Subject:
|
Re: legos biggest mistake is...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:56:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1221 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mark Sandlin writes:
> Does everyone else and their children deserve to be forced to abide by
> your particular notion of what is "decent" on a minifig?
This is my 4th post in this thread. I have yet to give my opinion regarding the
issue of minifig decency. I have merely been debating the issue of public
decency. I defer your question to someone else. I will say that I speak as a
consumer with my $. If I don't agree with what I see Lego doing, then I don't
buy it for myself or for anyone else.
> > Second, how differently are they shaped? Different as a square is to a
> circle?
> As differently as there are people and cultures on this planet.
Agreed. But how different is that? Like an apple to an orange or like an apple
to a chair? Most cultures are not that different when one looks further than
superficial differences.
> > The overwhelming consensus of humanity
> > throughout recorded history has been that modest sexual restraints and • customs
> > are a good thing. Considering the weight of the historical record, I'd say • that
> > the burden of proof is on the individual who would topple the truths.
>
> The overwhelming consensus of recorded history has treated women as
> property as well. Doing something because "It's always been done that
> way" isn't the best reason for continuing to do something. the nice thing
> about America is that you can believe what you want to, and I can believe
> what I want to, and if you don't like a particular minifig, you don't have to
> buy it.
Agreed again. We must allow for developments in our understanding of moral
principles. But, the person who would disregard the very real fact that the sum
total of humanity for thousands of years has believed that there are abiding
rules of sexual conduct with the arrogant dismissal that the collective wisdom
is nothing more than prudishness must labor hard to show good cause why he has
come to an enlightened position that heretofore humanity has misunderstood.
> > Third, I say this in the spirit of friendship...Your reply avoided the issue
> > that I raised.
>
> My reply wasn't supposed to be a comprehensive discussion of the
> issues.
I realize that, and I apologize for my agressive tone. You did, however, chose
to reply to my open post simply with a statement to the effect that I should
just keep my moralizing to myself. Perhaps I should, but if my you take issue
with my positions, then I say debate me tit for tat. I suspect that you would
not like it had I quoted a religious work and then thundered that it is the
authority and therefore all other conversation is closed.
> > Ignore my moral sphere and answer from your own: What good has
> > sexual obsession, sexual promiscuity, or sexual preoccupation ever • done to a
> > society, a culture, or an individual?
>
> Breasts are not sexual organs. If our society didn't treat them as such,
> then women wouldn't have to go hide to prevent people from seeing
> them feed their baby in a natural, healthy, non-sexual way.
Breasts or indeed any other body part is not the issue. It doesn't matter what
the sexual fettish is - tell me what good an extreme sexual preoccupation brings
a society or an individual.
> > Fourth, how shall the issue ever be resolved if the only answer given to
> > dissenters such as myself is "Keep it to yourself?" Where is the • intellectual
> > value in that reply?
> Sorry, I didn't have a C.S. Lewis quote book on hand so I could try to
> make it seem more "intellectual."
Nor did I, and rather than appropriating someone else's idea as my own, I
thought it best to give credit where credit is due. What I mean by that
statement is basically a question to you: Why should I take your position
seriously if you chose to disagree with me while at the same time offering no
explanations as to why your views are in fact correct and mine are not? To
simply say that I disagree with you is well and good, but it is a statement with
little value content.
> If you don't like the minifig, just remove that particular fig from the set.
> It's
> that simple.
See my first reply. I've never removed a minifig from my collection, but then
again, I've never had a Timmy. Desperate times require desperate measures.
> Perhaps we could petition Lego to put warning labels on their sets.
>
> CAUTION: FIGURES MAY HAVE CLEAVAGE
I'm actually quite a lech. My particular fetish is Lego breasts. I might be
persuaded to by it were that label applied.
> I think it's time we stopped insisting that corporations babysit us and just
> take some responsibility for ourselves.
Agreed again. Most citizens of this country would rather be suckled by our
government that to take responsibility for themselves
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: legos biggest mistake is...
|
| (...) our (...) you and I (...) other person (...) Does everyone else and their children deserve to be forced to abide by your particular notion of what is "decent" on a minifig? (...) circle? As differently as there are people and cultures on this (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jun-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
71 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
