"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.

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

"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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"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

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.

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

play_on wrote:

And, it turns out that I have exactly 666 feet of cables... creepy

Just convert it to meters and relax.

--
ha