 | | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms" —Curt Tigges
|
| | | (...) No matter what the standards of reavealing parts of one's body, depictions of LEGO minifigs being gay and doing you-know-what-else is evil and immoral. (...) A member of The Church of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints. In other words, a (...) (23 years ago, 20-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms" —Leonard Erlandson
|
| | | | | (...) I agree with you that past standards or changes in standards is no reason to permit something now, but I disagree with your idea of evil. Just why is LEGO intercourse evil? Now if you meant people forwarding thier own ideas about the mores of (...) (23 years ago, 20-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms" —David Eaton
|
| | | | | (...) Based on what criterion, exactly? Is it still evil to do the same in a different medium? If I, say, posted something similar using crayola crayons, is it still evil? How about if I use a purposely falic novelty pen? IE, is it the connection (...) (23 years ago, 20-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms" —Thomas Stangl
|
| | | | (...) Ummm, only if you believe being gay is immoral. Luckily for gay people, I and enough other people don't believe that (or at the least don't worry about it enough to persecute gay people). -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home ***(URL) Bay (...) (22 years ago, 28-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
