Subject:
|
Re: Swearing?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 18 Jan 2000 16:05:01 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
Selçuk <teyyareci> <sgore@/spamless/superonline.com>
|
Viewed:
|
1636 times
|
| |
|
|
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...
> > 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 is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Swearing?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 18-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
|
|
|
|
