Subject:
|
Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 11 Jan 2000 18:04:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2390 times
|
| |
|
|
Richard Franks wrote:
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Edward Sanburn writes:
>
> > You can get shot in any country, thank you very much, whether or not
> > they have guns, illegal or otherwise. Did you hear of Bosnia, maybe.
> > Chechnya (SP?) etc.
>
> 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.
Well, I was just showing that people get shot in many ways. I don't
think I know of anyone ever getting shot, in my family, friends,
co-workers, etc. It's not like you hear gunshots every where you go or
something.
>
> > 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.
That is the funniest statement I have ever heard. What are you trying to
say here, Richard? No non-minority people are part of the community.
Please. Talk about misinformed.
> > 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?
What is it, 16 weeks, mandatory leave from a job? Paid? If I left any of
my two jobs for 16 weeks, my absence would severely hurt the company,
whether I get paid or not.
> > 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?
Lego has nothing to do with taxes or unemployment, Richard. I was merely
pointing out all the freebies associated with European governments end
up with high taxes and high unemployment.
> 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!
Thank God for that. I would not want to live in that kind of society,
but you are free to do so if you wish. Government, in my definition,
does not give out good quality of life. Freedom does that.
>
> > > History has a habit of demonising or deifying people. You never remember
> > > Eric the mundane.. I feel that several centuries of propaganda will make any
> > > Big Brother seem awe inspiring.
> >
> > 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.
Biases are everywhere, so it is left to the reader to find them out,
whether they are true or not. Most often, reading their original works
helps.
> > > 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.
You seem to be implying that European socialistic tendencies are the
best, where I don't they are the case.
> In a free market what you get shoved down your throat is the largely uneducated
> half-thoughts of the masses, reacting to a barrage of advertisements and
> enertia.
Well, I certainly don't pay attention to advertising, I go out and find
what I want, and do research on the product. You are lumping everyone
into the same bowl, which is not the case in real life.
> 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.
I can imagine you can give a whole tirade on Nestle, or other companies.
>
> > > > In terms of the cultural literacy programs, I have had enough of those
> > > > as well. I have taken all the required ones, and all they are is leftist
> > > > propaganda machines. I have never seen such a collection of Marxists,
> > > > Communists, Atheists, and Liberals in my life, spouting their views, and
> > > > using the classroom to do it. My favorite was Race and Ethnic relations,
> > > > good Lord, I spent $500.00 to hear that I was personally responsible for
> > > > every illness of minorities. Hogwash.
> > >
> > > I severely doubt that that was the message, maybe you still have something
> > > to learn from that class?
> >
> > Well, being there and hearing it everyday certainly makes me more aware
> > of what happened there than you, sir.
>
> Undoubtably, but statements like: "I have never seen such a collection of
> Marxists, Communists, Atheists, and Liberals in my life", made me seriously
> wonder what other stereotypes you held close.
Well, discussing points of view with all of these professors in
question, based on what they have said, and told me they are, it isn't
hard to define people in terms of their thoughts, actions, and sayings.
Most people say the Republican party is for the rich. How so, when I am
considered poor / lower middle class?
> > The only thing I needed to learn
> > from that class is how politically motivated it was, without any reason
> > to teach the problems of race, and was just a front for the Prof. to
> > spout his political views. I got to pay for that.
>
> If that is truely all it was then you do have cause to complain.
It was, and other classes, which I had to sit there and endure simply
because some "progressive" decided I need to have this class because I
have not seen the light, or whatever.
>
> > 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.
Well, Richard, I am not the smartest person in the world, or the wisest,
but I know what I know from what I read, from what I observe, and how I
behave, and what I believe in. If your indication is that I need to know
more, simply because you think you are the world expert on everything
(Your tone indicates this, BTW), you are wrong sir, and I would rather
be ignorant in your eyes than to believe in something I know doesn't
work, or has bad consequences. You seem to be very ignorant in terms of
America (I.E. Guns, commercials, etc.) I do not know a great deal about
European cultures, idioms, etc. But what I have learned and read makes
me assume there are problems. Nothing is perfect, but I prefer here to
there.
> 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.
Well, the same to you, sir. You know little about me, but you claim to
think I am stupid, naive, or both.
> > Freedom of Speech is a lot different if you pay for it yourself.
>
> I strongly disagree! Strongly totally and utterly.
What a surprise.
> > 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?
I don't think art should be censored. I don't think the government
should pay for any art. Is this that complicated? Is this not what I
posted two weeks ago? Is it that hard to understand?
> Given that the government DOES fund art, then argue against the funding that as
> a seperate issue.
That is what this whole debate has been about, when it started. then it
branched to censorship.
> 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.
I don't want the government to fund art, so thereby they can't censor
it.
> > 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.
Yes, but I don't expect the government to pay for it. Art can give
pleasure to millions without taking government money, because our
government was never set up to pay for art, if you read the
Constitution, etc. That is what I am saying.
Scott S.
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
