Subject:
|
Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 11 Jan 2000 17:58:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2316 times
|
| |
|
|
Richard Franks wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Edward Sanburn writes:
>
> Using a country in the middle of ethnic cleansing as a comparison is hardly
> flattering. You can get shot in any country, but it's more likely to happen if
> you live in the US than say the UK.
It's also hard to compare even the US and the UK, much less Chechnya,
Bosnia-Herzegovina or Kosova. But I'd argue that any of those three places in
1990--a better analogue of time--would have been *much* safer than the urban United
States.
> > Ah, we have communities over here, Richard, whether you believe it or
> > not.
>
> I find it easy to believe, however I would need convincing that anything other
> than a minority are part of one.
Our communities are not geographic, they're usually communities of choice, and
membership drifts. I consider LUGNET to be a "community," for example; communities
of the "older" sort do exist, but overwhelmingly they're in exurbia.
> > Progressive policies like mandatory leave for fathers is funny,
> > IMO. But that is another debate.
>
> And one that interests me :) And since we're in .debate anyway.. do you not
> think families would benefit from such a scheme? Or is it funny from a
> implementation viewpoint?
I think the option for paternal leave should exist, if there is a reason for such
to be taken, like the mother is in dire medical condition (or, God forbid, dies
during childbirth). My sister just had a child, and she was also in medical dire
straits--so my brother-in-law was forced to use his three weeks' vacation to take
care of her and the baby, because she was extremely weak. Fortunately she was
barely strong enough after the three weeks, but what if the situation had been just
as bad?
> > that is why most European unemployment
> > rates are what, 16-20%. The tax load is between 30-50% at least? You can
> > have it.
>
> Isn't that like saying that most tall people stop playing with LEGO ages 16-20,
> and they have a 30-50% chance of having blue eyes?
The rates also depends on where in Europe. It's not nearly that high (for either
rate)--and I would likely pay (counting my medical care costs and other costs
covered by European governments) just as much of my income (30%-plus) to cover it.
> Either way, if the average quality of life is good then regardless of tax rates
> I'd rather pay my share of tax. IMPP even up to 100% tax, if ever such a scheme
> was workable, which it hasn't quite been yet!
Interesting that Luxembourg's per capita GNP is higher than the United States's. I
wouldn't be able to pay 100% tax, though--that's out and out Communism in the
classical Marxian sense.
> > Deifying people, no. Respecting them is another manner, however.
> > Propaganda is used by everyone, everywhere, most of the time.
> > Researching them, as I have done, is another matter.
>
> You have me there, as I don't know what you've researched, what your sources
> were, and what (if any) biases they contained.
Personally, I was happy that the "Person of the 18th Century" for TIME magazine was
Thomas Jefferson. I'll agree that their work is worthy of respect, but we need to
keep their historical context in mind as well.
> > > The free market isn't always the best tool to use to judge somethings worth.
> >
> > Yes, but is a lot better than some leftists shoving down idiotic things
> > down our throat.
>
> If you open your mouth, then there'll always be someone happy to shove
> something down your throat. Be it leftists, rightists, upsidedownists,
> introvertists etc.
Go to Hillsdale College if you want right-wing indoctrination. If showing a
certain amount of fairness when treating the vast majority of humanity, which is
non-European, non-Christian, and non-male is left-wing, then I'm way off to the
left.
> In that case it would be the marketing suits inspecting your tonsils. That
> isn't to say that the masses are stupid, but who has stopped buying from
> Nestle? Most people don't even know the reasons for doing so - for the free
> market to work efficiently and beneficially it requires perfect information,
> which unfortunately isn't encouraged without self-interest in a free-market.
Agreed.
> > Well, Richard, what do you think I need to learn? Your mentality? No thanks.
>
> There is a wisdom in knowing how little you know, and how much you have left to
> learn.
>
> But that is in general, and not at all related to the question of my mentality,
> which is something you know little or nothing about.
I think it's important to understand fully how people come to the conclusions they
do, without resorting to blanket derogations. This doesn't hold true only for the
"left-right" binary we seem to think describes human thought, but also for other
cultures, religions, et cetera.
> > When
> > you start getting money from the US taxpayer, it is different. Making
> > idiotic representations like this, plus numerous other examples of NEA
> > funding, should not be charged to the taxpayer, which gets offended half
> > the time. If you want to make it, I am all for it, don't expect me to
> > pay for it.
>
> There's two issues here - should the government fund art, and should government
> funded art be censored?
>
> Given that the government DOES fund art, then argue against the funding that as
> a sep[a]rate issue.
>
> What would be more disturbing was if the government only commissioned works
> that were unoffensive and non-demanding.. bland and meaningless. That would
> truely be a waste of money, and a sign of an atrophying culture.
It would also be *very* much in the mould of the artistic sponsorship that Certain
Totalitarian European/Eurasian Nations (I won't name them, you know which two I'm
talking about) conducted in the 1930s. Albert Speer's architecture, "New Socialist
Art," and the like were all government-funded, ideologically "safe" art.
> > Bitterness in terms of the fallacy of government programs such as the
> > NEA. Jealousy? Hmm... I would love the federal boys to pay for my LEGO
> > habit, but then I also realize that the government was not set up to do
> > that, unlike NEA defenders.
>
> Your LEGO habit gives pleasure to you, art can give pleasure to millions,
> there's a difference.
However (this was my original interest in answering this post, doh!), if you can
make a case that your LEGO creation is art, then it can give pleasure to millions.
It's been done in the past--but fortunately TLG funds some of it itself, or at
least assists the projects. But that treads on commercial copyrights and the
funding of art from private companies--remember the concentration camp LEGO flap
from a few years back? Maybe we should drag out that venerable chestnut as an
example.
best,
Lindsay
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| (...) Using a country in the middle of ethnic cleansing as a comparison is hardly flattering. You can get shot in any country, but it's more likely to happen if you live in the US than say the UK. (...) I find it easy to believe, however I would (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
473 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
|
|
|
|
