Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "play_on" wrote in message ... On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 23:22:32 -0700, "Animix" wrote: "play_on" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 14:52:35 -0700, "Animix" wrote: The message seems to be: human body = bad or shameful violence = acceptable Al Hmmmm.........yes. That's pretty much the message and has been for a long time hasn't it? Sorry, but you are dead wrong. These attitudes are by no means a natural state of affairs. Take a class in anthropology, or maybe read a book on the subject sometime. It might spare us having to read your ignorant missives if you would become more well-informed. Al Kiss my ass Al. You just can't stand to have your own **** thrown in your face can you? I think it's more like, you can't really debate from an informed position, can you? Struck a nerve I guess... If you think you can sit around and smugly pontificate without being challenged, your're delusional. It has benn going on for a long time amigo if you chart the course of recorded human civilization.......... There have been many many cultures that did not consider nudity, sex, or the human body shameful. The attachment of shame and "sin" to what is only natural is a result of imposed Christian and Muslim "morality". Look it up why don't you. If you don't like being called ignorant, then educate yourself so that you can have something to talk about other than your poorly-informed opinions. Al Gee Al, did I say every civilization ascribed this moral code? No, I didn't. I said : Hmmmm.........yes. That's pretty much the message and has been for a long time hasn't it? and since the context of our discussion had to do with current events as they relate to their historical basis and since Christianity, Judaism and Islam are the religions that were being discussed in this thread because they are the religions whose traditionalist/fundamentalist members are objecting to nudity in public.........and whether you like it or not, they have been around for a long time. Hindu's, Jainists, animists, etc. aren't vocally objecting to this, but they aren't relevant to this particular subject, precisely because they aren't, objecting and we were discussing who *was* objecting and why. As usual, you take a left turn out of the ballpark just so you can be perceived as being correct about something. Nice try...........no cigar. |
#82
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Bob Cain wrote:
You very quickly come to the realization that it is the covering used properly which creates prurient interest. No, "animix" carries prurient interest around all on his own and then blames than upon which he gazes for the content of his thoughts. That's why he needs censorship to prevent him having those thoughts in the first place. Some of us were born naked, but not others. -- ha |
#83
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "hank alrich" wrote in message . .. Bob Cain wrote: You very quickly come to the realization that it is the covering used properly which creates prurient interest. No, "animix" carries prurient interest around all on his own and then blames than upon which he gazes for the content of his thoughts. That's why he needs censorship to prevent him having those thoughts in the first place. Some of us were born naked, but not others. -- ha Ha yourself. It's amazing that when someone tries to discuss this objectively, the best you can do is to attempt to turn it into this kind of crap. Whether you like it or not, there are people who think differently from you and they have rights too.. It has nothing to do with whether I'm worng or you're right. Whether or not you like it doesn't interest me in the least and doesn't negate their rights.......which are just as valid as yours. Ha |
#84
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 18:29:41 -0700, "Animix"
wrote: ee Al, did I say every civilization ascribed this moral code? No, I didn't. I said : Hmmmm.........yes. That's pretty much the message and has been for a long time hasn't it? The message in some cultures, but not all cultures. and since the context of our discussion had to do with current events as they relate to their historical basis and since Christianity, Judaism and Islam are the religions that were being discussed in this thread because they are the religions whose traditionalist/fundamentalist members are objecting to nudity in public......... And I'm pointing out that despite fundamentalist brainwashing, there are alternative ways to look at nudity. We don't *have* to buy into the shame, etc associated with a naked body. and whether you like it or not, they have been around for a long time. Not really. Not when compared to the history of human experience, which is much longer than the 2000 years that Christians have been talking about "original sin" & all that crap. Hindu's, Jainists, animists, etc. aren't vocally objecting to this, but they aren't relevant to this particular subject, precisely because they aren't, objecting and we were discussing who *was* objecting and why. Yeah, well I'm saying the people who are object to simple non-sexual nudity are in my view, misguided, especially since the same people don't seem to raise much of a fuss over portrayed violence. I'm attempting to support my arguments with facts, unlike yourself. You just present opinions without supporting them. As usual, you take a left turn out of the ballpark just so you can be perceived as being correct about something. Whatever makes you feel real... Al |
#85
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Animix wrote:
"hank alrich" wrote in message . .. Bob Cain wrote: You very quickly come to the realization that it is the covering used properly which creates prurient interest. No, "animix" carries prurient interest around all on his own and then blames than upon which he gazes for the content of his thoughts. That's why he needs censorship to prevent him having those thoughts in the first place. Some of us were born naked, but not others. -- ha Ha yourself. It's amazing that when someone tries to discuss this objectively, the best you can do is to attempt to turn it into this kind of crap. Whether you like it or not, there are people who think differently from you and they have rights too.. It has nothing to do with whether I'm worng or you're right. Whether or not you like it doesn't interest me in the least and doesn't negate their rights.......which are just as valid as yours. Ha They have the right to NOT WATCH george |
#86
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
George Gleason wrote:
They have the right to NOT WATCH God has control of their eyelids and just for laughs, she won't close them. She, Herself, walks naked among them all and passes unseen. -- ha |
#87
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
hank alrich wrote:
George Gleason wrote: They have the right to NOT WATCH God has control of their eyelids and just for laughs, she won't close them. She, Herself, walks naked among them all and passes unseen. -- ha I bet he would have the Holocaust prisoners dressed in Jammies so the nakedness would not arouse to his sexuality, or harm the kids |
#88
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
George Gleason wrote:
hank alrich wrote: George Gleason wrote: They have the right to NOT WATCH God has control of their eyelids and just for laughs, she won't close them. She, Herself, walks naked among them all and passes unseen. -- ha Now the Christian right is out to cancel spongebob square pants http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...e_spongebob_dc g |
#89
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 05:43:31 GMT, George Gleason
wrote: George Gleason wrote: hank alrich wrote: George Gleason wrote: They have the right to NOT WATCH God has control of their eyelids and just for laughs, she won't close them. She, Herself, walks naked among them all and passes unseen. -- ha Now the Christian right is out to cancel spongebob square pants http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...e_spongebob_dc These are the same people who called the Harry Potter stories "satanist witchcraft". Al |
#90
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "play_on" wrote in message These are the same people who called the Harry Potter stories "satanist witchcraft". .... and would take exception to religons being described as "folk tales" despite the rational viewpoint that if one religon is in fact true, by definition the others must be nothing more than folk-tales. geoff |
#91
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
play_on wrote:
These are the same people who called the Harry Potter stories "satanist witchcraft". Better look at all the connectors in your studio. S (for Satan) + witchcraft (for Witchcraft) = Switchcraft. Coincidence? I don't think so. |
#92
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 17:16:56 -0800, S O'Neill
wrote: play_on wrote: These are the same people who called the Harry Potter stories "satanist witchcraft". Better look at all the connectors in your studio. S (for Satan) + witchcraft (for Witchcraft) = Switchcraft. Coincidence? I don't think so. And, it turns out that I have exactly 666 feet of cables... creepy Al |
#93
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
play_on wrote:
And, it turns out that I have exactly 666 feet of cables... creepy Just convert it to meters and relax. -- ha |