Subject:
|
Re: Once again, even with all our problems, Canada--a great place to live...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 4 Feb 2004 17:32:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
423 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
> > 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,
>
> > > I'm curious. What do you think about the concept of "decency"?
> >
> > But why would I personally deny someone else from doing what they think
> > makes them happy?
>
> So you would be okay with a law that permitted, say, fornication or
> masterbation in public places?
Well then that's a differnet kettle of fish, isn't it? Sex, in mono-or partner
form, is different than, well, what we're talking about here.
There are laws about being 'sexual' in public, which falls outside the purview
of the laws we're talking about here.
It's legal to drink over the age of 19 in Ontario. That does not diminish the
law that states you can't have an open beer sitting in your hand whilst driving.
> > There are laws of the land. Those laws shold be there to protect one
> > individiual from the actions (or inactions, whatever the case may be) of
> > another individual. If Joe Blow is smoking weed in his thatched cottage in
> > the Muskokas, how does that impact me on any level at all. Now if he gets
> > high and hops in a car and kills or injures me, that's a completely
> > differnet story.
>
> I'm fine with the stuff people do in private-- we are talking about {public}
> behavior here.
>
>
No we're not--well, in a way we are, but if I'm rollerblading down the boardwalk
and I feel like taking off my tee shirt and expose my chest to the world,
there's no law preventing me from doing that. Now there's also no law
preventing my sister from doing same. There's the rub.
If we're talking about pot smoking, why should that be illegal? Because people
might smoke up at work or on the road? Again, adding the law to allow pot
smoking won't diminish the other laws that prohibit smoking same in places where
smoking isn't allowed, or being intoxified isn't allowed.
>
> > of the land. That goes against the very nature of the law. Allowing gay
> > people to marry will npot make more people gay, nor will it lead to some
> > slippery slope where all of a sudden people will legally be able to marry
> > their dog, or a teenage kid. Consenting adults, see. Consenting, rational,
> > law abiding adults, who also work within the same legal structure that I
> > do--why should they be in a more disadvantageous position according to the
> > law than me?
>
> Ah, so a brother and sister, or two brothers who decide to marry for
> convenience is okay with you?
Aren't there laws against that? ;)
>
> > >
> > > Freedom without respect and responsibility is meaningless.
> >
> >
> > Nowhere in any of my posts did I even remotely infer this. Clarify please.
> > I have a wit that may not come across sometimes in posting, but I would
> > never think this.
>
> It is my assertion. Somebody (Talking JJ and "righty";-) who willingly
> (hmmm, why the pastie?) and knowingly (live TV) violates public decency laws
> and is basically snubbing their nose at society.
Or maybe it's an act of protest against a repressive society. I dunno.
> > > > 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?
>
> Maybe the question is "what is it about Europe?"
Ahh God love those Europeans :)
>
>
>
> > > > 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.
> >
> >
> > And you obviously didn't turn off the half time show for the first 20
> > minutes when the 'artists' were grinding against one another and grabbing
> > their crotches repeatedly, so when the coverend nipple sprung out, that was
> > the bad thing?
>
> Wrong. We ate dinner during the half-time show and we (thankfully) missed
> the whole thing (Of course I knew that the half-time show was being produced
> by MTV so the plan to deliberately miss it was long in place). Found out
> about it that night on the internet.
Then you and I abstained from the show for the same reasons.
>
> > It was quite well advertised that MTV was going to run the show. The
> > viewers were forewarned just by that. From many other newsgroups I've read
> > that people knew beforehand that it was going to be a waste of time and
> > watched somethign else during the 1/2 time break.
> >
> > "I don't like Donny Denton either.. you know what I do? I turn [the radio]
> > off."
>
> Who's he?
It's just a quotation--it alludes to people who get 'up in arms' about something
they saw, heard or read, and threated to take action against the company. Like
when Howard Stern was on a radio station in Toronto--I don't like Stern, know
what I do? I don't listen to the station that's playing him. My freedom to
turn the radio dial to another station. It's not the company who has the
responsibility to give me what I want to hear, it's mine. If I can't find it at
station A, I go to station B thru Z, or even *gasp* turn off the radio!
>
> > Don't go looking to MTV to instill morals and decency into your kids.
>
> lol The very antithesis of morality and decency!
On this we agree
> > DOnt'
> > look to the NFL to do so, either. There are sports heros like Wayne Gretzky
> > and the like who any child can look up to, but for every Wayne there is a
> > (whatever, insert bad-boy sports figure here 'cause I dont' follow too many
> > sports that closely)
>
> Hold on for a second right there! There is only [ONE] superstar sport hero
> who ever lived up to being a model for anyone to follow and that's Wayne
> Gretzky (whom I hold, aside from being a [HUGE] fan, in the [HIGHEST] regard
> as a person and the most amazing athlete in team sports history). "For every
> Wayne Gretzky there is a...."???? There is only ONE Wayne Gretzky and
> {everyone} else {pales} in comparison. Okay, done with my Gretzky rant.
> I'll tell you that if I ever won the lottery (I here you need to play in
> order to win however...), the first thing I'd do before becoming a
> philantropist is attend Gretzky's Fantasty Camp:-)
My point was that exactly that--Wayne is the epitome of a sports hero. But for
every Wayne, there's a, well, again I can't think of any--though Dennis Rodman
(1) is popping into my mind right now--I don't follow professional sports that
close--who are the very antithesis of a role model for kids.
Respect for Wayne and his family are wuite high, and deservedly so. You know
that Wayne's dad does great work for charities around the area? It's absolutely
inspiring what the Gretzky's do. But I digress...
>
> > It comes down to you, the parent, to instill what you consider decent
> > values, and morals, into your children. I think my parents did a pretty
> > good job with me. They also gave me the freedom to learn things on my own,
> > and to make my own mistakes. My folks showed me that no matter how bad
> > somehting is, there is a redeeming value somewhere, and that people should
> > be treated with the respect and consideration that one would expect for
> > oneself. (they taught me many other things but that'll fill a server of,
> > like hundreds of gigabytes...)
> >
> >
> > > > 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.
> >
> > It was inane. There was *no nipple!!!!!* For the quick flash of skin, you
> > get more watching an 'oil of olay' commercial! They have Seinfeld episodes
> > on at 5 p.m. when Georges mom's in the hospital and the nurses are giving
> > that sponge bath behind the curtain... Oh My Goodness!! Yes Janet Jackson's
> > flashing of her breast was inane. The entire half time show was inane
> > (whatever happened to marching bands and the like?) But the cheerleaders
> > during the game were more sexually provocative than Justin and Janet. Yet
> > nothing on that.
> >
> > If that show happened in *any* other country, this wouldn't even have been a
> > blip.
> >
> > My decision not to have kids is mine alone. I may face my maker someday to
> > justify that but actions have consequenses and I've accepted that. I
> > am really not trying to say this (struggle).... but the sheer arrogance and
> > hypocricy of that line...
>
>
> You are taking my statement too personally. I was by no means indicting you
> about the decisions you've made in your life! What I meant was that, sure,
> the half-time show was nothing for mature adults. You are a single mature
> adult, and your perspective is that it was innocuous {to you}. Fine. What I
> was asking you to do was to imagine yourself a parent watching the game with
> your 8 year old son or daughter. You would not be happy. And all of those
> other TV examples you listed-- yeah, they are ALL inappropriate for children.
> TV has become completely inappropriate for children to watch (and yet the
> amount of TV watched by children is at an all-time high!) And I am not even
> talking about cable!!! Our children are being prematurely sexualized by
> exposure to inappropriate (for minors) subject matter and I believe it is
> having damaging consequences to our culture.
I did take it personally, though looking at it now, I can't see why I did. That
said, the point is that any parent who complains to the FCC or to CBS about how
their kid saw Jackson's breast has already lost any credibility for not
excercising proper parental perception in the first place. For the 20 minutes
before with all the humping, grinding and crotch grabbing, Daddy didn't switch
the channel to something else so little Timmy wouldn't be exposed to that crap?
Instead, at the end, now Pappa's offended cause of the covered nipple? This is
the hypocritical part. There was nothing, *nothing* that prevented Pops from
turning to another station or even turning off the telly for the duration of the
half-time show. And it wasn't like there was no prior warning that the show was
going to be tastelss (tastelss being imho).
> But people seem to think that it is fine to expose 7 year olds to sexually
> explicit content matter. I don't.
People think it's fine to blame everyone but themselves when it comes
excercising proper responsibility when raising their kid.
>
> [JOHN]
Dave K
-I don't know much about DR, but from what I recall, I wasn't particularly fond
of his 'persona'--swearing, yelling, throwing tantrums--that's the only basis I
have for putting him there.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
88 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
