Gah gah Dammit!
I just watched the first 5 minutes of the MTV version, and C5 cut out Jane's line of "not bloody likely" in response to Wind's "do I smell cookies baking?"
what's going on in their heads, I can sort of understand cutting "gah gah dammit" cos you could get hard of hearing old dears complaining he said "god god dammit", but cutting bloody?
Any one got the sample as a wav file? I could just fancy it as my windows error sound :)
Bettster
Jane's
but cutting bloody?
Just made you one. Here you go. Its zipped so if you dont have an unzipping program ill send you a smaller sized version.
Ben Guevara of @Home Network writes:
Thirteen thousand line binary posting !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
AAARGHGHGHGHGHGHGHGHG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DO NOT SEND BINARIES TO THIS NEWSGROUP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You just caused me to lose twenty atd messages as your enormous posting blocked up my newsfeed so nothing more could arrive, and I've had to spend ten minutes pissing around hand-editing my newsgroup requests to get your message out of the queue to allow the other messages to be retrieved.
-Shez.
Shez wrote >
To everyone who's newsfeed, computer, or whatever I screwed up Im sorry. I had no idea that I wasnt allowed to post binaries on this newsgroup. I've only been with it since the first of the month but from now on if anybody requests something ill send it to them instead of the whole group. Again im sorry the for any inconveniences I have caused.
Ben Guevara
Daria: You didn't kill him.
Jane: You're not the misery chick.
On Wed, 21 Jul 1999 20:40:45 GMT, "Ben Guevara" wrote:
<snip>
<shameless plug> Or you can wait until I've put the wav (and probably another 30 or 40 like it from that episode) up at http://dariasounds.home.dhs.org/ :) </shameless plug>
Damon Orca on #Stars!
I
im
Shameless is right. Your files cant even be opened.
On Thu, 22 Jul 1999 09:33:52 GMT, "Ben Guevara" wrote:
<snip>
You say the files can't be opened - how so? (perhaps I can fix this - my testing thus far has been on Windows 95 and 2000 beta 3 machines running Netscape 4.x and IE 5 with the FHG audio codec and Microsft (yes more evil empire) Media Player 6.x) You can't download the files? Your browser crashes? You can download but your audio program thinks it's a corrupted file? What OS are you running and what program are you using?
Have you tried reading Note About The Wavs at http://www124.pair.com/daria/sounds.htm#note ? All of the sound files have been mp3 encoded and require either an mp3 aware audio program (to which I've provided links to for Mac and Windows 3.1 machines if you don't already use MacAmp or whatever) or a Windows 9.x/NT audio codec that allows you to seamlessly play the files in any audio program that's codec aware (to which I've provided a link to the free FHG mp3 audio codec).
My reasons for mp3 encoding the wav files instead of using standard RIFF encoding? There's nearly 60 megs of 64kbps mono stream mp3 encoded wav files there - assuming I went to good quality 16bit 22khz standard RIFF/wavs that would mean 352kbps stream with some loss in fidelity - that's 5.5 times larger for half the sampling rate, so that 60 megs becomes 330 (actually a bit less since it's not 60 megs...yet.) However if I *do* get enough requests I can start converting the wavs for people who want the standard (and much larger) RIFF encoded wavs - I just need to be told this is what you want :)
If this geekspeak isn't making much sense, yell at me and I'll try to make it a bit more intelligible ;)
Trying to find out what's causing the problems...
Damon Orca on #Stars!
In article , [email] (Damon Domjan) wrote:
MP3 files do not play on any x86 processor below Pentium-class, nor any 68K based Macs. You need serious iron to be able to decode and play mp3. Remember how popular hardware MPEG cards were a few years ago? That was because even 80486DX chips didn't have the cojones to sofware decode MPEG1.
It is extremely elitist of you to assume your audience has the ability to handle MP3. Try downsampling some of your .WAVs to Mono 11.5 RIFF. The long ones you can leave alone...anyone running on such old iron is probably online with a 28.8 modem or lower. If you are trying to, for instance, accumulate a set of sounds for the #Daria+ chat room, the Daria theme song is probably the biggest one you want anyway.
--.\\<-H--
Michelle Klein-Hass <[email] t> of The Underground Bummer Culture writes:
I don't feel there is a viable alternative to mp3 myself, except for Realaudio perhaps. With the exception of my background music wav files (which are all only 1-2 seconds long) all the sound files I've put on my website are mp3 encoded. It's the only way to get the size down to something reasonable. When I started my website, one of the things I had planned was a jukebox with 30-60 second extracts of various pieces of music, but I couldn't get the sound files down to a size that was practicable for putting on a webpage. Even when downsampled to unlistenable mush the wav files were still enormous, eg. about 700K for a minute of sub- telephone-quality music. In contrast, a hi-fi stereo mp3 file is only half that size, which means my jukebox is bordering on being a practical proposition, as a piece of music could be downloaded within a couple of minutes. (However I think I'll look into Realaudio streaming first as this would allow people to listen to stuff without the download delay.) In general I think that if sound files are going to be reduced to phone quality it's questionable whether it's worth putting them online at all. It's like those people who post fuzzy screengrabs of tv shows to newsgroups or on their websites, I find myself wondering what the point is when the quality is an order of magnitude worse than watching the original tv show.
-Shez.
On Fri, 23 Jul 1999 09:11:06 -0700, [email] (Michelle Klein-Hass) wrote:
I don't have any problem with the .wav files on your site, Damon, except for the fact that I can't save them to the hard drive. I really love the "Look! Monster Trucks and Naked Models! Naked, naked naked!" file, I kinda want to use it as the "You've got mail" sound. My computer opens the .wav files with Windows Media Player, and I can play them even after I've gone offline, but I just can't save the darn things. Gah gah dammit.
Jess "Morgendorfer" [email]
Daria: With a hey nonny nonny, tra la, tra la.
Daria code thingy A D+ T0 W1 Q+ FN^FR O+ Ow+OH+Os M+ C++ MV-- C5X F:308, 105, 210 BB+++ FCD -DT+ q+ fT
On 24 Jul 1999 02:19:27 GMT, [email] (JMStargazr) wrote:
If you're using a Windows machine, right click the file and "Save As" to save the sound locally (this is the procedure I usually use). Not sure what the procedure is on a Mac...
Hope that helps.
Damon Orca on #Stars!
In article , "Ben Guevara" wrote:
Try renaming the .Wav files to .mp3. That's what I had to do, and they work great.
On Fri, 23 Jul 1999 04:58:16 GMT, crazy nutso wrote:
If you're running Windows 95, NT or 2000 you can download the free FHG audio codec that permits you to play the mp3 encoded wav files as if they were regular wavs in almost any windows audio application. You won't be able to edit them since the codec is read only, but you can play them even using say mIRC's or Pirch's internal sound player or sndrec32.exe (the default Windows audio player/editor). A link to this codec is http://members.xoom.com/DariaShrine/download/l3codecx.exe - note that it won't work on any other operating systems (although both of you *appear* to be running windows 9.x/NT it doesn't hurt to make sure).
Alternatively you can simply play it in your mp3 player. Whatever...
Damon Orca on #Stars!
Thanks for the help. I guess Ill look into things more before I go shootin my mouth off. And remember we're all ashamed of are <plugs> but you musn't be ashamed of your shame.
Ben Guevara wrote in message ...
Thanks so much! Just what I wanted!
Bettster
No problem. Anytime for anyone.
On Wed, 21 Jul 1999 01:59:45 GMT, some letters randomly coalesced from individual pixels, claiming to be from "Ben Guevara" , and it said:
Think again. Non-binaries newsgroup. The reason is clearly demonstrated by what happened to Shez. Get a clue, Ben. I have no mercy on those who send binaries to a non-binaries newsgroup.
On Wed, 21 Jul 1999 17:40:18 GMT, [email] (Tarvok) wrote:
Someone told me once (I haven't bothered to check) that posting binaries to improper newsgroups is a violation of most basic terms of service agreements, and is technically grounds for getting kicked off ones ISP.
Kyle wrote:
<snippin' dippin'>
It wouldn't surprise me. That message crashed my whole damn computer... netscape choked, which in turn caused windows to choke. Gah! I lost a long email I was typing, too. :-(
--J.
Do not download the attached file as it may be screw up your newsfeed or in some cases could crash your web browser or operating system.
Ben Guevara
Bettster wrote in message ...
Jane's
"god
Isn't "bloody" in that reference somewhat of a curse-word over in Europe? (I'm just guessing, I've never been there)
Please, change that "Europe" into "Great Britain" or something. As a European who deeply believes into free speech, it hurts me to be put into one bowl with people who think there is an excuse for cutting words out of an artists work. I am deeply disappointed that US tv stations do that too, even though Americans always boast to be so committed to free speech. AFAIK, most of continental Europe doesn't cut out any words (or pics for that matter).
By the way, one nice wordplay with the double meaning of "bloody" in Shakespeare's Macbeth is when that wounded messenger comes in and Macbeth (I think it was him, I don't recall exactly) asks: "Who is that bloody man over there?" I guess the British don't even broadcast Shakespeare uncut. Why don't people start a letter-writing campaign? Does the British people really want that censorship? And what about the Americans. Is there really a majority of people who think trying to raise children who don't know the difference between boys and girls by the age of 14 is a healthy thing to do? It seems so ridiculous to me. Some time ago there was a politcal protester here in Germany, who stood around nude at that party convention. He was shown in full on the news (I'm speaking of daytime TV here, possibly many kids watching) and depicted in newspapers and magazines. Isn't doing anything else distorting the facts? Trying to build some fake sterile Disneyland, an effort that backfires and creates problems like large teen pregnancy rates (I saw statistics in Newsweek recently, boy the Brits DO have a problem, five times the rate than the Netherlands, I guess 16-year old British girls still believe the stork delivers the babies, thanks to this radical media censorship. I say the British people better start that letter-writing campaign SOON!)?
Hmm, I'm just wondering how (and if) Helen told her daughter's about the miracle of life. What do you think? They wouldn't air a sex education episode in either the US or Britain, would they? I wonder if my drawing skills would suffice to do something like that as a web comic. We'll see, we'll see, plot suggestions are of course welcome ;-) MSB
P.S.: I'm worrying that the above might sound a bit unfriendly towards British and Americans., It's not meant to. It's just that I have very strong feelings about media censorship because it directly affects me. It hurts me and I am unable to comprehend how anyone could bear seeing a guest on Jay Leno being muted out for a full minute just because the British branch of NBC thinks the little anecdote he's telling is too explicit (I don't remember who that guest was, unfortunately). Just think about it. He could be promoting human rights and be cut out because the government doesn't want to hurt relations with China. How would you notice? You're so used to words being cut for sexual explicitness that they could be using it to manipulate you. In fact I think they already have. I've noticed that in most postings on Usenet "fuck" is written as "f**k". Once they get into people's heads like that, you should be starting to worry. If you've ever read 1986 by George Orwell, you know what I mean. Always remember: The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. I think we need more of both, vigilance and freedom.
I just had to reply to this...
OK, so some of the tenets I hold are quite liberal (civil rights, that sort of thing). But most of the rest of me is quite conservative. What does this mean? This means I'm one of those who believes that it's right for the media to want to protect the innocence of younger viewers who may be watching some show out there and might pick up something that they don't need to pick up at that age. I dunno...I do know that if I were a parent I'd take precautions to make sure my children weren't being exposed to most bits of sexual, violent, or cursatory (is that even a word?) conduct in the media and online...it's not that I don't want them to eventually know about that sort of thing, 'cos it ain't...I do know that eventually they will have to find out that the world includes such things...but I want them to grow up in the same innocent eyes that Jesus Christ saw as the most precious gift of childhood. I want them to know that the sexual and violent things they will eventually see are not to be acted upon in real life (well, maybe sexual, but certainly not outside a monogamous relationship), and that curse words are weak attempts at communication, meaning it may be easy for someone to curse while showing frustration but it's certainly not the best way of going at it, especially when there's so many other ways of expressing one's frustration. And...I know that my parents certainly helped instruct me to put the fear of the Lord AND the fear of my parents into my heart before letting down the restrictions on viewing/listening, so they knew that whatever I was watching/listening would not negatively influence me and that I would be able to intellectually process it all.
As far as Britain is concerned...they're moderate enough. Some of what I saw on regular TV there when I was there wouldn't be shown on American regular TV, but I do sometimes think regular American TV goes a bit too far with standards and rules and all. I think that Britain as a country just wants to retain that bit of decency and Judeo-Christianness about it, as does America. Which I believe will do a lot of good once judgement day rolls around.
(sorry 'bout the religious content in this post, it's just that it's been so much a part of my life that I can't ignore it nor can afford to ignore it)
She who looks sharp inside her pointed shoes.
Matthias Benkmann wrote:
I disagree. If girls and boys were really that ignorant about sex, they'd never have sex.
Or, if we're talking about girls being pure as the driven snow, while the boys can think only of doing the driving (*ahem*), then I seriously doubt a girl who doesn't understand sex is going to willingly let a naked "excited" male near her, or even take off her clothes in the first place. It takes two to tango, as well as do many other things.
Len
Well, I didn't say, teens don't know about sex. I was talking about the society seeming to try to keep them from knowing about it. That is in vain of course, however, growing up in such a society makes it harder for a teen to learn about the responsibilty sex implies. How are they supposed to learn about it when their environment (especially TV) continuously tells them it's bad to talk about it. And what I also had in mind were schools. AFAIK, there isn't any decent sex education in US schools. So sex in the mind of a teenager is reduced to being the forbidden fruit that would be fun to pick because all the adults try to keep you away from it. In a more open society, teens would learn more responsibility. The statistics prove that, I think. Or how do you explain that Great Britain (I'm sure the same applies to the US) for instance has a much much higher teen pregnancy rate than continental Europe . Another thought on that matter is birth-control. No talk about sex means no talk about birth control. And how available is birth control anyway. Do you have condom-dispensers in public restrooms (men's and women's) like we do? I guess not. And now try to get a teenager raised in a society that doesn't talk about sex to go to a store and buy condoms. Forget it! MSB
On Fri, 23 Jul 1999 22:30:12 GMT, [email] (Matthias Benkmann) wrote:
Have you been to US schools recently? The sex education is at unreasonably high levels.
Duude the sex education in my school was fairly pointless, especially eighth grade, where it was being taught by the Gym teacher who somehow (despite the total lack of uuh a brain) ended up teaching Health. Basically we had anatomy of the genital organs (lovely diagrams) and a lot of dumb emotional stories about people with AIDS.
Dagny- cynic, general loony
http://urbanspacemen.arecool.net
"I'm not different for the sake of being different, only for the desperate sake of being myself. I can't join your gang: you'd think I was a phoney and I'd know it." Vivian Stanshall
We had to write a fucking POEM about AIDS once, for "AIDS awareness week" or something... I didn't do it; any poem written by me would have been an insult to people with AIDS.
OK, pathetic me time...I was actually a charter member of our high school's AIDS Peer Education Group...we were one of those people who went around and stuck AIDS reminders in your lockers, did school seminars on AIDS, that sort of thing. Which is why I've never minded anything having to do with AIDS and AIDS education.
Besides, the school nurse was the on-campus sponsor and the off-campus sponsor worked at the AIDS Foundation and had an older brother who died from the disease. Which IMO is much better than having some *coach* or something sponsor....
She who looks sharp inside her pointed shoes (who was the president of said club in her senior year).
endless, nameless wrote:
"daria" geek code: Ap D+ T7 W1 Q++ Fn^Fr O+ Ow+OH+Of+Oh m+ c+ MV- C5X F113,213,301 BB- FCD/J/H DT+ q+ fT duran duran geek code: L- Fnr O+ I+ X+ H C L- P Y++
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ As a freshman in high school who just recently experienced the horror of sex education (which seeing my gym teacher talk about STD's has scarred me for life), I think that my school did a good job with it. They bought these baby think it overs and sent all of us 8th graders-boys and girls-home with it for the night. It wasn't my idea of fun waking up at 4 am to put a key in the back of some plastic thing with an electronics box. Well, it was better than the flour bag my sisters had �.
Elizabeth
I had an egg. And I kept getting detentions for forgetting to have my parents sign my "egg journal"...
Dagny- cynic, general loony
http://urbanspacemen.arecool.net
"I'm not different for the sake of being different, only for the desperate sake of being myself. I can't join your gang: you'd think I was a phoney and I'd know it." Vivian Stanshall
Dagny said:
Dontcha get one of them every month or so?
<ducks for cover>
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man is a god in ruins" (Ralph Waldo Emerson)
LOL, unless you're like me and have some cruddy condition called polycystic ovaries.
OK, methinks I've told you *way* too much there about my medical condition....
Herself ducking for cover,
She who is definitely wise in Secret Oktober.
Jordan S. Bassior wrote:
ooh, i read about that today. had never heard of it before. weird.
that it's cruddy...?
endless, nameless wrote:
It's not often heard about until either you get it or are in danger of getting it. I know I didn't hear about it until my diagnosis about eight months ago.
You know what I mean...at least I think you do.
She who is definitely wise in Secret Oktober.
On Sat, 24 Jul 1999 16:12:03 -0500, some letters randomly coalesced from individual pixels, claiming to be from Diane Aguilar , and it said:
Wow, that makes three I know with that condition. Two I know face-to-face, and now you. Either it's more common than anybody realizes, or it is somehow closely associated with intelligence and general non-conformism.
On Sun, 25 Jul 1999 20:22:01 GMT, [email] (Tarvok) wrote:
Ok, you are gonna have to explain this one to me. Although I'm really not sure I want to know. Every time I learn something new about the female anatomy, I regret it. But that human thirst for knowledge persists...
Kyle He complained when I hit him. All my friends do. Wusses.
[email] (Elizabeth Zadora) wrote:
Sex ed is *supposed* to scar you for life. That's all part of the joys of growing up here.
Of course, when I had sex ed in 8th grade, it was 1983, and the scariest thing out there was herpes. (At least that's what the movies we saw told us-- movies made sometime in 1970, IIRC.) These were the same movies that told us that cocaine wasn't addictive, either, but don't take angel dust, or else you might think you can fly and jump off a building (all to some really bad fake Jimi Hendrix music.)
My other favorite movies were the ones in science class, where the guy with the horn-rims and the buzz-cut talked about how "current" theories about space will be proven "when man journeys into space--- someday." Those were always my faves. <g>
rich.
Jane: All I want is to make beautiful things!
On 24 Jul 1999 14:27:40 GMT, [email] (Elizabeth Zadora) wrote:
Could you explain that to me. What are these "baby think it overs"? MSB
They're supposed to be preventative measures taken by some educational systems (ours never had one) to deter girls from wanting to have children until they are "older". I say "supposed to be" because they rarely work and are often very ridiculous, from what I've read on about it from other people's experiences.
I do think sex ed is a noble idea, even if it mostly seems to be quite frustratingly agenda-ish. The one part you cannot possibly talk negatively about with me, though, is the whole "AIDS/STD" thing. After seeing loads of people coping with the AIDS virus and the loss of life in their eyes, you just can't take that issue lightly. In fact, I'm even thinking about being a volunteer lecturer on this issue...yeah, I'm serious.
IMO,
She who is definitely wise in Secret Oktober.
Matthias Benkmann wrote:
On 24 Jul 1999 14:27:40 GMT, some letters randomly coalesced from individual pixels, claiming to be from [email] (Elizabeth Zadora), and it said:
Speaking of which, who here's read the fanfic where Daria and Jane had to deal with this assignment? It was pretty good, actually, IIRC.
(possible misattribution here)
There are at least two of 'em (judging from OD)... the one you're probably thinking of is "Sacked Out" by Arianwen P.F. Everett, another is "Cold Meddle Flour" by SBBED.D.
On Sat, 24 Jul 1999 00:57:13 +0100, "endless, nameless" wrote:
You seem to have an instinct for rhetoric, though. "__Fucking__ poem" about "__AIDS__", it's crude but kind of witty, this ambiguity. MSB
On Sat, 24 Jul 1999 00:57:13 +0100, some letters randomly coalesced from individual pixels, claiming to be from "endless, nameless" , and it said:
Heh heh, we had to do a... I can't remember what it was, maybe it was a cartoon or something, something that involved drawing and writing. I wanted to make a garden, with a farmer in it, hoeing weeds. On the farmer I'd label "God." On the hoe, I'd label "AIDS." On the crop, I'd label "monomogous relationships." On the weeds, I'd label, "Sexual promiscuity." Note that I wasn't especially religeous at the time. The idea was not well recieved. ;)
LOL :)
On 23 Jul 1999 22:57:17 GMT, [email] (Kyle) wrote:
I have read on the Internet there is just abstinence-only sex education and that the Senate decided schools shouldn't even be allowed to spend the money they get on teaching birth-control for fear it might encourage sex. MSB
On Sat, 24 Jul 1999 02:23:49 GMT, [email] (Matthias Benkmann) wrote:
That may be what you read on the internet, but as someone who actually attended an American high school and just graduated this year, I can tell you we were subjected to "abstinence is the best, but if you must, this is the way to do it". That, and attemmpts to shock us out of ever having sex.
I remember the section on genital warts. The mere mention of the word "cauliflower" puts alums of Mrs. McFatridge's health class into dry heaves.
On 24 Jul 1999 04:03:06 GMT, [email] (Kyle) wrote:
Actually one of the reasons responsible for me getting the idea of putting up a sex education web page (my plan currently being a Daria episode on sex education) was one of the questions from the
Hickman-Brown Public Opinion Research Survey
copyright � March 1999(can be found at www.siecus.org)
The results to Q8 say (among other things) that 49% are familiar with fear-based sex education, 12% feel very positive about it 13% feel somewhat positive about it
These results scare me. Before reading that survey I didn't even think about the possibility of there being something like FEAR-based sex education. Well, I might just as well cite that other question, from which I got the info about that Congress thing (I confused it with the Senate in my previous post, I'm sorry about that, but it's been more than 6 years ago that I learned the American legislative system in school).
Q14
Recently, Congress passed a law to promote the message of abstinence
until marriage in our schools. Please tell me
whether you support or oppose each of the following components
of the law: [READ ITEM] Do you support or oppose
that?<other items snipped> Allocates over half a billion dollars over five years for abstinence-until-marriage education, but __PROHIBITS__ any of those dollars from being used to give young people INFORMATION ABOUT CONTRACEPTION for the prevention of pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, HIV, and AIDS
As even scarier than Congress passing such bullshit I regard the fact that 24% (i.e. 1 out of 4 people asked) support that crap. MSB
Perhaps the main reason all this is going on is because of our Republican-controlled Congress...for those of you who don't know, there are two main parties out there in America, the Democrats and the Republicans...the Democrats are usually socially and fiscally liberal while the Republicans are usually socially and fiscally conservative. Anyways, the Republican party is oftentimes backed by this ultra right-wing group called the "Christian Coalition", who, while claiming to be "Christian", is actually a very intolerant, discriminatory, hateful organization whose only agenda it seems is to push everyone else aside while rich, white, older, male idiots run the whole political show. An organizations I heard the "Christian Coalition" supports is "Operation Rescue", this very right-wing movement that strives to make abortion illegal in this country, often by supporting bombings in abortion clinics, killing off doctors who would "dare" to provide women with this right of choice, and other terrorist tactics. It's all very scary and quite disgusting if you think it through. Anyways, this is the Congress of which you talk about. It is not representative of everyone's viewpoints...sure, I do see the point of "fear education" because instilling fear is the only way you're going to reach most of the young people out there, but I do also see the point about educating them about other options as well. My dad was very free with me about talking about all the stuff normally discussed in sex ed (except for the REALLY sensitive parts), so I've had a well rounded education, but as someone else pointed out unfortunately not everyone has parents like that.
(gosh, did I write all that...? eep.)
Diane/CityGirl7609 (forgetting all the "she who is..." stuff for right now)
On Sat, 24 Jul 1999 22:45:20 -0500, Diane Aguilar wrote:
Ok, this is total bullcrap.
You nailed the concise explanation of the political parties. Your analysis of the Christian Coalition's overall agenda was debatable, but I can accept that as your opinion.
But that abortion thing was waaaaay off. There is no proof whatsoever that the CC supports killings and bombings, because they don't.
Personally, I do support bombings if you do it at a time when no one will be around to get killed. Convenience killings and euthanasia are evils that must be fought at all cost, similar to slavery or dictatorship. This'll probably start one heckuva debate, but that is what we do here.
You are dead right on this paragraph, though!
But, to be honest, your life is inconvenient to me, so I'm gonna kill you now, and the government must support me on it because it's my right to choose.
Kyle He complained when I hit him. All my friends do. Wusses.
So you're saying that you'd rather see a turnaround in some important women's rights legislation that has been a precedent for women's control over their own lives? That I believe is a dangerous thing, for if you take away women's right to choose you take away one of the pillars upon which rest women's freedom to decide what happens to her own self, and I'm not just talking about abortion here.
And yes, the Christian Coalition may not *openly* support the bombings and killings, but it only takes a little while to see through them and realize that their propagandistic messages, which have little to do with actual Christianity itself, do inspire those who go around bombing and killing. Including Operation Rescue. I believe the leader of Operation Rescue is a member of the Christian Coalition himself....
As far as "incovenience" goes, sure it's damn inconvenient for a woman to have to go through all that child-rearing if the father does not want to take full responsiblity for his actions. Why should a man be able to choose to be irresponsible and walk out on the woman when she is pregnant, not leaving any avenues to support her, and society thinks this is normal, but if a woman wishes not to take responsibility and has an abortion for such a reason she is deemed "selfish" and people stick their noses at her?
Besides, what you're talking about is an unfair comparison; most fetuses cannot survive beyond the womb if their maturation stage is below the 3rd trimester, and most abortions take place in the 1st or early 2nd trimesters. However, *I* can and have survived beyond the womb. Note: I don't think I'll be having any abortions or don't think I'm capable of doing that, but for me not to be pro-choice would be for me to stick what *I* would do in the faces of all womankind. And we don't like that.
OK, end of rant....
Diane/CityGirl7609 ([email])
Kyle wrote:
<snip>
On Sun, 25 Jul 1999 20:38:30 -0500, Diane Aguilar wrote:
Your control over your own life is not getting pregnant. It doesn't just happen randomly.
Then what are you talking about? I'm talking about the murder of human beings.
I'd do the bombings myself if I thought it would do any good and I could guarentee no one would get killed, and the CC sure as heck didn't inspire me to do ti.
Your right.
It's completely wrong for a man to do that.
So what you are saying is basically "two wrongs make a right". The man was wrong to walk out on her, so the woman is justified to commit murder?
Give the baby up for adoption, for goodness sake!
There are some people who are damn inconvenient in my life. They do things to me that aren't right. That does not give me the right to kill them. And abortion is even worse, you are killing someone who wasn't even involved.
So basically you are drawing an arbitrary line where a baby is or is not human? So what if it can't survive in the womb. A child below the age of 6 or so probably couldn't survive if thrown out into the wild. Does that mean they can be killed, too? Children aren't productive member of society till their late teens, does that mean they can be killed? Heck, old people need help too. Lets kill them!
There is *nothing* that justifies the taking of a human beings life, ecspecially one that didn't do anything.
Kyle He complained when I hit him. All my friends do. Wusses.
Kyle wrote:
Women still get pregnant even if they make a conscious effort not to. Mistakes happen, things aren't foolproof....
Which always seems to be the first thing anti-abortion people turn towards.Look, I'm not going to have an abortion...I don't think I'd be capable of making such a choice...but just because I think that does not mean I have a license to take away everyone's right to choose just because I've chosen the choice that would still be there if abortion would be outlawed. That would be unfair to my fellow females.
Maybe not *you*, but certainly *most* of the people who do it.Besides, you said the magic words: "if...I could guarantee no one would get killed". Most bombers *want* someone to get killed, *live* on the blood shed during these violent acts. But wait...how would you guarantee there'd be no killing? How could you set up the bombs? Don't you think that'd be an impossiblity?
<snip quoted text>
You see, something we agree on....
It isn't a justification, just a comparison. If less men were to walk out on women, there'd be less of a reason for women to want that abortion. Unfortunately it's not that perfect world, so we have to respect women's wishes if they wish to choose to abort.
I do support adoption wholeheartedly as I am adopted myself, and I'm glad my birth mother chose to give me up for adoption. Still, it was *her* choice that led me to reside where I am today, and you can't take that away from her. If it were really easy for women to get loads of pre-natal care *and* not be looked down upon whilst pregnant, then I would imagine there'd be more adoptions and less abortions. But unfortunately there is little assistance or sympathy for the pregnant woman, especially if she is single or has been impreganated by an abusive father or relative or "boyfriend" or "spouse".
<snip>
That is *not* the point. Children under the age of six *can* (or should be able to) breathe on their own and gather nutrition, so taking away their lives is considered murder. Same goes for people below the "late teen" age, as well as the elderly. This is what a lot of anti-abortion people don't get, is that there can be a distinction made here. Never mind...that's a whole new issue, and it too can be tangled up in controversy.
But what would we do if abortion were outlawed? Shall we start legislating other choices as well? Outlawing abortion is once again a dangerous precedent. It could unravel the many progressions made in the women's rights movement and could very well lead to women losing most of their (our) rights. And...once again...I myself wouldn't be able to have an abortion, but I do realize that is a choice that *I* have made and does not stop me from supporting other women's choices as well.
*whew*...stop when you think we've gone too far, 'k? And remember...this is just one of my opinions...just because I hold 'em does not mean I am not the same, sometimes silly girl who posts here.
Diane/CityGirl7609 ([email])
On Sun, 25 Jul 1999 22:45:16 -0500, Diane Aguilar wrote:
So they should be prepared to live with the consequences. An inconvenient accident for them does not give them the right to kill another human being.
Choice? What choice? This is the act of killing a human being. What gives them the right to choose that?
It's simple, I set up the bombs at night when noone will be around. I set them up light enough to do some damage to the place, but not enough to hurt the surrounding areas too badly.
It's a completely arbitrary distinction, though.
What precedent? The only dangerous precedent I see is the one that allows us to kill human beings that fall on the wrong side of arbitrary lines we are setting.
I'll agree. This isnt' getting anyone anywhere.
Kyle He complained when I hit him. All my friends do. Wusses.
On Sun, 25 Jul 1999 22:45:16 -0500, some letters randomly coalesced from individual pixels, claiming to be from Diane Aguilar , and it said:
You has sex, you rolls the dice. You can improve your odds with contraception, you can still role up snake-eyes. It's your responsibility, then.
I fail to see how outlawing abortion could possibly lead to, say, disenfranchisement, or the decision that hey, we can pay women less than men after all. What other things might be rolled back if abortion is outlawed?
And besides, I don't think abortion should be outlawed outright; It should be allowed in those situations when the baby would be a physical threat to the mother.
what about in cases of rape? that could be pretty psychologically damaging.
On Mon, 26 Jul 1999 19:43:24 +0100, "endless, nameless" wrote:
Psychological damage vs. death
Hmm, I believe the psychological damage is less important than the death of a human being.
Kyle He complained when I hit him. All my friends do. Wusses.
On 26 Jul 1999 18:58:34 GMT, [email] (Kyle) wrote:
It's a judgement call and a personal decision as to when life begins and the moral (and personal) affects of an abortion. There are always considerations - it's impossible to simply give a blanket statement to cover all possibilities and situations...
Damon Orca on #Stars!
Damon Domjan wrote in message news:379ce839.928701@news...
I have a different view, Damon.
I don't believe anyone has the right to say, "This is an organised cluster of cells that are growing and developing organs, but are NOT alive." Then say, at some point of development chosen by the observer, "Okay, *now* it's alive, in fact, (s)he's an unborn baby!" (Gosh, what a surprise, who'd have guessed it?)
ISTM that once an egg is fertilised, a new life has begun. Unless something happens to end that unique new life, it will develop into a foetus (or twins or more), a baby, an infant, a child, a young person, an adult, a middle-aged person, an elderly person...
Another view is to say, "Okay, it's life - I can see growth and development, so it must be - but I choose when it's *human* life." I can't agree with that, either: if the gametes were human, the new life must be human.
Another view is, "Okay, it's human life, but the state can choose when it acquires human rights." That chills me to the bone: it reminds me of those states that have said that slaves, or Jews, or enemies of the party, or whoever, don't have human rights - "We, the state, have the power to grant or withhold human rights." I believe you get human rights just by being human: no-one has to grant them to you, and no-one has the authority to withhold them from you.
That's why I believe that abortion is a grave human rights abuse. There are conflicts of rights on occasion, some of them relating to important rights on the part of the mother: but can any of my rights be superior to, and take precedence over, an innocent's right to live?
I'm expressing my view here. While I'm convinced that my view is sound, I'm not accusing those who don't share it of wilfully collaborating with human rights abuses.
Martin.
On Tue, 27 Jul 1999 10:55:23 +0100, some letters randomly coalesced from individual pixels, claiming to be from "Martin Sylvester" , and it said:
This is Tarvok playing Devils Advocate here...
Allthough you must admit that, in practice, sometimes a person must work around an abusive state. _Especially_, I would think, a Christian, due to the fact that violence is not a part of Christian life.
Heh heh, didn't Solomon say in Ecclisiastes something about the unborn being better off than the living?
I really don't know what's come over me, but for the moment, I am Chaos Man!
On Tue, 27 Jul 1999 17:38:29 GMT, [email] (Tarvok) wrote:
Read the old testament.
Kyle He complained when I hit him. All my friends do. Wusses.
Tarvok wrote in message news:[email]...
Hm, yes, work around: but seek to change. If the anti-slavery campaigners had instead simply "worked around," shrugged their shoulders, said, "Tut! What a wicked world we live in!" and walked on by, where would we be?
We live, many of us, in democratic states, where voters have a right to make their voice heard. ISTM that Christians have a duty to use the lawful means at our disposal to address human rights issues in the states we live in (and support through taxation): issues like homelessness; injustice in international trade; racism, sexism and other prejudices; the welfare of the poor; and abortion.
We've a real variety of views here, on issues that many feel passionately about; and not a flame-thrower in sight. If only debate IRL were conducted in like manner. 8-)
Martin.
Kyle of writes:
But are we talking about a human being? The whole abortion argument seems to me to come down to an argument over the definition of at what stage a group of cells constitute a human being.
There is no universal agreement at which point a group of human cells constitutes a human being though. Eggs and sperm are alive, and they have human DNA, but that doesn't make them human beings, unless you follow the Monty Python "Every sperm is sacred" tenet. Some people don't consider a baby to be a human in it's own right until it has been born, or reached a stage of being capable of being born alive. Others take the moment of fertilisation as the moment when a human being has been made, but can a single undifferentiated cell really be classed as the same as other members of society? What about a cluster of two or four cells? Or what about an early foetus which has more in common with a fish than a human? Also many, possibly the majority, of fertilised eggs abort spontaneously anyway, yet it is not generally considered a death in the family when a woman has a late period.
In general the accepted legal and medical definitions seem to hinge on the development of the central nervous system (ie. might it have awareness, feelings or consciousness), and whether the baby could survive once it was no longer plumbed into the mother's body.
My take on it is that other people have no right to forcibly impose their definition on others as to what does or does not constitute a human being, and then go further and demand control over other people's bodies as a result of the definition they are proposing. The right to choose means allowing people to look at the evidence, and consider the philosophies, and then make their own mind up. I would hope that Darians would agree on the idea of people being allowed to think for themselves! It's like, I'm a vegetarian, but I don't seek to prevent the rest of you from murdering animals, or make meat eating illegal (offensive though it is), as I realise it's a personal judgement as to what is right or wrong, and I have no right to impose changes on your diet just because of something I happen to believe in.
-Shez.
On Mon, 26 Jul 1999 19:43:24 +0100, some letters randomly coalesced from individual pixels, claiming to be from "endless, nameless" , and it said:
I would think the damage had already been done, child or no child. And to consider a child as "a reminder" rather than, simply, a child, is... is... grrr... I can't think a word that expresses my anger over the idea of a child as a reminder of the past, rather than as a child. This goes beyond rape. There are kids who a step-parent hates because it's a "reminder" of their spouses previous marriage. There are children mothers hate because they are a "reminder" of a stupid tryst with a man they should've been involved with. There are children parents hate because they are a "reminder" of a spouses past adulterous relationship. When I hear of a kid treated like this... words cannot express my anger over this attitude.
On Sun, 25 Jul 1999 20:38:30 -0500, some letters randomly coalesced from individual pixels, claiming to be from Diane Aguilar , and it said:
I'm going to get it for this, but she should'a thought about that before she took off her panties...
<ducks and runs>
<yelling as he runs> Besides, a woman with a baby, but no father present, is a magnet to responsible guys. </yelling>
Tarvok wrote:
Yeah, you *better* duck and run you cabrona! ;)(chases Tarvok off with a very dry noodle)
Suuuure, try to get away with it now.... Mmm hmm, yeah, sure, I believe you....
Diane/CityGirl7609
Some of the same people who say clinic bombers AREN'T inspired by the rhetoric of the so-called-Christian Coalition, think that seeing two gays kiss each other on a TV show WILL inspire their kids to become gay.
On Sun, 25 Jul 1999 20:30:05 -0400, Jeg7777 wrote:
There are people out there who are willing to do anything. Just because the Christian Coalition is out there trying to stop the infanticide does not mean that it's there fault, any more than church burnings are the fault of people who bash the CC.
Kyle He complained when I hit him. All my friends do. Wusses.
On Sat, 24 Jul 1999 22:45:20 -0500, some letters randomly coalesced from individual pixels, claiming to be from Diane Aguilar , and it said:
I wouldn't phrase it quite that way. That's not an exaggeration, it's an outright twisting of the truth. Their agenda is, rather, to impose their idea about what is morally acceptable behaviour on everybody else in the rest of the country. That's bad enough standing alone; no need to twist the truth.
Personally, I think extreme left-wingers had it coming. They spent the past four decades trying to do what the extreme right-wingers are trying to do now: impose their idea on what's proper behaviour on the rest of the country, particuarly by attempting to legitimize the generation barrier between parents and children, by subsidizing single parent families, by promoting a general lack of discipline, and things like that.
Personally, I'd like to take the whole issue out of the federal arena. Attempt to make the entire country; urban, rural, mountain, plains, seaboard; all the diverse regions of this nation, conform to one idea about what should and shouldn't be done, and should and shouldn't be considered "wrong," is the stupidest thing I've ever heard of.
Hypocrites, all of them. They preach the sanctity of human lives while killing those who disagree with them. Personally, I am against abortion in general, but I think it's the reasons for the act, less than the act itself, that is reprehensible. An abortion is okay, if it's done for a medically verifiable reason. If, however, it's done simply because having a child would be _inconveniant_, that, I believe, is a terrible practice. And in every other great nation of antiquity, like Rome, like the Greek kingdoms, a public acceptance of the practice of infanticide as a matter of conveniance was followed closely behind by a population drop, the destruction of the agricultural capacity of the land (in our case, it would be industrial capacity), and ultimately the collapse of that society.
Once again, why not? Is there anyone here who either has parents that are afraid to talk to them, or are afraid to talk to their kids, or *knows* someone who is afraid blah blah blah, that might have some insight as to why this is?
Yeah, and now look what you've gone and made *me* do! ;p
On Sat, 24 Jul 1999 21:23:26 GMT, some letters randomly coalesced from individual pixels, claiming to be from [email] (Matthias Benkmann), and it said:
While I support the idea of promoting abstinance until marriage, personally, I think the US Congress should have nothing to do with it. I say they just take all that money, put it into a tax decrease, and let either private individuals use it for whatever economic purposes are needed, or the states can pick it in their own taxes and handle the situation as each state sees fit.
I am a strong believer in de-centralization.
Kyle of writes:
Cauliflowers are enough to make anyone heave if you ask me. There was a news item yesterday that the European Union spent enormous sums of money last year destroying 124,000 cauliflowers, and I thought, "Yes! Finally they've done something worthwhile!"
-Shez.
On Sat, 24 Jul 1999 02:23:49 GMT, some letters randomly coalesced from individual pixels, claiming to be from [email] (Matthias Benkmann), and it said:
Likely a lie. The education I recieved encouraged abstinance, but included contraception. And, if the Senate did, in fact, decide that, that means nothing since bills dealing with the appropriation of money must originate in the House.
Matthias Benkmann wrote in message news:[email]...
I think if those premises were sound, this argument may have a lot to commend it. But ISTM that Matthias has been misinformed.
Sex education in UK state schools and youth clubs is widespread, and, whatever the intentions of those who design it and deliver it, is perceived by many of those at whom it's directed as carrying an assumption that they are sexually active. "We know all teenagers are at it, so we'll tell you how to do it safely." That sets up expectations which add to the pressure to be sexually active: "I must be abnormal if I'm not." Many young people become sexually active to conform with their peer group, not because they make a considered choice: virgins in the UK are most likely to be strong, self-assured, non-conformist types.
The forbidden fruit in the UK is not sex, but *unprotected* sex. And even those teens who are by nature compliant with authority can act on impulse when there's no condom immediately avaialable. Hey, they are teens, and impulsiveness coupled with a disregard for danger are not unknown at that stage in someone's life.
It seems to me that the reason the UK has the highest teen pregnancy rate in Europe is not because we lack sex education: we don't. It's because the sex education we have is mostly value-free, and offers little or no input on the value and meaning of sex. FWIW, I believe that sexual intercourse is only appropriate within the context of the lifelong commitment of marriage - but ISTM that no sexual health instructor inside the state system would dare to say that out loud.
As Arnold Lunn (IIRC) once put it, "It's possible to be so broad-minded that your brains fall out." And I think that's what's gone on in sex education in the UK.
Abstinence has a lower failure rate than condoms in preventing disease and unplanned pregancies. ;-)
BTW, Matthias "Austin Powers - the Spy Who Shagged Me" is banned in Malaysia, I'm told, but has been given a 12 certificate (suitable for viewers aged twelve and over) here. Some series that are only shown on pay TV in the States are on free-to-air terrestrial TV here, where the "Emmanuelle" series was also shown. Perhaps the media in the UK aren't quite as prudish as you've been led to believe! In my view, the assumption made by UK broadcasters and authorities that no-one under 18 watches TV after 9.00pm is daft, and some things that are on TV shouldn't be. I appreciate that you won't agree with my view.
The issue with "Daria" is that c5 have decided it's a children's TV show, and they edit it to make it fit a children's TV timeslot.
Martin.
On Sat, 24 Jul 1999 11:11:25 +0100, "Martin Sylvester" wrote:
Actually, I would criticize that same point at German sex education. We got every possible biological detail (we even learned about the complete female menstrual cycle, when what hormone level goes up or down, how the body temperature changes...) but they didn't talk to us about responsibility. Nevertheless we don't have a large teen pregnancy problem. Maybe it's a parenting-related problem in the UK? What do you think?
I agree with you on that lifelong commitment to some degree. I couldn't even kiss a girl if I didn't think our relationship might be an everlasting one. It would be so meaningless. However, if I believed that girl might be Mrs Right, I wouldn't oppose a sexual relationship without being married. I think the key question is whether you have true feelings for your friend, meaning you would wish the relationship to last forever.
Unfortunately, people often fail at being abstinent :-)
Wasn't it Malaysia also that banned the Roxette song "Sleeping in my car" completely?
If you mean that series where Krista Allen is showing these Aliens how love works on Earth, that's currently being aired on PRO7 here in Germany at 2300. I've seen part of it. It's totally harmless (maybe they did cut it, though that would be pretty ridiculous since PRO7 airs much spicier stuff at 2200). It's giving a bad example because it simplifies sex to pure fun (OK, I guess most of those movies do that), but that's all it does. It doesn't seem to have (but as I said I only saw fragments of it) any scenes that I would fear to do psychological damage to a kid of any age.
Conan O'Brian airs at 2300 but NBC still cuts it even though they have their program localised for the German market. That's one of the things I consider the most annoying. They do a localization of their program and still apply the tough censorship standards of the stations home country. MTV even cuts German song lyrics. I'm so glad we have VIVA TV. That's an all-German music channel (OK, I think most of it's owned by Sony :-) MSB
Matthias Benkmann wrote in message news:[email]...
and
Teehee. Of course, I wasn't thinking about *failing to use* condoms/abstinence, but the failure rate of *using* condoms vs choosing not to have intercourse. <g>
No, I was referring to a series of soft porn feature films first made for cinema. "Emmanuelle" was first, then came a load of "Emmanuelle in..." They were flesh fests, "X" certificate in the cinema. Don't have my film guide to hand, so I can't give any further details, I'm afraid.
Martin.
On Sun, 25 Jul 1999 10:39:16 +0100, "Martin Sylvester" wrote:
And of course, I wasn't thinking about making a point, I was just trying to be witty. <g>
Don't bother looking. I'm not interested. MSB
Martin Sylvester wrote:
<snip> (what, *you* read the original post)
That is beautiful. I don't believe that everyone should restrict themselves to sexual relations inside a marriage, but everyone should consciously strive to attain such a goal. A lot of social problems could be solved by that. And I think that gays and lesbians should be recognized as being able to attain the same marriage rights as heterosexuals so they too can strive for this goal without fear of failure. That way there'd be a lot more monogamy going around.
Just my opinions.... :)
She who is definitely wise in Secret Oktober.
Diane Aguilar said:
I think it works well as an ideal. Of course, I also think that group marriages should be legal. I'm not against polygamy ...
I agree.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man is a god in ruins" (Ralph Waldo Emerson)
i don't like the idea of polygamy... it seems unfair to me. it would be allowing a man to take one wife for having babies, one as a cleaner, one as a whore, and so on. i think it's possible to love more than one person at a time, but i don't think it's possible to be fully committed to more than one person at once.
i honestly cannot see why homosexuals don't have the same marriage rights; perhaps because marriage may be supposedly for having children, but using that logic marriage should be illegal for the infertile because they can't have children either. maybe homosexuality is just *immoral* or *evil* or something.
endless, nameless wrote in message news:[email]...
strive to
marriages
attain the
goal
endless, nameless wrote in message news:[email]...
I think the historical reason is that our laws came out of a Judaeo-Christian society. Up to about AD1930, one moral view held by all Christians was that sexual intercourse is only licit in marriage, and each sexual act ought to be open to the possibility of creating new life (Catholics still believe that means of family planning that use manufactured products to absolutely frustrate any chance of conception are wrong, but that some natural methods are okay). It's obvious that genital acts between persons of the same sex can never be open to new life, so homosexual marriage is an oxymoron in that view of the world.
The church nonetheless believed that infertile people shouldn't be prohibited from marrying because, as I understand it, the people were not choosing an act that in the normal course of nature sought to prevent a possible conception - and the couple may be hoping that God may yet intervene, whether by a miracle like those reported in the Scriptures, or by an advance in medical science. Can you see the Church, when it had influence, being happy with the state passing a law that was based on the view, "We don't believe in miracles, and every case of infertility will always be incurable!"?
The thing that angers me, even though I'm a celibate heterosexual Christian, is the way some Christian groups can't differentiate between homosexual sex and homosexual people, and portray the latter as evil, and merely *being* homosexual as a wilful sin. Compare that to this: "The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition.... They must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided..." [1]
Martin.
[1] The Catechism of the Catholic Church, para 2358. The Catholic Church does teach that intercourse is only ethically sound when between people married to each other, and then when it's not prevented by artificial contraception from any chance of creating new life. See the same book for a better and more nuanced explanation - URL: http://www.sylvesternet.freeserve.co.uk/catholic-books/0003.htm for info on the printed version, and URL: http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/ccc.html for an online version (which sadly lacks effective indexing).
Martin Sylvester said:
I think that the origin of the Judeo-Christian prejudice against homosexuals lay in the Macedonian occupation, the one which led to the revolt of the Maccabees. The Greeks attempted to Hellenize Judea, as they did all the lands they conquered. Homosexuality was part of the aristocratic Greek culture against which they revolted.
This may have been reinforced in the Roman Empire, because Christianity was associated with the general desire for moral renewal (and Latin culture was ALSO hostile to homosexuality AND regarded it as an Eastern import). Later on, in the male world of the Church, homosexuality was an obvious danger and source of potential corruption, which would have reinforced the anti-homosexual sentiment.
Plus, when the doctrines were originally formulated, the distinctions between religion, magic, and medicine were none too firm. Note that a lot of Christ's miracles involved healing people.
I can buy that.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man is a god in ruins" (Ralph Waldo Emerson)
On 25 Jul 1999 12:45:46 GMT, [email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:
Perhaps it's the biblical basis for the immorality of homosexuality? Nah, couldn't be.
I can't.
Kyle He complained when I hit him. All my friends do. Wusses.
Martin Sylvester wrote:
In other words, "love the sinner but hate the sin" -- which to me reeks of hypocrisy. A heterosexual man can get married to, and have sex with, the person he loves, and it's NOT a sin. I, being a gay man, CANNOT get married to the person I love (if and when I meet him), and if I have sex with the person I love, it IS a sin. To me, this position is totally unacceptable.
Yes, well it's something the Catholic Church will have to work out. Still, it's much more progressive a stance than other Christian denominations, and for that I give a gigantic shout out to the leaders of the Catholic Church. One small step, yes, but it's still a step.
Diane/CityGirl7609 ([email])
Jeg7777 wrote:
THIS is gonna be fun. On Sun, 25 Jul 1999 20:21:25 -0400, Jeg7777 wrote:
So? Who asked you to accept it? You have a simple choice. Follow God or don't. If you chose not to, you are free to do whatever the heck you want, but you will pay the price in the end. Simple as that. What is or isn't a sin makes no difference till you become a Christian. If that happens, then God will direct you in the right way and you will no longer desire to be a homosexual.
Kyle He complained when I hit him. All my friends do. Wusses.
On 26 Jul 1999 03:07:14 GMT, some letters randomly coalesced from individual pixels, claiming to be from [email] (Kyle), and it said:
Uh oh.... (Put's on flame-retardent suit...)
I'm not even beginning to touch this one, nuh uh, not even with the proverbial ten-foot pole....
Diane
Tarvok wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jul 1999 19:13:45 -0500, Diane Aguilar wrote:
Same here, Diane. With the posturing and proselytizing on both sides of the debate, it's clearly a no-win situation. As such, I shall keep counsel on my opinions, and not even attempt to stir the pot.
Besides, it's much more fun watching the "religious zealots" battle the "tree-hugging liberals" from the sidelines. Just bring your Gallagher Sledge-O-Matic splatter tarp for cover. :-)
Martin (send all e-mail to "[email]") +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Outpost Daria: Your Online Database for All Things Daria!
http://www.lawndale.net -OR- http://systech.simplenet.com/daria/On Tue, 27 Jul 1999 03:24:22 GMT, [email] (Martin J. Pollard) wrote:
You sure? It's fun as heck being a religous zealot, and just the phrase "tree-hugging liberal" cracks me up.
Kyle He complained when I hit him. All my friends do. Wusses.
Kyle of writes:
Presumably you've never hugged a tree. Don't knock it until you've tried it!
-Shez.
Shez wrote:
Reminds me of the time that some friends and I went to Muir Woods. On the main trail, there were some tourists who were *actually*, *physically* hugging the trees. Ugh! It's then when we decided to get off the main trail. %-{)>
MIKE (a.k.a. "Progbear")
make GEORYN disappear to reply
"Siento que debemos saber para el sue�o de qui�n brillar� esta luz o consagrar una propia estrella" --Alberto Felici
N.P.:"I m a g i n a r y W i n d o w" - C a s t
On Tue, 27 Jul 1999 03:24:22 GMT, some letters randomly coalesced from individual pixels, claiming to be from [email] (Martin J. Pollard), and it said:
Actually, I prefer to argue the conservative position from an intellectual point of view (such as my historical argument against abortion). It's just that the "if you become a christian" argument hit a little too close to home. It seemed only too close to the words, "If you become a *real* christian..." I used to be part of a group that considered itself the one true church. Things can get ugly. I'm rather surprised they didn't.
All right, already. I declare Hatha's peace of the Watering Hole, wherein many different species (or opinions in this case) may gather without fear of being eaten (flamed?) by others. I enjoy a good debate as much as the next person, but when it goes as far as this one has, then it isn't as much fun. I love ya guys to death, but, PLEASE, let's try to find a less dividing topic. You don't have to listen to me if you don't want to, though. <watery smile>
Shutting up now, Jess "Morgendorfer" [email]
Daria: With a hey nonny nonny, tra la, tra la.
Daria code thingy A D+ T0 W1 Q+ FN^FR O+ Ow+OH+Os M+ C++ MV-- C5X F:308, 105, 210 BB+++ FCD -DT+ q+ fT
NO. It's NOT. And that's why this will most likely be my last post on the subject.
The Catholic Church and who knows how many other churches, all kinds of conservative public officials and private citizens.
Prove to me--beyond the shadow of a doubt--which God is THE God. Prove to me--not based on faith, but on scientific, verifiable fact--which religion is the one true faith. Then, and ONLY then, will I accept what that religion has to say and take my chances accordingly.
Based on my statement above, I won't be holding my breath waiting.
On Mon, 26 Jul 1999 19:28:33 -0400, Jeg7777 wrote:
They're all wrong.
I can't. And I can't claim to be able to. That is something He will take up with you.
That's fine by me. Like I said, as long as you don't want to be a Christian, none of it matters anyway.
Kyle He complained when I hit him. All my friends do. Wusses.
Please Kyle, and everyone else, I urge you not to take this issue further. It's one thing to disagree on some issue like abortion, but when you go so far as to profess such deep-seated *hate* for a particular group of people, and not even have the balls to attribute it to your own emotions but rather cower underneath the blanket of "this is what God wants and I don't know how to prove it but I know it's what God wants" you go way too far beyond the realm of common sense. So...cool it on this discussion. And Kyle, I pray to God that He will give you patience and guidance and lessen the hate that you feel.
Diane
On Tue, 27 Jul 1999 00:12:47 -0500, Diane Aguilar wrote:
Which issue? The gay thing? Bah! It's all fun and games till someone gets right wing, I guess.
The rest of your post indicates you have grossly misinterpreted my position, so I'm afraid I'm gonna have to clear it up.
See, now you are messing up big time. I haven't the slightest hatred for homosexuals. I have the urge to call you a "tree-hugging liberal" just for assumng such a thing. Ok, I admit it, I just like saying "tree hugging liberal".
If you are going to assume things about the way my mind works, I'm gonna have to explain to you *exactly* how I feel about the subject. Listen carefully:
Man was created to be with God. Man's nature is to sin. Sinning is to deviate from the will of God. God abhors sin and refuses to be around it. The result of sin is to "go to hell" so to speak. Hell is a place where God willingly chooses not to effect any influence. Since man was created to be with God, a place where God is effectively absent is the worst possible place for a man to be. All men are bound to go there without outside help, because man's nature conflicts with God's. God, in His infinite wisdom and compassion, set up a way for man to avoid such an escape. He gave man a way to show that his soul desires to serve God, despite his nature. Any man who shows that to God will be saved from the natural results of sin.
Here's the important points that you need to know:
Sin itself is something all men do, because it is their nature.
No one sin is more grievous than any other. The acts of Hitler are no worse in the eyes of God than a "white lie" or adultery or whatever other sin you can think of.
Sin itself does not send a person to hell, because people are already on their way to hell from the moment of birth.
No man doesn't sin. I sin. You sin. Since all sin's are equally grievous, no man is better than any other. No man can be saved by his outward actions because men will always sin.
A man who is "saved" is no better than one who isn't. They are only more fortunate.
One's personal actions are not relevant to one's salvation. It is highly likely that if you are truly saved, you will be so grateful that you will desire to please God in every way possible, and thus try not to sin. But I cannot discern the "saved" from the "unsaved" merely by their actions.
There, that should cover it.
Homosexuality is a symptom of man's sinful. All men have sinful natures. Does that mean I hate homosexuals? Or think they are less than anyone else?
Kyle He complained when I hit him. All my friends do. Wusses.
Kyle wrote in message news:7njha7$cq1$[email]...
[...]
For the sake of anyone who's wondering, Kyle's summary of his Christian doctrine does not perfectly describe mine. In particular, I disagree with the statements, "No one sin is more grievous than any other," and "One's personal actions are not relevant to one's salvation." I think I'd disagree with some other things Kyle said, but I'd need to ask him, "What do you mean by...?" - Kyle's view may be more nuanced than it's possible to portray in a short summary.
But since I guess most atd readers wouldn't welcome a theological debate, I won't say any more than that. 8-)
Martin.
PS If anyone should be interested, an earlier message of mine contains a link to the (sadly unindexed) online version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and a reference to the printed version. It's a one volume summary of Christian doctrine.
Nope. It just means you think homosexuality is a sin. Which isn't true. --- ~Po
CROWDSURFERS WILL BE EJECTED FROM THE BUILDING. It can be harmful, and most of all disrespectful to climb on other people's heads. Crowdsurfing should only be done naked and in the privacy of your own home.
Thank you The Beastie Boys
On 27 Jul 1999 06:01:21 GMT, [email] (CrtoonDude) wrote:
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!
We have finally reached the point in this little debate that all debates must get to eventually. This is the point where both positions have been thoroughly explored, and it is simply a matter of personal opinion, and there is no more need for furthur discussion!
Simply put:
"We agree to disagree."
Kyle He complained when I hit him. All my friends do. Wusses.
Kyle wrote in message news:7njiog$f9a$[email]...
FWIW, ISTM there were more than two positions expressed here.
Martin.
We already reached this point, I think Kyle and I did...weren't the rest of you paying attention? :-)
On Tue, 27 Jul 1999 19:57:24 -0400, Jeg7777 wrote:
Quiet you tree hugging liberal! Tree hugging liberal!
Kyle He complained when I hit him. All my friends do. Wusses.
Why can't conservatives also hug trees? Hmmm? You have something against conservatives showing deep affection towards living bits of foliage? ;)
Diane
Kyle wrote:
you better believe I do! "Tree hugging conservative" isn't near as funny.
On Tue, 27 Jul 1999 19:51:53 -0500, Diane Aguilar wrote:
Kyle He complained when I hit him. All my friends do. Wusses.
And to think I actually said "Go Cubs!" in a post. See if THAT happens again. :-)
Kyle wrote:
Hands up, who has killfiled this imbecile?
MIKE (a.k.a. "Progbear")
make GEORYN disappear to reply
"The only completely consistent people are dead" --Aldous Huxley
N.P.:"Beyond The Moon"- C z a r
On 28 Jul 1999 05:53:31 GMT, some letters randomly coalesced from individual pixels, claiming to be from [email] (Gouloubougoula Wagalabagou), and it said:
Not me. These things are entertaining in the short run, and people don't flamewar in alt.tv.daria, save one individual, who, because of the requests of my fellow darians, shall remain nameless. ;p
gah, i promised myself i wouldn't get involved.. so i'm not gonna reply anymore now that i have my two cents in. --- ~Po
CROWDSURFERS WILL BE EJECTED FROM THE BUILDING. It can be harmful, and most of all disrespectful to climb on other people's heads. Crowdsurfing should only be done naked and in the privacy of your own home.
Thank you The Beastie Boys
<snip>
!!??! cripes! really?
Yes but some sins are more equal than others (or does Kyle also advocate blowing up the houses of people who have been caught telling lies?)
-Shez.
On Wed, 28 Jul 1999 14:03:07 +0100, Shez wrote:
When did Kyle advocate blowing up the houses of people who commited any other sin?
The best I can come up with is when I advocated bombing abortion clinics, provided no one gets hurt. But not as a punishment, but to help stop what I consider to be a grievous human rights violation.
Society can and does set up a value system that will allow them to have a scale of wrongs. That is why murderers are punished more than jaywalkers. But God makes no such distinction, and all sin is subject to the same punishment.
Kyle He complained when I hit him. All my friends do. Wusses.
Kyle of writes:
This is the problem I have with Christianity. It is a deeply misanthropic belief system.
-Shez.
On Wed, 28 Jul 1999 11:44:42 +0100, some letters randomly coalesced from individual pixels, claiming to be from Shez , and it said:
Essentially, it's the same as saying "everybody makes mistakes," but since God is perfect, mistakes are evil. It's when I realized this that I got out of it, though I can still hold my own in a biblical debate if I want.
On Mon, 26 Jul 1999 19:28:33 -0400, some letters randomly coalesced from individual pixels, claiming to be from Jeg7777 , and it said:
Would somebody please invoke... what's that law called? Anyway, to invoke the law that I can't remember, I herebly declare that you are all comparable to Hitler! ;p
(God, I hope people on this newsgroup get that joke...)
Kyle of writes:
In that case, it is clear that God and the Church parted company long, long ago: it is well known that there are many homosexual priests.
Personally I've always been attracted to the idea that Satan created the Church so as to lead people astray from God. Instead of making a determined effort to live as Jesus taught, people are seduced by the insidious idea that the Church can intercede on their behalf, doling out absolution and guaranteeing a ticket to Heaven. Boy are those people in for a surprise when they get to the pearly gates!
-Shez.
On Wed, 28 Jul 1999 11:36:14 +0100, Shez wrote:
Can't disagree.
Can't disagree again.
Kyle He complained when I hit him. All my friends do. Wusses.
<sigh>
I intend this to be my final posting to this thread.
Please note that Kyle's theological position is not the one held by the largest Christian denomination. I'm not saying that this fact somehow *proves* Kyle's view is wrong: philosophically, a thousand million Catholics may be wrong, and Catholic teaching for the past two thousand years may be wrong, and Kyle and those who share his view may be right.
But it's a bit disheartening when people respond to Kyle's postings as if they described the position of "the Church." Please recognise, people, that there's a variety of views among the people who put their faith in Jesus Christ.
I intend no disrespect to Kyle or to anyone else who's posted in this thread.
<zipping mouth shut>
Martin.
Alli said:
Two ponts: 1) I said "polygamy" rather than "polygyny" ... I never said it had to involve one man and multiple wives, it could involve a wife and multiple husbands, or multiple wives and husbands. 2) It would have to be consensual for ALL parties concerned, so the women would be fools to accept that arrangement.
I'm not actually polygamous. I simply think that polygamous marriages should be legal.
I'm not sure if it is either. I'm not sure that it isn't, though.
I think the current marriage laws are based on the assumption that homosexuality is immoral and thus the state should not support it. I don't consider homosexuality immoral (even though I'm hetrosexual) and believe that homosexual marriages should be legal. I think the current system is very damaging to truly loving homosexuals, who have no way of being "respectable".
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man is a god in ruins" (Ralph Waldo Emerson)
there's nothing i can say here without risking the start of a long and viscious flamewar. ;)
many women are fools.
while i belive polygamy to be wrong, i have no logical way to prove that it is. i think polygamy should be legal (didn't say that in the previous post, sorry) although i think it's wrongish, because i can't prove that it is *not* possible to be committed to more than one person.
incidentally, the only reason i would be wary of telling some people that i am bisexual, is that they would say "ehh, knew it, you were always going on about how there's nothing wrong with being gay... "
agreed. :)
Incidentally, I'm a heterosexual who thinks there's nothing wrong at all about being gay. I don't think you'd have to be homosexual or bisexual to think that way.
:),
Diane/CityGirl7609 ([email])
endless, nameless wrote:
Off-topic, but I refer to myself as a "non-practicing heterosexual", or "unsuccessful heterosexual". Sorta like alt.involuntary.celibacy
On Sun, 25 Jul 1999 22:14:10 -0500, Diane Aguilar wrote:
Kyle He complained when I hit him. All my friends do. Wusses.
i don't think so either. it's just pretty sad that some people do. eg: a friend of mine, after listening to me 'tell someone off' for making some derogatory comment about gay people -- "you shouldn't say things like that... <quiet voice> people will think you're a, you know... <whisper> lesbian!!"
endless, nameless wrote:
Reminds me of a friend's story. He said on another newsgroup, someone once wrote in a question: "Is it true that Jodie Foster is a l------?" Of course they found this so twee, so precious, so...hilarious, that they always use the word "l------" instead of "lesbian". ;-{)>
MIKE (a.k.a. "Progbear")
make GEORYN disappear to reply
"I don't do emotions. I just sing notes." --Wendy Smith
N.P.:"The Way Up"- S u d d e n l y, T a m m y !
Alli said:
had
I don't want to get into a flamewar with you, Alli. :)
I suspect what you're going to say is that men are more likely to take multiple wives than women multiple husbands. And based upon the known spectrum of human marriage customs, you're probably right ... there are many polygynous cultures but only a few polyandrous ones, and the polyandrous ones involve very limited forms of polyandry, often to protect widows (as in some Tibetan hill tribes); while polygynous ones often involve outright concubine-collecting (as is the case in many Arab cultures).
Still, I think the option should exist.
True. On the other hand, I don't think the law should protect people from the consequences of making bad romantic arrangements. There are plenty of women who manage to get quite thoroughly exploited in our current culture, and quite legally.
And of course there is also no shortage of foolish men. I've been one, occasionally :)
Oh, ok. Then we really don't have that much of a disagreement on the subject here.
Yeah, a variant on the ad homineum ("to the man") argument. Premise here being "only a homosexual would say homosexuality's ok, so we don't have to listen to her argument." Of course, that doesn't actually address your argument, as you should point out to anyone who says that.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man is a god in ruins" (Ralph Waldo Emerson)
On Sun, 25 Jul 1999 03:25:14 +0100, "endless, nameless" wrote:
You nailed it.
*grins and ducks*
On 24 Jul 1999 23:58:03 GMT, [email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:
I'm in the interesting position of believing that all forms of marriage should be legalized, but that all but the traditional man-and-woman-no-divorce-except-in-cases-of-abuse are morally wrong.
And if your fellow Christians shared your position, Kyle, this truly would be a great country. Everyone has his or her own moral beliefs. It's when they try to impose their beliefs on others that problems ensue. Because you don't want to impose your beliefs on others, Kyle, I am going to say this once...and once ONLY: Go Cubs! :-)
Kyle said:
One thing I agree with you on is that many things which may be morally wrong should be nevertheless legal. (As indeed many are). However, I believe that love is love, and is good regardless of the form ... heterosexual, homosexual, or polygamous. As long as all involved consent.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man is a god in ruins" (Ralph Waldo Emerson)
On 25 Jul 1999 02:50:00 GMT, some letters randomly coalesced from individual pixels, claiming to be from [email] (Jordan S. Bassior), and it said:
I just don't think homosexual marriage is something that must necessarily be supported by the government. I think that the heterosexual marriage is supported as much to protect children as for anything else. While I don't homosexual marriage should be _illegal_, I also don't see the benefit of making an official protection of this institution.
This is double-talk. You can't have it both ways. Legal or illegal. If everyone doesn't have the same legal rights, then it's discrimination. Pure and simple.
In article ,
Playing Devil's Advocate here for a sec (I really don't want to get too much into political discussions because that's not my strength): Why should marraige be supported just for the children? I'm not saying that that supporting children is bad, but what about married couples that decide not to have children? Should they not be allowed to get married? What if a homosexual couple decides to adopt a child or have one of their own, would they be allowed to marry?
My opinion on this issue: If two people want to commit themselve to each other in a loving relationship, who am I to say that they can't?
Mike Quinn wrote:
Just throw another POV into the discussion, I caught Desmond Morris' "The Human Animal" the other night, and his definition of marriage was a public declaration that a pair bond has formed, and that this is now an exclusive couple. Given that definition, I don't have a problem with anyone getting married to anyone. (Unless, of course, they're already married-- yeah, I've got a blind spot about poly___y, because I don't think it's fair to be allowed to tie up extra people like that. <g> Oh, yeah, and there are also issues about consent-- you know, the age thing. And you can only marry other humans, too-- you can't marry your pets, as they can't give proper consent.)
maybe i should wear a hat when I go out in the sun.
rich.
Jane: You're a twisted little cruller, ain't'cha?
Rich said:
My assumption was that ALL the parties to a polygamous marriage would have to consent. Plus such marriages wouldn't have to involve more women than men ...
Yes. The premise here is ability to give proper or INFORMED consent.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man is a god in ruins" (Ralph Waldo Emerson)
There is a risk here though of species-ism. Many animals form life-long bonds with a single mate, are they going to be considered to be "living in sin" since they can't give their "informed consent" to a proper marriage? I think pair bonding in the accepted manner of the given species should constitute marriage, in which case you could marry a chimp or your dog or whatever if it indicates its acceptance in the traditional manner of its species.
Of course, if marriage is considered solely a vehicle for producing children, then inter-species romance wouldn't be legitimate at present, but given the developments in genetics where they've managed to implant genes from one species into another, it won't be long before you could have a test tube baby with yourself and your pet dog as the parents. (I think there was a film about such things a while back -- Doctor <somebody>'s Island?)
-Shez.
In article , Shez wrote:
The horror... nightmare science-fiction scenario.
The Island of Doctor Moreau? (by H G Wells)
The Book was about turning animals into people. A Hammer Horror film of the sixties was about turning people into animals. Don't know about the most recent version.
[Sidestep, further OT (! Can this thread get any further OT?) ]
Deja has been frogged for 4 days (still is), so it's caused me to post even less intermittently than usual. All the interesting/heavy stuff has gone down over the weekend. I'll catch up at somepoint and probably state my opinions regarding some things...
[Begins to sidestep back on topic, but realises the futility of doing so. Standing at a crossroads; looks about and finds a stick. throws it into the air and looks to see which way it points when it lands. Starts walking in that direction.]
Shez said:
The problem is that we currently don't grant civil rights to animals. So this is a whole other issue.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man is a god in ruins" (Ralph Waldo Emerson)
it's the Island of Dr. Moreau, first written waaay back in the day by HG Wells. Jess "Morgendorfer" [email]
Daria: With a hey nonny nonny, tra la, tra la.
Daria code thingy A D+ T0 W1 Q+ FN^FR O+ Ow+OH+Os M+ C++ MV-- C5X F:308, 105, 210 BB+++ FCD -DT+ q+ fT
On 27 Jul 1999 03:58:13 GMT, some letters randomly coalesced from individual pixels, claiming to be from [email] (Jordan S. Bassior), and it said:
And I think failing to distinguish between people and animals sets a dangerous precedent. Slaves were equated with pack animals in social level in the past. Granting animals their "rights" is a preposterous proposition IMO, is the result of forgetting the distinction between people and animals (however much you might love your dog, he's still a dog), and might, in some future time, there may be a reversal in the idea of proper rights, which would include humanity (resulting in things like slavery, biological experementation, etc.)
Whaaaat. Can't I also have my own slippery slope argument?
Tarvok said:
Well, there's a perfectly good reason why we don't grant animals civil rights at present. They aren't capable of sufficient understanding to be fellow-citizens. That's also why they couldn't consent to marriages ... that's a subset of "civil rights".
I said it was a whole other issue, I didn't say where I stood on it :)
Hmm ... but what if, in the future, we Uplifted animals to human-level inteligence? Or discovered that some nonhuman animals were already sapient? Do you think they would deserve civil rights in this case, or would you argue that they "just ain't people"?
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man is a god in ruins" (Ralph Waldo Emerson)
On 27 Jul 1999 18:15:07 GMT, some letters randomly coalesced from individual pixels, claiming to be from [email] (Jordan S. Bassior), and it said:
Are you referring to the dolphins or the white mice? ;)
The day an animal walks up to me and tells me he really doesn't appreciate the way I disregard his intelligence is the day I reverse my position, and then, only for that particular species. Now, who's up for the enfranchisement of chimpanzees?
Tarvok said:
Heh, I liked *Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy* too ...
Realistically speaking, the likeliest species which might be reclassified as or rendered through alteration sapient would be the bottlenose dolphins (and possibly other delphinidae) and chimpanzees (and possibly other great apes). There are of course other candidates ...
Who knows? It might happen someday.
Particularly good candidates, since they seem to miss human-level intelligence by only a hairsbreadth.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man is a god in ruins" (Ralph Waldo Emerson)
In tests with suitable adapted equipment, pigs turned out to be rather better at learning and playing video games than chimps. They are held back I think mainly through a lack of hands which prevent them from doing very much to exhibit their superior intelligence under normal circumstances.
-Shez.
On Tue, 27 Jul 1999 02:42:02 +0100, some letters randomly coalesced from individual pixels, claiming to be from Shez , and it said:
I would hardly consider this marriage. The bond between man and dog is almost as old and steeped in tradition and legend as the bond between man and wife. IMO, the human/animal bond is just as much a part of the human experiance (for thost that choose and/or have the capability) as most human relations.
Can anyone say Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles? ;)
On 25 Jul 1999 01:45:50 GMT, some letters randomly coalesced from individual pixels, claiming to be from [email] (Kyle), and it said:
I would normally agree with you, as de-centralization is my primary issue, but, in this case, I think that the traditional marriage is an important thing to legally support. A marriage is three things to me:
mine." ;) 3. A committment to childrearing.
The first and second are important, because, like it or not, jealousy is a part of many people's biological makeup, such as mine. ;) People who simply cohabit, while they have an out for themselves if things get bad, also have to worry about their partner taking that out. That is not quite as conducive to trust as committment to a marriage. I think it's important for government, along with many other institutions in our society, to support this institution.
But the third is, quite possibly, the most important aspect. Study after study (I don't know enough to quote one...) has shown that a kid is better off in a two parent family than in a single parent one, with the exception of the case where one of the parents is abusive. One of the main purposes of government is making sure people can sleep safe and secure in their beds. The social chaos that has been produced by the abandomnent of marriage, in whatever form, is not conducive to this goal.
Tarvok wrote in message news:[email]...
More important, is for a man to be able to know the children are genetically his. A man can NEVER be sure, short of a DNA test. He's expected to pay the bills for kids he can't be quite sure are the product of his loins. It all boils down to trust. Of course the woman is making a sacrifice too. Missing out on advancement at work while she's at home in the "family way," physically less able while she's waddling around like a beach ball with legs, subject to all kinds of aches and pains, before and during delivery, she needs someone to help her. She'd like to be able to depend on the guy who's child she's carrying. Marriage is just a contract where the parties agree to this exchange. It's really exclusively for children. The partners agree to genetic certainty and support, the children get a home, the state gets to establish who is the legal heir to the estate and(naturally) gets a modest fee for its trouble.
endless, nameless wrote in message news:[email]...
it had
multiple
arrangement.
Polygamy makes sense, or seems to make sense, for the simple reason that women prefer rich husbands. The trouble is there aren't enough of those to go around. So women might think it preferable to share a rich man with some other women rather than take a chance on a less well-heeled guy who might be just as desirable, or maybe more so. Of course the "women's movement" changes all that. Now women don't need to necessarily seek out a rich man to marry because women can take care of themselves. A potential husband really needn't even have a job if he has other compensating merits that might make him worthy. This is yet another example of how the so-called "women's liberation" has actually improved things for us guys. Us guys come off as the winners as much as the women. It increases the pool of potential mates since women who might otherwise pine away for the rich prince who's going to carry them off on his white charger can turn their attentions to men who are really a great catch except for the fact their Form 1040s don't sport such impressive numbers. And, of course, the women aren't beholden to the beneficence of "his majesty." A real Win--Win all the way around.
Diane Aguilar wrote in message news:[email]...
women's
their own
right
to
abortion
that
Christianity
Operation
Christian
have
full
any
wishes
deemed
cannot
trimester,
However, *I*
any
Ok, I'm going to lay myself wide open here. Try to be kind:
The problem with abortion is that the person who's most affected by it can't say anything. I think we can accept that as a fact. As distasteful as it might seem, I think the U.S. Supreme Court made a valiant effort to solve the problem with Roe v. Wade by simply "cutting the baby in half." Well, thirds is more like it. They defined a rule where it's possible for a woman to get a legal abortion yet allow the state to defend the rights of a potential voter. Of course this compromise has satisfied no one, which is what makes me think it's probably the correct decision. Like most compromises, it's not perfect but I'm willing to accept it. Now if each party could only be content with their moiety of the riven baby then maybe we could have some peace and start working on other problems.
hahahaha... i wish.
;)
imo, sex outside marriage, and even outside a meaningful relationship, is ok so long as both (or all lol) participants know what the other wants, and nobody is being unfaithful or anything. i personally wouldn't have sex outside a relationship, though.
i like that quote. :)
endless, nameless wrote in message news:[email]...
Well, whatever you think of yourself, "Strong, self-assured and non-conformist" is how you seem to me! Which of those do you think doesn't apply? If you were weak and striving for others' assurance by conforming to their agendas, we wouldn't know a tenth of what we know about you, and what we did know would be little more than "I like Daria." ;-) Anyone who's okay about owning up to their vulnerability is strong, ISTM, otherwise they'd be pouring effort into concealing it. Poo, I'm getting a bit philosophical here. Sorry. I'll be writing a column for J17 next (no offence implied, Sarra!).
One reason I think differently is that I'm convinced that inherent in the act of intercourse, whatever we may *want* it to mean, is the body language of giving oneself, as much as one can, to another: and that the body language of sex is only honestly "spoken" inside marriage.
A bloke called Andr� Guindon wrote a brilliant book on this, called "The Sexual Language." ISTR it's no longer in print; even when it was, you couldn't obtain it in the UK. 8-( I had to borrow a copy from someone who'd brought it back (hidden in a suitcase?) from Canada.
that
Thanks! Me too. <g> He and Garth Lean wrote a great book in the 60s, called "The New Morality." It was a brilliant demolition job on the self-serving, pretentious, hedonistic twaddle peddled at that time by the people who were sowing what we're now reaping.
Okay, rant over, now back to my Magnum. <yum> [1]
Martin.
[1] The ice cream, not a weapon or a photo bureau!
Martin Sylvester, speaking of Alli, said:
I agree, Martin. Alli's under a lot of pressure at times but she remains an honest person who lives by her own moral code, and it's a good one as far as I can tell from the things she says here and has told me herself.
Exactly. A lot of other people who Alli may think are better than her may just be better at putting up false fronts.
I find sex outside of marriage philosophically ok, but not sex without love. That I find a rather repulsive concept.
Oh, I agree with you about the hedonism of the late 60's / early 70's, which tried to treat sex as an emotionally and morally meaningless act. The result was radical feminism, as women in the "Movement" soon discovered that the men were treating them like animated sex toys.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man is a god in ruins" (Ralph Waldo Emerson)
Jordan S. Bassior wrote:
As I see it, sex with someone you love is the ideal. Sex with someone who you're just friends with isn't a bad thing. Sex without even a friendship (picking up someone in a bar, hiring a prostitute) is something I've never been able to bring myself to pursue, despite my continuing membership in alt.involuntary.celibacy.
Jeg7777 wrote in message news:[email]...
the
language
love.
The T-shirt page is still up, btw! <g> URL: http://www.sylvesternet.freeserve.co.uk/members/cclub/
Martin.
thank you :)
imo, it depends on the situation and people involved.
i'm trying to think of some way to express agreement, but i'm tired and it's too fucking late... (five to three, and i have to get up at 10am tomorrow.)
"Self-assured".. I manage to get by with the rather weak justification that my own assurance is no different to anyone else's, and as i don't need anyone else's, i therefore don't need my own.
You could argue that the weakest don't even make a start at concealing their vulnerability. This isn't necessarily what i would argue, FWIW. ;)
I think that depends on what you think of marriage... I have mixed feelings about marriage, it seems to me to be nothing but legal issues. With divorce rates so high, i would find little emotional security in marriage that i wouldn't find in a relationship outside marriage. I don't object to divorce, though; i don't think people should be stuck in loveless partnerships until one of the two dies. (Did anyone in the UK here see 'Generations' or whatever it's called, the other night?)
In the way of ice cream, i only eat Cornettos. And only the mint ones. I refuse to eat any other type of ice cream. Yes, i am a bit strange in my eating habits. :)
endless, nameless wrote in message news:[email]...
the
language
That's true. I see marriage as lifelong, exclusive and indissoluble. That might make more sense if you appreciate that I'm viewing it not simply as a legal matter, but also a spiritual one.
Well, naturally, I take a different view, given what I've said about how I view marriage. The permanence of vows aside, I've seen so many people damaged by divorce; children as well as partners.
Hence the care taken in the Catholic community to prepare people for marriage. On those rare occasions when someone objects to being obliged to take part in a pre-marriage course with their partner, it leaves me dumbfounded. They're about to commit themselves to spending their lives with someone, and they resent counsellors helping them to think it through in advance? Sheesh. The vast majority, though, make good use of the opportunity, and occasionally a couple choose to postpone or call off the wedding. Better a cancelled wedding than a bitter divorce, I reckon.
All that said, I can see that some couples might choose to live apart. But I don't believe they can undo an unconditional vow freely and knowingly made for life, if they knew what they were doing and had the maturity to understand the commitment they were making.
Not me, anyway. One of those fly-on-the-wall documentaries?
Martin.
i agree that it is supposed to be a "spiritual" matter, but i find it hard to view it as such when there're all these couples who thought they were in love and now hate each other. incidentally, the blame is generally put on me for any strain in my parents' marriage; maybe this clouds my view a little. ;)
the children are damaged, but sometimes/often they would be more damaged by no divorce. the obvious example here is where one of the parents beats the other and/or the children.
i think this is a great idea... unfortunately it doesn't happen much outside catholic (and probably some other religious) communities, and there are always couples who are prepared for marriage, married, and then find they don't get along after a while anyway.
i reckon so too.
not really, or i wouldn't have watched it. ;) it was about these three women: a single mother who doesn't want to marry, her mother who married, had affairs and divorced, and her mother, who married and endured a 37 year marriage to a man she didn't like, until his death (after which she tore his face out of all her photographs).
On Sun, 25 Jul 1999 22:55:47 +0100, some letters randomly coalesced from individual pixels, claiming to be from "endless, nameless" , and it said:
I have a theory about this. There are two possibilities as to why this happenes.
One is that some people, for lack of a better term, "get horny," and think they're in love. They have sex early, marry early, and only then, after the glow fades, do they realize that they have absolutely nothing in common, or that there's no way in hell they're ever going to actually be able to _trust_ one another.
The second possibility is that they recognize how much they have in common, recognize how much they love each other, get married, and expect it to be perfect. Within the first one or two years, they discover that it's *not* perfect, but figure there's something wrong with the partner they chose, and not that it's simply a part of life that nothing and nobody is perfect. They then divorce and spend a bitter, unhappy life persuing the perfect marriage.
As anybody knows, every relationship (not just male-female) goes into a lull. The most dramatic is, of corse, the sibling relationship, which can go from absolute comradery to hair pulling and throwing punches, or at least insults, in minuites, but any relationship, friendship or otherwise, will have periods where it doesn't seem all hunky dory. And if a married couple doesn't recognize that this even applies to them, there will be more trouble than there should be.
endless, nameless wrote in message news:[email]...
Well, if you get a nut Cornetto, "Give it to me..." <g> Mint ones are my second choice if I'm having a Cornetto.
Martin.
i tried a nut cornetto once... yuk. :) the strawberry ones aren't bad, but i still only eat the mint ones. i am fussy.
Shez wrote in message news:[email]...
in
sex
Very good point, Shez. I was oversimplifying for clarity, and in using the structure, "Not because (no (a)), but because (type of (a)) I lost an important nuance. Thank you for picking me up on it. I should have written, "One factor that contributes greatly is that the sex education we have is mostly value-free..."
I've certainly encountered apathy, fatalism, hopelessness and risk-taking among kids here, but I don't have the experience of living outside the UK, so I can't compare UK kids with others. Perhaps they're all like that? I find Shez's theories of how this attitude developed in the UK quite compelling.
Anybody know of any research on this? Any atd reader in academia got access to the European Values Study, and willing to tell us if the research backs up Shez's impression that UK kids are more apathetic, fatalistic, hopeless and risk-tolerant than kids elsewhere?
On a contrary note, one thing I've noticed is that students seem much more conformist than when I was a student. Perhaps an effect of the knowledge that graduate unemployment means they need good degrees and good references?
Martin.
i agree it probably won't have a major impact, but sex education is good from the point of view that, pregnant teenage girls can't blame others' failure to educate them for their pregnancy. also, it means fewer teenage girls are fooled by, "you can't get pregnant if you're on your period/it's your first time/you do it standing up," etc.
On Fri, 23 Jul 1999 22:30:12 GMT, some letters randomly coalesced from individual pixels, claiming to be from [email] (Matthias Benkmann), and it said:
Actually, our shows frequently include sex as a topic (all too frequently, some believe). And it tackles it from every imaginable viewpoint, from the show that shows a teen proudly proclaiming he intends to wait, having resited temptation, to the horny single guy that is constantly looking for an angle, to the lesbian who "comes out of the closet," too a happily married couple implying what they intend to to tonight. The only things that are explicitly censored, as far as I can see, is "indecent exposure" (that being the showing of a woman's nipple or any genatalia, and usually the buttoks) and the use of the word, "Fuck." And that's as far as the Federal Communications Commission goes. Now, individual networks might curtail their content, but that is the decision of a private company. And private companies are much more independant of the government here in the U.S. than in a lot of places.
On the contrary, the sex education I recieved was sufficient, I thought. The problem is... you're right. The problem is our socieity. While I, personally had no qualms about discussing the issue with my parents, many people are _very_ reluctant to discuss sex in a parent-child dialogue. In fact, in general, parents and children don't talk to one another. So things that are best taught by parents must, instead, be taught by the schools. I don't understand why this is. Why are parents and children so afraid of one another that they must use the government as a go-between?
As far as what's taught in the schools goes, I had a lesson in the sixth grade about puberty, with some about the mechanics of baby-making. I suspect that, with the age at which kids are hitting puberty going down, that will be brought back to even younger kids. During my senior year (entirely too late to do this... they were in the process of phasing it down to the freshman year) we discussed sex, contraception, family dynamics like child rearing and such, and so on and so on. A big waste of time for me, since my family isn't so tense as to restrict the dialogue, but I suspect there were many in my class that did, in fact, benefit.
On the contrary, we even allow condom commercials on broadcast television (that is a recent development). "Trojan man!"
Not in public restrooms, but there are places with these in the restrooms. At any rate, it's a simple matter to go down to the local store and pick up a box (it's available at all "drug stores" which is to say every store that has a drug section).
We do talk about sex, they do go buy condoms, those that don't are usually either severly uninformed (not because of the government, but because of their parents) or are convinced that "It won't happen to them."
As usual, it's possible my comments apply only to my region or socio-economic niche.
Matthias Benkmann wrote:
it's duncan says that, isn't it?
it's probable... :/ imo there are (somewhat indirect) advantages to censorship, ie if swearing is considered unacceptable for children, when children want to be "hard", they'll start using as many swear words as they know. as swearing is harmless, no damage can come of this. if the line of unacceptability was drawn at something more reasonable, then those wishing to shock would be more likely to resort to the unreasonable.
<snip..>
<snip>
i didn't know we were expected to learn *everything* from the media... i don't think censorship is to blame for teenage pregnancy at all. we have sex education at school, maybe truancy is more of a problem if it's ignorance causing british teen girls to get pregnant.
Bitte nicht! (OK, vielleicht sollte man "Great Britain" sagen, aber nur weil "bloody" ein englisches Wort ist).
Ich auch - obwohl ich ein Engländer (und auch Europaer) bin. Die Tatsache, daß Channel 5 (sowie auch did andere UK-Fernsehsender) ganz blöde Sachen tut ist heißt nicht, daß wir alle in Großbritannien zustimmen!
Tschüß
On Wed, 21 Jul 1999 23:46:39 GMT, some letters randomly coalesced from individual pixels, claiming to be from [email] (Matthias Benkmann), and it said:
Just to change the subject completely, the idea of "Freedom of Speech" has more to do with ideas than with specific words. If the government decides kids can't see a movie because it has specificaly defined vulger words in it, or sexual content, or psychotic violence, that's okay. But, if the government decides people can't watch a movie because it supports a presently unpopular political philosophy or other idea, that we can't have. The idea is that people should be able to say what they believe without fear of government harrasment, not so some guy can walk around a public place shouting obscenities just because he's a jerk, and he can.
Still, caution is advised when it comes to curtailing speech. It has to be _clearly_ an obscenity, and not just a "dirty word" in the political sense.
This is preposterous. Everyone knows the difference between boys and girls. The question is whether or not a specific human activity is appropriate subject of conversation in certain company. Believe it or not, there are still circumstances under which a man is expected to discreetly leave the room if he needs to fart, and burping audiably is considered rude. Talk of bathroom functions is extremely rude. Next to nudity and talking about sex, this is nothing, or at least about equivalent. Maybe you think differently.
In addition, there are many more differences in standard here in the US than in Europe. What I mean is, Europe, unless I miss my guess, has a more static cultural landscape. You can nearly always know what to expect in regard to a reaction to a particular situation (this is hypothetical... correct me if I'm wrong). In the U.S. there is an extremely diverse cultural landscape, which is almost constantly changing due to the constant influx of immigrants, refugees as often as not. In Europe, with it's thousands of years of cultural history, what is proper and what isn't could possibly be taken for granted, as in the very concept might not enter your mind, despite the fact that there very likely _is_ a sense of what is and isn't proper. Here, with the potential for standards differing by the neighborhood, a wise man walks with discretion.
Besides, I know that Europe has such things as nude beaches, explicit nudity on television, and so on. If that works, hey, it works. But here, without a little care, a little discretion, it would cause a dangerous outrage. Perhaps it would work one place, and not in another.
Yeah, she did it. I seem to remember a quote in one episode where Quinn misunderstood what Helen was trying to say, and said "ewwww! Didn't we already have that talk?!" or something to that effect. Can someone help me out here?
Very true. We don't have quite that problem here in the U.S. as the vast majority of what is shown is designed to make it past U.S. television, so the worst we get is an ocasional bleep or missing word (which usually just sounds funny) or a bad dubbed over phrase such as "I'm going to kick his <replace ass> butt." "<replace shit>Shoot!" "Darn!"
I must agree with you on the way British televsion handles their censoring. But it could be worse. How would you like to have to watch TV in Iraq?
I don't think this is true. To any specific thing there will be an enormous diversity of reactions. Sadly those who are most vocal and get the media's attention often get away with claiming to speak for everyone.
America has nude beaches too, in fact I think nudism is probably better established in the US than in the UK, even though it's not universally accepted in the way it is on mainland Europe.
-Shez.
I think the major point is that a beach doesn't HAVE to be a nude beach. I've never been to a nude beach, but I have seen some totally nude bathers. And topless bathing is standard anyway (though I have heard it freaks out the Italians when the tourists do it, at least the ugly women). MSB
"Dangerous" in what sense?
Tony
Emotionally dangerous...? All the exposure of flesh reducing humankind to a series of body parts and "shaggable"/"not shaggable" classifications? Dangerous in the meaning that it devalues what God has meant to be a very valuable part of oneself, which is one's full body (which God intended to have us share with people who are VERY close to us)? Besides, I think females who dress like hoochie mamas and let nothing go to the imagination degrade the entire female gender by reducing us to sex objects and by making us as a gender appear to want nothing but "it" all the time.
Which is why I am so disgusted with string bikinis and overexposure in general. What ever happened to modesty?
Apparently one of the conservatives here on this forum,
She who looks sharp inside her pointed shoes.
Tony Walton wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jul 1999 12:55:59 +0100, some letters randomly coalesced from individual pixels, claiming to be from Tony Walton , and it said:
"Try to imagine fourty differnent value systems colliding instantaniously and every shred of tolerant reserve exploding at the speed of light."
"Total morality reversal!"
"All right, that's bad, thanks for the safety tip, Egon."
On Thu, 22 Jul 1999 18:52:33 GMT, [email] (Tarvok) wrote:
You should read 1984 (I got the number right this time, I think) by George Orwell. Manipulating the vocabulary people are exposed to is a very subtle and in the long term very dangerous form of restricting freedom of speech by changing the things people think, even CAN think about. In fact isn't that the reason why sexual content is edited out. So that kids can neither think nor talk about these things.
And that "_clearly_" is just the problem. As long as the people who decide what gets censored and what doesn't are good people, it works. But give someone like Hitler, Stalin or Saddam Hussein the opportunity and they will turn any law that allows censorship for some reason into a tool of evil. The only way to draw a clear line is to abstain from ANY censorship. If you allow just a slight bit of it, you create a precedent that can be exploited.
There still remains the question how much she told them. There is a long way between metaphor and explicitness.
"It could be worse" ? That's not a good way of thinking. "It could be worse" is actually what most Germans thought during the unfolding of the 3rd Reich and in East Germany. It is a good excuse for keeping quiet and conforming. Actually the key ingredient to maintaining a dictatorship is to keep people on the edge of "It could be worse", just a tick away from "It cannot be worse". As long as they're thinking the former, they will not start a revolution, if it becomes the latter, they will. The Romans knew that (Panem et Circensis to keep the people happy) . The Chinese know it too. The trick is to suppress the people but not beyond a certain point. Once TV censorship has reached Iraqi proportions it's too late to intervene. With the words of the poet: You cannot save an egg that has been broken, you can only slay the snake before it nears the nest. And that snake is always closer than it appears! MSB
On Sat, 24 Jul 1999 02:23:52 GMT, some letters randomly coalesced from individual pixels, claiming to be from [email] (Matthias Benkmann), and it said:
Ooh! Ooh! I just remembered where that quote came! It was in "The Teachings of Don Jake" Helen was tripping on psychotrophic berries and trying to explain why Jake was constantly acting wierd, and Helen said something like, "You're like a flower, just opening to the possibi-" "Mo-Om! Eww! You're not going to talk about puberty again, are you?" Then Helen switches to the doors opening and closing metaphor, with the one at the end into which he must someday go...
On Sat, 24 Jul 1999 18:43:59 GMT, [email] (Tarvok) wrote:
Sounds like Helen is stuck with metaphors. I wonder what Quinn really knows about sex. I don't really know of course 'cause I never got that metaphor talk, but I don't think it can really make you understand what's going on. At least I think we don't have to worry about Daria. I'm sure she's read about all the gory details (provided of course, their library has such books). Hmm, it just crosses my minds. What could Beavis and Butthead probably know about sex. They don't have parents, they don't read and they don't pay attention in class. MSB
Matthias Benkmann said:
Probably the basics, mostly from the viewpoint of avoiding it. Quinn seems to have very little interest in even slightly sexual relationships; she views dating as a way to con guys to flock around her and buy her stuff. The evidence from the show is that she is very repulsed by any actual carnality, even mild amounts. I doubt she's ever gone much beyond kissing.
With Daria's high-end genius level intelligence and near-photographic memory, she could probably teach a class on the subject. Which doesn't mean that she isn't scared at the actual prospect. As far as we know, Daria's never even gotten to the kissing stage. Though I do think Daria is a passionate person, underneath her shell.
ROFL!!! Whatever Beavis and Butthead know is almost certainly wrong, and hilariously wrong.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man is a god in ruins" (Ralph Waldo Emerson)
On 27 Jul 1999 13:17:49 GMT, [email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:
If she resembles me on the inside like I feel she does on the outside that's probably 100% true. I think it is sad that the show's writers don't give her more opportunity to drop that fa�ade. The only moment that comes to my mind now is when Cupid made her say she's in love with Trent. From some other messages I've seen I conclude that she's even more emotional in Lane Miserables. Unfortunately they haven't aired this episode here, yet. They say they'll not resume Daria till fall :-( I hope they'll not leave out any episodes and get the order wrong again. They totally screwed it up last time. MSB
Mathias Benkmann said:
You see it twitch aside occasionally.
And some of her fantasies. My take on the Holidays episode was that it was Daria's dream, anyway.
Oh yeah.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man is a god in ruins" (Ralph Waldo Emerson)
On 27 Jul 1999 13:17:49 GMT, [email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:
The two episodes that spell this out quite clearly are "This Year's Model" (she refuses to caress Joey's chest for Claude and Romanica) and "Daria Dance Party" (she pushes away her two dates, saying she doesn't slow dance until after the fifth date... if she even gets that far, that is!). There may be other examples, but I can't recall them at the moment.
Martin (send all e-mail to "[email]") +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Outpost Daria: Your Online Database for All Things Daria!
http://www.lawndale.net -OR- http://systech.simplenet.com/daria/[email] (Martin J. Pollard) wrote:
You know I think we should rename this as "The Thread That WOULD NOT DIE!" ;-) I do believe we've now covered everything in this one innocuous posting about censorship on C5's part in "Lane Miz." To say that this has been a thorough discussion of all of the possible points is to make a gross understatement, punishable be public taunting in some Islamic Republics.
rich.
"Joseph Stalin, grab my armored muu-muu and together we will leave this foul Earth behind." -- Toon-La.
paperpusher wrote >
Amen brother. Ive been marking this conversation as read for almost 2 weeks. Its time to move on. Please let it die.
Ben
On Wed, 28 Jul 1999 13:34:35 GMT, some letters randomly coalesced from individual pixels, claiming to be from "Ben Guevara" , and it said:
Just "ignore" the thread, or does your reader lack that function?
Personally, I'm enjoying this thread. It was only when Kyle went off into the homosexuality thread that I started getting worried, but that ended, cleanly, in short order.
On Wed, 28 Jul 1999 17:02:43 GMT, [email] (Tarvok) wrote:
It ended cleanly cause y'all were scared I would expose you for the tree hugging liberals you are!
Tree hugging liberal! Tree hugging liberal! Tree! hugging! liberal!
Kyle He complained when I hit him. All my friends do. Wusses.
Mmmmmmmmmmm.. barky... --- ~Po
CROWDSURFERS WILL BE EJECTED FROM THE BUILDING. It can be harmful, and most of all disrespectful to climb on other people's heads. Crowdsurfing should only be done naked and in the privacy of your own home.
Thank you The Beastie Boys
Matthias Benkmann wrote:
Considering that B&B were trying really hard not to laugh during Sex Ed week (or else they'd be expelled) they probably didn't learn anything at all. :)
(Especially since the rest of the class was laughing. Even Daria. :)
On Sat, 24 Jul 1999 02:23:52 GMT, some letters randomly coalesced from individual pixels, claiming to be from [email] (Matthias Benkmann), and it said:
You're right about this. Still, in general, I think that the words I'm referring to are simple bodily function obscenities, which are easily replaced with less "offensive" words. Mainly (warning, specifying of words ahead) "fuck" and "shit," which pretty much never make it past television censors here. "Hell" and "Damn" are sometimes considered bad words, but it's clear by the fact that they can make it into prime time slots that they aren't _too_ bad, especially when used for their original puropses, and not as an all purpose swear word. This is true of nearly all vulgur words, actually. For instance, "Watch out for that dog shit," while there are plenty of other words that could replace the four letter one, could be appropriate, particularly in proper company. "You shit-head" would not be appropriate. "Fuck" is almost never appropriate, and I don't think I've heard anyone ever use it in place of the sexual act, except when being crass about an exploitive relationship (in which case the word itself isn't inappropriate, but the attitude makes me mad). But there are no written rules about this where controlled broadcasts are concerned (such as on cable) that aren't written by the company that does the broadcasting. For instance, Dennis Leary makes exceedingly humerous usage of that word, and I'm not sure whether Comedy Central would edit that or not. Personally, I'd prefer not. ;)
So, I'll quote you next bit to add to the ultimate point of this:
The real question is, are our leaders truely represenative of the People, or have we just gotten so lazy that we elect the same group of people over and over again, making it possible for that Orwellian strategy you mentioned earlier to work? (Never mind that the answer is very likely the later...) Such a long term strategy of propagandizing might work in a more static political system, but we elect new people to the government no less often than every six years (Senators). Over the past few decades, standards have loosened. I suspect standards may strengthen in the future, and, quite possibly, loosen again. The key is that there isn't some unmovable elite deciding what we can and can't say, it is our own representatives. And if the Electorate (that is, the voting population) have, in the majority, become so lazy and enslaved to custom that there _is_ an unmovable elite, that the second possibility in my opening question is, in fact, the case, then God help us. It's too late already; all we can do is keep fighting, just hoping the battle isn't lost before we're dead.
Matthias Benkmann of [posted via] Leibniz-
I think the trouble is that there are statutory bodies that you can complain to about sex, violence and swearing on the TV, whereas there is no official body to complain to about programmes being mangled and censored. So TV companies are obliged to pay disproportionate attention to the small number of reactionary people who want things censored, as if their complaints are upheld the TV company could be fined or even lose their franchise, whereas there is no pressure on them to listen to those of us who want TV programmes to be shown properly, unless they make such a bad job of it that it impacts on the viewing figures.
Having said that, I think it's only hardcore porn that is a definite no-no for broadcasting in the UK, almost anything else can be put out if it's given a late enough slot. The main problem we have I think is that broadcasters want trying to put stuff out in the earlier peak viewing hours and get a bit scissor-happy in order to placate the moaning minnies. So with Daria the trouble is that it goes out at 5pm, whereas Beavis & Butthead went out at about 11pm, and South Park goes out at 9:30pm, either of which are late enough to allow the swearing to be left in. Similarly, Manga stuff tends to be shown around midnight. For an example of how low tv can sink in the UK, you should check out C4's Eurotrash which is a round up of all the (non-hardcore) sleazy tv from around Europe, and contains not only a lot of nudity but coverage of the most tasteless things such as scatological stuff.
It's true that this would have been censored in the UK if it was on a daytime or news programme. There does seem to be a major hangup about nudity in the UK establishment, more so than among ordinary people I think. I think it arises from a puritanical christian notion of the human body being inherently sinful, a creation of Satan perhaps. It's sad that people are brought up to be ashamed of their bodies, after all they are necessary for our very existence!
I think it's too late myself. For a long time now we've had to rely on the EU, and the European Court of Human Rights, to save us from the excesses of our own government. Our best hope is that the UK establishment is gradually worn down by contact with our European neighbours, as people move back and forth more freely and realise how bizarre some of our own laws are. Similarly, the European Commission is finally launching investigations into price fixing, ie. why are a lot of things (cars, cds, jeans, etc) 50% more expensive in the UK than elsewhere? The answer of course is that we are being ripped off by major corporations, but until now no-one's had the guts to point the finger at the multi-billion dollar corporations involved.
We already had laws like that: under the tories, broadcasters had to mute the words of Irish republican politicians. However they got round this by using actors to dub in the voices, and in the end the law was scrapped. More recently, the head of the BBC John Birt forbade any BBC programme, even news programmes, from referring to the fact that a personal friend of his who was a Labour minister, was a homosexual. They simpy blacked out that story altogether. Of course it didn't work, as the rival news network ITV still carried the story, as did some newspapers, but it's frightening to think that if the media actually agreed on a subject they could prevent us from hearing about important news stories. (Maybe this is already happening?)
Come to think of it, I've had a hell of a time trying to find coverage of the latest international tennis results..... a few weeks ago, Jelena Dokic was on TV all day every day, but the moment she left the UK, coverage of her matches came to an abrupt halt, as if an iron tennis net had come down separating the UK from the rest of the world. It's as if tennis simply doesn't exist beyond Wimbledon. It's all so parochial.
-Shez.
On Fri, 23 Jul 1999 18:34:42 +0100, some letters randomly coalesced from individual pixels, claiming to be from Shez , and it said:
Gah! I had no idea it was that bad! Had something like that happened here in the US, there would first have been a flurry of letter writing, editorials, opinion columns, and maybe even TV spots decrying this practice! And then, no matter what happened after that, there would've been a severe turnover in the polls, unless the public simply forgot about it. That first one, the one about the Irish republican ban, is possibly the most despicable thing I've ever heard about secondhand.
Oh, you *know* the rest of the press would have been all over this story in the US...there would have been such an onslaught that the offending press would be discredited and would have to publically apologize and retributions would have to be paid out to the slighted group. US media *loves* this type of "expose" journalism and therefore would be on it like (there she goes again), as my dad likes to say, "stink on s***". Besides, this is the type of thing we normally associate with rightist dictatorships in some far-off land, not the land where we Americans drew the inspiration for our "democratic" government from (Magna Carta, biggest bit of inspiration). Then again, with the BBC being government-controlled (is that right? I know about the mandatory airing fees...is that because it's government?) who would've guessed anything less?
She who is definitely wise in Secret Oktober.
Tarvok wrote:
Diane Aguilar wrote in message news:[email]...
less?
This case was more about an individual's abuse of his position, allegedly, than about the structure. The BBC's editorial policy is, by Royal Charter, independent of government; but since the government in effect sets the BBC's licence fee, and the Crown appoints the BBC's governors, the govt have considerable influence (cfr control).
The licence fee is a means of funding the BBC that prevents them having to kowtow to advertisers. [1]
I admire the BBC, but I think there's a lot of room for improvement, and I'm dismayed over moves to "dumb down" BBC output to raise viewing figures and chase overseas sales of programmes.
Martin.
[1] More at http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/bbc/index.shtml
FWIW the word "bloody" was clearly visible on-screen on Sky Sports 3 during the afternoon yesterday. They were televising an Australian Rules football match from the MCG and the Richmond Tigers have the phrase "Drink, drive, bloody idiot" on the backs of their shirts. The same phrase was on hoardings around the ground.
I think I'm going to complain.
Yes, I believe that "bloody" is the same as the "f***" word in that corner of the world.
Prindora
"Pack your bags, we sail tonight" "I'm free, I'm free and freedom tastes of reality" -- Tommy Walker Al D+ T3 W- Q+ Fw^FR O- Od MV-- BB FCJ DT
Prindora wrote in message news:[email]...
of
Nothing like as strong, at least here in the UK, in my experience. NODE [1] labels "bloody" as "informal," whereas "f***" is labelled as "vulgar slang," the same label it uses for "cu**."
If you want a more nuanced idea of their relative offensiveness: if "cu**" has an offensiveness value in general use here of 1, then "f***" is 0.8, and "bloody" is 0.2.
c5's cuts are more comprehensible once you remember that c5 regard "Daria" as a children's programme. I suspect: 1. "It's a cartoon." 2. "Cartoons are for children." 3. "So Daria is a children's programme." 4. "So we'll show it in a children's timeslot." 5. "Oh look! That episode has 'bloody' in it!" 6. "That can't go out in a children's timeslot." 7. "So we'll edit it out." 8. "There, that's better. Fancy MTV letting that slip into a children's prgramme!" 9. "Is it a children's programme?" 10. GOTO 1
But since c5 is the only way about half of us in the UK see Daria [2], I'm not about to complain: better an edited Daria than none at all!
Martin.
[1] New Oxford Dictionary of English [2] see http://www.sylvesternet.freeserve.co.uk/members/daria/
On Wed, 21 Jul 1999 10:29:51 +0100, some letters randomly coalesced from individual pixels, claiming to be from "Martin Sylvester" , and it said:
Someone ought to try to convice them to try to find the proper slot to show some of the more raunchy Japanimation. Anyone ever seen "Ninja Scroll?" It would probably put their brains into meltdown. ;)
"Bbut... it's a cartoon... it can't posibly be for adults..."
In article , Tarvok wrote:
Ninja Scroll was edited for it's UK release. One reason Manga Video was called Mangle Video. They've gotten better since they started their US branch Manga Ent., since we won't put up with that ^_^ They also edited the attempted rape from Wings of Honnamese.
In article ,
I think the reasoning is something like:
1) Cartoons are for kids, so put them in early afternoon, or early morning slots. 2) If the cartoon is from Japan, then it's for perverts [1], so put it on just after midnight, or even at 2:00 am. 3) If it's from Eastern Europe then it's for... er... we don't know, so we won't show them.
It'll be a rare channel that will show Ralph Bakshi's "Coonskin" (aka "Streetfight"). Well, maybe one or two of the dodgier cable channels...
Still, it's not too bad, as it goes. One of the better things they've released, edited or not.
...
And has the film suffered for that? I say no. I recommend it to the group as well.
<spellcheck> It's "Wings of Honneamise" isn't it? </spellcheck>
[1] o U Yes, I DO know that not all Anim� is perverted tentacle porn.
U \ But then, I'm a hairy western barbarian, who watches dubbed
and edited Manga Video releases (but only the good ones).In article , Bear wrote:
Yes, it is Wings Of Honneamise. Also known as Royal Space Force.
Speaking of force, much as I dislike censorship, I think that cutting the rape scene from the movie would be a very, very good idea. There is no point to it, and it means that an eye-poppingly excellent movie which should be enjoyed by the entire family (imagine The Right Stuff set on a parallel-Earth where World War II never ended) got an R when it was briefly released to theatres back in the early 1990s. The attempted rape is only there so the Otaku can see Riquinni's breasts...it's pointless and doesn't add anything to the story.
I have always thought that a star-filled (to get the butts in the seats) dub of the movie would be a huge hit in the US. Get Tom Hanks to voice Shiro Lhadatt and perhaps Sandra Bullock to voice Riquinni and get a REALLY GOOD WRITER to write the dub script (hmmm...not sure whom though) and you'd have a blockbuster.
--.\\<-H--
In article , Michelle Klein-Hass wrote:
Spoilers...
No, there's a great point to that scene. You see, Shiro (I think that's the pilots name. I don't have the tape with me) is a flawed person. he's not a hero, role model, or really that good of a guy. He's decided to basicly give up and live with a religious woman who he admires for being everything he isn't. he's depressed. Then she comes home... with money hidden in her shoes. Shiro's illusions are shattered. She's just a woman. A young woman. A young attractive woman... and he tries to rape her. The UK version edits out the next scene. Shiro tries to appologise. She says no. It's her fault. She should have let him. Shiro's shocked. She's not a saint! She's as screwed up as he is. And... that means that maybe he's capable of being as good a person as he thought she was. He had to reach the depths of his evil before he realised it was possible for him to become a force of good.
The dub also changes a later line of dialog, where Shiro asks a friend what you should do when you realise you're not one of the good guys.
Tarvok said:
I have always been amazed at the common mindset that "cartoon" means "kiddie show". Animation, after all, is a medium, not a message. And the medium can be used to convey many different sorts of messsages.
This blind spot seems to be based on the popularity of children's cartoons starting in the 1960's or so, which typecast the genre in the West. Not, of course, in Japan, where adult anime has long been popular.
The sort of comedy-drama represented by Daria is an even harder sell because the niche opened in the American market by anime imports is for sf action adventure, not for a teenage comedy-drama, and an iconoclastic one at that.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man is a god in ruins" (Ralph Waldo Emerson)
On 21 Jul 1999 22:21:01 GMT, some letters randomly coalesced from individual pixels, claiming to be from [email] (Jordan S. Bassior), and it said:
Though, of late, there has been a remarkable increase in the acceptance of animation as a medium for "prime time" entertainment. It all began with "The Simpsons," but, since then, there's been practically a mad dash to see who can get the timeslot with an animated series. Now there's "King of the Hill," "Family Guy" (absolutly hilarious, IMO), "The PJ's," "Futurama," and probably more that I can't think of. The cartoon is breaking into US markets as a standard medium; a very good thing, IMO.
In article , "Bettster" wrote:
Was anything else cut? MTV brilliantly decided to show it earlier than normal; I switched on at 10:25 to cue the tape up, and found the program already in progress (and not just at the beginning either, a good few minutes through). Seeing as I had the C5 version, I just switched it back off. If that was the only line cut, then I can live with it.
"Bloody" is still a somewhat potent swear word in the UK, even though it's lost some it's power over the last few years. F**k has replaced it as the swear word of choice. Besides, it's just not done letting kids pick up swear words from TV; they sould learn them in the school yard like everybody else.
Bear wrote in message ...
They also cut Jake saying "Go you beautiful bastard" when he's watching tv.
Strangely the second showing of Daria on mtv (@ 1:30 am) started 10 minutes late, I had to endure the last bit of the blame game :(
Bettster
It's a pity they cut that - I'd guess "not bloody likely" was used deliberately by the erudite Daria scriptwriters - it's famous because it's Eliza Doolittle's outraged (and shocking) response in act III of Pygmalion:
PICKERING. Good-bye, Miss Doolittle. [They shake hands].
LIZA [nodding to the others] Good-bye, all.
FREDDY [opening the door for her] Are you walking across the Park, Miss Doolittle? If so-
LIZA. Walk! Not bloody likely. [Sensation]. I am going in a taxi. [She goes out].
Pickering gasps and sits down. Freddy goes out on the balcony to catch another glimpse of Eliza.
MRS. EYNSFORD HILL [suffering from shock] Well, I really cant get used to the new ways.
(http://www.columbia.edu/acis/bartleby/shaw/3.html )