 | | Re: Lavender Brick Society —Dave Schuler
|
| | | (...) In the Western world, Victorian prudishness is the primary closeting force. But before I answer further, can you give me an ironclad reason why sexual acts must be private? And I caution you against such moral relativism as "society has (...) (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Lavender Brick Society —John Neal
|
| | | | (...) I believe sexual intercourse is an intimate bonding experience physically, emotionall, spiritually, and psychologically. It is the ultimate "giving" of oneself, and thus should be considered to be a highly meaningful experience. It should be (...) (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Lavender Brick Society —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) Oddly, this is straight out of Mircea Eliade's "The Sacred and The Profane," which speaks of the investment of "sacredness" into certain places/customs/actions so that those places/customs/actions are preserved against alteration due to (...) (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Lavender Brick Society —John Neal
|
| | | | (...) Though I've never even heard of Eliade or his/her? work, why would that be "odd"? That you aren't a fan and that I sound like (okay, I googled it...) him should sound about right, no;-) (...) Again, the ultimate expression of society isn't (...) (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Lavender Brick Society —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) Well, just in terms of parallel evolution of ideas re: sacred v. profane. And whatever other oddity you'd care to contribute, of course. (...) I do not believe that there are any absolute standards for society, and all standards are determined (...) (20 years ago, 21-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Lavender Brick Society —David Laswell
|
| | | | (...) Since that happened well before the civil rights movement, the only applicable legality that I can think of is the 5th Amendment (nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law), but I believe they were classified as (...) (20 years ago, 21-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Lavender Brick Society —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | (...) Oh, absolutely, but I was giving situation-type examples, and today's racial profiling (of black drivers, of Arab airline passengers, etc.) is of the same species. And regardless of the civil rights movement, it was wrong of the government to (...) (20 years ago, 21-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Internment (was Re: Lavender Brick Society —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) US citizens of Japanese descent were classified as POWs? I did not know that. It's scary if true. It also gives ammo to the Bushies and their Enemy Combatant thingie. I hope you're wrong... I'm scared you're right. Also I thought the Geneva (...) (20 years ago, 21-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Internment (was Re: Lavender Brick Society —David Laswell
|
| | | | (...) Officially all J-A citizens/residents were termed "dangerous enemy aliens" (technically, so were all German- and Italian-Americans, but everyone collectively turned a blind eye to them). Once you've classified them as enemies, it's pretty easy (...) (20 years ago, 21-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Internment (was Re: Lavender Brick Society —Frank Filz
|
| | | | (...) There were German internment camps also. The numbers were much smaller, so they have got less exposure. (...) Except most of the "enemy combatant detainees" are not citizens. And those who are citizens should certainly have the constitution (...) (20 years ago, 21-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
