| |
> Guilianni (sp?) made an interesting observation during the whole obscenity
> debacle last year when he noted that, had the work slandered a Star of David
> or a rendition of Muhammed, it would likely have been reviled as Hate Speech,
> followed by public outcry for its removal.
While that is true, it is still wrong. If we were to prohibit things simply
because they offended some group of superstitious primitives or another, there
would be precious few things in the world. Music, technology, freedom of
expression, art and even literature are all preached against by at least one
religion each. Would you have these removed in order to appease those morons?
No. So why remove anything else to appease a different group of lunatics and
madmen who profess belief in, and direct communication with, an invisible giant
in the sky?
--
Mark Rendle
rendle2000@hotmail.com
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Swearing?
|
| This is just reminds me that the very obvious thing that why "religion" is nonsense: "Any given religion has always more disbelievers than its believers"..:-) Selçuk Mark Rendle <rendle2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:FoJDxI.L0E@lugnet.com... (...) (25 years ago, 18-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Swearing?
|
| (...) Yikes! Well, I won't flame you because I expect that neither of us is qualified to define "art." However, you've mounted some ad hominem attacks against prospective artists, and, in the end, these can weaken your own credibility and do nothing (...) (25 years ago, 4-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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
