survey results about the US First Amendment) —Scott Arthur

(...) As I cycle to work, cars do not screech around corners. Buildings do not explode. But I am sure that behind a couple of doors a husband is beating a wife. A dad is beating his kids. A mother may be beating her kids too. The reality is that (...) (23 years ago, 12-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More LP S P A M : (was Re: Scary Survey results about the US First Amendment) —Duane Hess

(...) It might be a way to curb that type of violence, yes. So why not show that type of violence in movies? Get it out in the open. Don't hide it from your children. Allow them to see the violence and have a chance to understand that it is wrong (...) (23 years ago, 12-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More LP S P A M : (was Re: Scary Survey results about the US First Amendment) —Scott Arthur

(...) Because, I expect, people do not want to know. Domestic violence exists, but too many in society turn a blind eye. (...) Was it a few months ago - Is that the guy who did not wear a helmet? (...) I do not believe that parents always know best. (...) (23 years ago, 12-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More LP S P A M : (was Re: Scary Survey results about the US First Amendment) —Duane Hess

(...) Now why is that I wonder? Get it out in the open. It wasn't too long ago that homosexuality (for an example) was socially taboo for subject matter. Now people tend to take it as a matter of course. I beleive that the media had a huge hand in (...) (23 years ago, 12-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More LP S P A M : (was Re: Scary Survey results about the US First Amendment) —Scott Arthur

(...) Either do I, but I intend to be a good parent. But I am glad the safety ne is there to protect kids... not just my own. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More LP S P A M : (was Re: Scary Survey results about the US First Amendment) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Didn't you jump my case for calling you a prude several months ago? I think pornography is a good tool for parents to demonstrate sex when they're too shy to do so in person. It sounds like Scott objects to the commission of certain acts or (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More LP S P A M : (was Re: Scary Survey results about the US First Amendment) —Scott Arthur

(...) I may well have. (...) The stereotypical porn movie is demeaning to woman. If I were to teach anyone sex education, it would be more than a functional analysis. Sex education should, at the very least, be in the context some sort of well (...) (23 years ago, 12-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More LP S P A M : (was Re: Scary Survey results about the US First Amendment) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) How so? Consumer demographics are highly male. Thus, the adult cinema is geared toward the satisfaction of male sexual fantasy and desire. To whatever extent the activities depicted are less than perfectly representitive of norml life (that is (...) (23 years ago, 12-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More LP S P A M : (was Re: Scary Survey results about the US First Amendment) —Scott Arthur

(...) I am no expert either, but that is the usual criticism it endures in the UK. I disagree that adult cinema is geared towards "toward the satisfaction of male sexual fantasy and desire". I imagine it is directed towards a sub-group of male (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More LP S P A M : (was Re: Scary Survey results about the US First Amendment) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) This makes it sound like you're saying that adult movies are demeaning to women because that's what the news in the UK prints. What??? (...) Well, I suppose each work is directed toward a specific demographic. But what I meant is that the (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More LP S P A M : (was Re: Scary Survey results about the US First Amendment) —Scott Arthur

(...) Who mentioned "printed news". Porn seldom makes the news in the UK... not in the paper I read at any rate. I was think more of educated debate. (...) It was a jest. My religious views are my own, I am not about to inflict them on anyone. Scott (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More LP S P A M : (was Re: Scary Survey results about the US First Amendment) —Scott Arthur

(...) I expect you mean this: (URL) is worth noting that in some areas of the UK tossing a stone at a window counts as attempted burglary. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More LP S P A M : (was Re: Scary Survey results about the US First Amendment) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) change (...) much (...) Nope. I hadn't read anything about that. It sounds like a dumb stance on both sides. Here is a snip from a note I posted on another forum in a discussion in which a Welsh woman was asserting that she was statistically (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More LP S P A M : (was Re: Scary Survey results about the US First Amendment) —Scott Arthur

(...) I am not sure you were both comparing like-with-like. But I would be interested in seeing a more comprehensive comparison. In most developed countries average crime levels are statistically low. What is important is fear of crime… that is what (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More LP S P A M : (was Re: Scary Survey results about the US First Amendment) —Scott Arthur

(...) Well it looks like she is less likely to be murdered. By chance I found this: (URL) know some numbskulls don't like UN stats, but it gives us this: 1997 Homicide (male) USA : 11.8 per 100,000 England & Wales : 0.8 per 100,000 (6.8% of the USA (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More LP S P A M : (was Re: Scary Survey results about the US First Amendment) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Interesting. A) Does the difference in these stats and the ones I cited suggest that one set is incorrect, or do you think the difference between violent crimes (my stats) and murder (your stats) is really that lopsided? It makes it sound like (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Scary Survey results about the US First Amendment (was a slur of a subject line —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Well it could just be those pesky UN statistics... but I just went to the Red Cross site to check on blood donation criteria and they don't want your blood if you have spent more than 3 months total in the UK or Ireland since 1980 (or 6 months (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

What's the beef? (was Spam Spam Spam etc ) (Was *not* Spam & Chips) —Scott Arthur

Perhaps you may have been here long enough to catch "mad cow disease"? Does your brain feel a little spongy? :-) I have not eaten beef more than ~12 years now due to BSE. Needless to say I have never eaten any beef from the USA, as it is unfit for (...) (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What's the beef? (was Spam Spam Spam etc ) (Was *not* Spam & Chips) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Gosh...I've eaten beef more recently than that and I'm vegetarian. (...) There's a lot to be said for growth hormones. Chris (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What's the beef? (was Spam Spam Spam etc ) (Was *not* Spam & Chips) —Scott Arthur

(...) I wish I had the will power to be a vegetarian. Chicken & fish are just too good. I am occasionally tempted by haggis also. (...) Indeed, there are those who claim that they cause breast cancer and may be causing girls to reach puberty (...) (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What's the beef? (was Spam Spam Spam etc ) (Was *not* Spam & Chips) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) You could seek psychiatric help for that. (The haggis I mean.) In my strange little sense of right and wrong, no amount of goodness makes it OK, so I just don't even think about it and concentrate on plant-based nutrition. (...) Sure, but (...) (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What's the beef? (was Spam Spam Spam etc ) (Was *not* Spam & Chips) —Scott Arthur

(...) Help is at hand for you Chris. There is a rather good vegetarian alternative. (...) Well as long as they make enough to be able to buy organic beef for there own kids, then at least a few people should be safe. Scott A (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: How I learned to stop worrying and love the beef (was: What's the beef?) —Dave Schuler

(...) Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous Communist plot we have ever had to face? Dave! (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: How I learned to stop worrying and love the beef (was: What's the beef?) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) No, it is third behind Orbital Mind Control Lasers and Robot Sea Monsters. They have more transferrable power I believe (but I didn't go check). (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: How I learned to stop worrying and love the beef (was: What's the beef?) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Fnord! (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: How I learned to stop worrying and love the beef (was: What's the beef?) —Scott Arthur

(...) Have you ever wondered why I only drink distilled water and rainwater, and only pure grain alcohol? Great script. Great cast. Great film. It is just a pity SK never made a sequal. :) Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: What's the beef? (was Spam Spam Spam etc ) (Was *not* Spam & Chips) —Scott Arthur

(...) For those who are interested: The Demise of Democracy? (URL) 1980, Europeans were horrified to discover that 2 and 3 year old children were reaching puberty. They traced the problem to growth hormones injected into animals. By the mid 1980s (...) (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What's the beef? (was Spam Spam Spam etc ) (Was *not* Spam & Chips) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) That sounds pretty extreme, and like the incautious use of Thalidimide, something to be avoided. On the other hand it doesn't suggest anything about current levels of hormone injection. To tie two threads together, Flouride is a deadly poison. (...) (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: What's the beef? (was Spam Spam Spam etc ) (Was *not* Spam & Chips) —Scott Arthur

(...) I can remeber the pictures. It was bad. (...) From: (URL) is substantial recent evidence that the natural hormone 17ß-oestradiol has to be considered as a complete carcinogen, concluded the independent scientists. It exerts both tumour (...) (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More LP S P A M : (was Re: Scary Survey results about the US First Amendment) —Scott Arthur

(...) I think we touched on this before. I think the 1st step in understanding your stats is to know what each country defines as a violent crime *and* what proportion of crime is reported – but these factors may well have been taken into account in (...) (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

deep frying chocolate (was Re: More LP S P A M : (was Re: Scary Survey results about the US First Amendment)) —Christopher Tracey

(...) How would one go about making one of these? This may be more fun than the chocolate covered tofu strips... ;) -chris (23 years ago, 20-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: deep frying chocolate (was Re: More LP S P A M : (was Re: Scary Survey results about the US First Amendment)) —Frank Filz

(...) Well, the method I saw yesterday at the North Carolina State Fair (the friend I went with got one of these, forget which kind of candy bar she got), they had stuck candy bars on sticks, then rolled them in batter, then stuck them in a deep (...) (23 years ago, 20-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: deep frying chocolate (was Re: More LP S P A M : (was Re: Scary Survey results about the US First Amendment)) —Scott Arthur

(...) I have never eaten one, so I do not really know. I think the trick is to cook it with such 'speed' that the middle does not melt. Just like a baked Alaska I suppose. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 23-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: deep frying chocolate & beer (Oz Style) —Scott Arthur

(...) Oz Style. From: (URL) Listing: Self Raising flour Six pack of XXXX One Mars Bar (frozen) Oil Method of Preparation: While drinking two of your stubbies grab one cup of your self raising flour and add some of your beer to the flour untill it (...) (23 years ago, 23-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: deep frying chocolate & beer (Oz Style) —Simon Bennett

(...) snipped the recipe... (...) Perhaps to make things clearer I should mention that in the US a Mars is a Topic. A US Mars is a Milky Way whereas a Milky Way in the UK is a Three Musketeers (US). Clear?!! :) Psi (23 years ago, 23-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: deep frying chocolate & beer (Oz Style) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Yes, thanks loads for that. Ever so clear Let me just add, in the same spirit: Rowley's invented KitKat. But KitKat is sold by Nestle everywhere in the world (since they bought Rowley's) except the US (where Rowley's had licensed KitKat to (...) (23 years ago, 23-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: deep frying chocolate & beer (Oz Style) —Simon Bennett

(...) I think you mean Rowntree's (Rowntree Mackintosh), Larry. :) (23 years ago, 23-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: deep frying chocolate & beer (Oz Style) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Right you are. Except I thought Cadbury bought Rowntree?? I heard the story at a major food client I was at 2 weeks ago and didn't write the names down. (23 years ago, 23-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: deep frying chocolate & beer (Oz Style) —Scott Arthur

(...) I'm pretty sure Rowntree Mackintosh was bought by Nestlé. It think it was ~1990 - I was boycotting Nestlé products at the time. I am pretty sure Kit-Kat fingers used to have "Rowntree Mackintosh" written on them? Is this correct? What do the (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: deep frying chocolate & beer (Oz Style) —Simon Bennett

(...) I think you mean Rowntree's (Rowntree Mackintosh), Larry. :) (23 years ago, 23-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: deep frying chocolate & beer (Oz Style) —Martin Scragg

(...) The real Oz version would differ about here: Drink another beer, realize you are down to the last beer. Forget about the Mars bar, go down the pub for some more beer. Martin (23 years ago, 23-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Porn for sex education —Daniel Jassim

(...) Huh? What parents wouldn't be shy demonstrating sex to their kids in person? I'm pretty sure there are laws against performing sexual acts in front of your children anyway. Or maybe you meant demonstrating it as in talking and showing pictures (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Porn for sex education —Jennifer Clark

(...) I gather it was from the former president of your country? Jennifer Clark (23 years ago, 13-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Porn for sex education —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Nah, Eddie van Halen. :-) Bruce (23 years ago, 13-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Porn for sex education —Tom Stangl

They just had a bit on Dateline or some other show in the last few days discussing this. How kids can say oral sex is not sex is beyond me - I think it's just Major Denial, a way to justify doing as much as they can without thinking about any (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Porn for sex education —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Some. I'm not really sure what you're asking. Did you want names and addresses? (...) I suspect that even if there are not specific and precise laws about it there are generally vague laws that could (and would) be used to prosecute the (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Laws about sex.... (was something else) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Right! We have some impressively vague and unenforced laws. For example, apparently Bill Clinton and Gary Condit(1) may both be "sex offenders" under DC law, since adultery is illegal in DC. Matters not whether all parties involved consent or (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else) —Duane Hess

(...) OK, here's a nicely vague one for you. (URL) (23 years ago, 13-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else) —Tom Stangl

That's just beyond belief. I can't adequately express the outrage I'm feeling over the stupidity of the judge that actually let this happen (make no mistake, the judge is the only one to blame for this, he has the ultimate power in the case). I (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else) —Steve Lane

(...) 10 years! he should have got twenty, he was already on probation, He probably would have done it evetually and locking him up hardly counts as a loss to society! I think what society gains from the removal of the risk he posed far outways any (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else) —Duane Hess

(...) So, you're saying that the government can arrest me for fictional writings about something that is illegal, but never took place anywhere but in my head? And that it's right?! -Duane (23 years ago, 13-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else) —Duane Hess

(...) Let me add to that. Fictional writings that were never published or distributed and intended for my own private use (enjoyment?). (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else) —Steve Lane

(...) Yes Look if someone has convictions for bomb making and you find a fake plan of a bombing campaign in his home, your gonna put 2 and 2 together and put him away. How do you know it was 'fake' he's gonna say that isnt he. Same in this case (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else) —Tom Stangl

(...) No, actually, you're not. At least, you shouldn't. If they're fiction, they have no base for a nonfictional case against you. If you HAD the materials for a bomb in the house, that would be one thing, but plans? You scare me. (...) Yes, the (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else) —Steve Lane

(...) Well if the guy lived in Northern Island I bet he'd be put away under the prevention of terroism act. In the right climate a government will make for itself, laws strong enough to defeat the current challenge against it. My earlier answears (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else) —Tom Stangl

(...) I see now - you don't live in the US, so you just can't quite appreciate the freedoms we have (they're eroding, though, unfortunately. And if more people in the US think like you, they'll erode much faster). (...) YOU. Him I may never run (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Change of direction —Steve Lane

(...) I can't beleive your more scared of me! When we're you intending to run into me? you've already acknowledged I live in a different country. Is your fear of governmental oppression intellectual or paranoid? (bit below the belt, but what the hey (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) True. This in fact appears to be true of all governments, no matter whether they start out just and democratic or not. And that's my issue with government, it's what our founding fathers tried to combat, imperfectly. We have a bill of rights (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else) —Steve Lane

(...) I'm glad somebody agree's with me :-). (...) Actually here in the uk we are having problems with increasing amounts of both government and buracrecy. I read the other day that half of our new laws come from Brussels. The European Union is (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else) —Tom Stangl

I hope you don't live in the US and have any power in elections. If you do, I should look into citizenship in other countries. Writing a PRIVATE journal of fantasy has absolutely nothing to do with an ACTUAL crime, nor even intent. If we start (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else) —Dave Schuler

(...) It's entirely possible that a PRIVATE journal entry (I'm reluctant to call it a "journal of fantasy" since it's difficult to establish after-the-fact whether a journal was intended as fantasy or as a plan of attack) can represent one's (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) That's true, but I think Tom's point is that this is a dangerous thing to allow the courts. Even if it can sometimes avenge or even prevent crimes, the link between most kinds of writing and future events is too tenuous to generaly admit as (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else) —Dave Schuler

(...) Yeah--a journal is, traditionally, a private forum for articulating one's thoughts. A letter to the papers could easily be construed as a statement of intent. I'm still torn, though; in college I argued passionately for the impossibility of (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else) —Duane Hess

(...) <snip> (...) I can agree that if the writing was a breach of a predetermined parole condition, then he does deserve to be punished. If it was not, then I feel that it is an invasion of privacy which cannot be tolerated. The individual in the (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) This seems problematic. The minute a crime is committed, presumably they have no idea whodunnit. So who exactly forfeits rights? And which ones? I guess I disagree. Among our rights (which are not forfeited even as a suspect) are due process. (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else) —Duane Hess

(...) What you are saying is very true. I was skipping over a whole lot of details (due process, search warrent, etc.) and going directly to the loss of certain rights as a convicted criminal. In jail, certain rights are removed or reduced. (At (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else) —Frank Filz

(...) And this is something we need to be extremely carefull of. Anyone can become a suspect. Probing of suspects (and witnesses) must be based on careful documentation of the expectation of finding something. Extreme care must also be taken to keep (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) over (...) case). (...) Disbarred??? How about dragged into the street by his hair and stoned to death? What kind of idiot creep judge hasn't read the first amendment? Chris (23 years ago, 16-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) That was a rhetorical question, right? I am sure that almost all judges have, but, scarily, more and more no longer know or care what it means. (which that survey I posted a link to recently brings out.) (1) That said I can't advocate (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else) —Kirby Warden

Hmmmm...I guess I'd better burn all those sci-fi stories I was writing, i'd hate to thrown in prison for starting a war and killing thousands of people...oh and the way some of those people died...I must be deranged to ever have thought such things (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else) —Jason J. Railton

(...) follow-on article at the bottom too, but that is terrible. I mean, the guy is a convicted child molestor, on probation. So, maybe reconsider his probation or schedule some more therapy[1][2] - something appropriate. But to convict him in that (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Could you elaborate on this a bit? Thanks. (23 years ago, 16-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else) —Jason J. Railton

(...) Erm - so that someone can nit-pick and flame me? I did write a load of stuff in reply to this, then deleted the lot. It just occured to me that I'd then have to spend the next year trying to explain 'irony'. What's the betting I have to anyway (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else) —Scott Arthur

(...) This even happens on Lugnet: (URL) (...) It is about to become law in New York State. There are plans to do the same in the UK: (URL) (...) Indeed. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Originally to produce a state where the citizenry would have it in their power if they ever deemed it necessary to overthrow the governance by force. Now to maintain (and try to get back to) a state where the citizenry would have it in their (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else) —Jason J. Railton

(...) Ah, I get it. So, what you're saying, is that the whole democratic process is just for show. You place your vote, you elect your leaders, but at any time you can up arms as a mob and take them out again. Okay, sorry, that's unfair. Every (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Democratic election is not just for show. It is a first attempt at getting things right. And we have 200 years of showing that it works out pretty well. (There have been some roadbumps along the way, but that's true for everyone.) Not (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else) —Scott Arthur

(...) I'd hate to put words in Jason's mouth. But when I read his text I immediately thought about how your constitution has allowed persecution and discrimination on the grounds of political views and race in the last 50 years. I can think of no (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else) —Jason J. Railton

(...) Interesting. It was illegal in England too, under the Puritanic rule of Oliver Cromwell. Curiously though, of all the cases brought to trial throughout London, only one ever secured a conviction - in most cases, the jurors wouldn't register a (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Porn for sex education —Tom Stangl

(...) I can't agree more on this. Many people think it a cliche, but it's the truth - "My wife is my best friend" I wouldn't have it any other way. (...) No, no harm in it, as long as you realize they are in Denial if they think they aren't having (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Porn for sex education —Daniel Jassim

(...) Har har har! No, dude, I mean don't you think most parents feel it's wrong to have sex in front of kids? (...) Put it this way, would you like to watch your parents have sex? I think parents showing affection is great! Kissing, hugging and (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Porn for sex education —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Sure! I think most American parents think that. I'm perfectly comfortable with the fact that a majority can be wrong. I'm not talking about what most people feel. I'm talking about what I think is right. I think that most people feel the (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Porn for sex education —Daniel Jassim

(...) You mean "wrong" to you? Sexuality is a very personal thing and people have different levels of it. Some wish to be private, some are more open, so it's not realistic to say either is "wrong." Sexuality is an intimate part of an individual and (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Porn for sex education —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I mean wrong. Counterfactual. Not correct. (...) I'm in a somewhat different boat. I've thought this through and through and I'm convinced that it is a disservice to not treat sexuality as a casual and natural physical loving gesture. It would (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Educational theory and what we "know" (was: Porn for sex education) —Christopher L. Weeks

I kind of neglected part of this before. (...) "With all [my] eduction," I can reject lots of well regarded psychological theories. In fact, I have to since many of them are contradictory. There are thousands of people who have spent their academic (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More LP S P A M : (was Re: Scary Survey results about the US First Amendment) —Dave Schuler

(...) For one thing, after the filming of Xena's beheading, Lucy Lawless appeared on Leno. In real life people do not typically hit the talk show circuit after they're decapitated (though admittedly it's sometimes hard to tell the difference). As (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)