Subject:
|
Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 20 Dec 2001 23:04:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1053 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Curt Tigges writes:
> 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.
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 between the
innocence of the medium and the "adultness" of the content that's evil, or
is it the content itself?
Or is it not necessarily the content, but the forum in which it's displayed?
Would it be OK if it were not shown on the internet, but instead at a live
porn show? How about if it were still on the internet, but required age
authentication?
Or is it merely the content? I know this came up recently wherein the
discussion turned to whether or not Christianity held homosexuality as evil
or not-- hence, is it merely the "gay" aspect that's evil?
As evidenced in the Brick Testament, we've seen sexuality and nudity
displayed in other, "less-contraversial" forums. Is the display in the Brick
Testament evil for depicting sexual acts & nudity from minifigs? Let's hope
not! :)
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
101 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
