Subject:
|
Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 3 Feb 2004 20:59:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
345 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
> > http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/sa.html
> >
> > Ahh Canada, where you can walk around topless, if you're female and you so
> > choose (k, that's Ontario only right now, but as yet I have seen no evidence of
> > women excercising that legal right), where you can have on your person under 15
> > grams of wacky tobacky without it being a capital offence, and where you can get
> > married to someone of the same sex...
> >
> > Though the last two may not last too long in Martins regime... we shall see what
> > transpires there...
> >
> > But overall, those wacky Canadians, with their liberal laws and all!!
> >
> > God love 'em!
>
> I'm curious. What do you think about the concept of "decency"?
Morality issue, out of bounds for legislators - shouldn't it be so? Larry?
> Freedom without respect and responsibility is meaningless.
Would you be kind enough to ellaborate? I seem to recall you advocating some
sort of "absolute freedom" concept earlier in o-t.d, but my memory may be
failing. It was probably in those never-ending discussions whether your country
was "freer" than others.
> > As an aside, in Europe you probably couldn't go a block without seeing some
> > marquee or billboard without seeing an advert with a topless model selling
> > something... what is it about North America? It was a breast! And it, so I'm
> > told, for I didn't TiVo it and do a frame by frame peek-see, had a 'pastie' over
> > the nipple!!
>
> You obviously don't have kids and are trying to raise them to become decent
> people.
Subjective. How exactly do you link breasts and decency? We're mammals after
all, so pretending breasts aren't there is kind of bliss, isn't it?
> > Holy great mother of Teetsville!!! The uproar! The furor!!
> >
> > Eh, whatever...
>
> Of course you are an adult and can handle such inanities-- try to think beyond
> your self for answers.
What is it with breasts and children?
Don't breasts exist *primarily* for them?
Why would a child be shocked to watch a breast on tv if he's probably already
been fed thru one? IMO it's hypocrytical to ake breasts a "taboo" for children,
and then making those the center of teenager boys' dreams. Come on! Do you
honestly think a child gets shocked from watching breasts, or is it from the
parents' overreaction to it?
My experience from numerous summers tells me kids tend to accept topless women
far easier than their parents... who go on and on about how vile "those women"
are, but keep peeping.
I guess I'll just go back to my public funded tv and watch breasts in every
other commercial. After all, it's taxpayer-subsidized immorality - I demand my
right to it!
:-)
Pedro
"Our country is in a thong" - JM Durão Barroso, Prime Minister, 2002
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
| (...) Great idea. Teach your children well and all that. Not seeing the connection to drug laws or public nudity laws though. (...) Eh, what? ... (was dozing off for a sec, this all seems familiar to me somehow) Oh! Yes! Morality, inasmuch as it (...) (20 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
| (...) Laws need to be based on something (...) Of what value is freedom if nobody respects it? We don't have "absolute freedom" in this country (which is anarchy). If people aren't willing to respect others freedoms, the concept is moot. (...) In (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
88 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
