Big Head Press Forum

Online Comics => Roswell, Texas => Topic started by: Akira MacKenzie on June 09, 2006, 05:37:23 pm

Title: Mmmmmm... Nudity.
Post by: Akira MacKenzie on June 09, 2006, 05:37:23 pm
I just finished reading the beginning of the current chapter. Great work! I always appreciate socially redeeming nudity. ;)
Title: Re: Mmmmmm... Nudity.
Post by: Jen Zach on June 09, 2006, 06:13:25 pm
Socially redeeming nudity? What's that mean? lol. Fun to color, that bit.
Title: Re: Mmmmmm... Nudity.
Post by: Akira MacKenzie on June 10, 2006, 07:49:27 pm
Socially redeeming nudity? What's that mean?

Oh, it's just my little statement against the moralistic scum who think that the portrayal of any of the more erotic portions of the human anatomy or a sex act between consenting adults itself is somehow a threat to civilization . I mean, what's better for society: Sex or priggish scolds?

lol. Fun to color, that bit.

I would imagine so. ;D
Title: Re: Mmmmmm... Nudity.
Post by: Jen Zach on June 10, 2006, 11:10:59 pm
Ahhhhhhhh...

... I usually just say, "Yay, Boobies! :D"
Title: Re: Mmmmmm... Nudity.
Post by: Akira MacKenzie on June 11, 2006, 12:19:13 pm
Ahhhhhhhh...

... I usually just say, "Yay, Boobies! :D"

Yes, but how many people in this supposedily enlightened day and age, from both the Left and the Right, would admonish you for wanting to look a comely woman's "dirty pillows."

The nippler ring was a very nice touch, BTW.
Title: Re: Mmmmmm... Nudity.
Post by: Scott on June 12, 2006, 02:35:24 am
Glad you like the nipple rings, Neil insisted that I include those.  ;D

Towards the end of our story there's going to be a fair bit more pulchritude. Stay tuned.

Title: Re: Mmmmmm... Nudity.
Post by: Akira MacKenzie on June 12, 2006, 04:25:51 pm
Glad you like the nipple rings, Neil insisted that I include those.  ;D

I knew I liked him for some reasons other than just political leanings.
Title: Re: Mmmmmm... Nudity.
Post by: Jen Zach on June 15, 2006, 07:43:06 pm
Ahhhhhhhh...

... I usually just say, "Yay, Boobies! :D"

Yes, but how many people in this supposedily enlightened day and age, from both the Left and the Right, would admonish you for wanting to look a comely woman's "dirty pillows."

The nippler ring was a very nice touch, BTW.

I don't usually run into that, all that much.

I take more issue with the fact that only women with "perfect" breasts and figures are encouraged to show them. I don't think there's anything "socially redeeming" or any kind of statement in that bedroom scene, because the women are practically centerfold models (I saw the reference pics for Rosa Amarilla- yeah she's a pin-up model) and they're playing out the steriotypical "two girls, one guy" bedroom scene. The "consensual" nature is *borderline* at best- Rosa clearly isn't happy about what she had to do, and the other girl was a "gift"...?? Ugh. Yeah they're pretty, and I do enjoy coloring/drawing the human body. But while I don't think something like this is detrimental so society, I hardly think it's any kind of "triumph" or anything to show it. Nothing groundbreaking or refreshing about it from my POV. It goes with the plot, it fits with the story, and clearly it's something the target audience get a kick out of... but "comely"..? Hardly! Those girls are proffesional-grade exhibitionists.

(PS: Despite my semi-feminist ranting, nothing in Roswell has offended me to the point of more than an eye roll and a shake of the head as far as that's concerned.)
Title: Re: Mmmmmm... Nudity.
Post by: Frank B. on June 16, 2006, 02:22:29 pm
What we are seeing in the scene is more complex than gratuitous images.  Don't get me wrong, I enjoy gratuitous exhibitions as much as the next sentient. The scene is designed to have us both captivated by the loveliness of the ladies, impressed by the obvious power/control of the emperor (how else could such an ugly sack of lard be so blessed?), and appalled by his depravity of keeping slaves and manipulating people through acts of coercion or threats of coercion.  Eye candy for the reader,  yes. There's always that.  But ultimately the scene tells us what kind of a man the Emperor is (one deserving of an additional .45 caliber orifice between the eyes).  Perhaps if we click our heels 3 times, Neil will comment on this.  ;)
Title: Re: Mmmmmm... Nudity.
Post by: Jen Zach on June 16, 2006, 05:58:38 pm
What we are seeing in the scene is more complex than gratuitous images.  Don't get me wrong, I enjoy gratuitous exhibitions as much as the next sentient. The scene is designed to have us both captivated by the loveliness of the ladies, impressed by the obvious power/control of the emperor (how else could such an ugly sack of lard be so blessed?), and appalled by his depravity of keeping slaves and manipulating people through acts of coercion or threats of coercion.  Eye candy for the reader,  yes. There's always that.  But ultimately the scene tells us what kind of a man the Emperor is (one deserving of an additional .45 caliber orifice between the eyes).  Perhaps if we click our heels 3 times, Neil will comment on this.  ;)

Yes exactly- it ultimately fits in well with the plot, and the image being portrayed is more complex- and yet, on the surface, it is two girls in bed with one guy, and "TITS!!!". The girsl were the most fun to color in that scene because the rest of the room was such a *beast* to color! I have to roll my eyes and laugh at the fact that the nudity has stolen the show, seemingly.
Title: Re: Mmmmmm... Nudity.
Post by: Frank B. on June 16, 2006, 11:07:38 pm
Yes exactly- it ultimately fits in well with the plot, and the image being portrayed is more complex- and yet, on the surface, it is two girls in bed with one guy, and "TITS!!!". The girsl were the most fun to color in that scene because the rest of the room was such a *beast* to color! I have to roll my eyes and laugh at the fact that the nudity has stolen the show, seemingly.

Well, the boys will wag their tongues (rightfully) at the bodaciousness before them.  As they mature, they will also notice the beautiful mayan head board.  You and Scott did a wonderful job there.  The color gives the low relief lucious depth.  Ah, to be young again. ;-)
Title: Re: Mmmmmm... Nudity.
Post by: Jen Zach on June 17, 2006, 04:28:49 pm
So much tweaking went into making the headboard look juust right. I can't wait to see it in print, because the jpg compression didn't do the satin sheets much justice.
Title: Re: Mmmmmm... Nudity.
Post by: freeagentc on June 21, 2006, 02:22:14 am
Yeh, the titties got my attention. But even more so is the apparent fact that "Teh Heh" is the universal sound of laughter for glamorously drawn nude figures. What I probably liked best though about that scene was the spy's name (Rose Amarilla de Texas? hehe) and her agent number 99 (That "99" reference brought me back to when I used to watch Nick at Nite re-runs as a kid)!
Title: Re: Mmmmmm... Nudity.
Post by: Roberta X on July 01, 2006, 11:17:12 am
Aesthetically, I think naked women look better than naked men.  We're more streamlined!  (And I -- mostly -- prefer men dating-wise, so don't think it's that sort of bias speaking).  Likewise, physically-fit and healthy people look better naked to me -- and to many people -- than those who are not.  So if the despotic ruler of Mexico's got bedmates and his tastes are anywhere near the cultural mean, we can count on 'em being young-looking, female and pin-up pretty.

     That doesn't mean those of us with less-than-perfect figures should be sneered at when we wear things rather more skimpy than the WCTU would approve; to claim so is to read far more into the work than is there.

     As for "socally-redeeming," why does it need to be?  To the dickens with society; someone else can try to redeem it.  The boys are tellin' us a story.  Boys being boys, it's got naked, pretty girls in it.  You would prefer, maybe, that they were into alligators or sweaty, hairy, obese truckers of either sex?  I'm very leery of "socially redeeming" as a scale of value; if that's your criteria, which of these literary classics do you rate higher, Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle," Pauline Reage's "Story of O," or John Rechy's "City of Night?"  --Even Sinclair's screed is art first, despite his intentions and the very unintended actual consequences; "Reage" was writing a wank-book for her lover, never intended for publication and it just happened both of them were A) kinky and B) extraordinarily gifted writers; Rechy was apparently driven to produce his first and probably best work by the events of his own life, despite the taboo subject matter.  All are shocking in various ways; none of them are looking for social redemption to justify that shock.

     Bobbi
Title: Re: Mmmmmm... Nudity.
Post by: Jake B. on July 01, 2006, 04:53:13 pm
Socially redeeming? Put whatever justification you want in it if it helps you sleep at night.
The point of it was just to show what kind of man he was: a sexist pig. Nothing much deeper than that.  :D
Title: Re: Mmmmmm... Nudity.
Post by: Jen Zach on July 01, 2006, 05:54:27 pm
 That doesn't mean those of us with less-than-perfect figures should be sneered at when we wear things rather more skimpy than the WCTU would approve; to claim so is to read far more into the work than is there.

Oh, I wasn't really talking about this scene in general, more a cumulative effect of how this Graphic Novel seems to fall into the same "All girls with nice racks" pattern as the media at large (I don't always complain. Who doesn't like seeing nice looking people? It's when it gets repetetive and of an objectifying nature that I get riled). Plus getting the scripts and constantly having to read the way these girls are described (and oh, getting a ton of pin-up photos of the model used for Rosa on the CD-rom of reference material.) ... haha. Plus every once in a while I just get so fed up with men in general I could spit.

Anyway, Jake hit it on the head. The guy in bed is a sexist pig, and the girls beside him are just the sort of toys he likes to play with...
Title: Re: Mmmmmm... Nudity.
Post by: Roberta X on July 02, 2006, 02:17:58 pm
Oh, I wasn't really talking about this scene in general, more a cumulative effect of how this Graphic Novel seems to fall into the same "All girls with nice racks" pattern as the media at large (I don't always complain. Who doesn't like seeing nice looking people? It's when it gets repetetive and of an objectifying nature that I get riled). Plus getting the scripts and constantly having to read the way these girls are described (and oh, getting a ton of pin-up photos of the model used for Rosa on the CD-rom of reference material.) ... haha.
     See, this is why I will never, ever tour a bacon-production facility; seeing an "egg farm" put me off both eggs and chicken for years and I enjoy my once-a-week bacon ration.  Likewise, after I did radio DJ work I could no longer listen to it the same way.  I'm guessin' the impressionsists occasionally got vexed with misty, emotional paintings, too, and saw only the brushstrokes and colors, the technical defects and cheats. 
     Being too close to the process often leaves us unable to appreciate the product.

     ...On the other hand, to a degree at least, all humans see each other as "objects" at times, and especially sexually.  I think understanding that, knowing that it's not the only (nor the most lasting or intimate) way we interact is part of attaining adulthood.  Sometimes it's flattering to be an Object of Desire (especially at my age!), if you know you're not locked into being only that.

Plus every once in a while I just get so fed up with men in general I could spit.
     BTDT.  The printing on my "He just up and left one morning for some little chippie after we were together twelve years, during most of which I paid all the rent and utilities, the miserable S.O.B." T-shirt is still fresh and away from home, I work in an otherwise all-male department.  Men are pigs, easily distracted by a baby wolf, something shiny or a spathic blouseful.  But that's how they are; it's not all of how they are, the poor dears, or we'd have to do all the work.

Anyway, Jake hit it on the head. The guy in bed is a sexist pig, and the girls beside him are just the sort of toys he likes to play with...
     Bing bing bing!  Hand that colorist a cigarrillo! (You want tobacco or bubblegum?)  --Yeah, and what's worse is, he plays with real living breathing thinking feeling people as toys and nothing but; that's the heart of his sliminess.  If they were all there 'cos they wanted to be there, that'd be different.

     Bobbi
Title: Re: Mmmmmm... Nudity.
Post by: Mike Mordant on July 08, 2006, 03:25:18 pm
Yeh, the titties got my attention. But even more so is the apparent fact that "Teh Heh" is the universal sound of laughter for glamorously drawn nude figures. What I probably liked best though about that scene was the spy's name (Rose Amarilla de Texas? hehe) and her agent number 99 (That "99" reference brought me back to when I used to watch Nick at Nite re-runs as a kid)!

Well Rosa certianly lives up to the second verse:

She's the sweetest rose of color
A fellow ever knew,
Her eyes are bright as diamonds,
They sparkle like the dew.
You may talk about your dearest May
and sing of Rosa Lee,
But the Yellow Rose of Texas
Beats the belles of Tennessee.

She certinaly lives up to the legend of Emily West.
Title: Re: Mmmmmm... Nudity.
Post by: LNeil on July 13, 2006, 07:22:54 pm
....I have heard the heels click, Frank, and here I am.
....What can I say on this topic that I haven't already said in print? I like lovely females very much and always try to put them into as much of my writing as I can. Seeing them translated into a visual medium by two individuals as talented as Scott and Jen is a real kick, believe me.
....I also have a seemingly unavoidable tendency to "fall in love" with certain of my female characters whenever I write a book, and I can't always tell who it will be. Sometimes it's determined by the photos I choose to represent those characters as I write (I may post some of them somewhere some time). For example, I was terribly fond of Loreanna Daimler-Wilkinson (based on Sarah Miles as she appeared in _Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines_) in _Henry Martyn_ and actually agreed to write _Bretta Martyn_ because it meant that I'd get to write Loreanna again. Oddly, no one has ever commented on the BDSM scene she's involved in toward the end of the book.
....In _Ceres_, I came to adore Jasmeen Khalidov, Julie Segovia Ngu (who will be the viewpoint character of _Ares_) and, surprisingly, Llyra Ngu's mother, Ardith Ngu, who is based on Natalie Wood. Naturally, this means nothing if you haven't read the book. I'm striving to make that possible right now.
....My motives in writing the _Roswell, Texas_ scene in question involved showing President DeGaulle to be a prig quite as much as the Emperor Profirio to be a pig. Lyndon Baines Johnson (speaking of the guy in the black Packard) used to give interviews while he was seated on the throne -- the one in the bathroom. I wanted to do something like that if I could, but make it more ... visually interesting.
....But make no mistake: I do not intend to be "socially redeeming" in any way. Beautiful girls, nudity, gratuitous sex, and yes, glittering nipple jewelry, are all their own justification for existence. And if human beings were all politically correct and ceased to view each other as sex objects, we'd go extinct.
....And deserve to be.
Title: Re: Mmmmmm... Nudity.
Post by: Frank B. on July 13, 2006, 11:31:20 pm
....I have heard the heels click, Frank, and here I am.

Thank ye bra'r Neil.  I couldn'ta done it without my trusty low milage Nocona Italian Kangaroo boots.
Title: Re: Mmmmmm... Nudity.
Post by: cowardly lion on August 18, 2006, 01:33:03 pm
Hi, everyone, *really* a newbie here.  I've been following "Roswell" just about since it started up, but this is the first time I've hit the forums.  Being a straight guy, I naturally went 'straight' to the nudity thread . . .   :-)

I've enjoyed the artwork, just sent Scott a fanmail about a non-nude scene.

But I've not read here what *my* first thought was on seeing the scene in question.  Sure, sliminess and all that, but what went through my head was the guy's innate ignorance/stupidity in treating the women as brainless objects - not that he's a slimeball, but that he's pure-D stupid to make that kind of mistake.

Oh, well, my take on that.

cl
Title: Re: Mmmmmm... Nudity.
Post by: Akira MacKenzie on August 18, 2006, 05:37:16 pm
....But make no mistake: I do not intend to be "socially redeeming" in any way. Beautiful girls, nudity, gratuitous sex, and yes, glittering nipple jewelry, are all their own justification for existence. And if human beings were all politically correct and ceased to view each other as sex objects, we'd go extinct.
....And deserve to be.

Well said, Mr. Smith! Well said!

My usage of the term "socially redeeming nudity" originates from my circle of geeky, all-male (naturally), friends. Whenever we talk about new films, we always end up asking if they feature "socially redeeming nudity." I'm not sure how the phrase got started, but it sort of stuck with us and has delightfully bent the nose of many a listening prude out of shape.

There is just something satisfying about making prigs (especially the religious variety) angry.
Title: Re: Mmmmmm... Nudity.
Post by: Frank B. on August 19, 2006, 11:05:17 am
But I've not read here what *my* first thought was on seeing the scene in question.  Sure, sliminess and all that, but what went through my head was the guy's innate ignorance/stupidity in treating the women as brainless objects - not that he's a slimeball, but that he's pure-D stupid to make that kind of mistake.

Certainly he suffers from a fair deal chauvinism, but I think you have to give credit to Rosa to successfully fool the emperor into
believing that's she's a harmless no-brainer.
Title: Re: Mmmmmm... Nudity.
Post by: jselvy on October 12, 2006, 10:47:49 am
Sorry to be pendantic,

Who decides what is "Redeeming" to society?

Who decides what 'Society' is?

Am I to be forever trapped by Judeo-Cristian values that are of no value to me?


Thanks,
Jefferson
Title: Re: Mmmmmm... Nudity.
Post by: Frank B. on October 12, 2006, 04:52:53 pm
Sorry to be pendantic,

Who decides what is "Redeeming" to society?

Who decides what 'Society' is?

Am I to be forever trapped by Judeo-Cristian values that are of no value to me?


Thanks,
Jefferson

Answering in order... The people in charge. The people who took charge. Only if you let it. ;-)

Title: Re: Mmmmmm... Nudity.
Post by: jselvy on October 14, 2006, 05:58:51 am
are we willing to do the deed that is required to take control of our lives back?

I often wonder how many of the soi-disant supporters of "Liberty" are willing to grasp the nettle and put their "lives, fortunes and Sacred Honor" on the line?
Title: Re: Mmmmmm... Nudity.
Post by: Frank B. on October 14, 2006, 10:51:19 am
are we willing to do the deed that is required to take control of our lives back?

I often wonder how many of the soi-disant supporters of "Liberty" are willing to grasp the nettle and put their "lives, fortunes and Sacred Honor" on the line?

I'm already doing it baby.  Liberty starts with yourself.  Spread the word.
Title: Re: Mmmmmm... Nudity.
Post by: wdg3rd on October 16, 2006, 02:58:58 pm
I'm already doing it baby.  Liberty starts with yourself.  Spread the word.
And if you want some folks to watch your back, there's always the Free State Project, www.freestateproject.org

The Free State Wyoming project as well, which so far doesn't seem to have nearly the numbers, though Ken Royce won't tell anybody the actual numbers.
Title: Re: Mmmmmm... Nudity.
Post by: Frank B. on October 17, 2006, 11:08:00 am
I'm already doing it baby.  Liberty starts with yourself.  Spread the word.
And if you want some folks to watch your back, there's always the Free State Project, www.freestateproject.org

Good luck with that.  I'm currently invovled in the Free Frank Project (FFP).  Far less politics as you might imagine.
Title: Re: Mmmmmm... Nudity.
Post by: Mixed-blood on November 11, 2006, 12:51:05 pm
Yeh, the titties got my attention. But even more so is the apparent fact that "Teh Heh" is the universal sound of laughter for glamorously drawn nude figures. What I probably liked best though about that scene was the spy's name (Rose Amarilla de Texas? hehe) and her agent number 99 (That "99" reference brought me back to when I used to watch Nick at Nite re-runs as a kid)!
Gagghh.  And where does that put those of us that watched Max and 99 when they were first-run???? :'(
Title: Re: Mmmmmm... Nudity.
Post by: Frank B. on November 11, 2006, 10:52:20 pm
Gagghh.  And where does that put those of us that watched Max and 99 when they were first-run???? :'(

In wheel chairs with oxygen bottles?  ;)   And before anyone's knee starts jerking, my statement qualifies as self deprecating.  ::)
Title: Re: Mmmmmm... Nudity.
Post by: Scott on November 19, 2006, 11:43:09 pm
Quote
Gagghh.  And where does that put those of us that watched Max and 99 when they were first-run?Huh Cry

Sorry about that, Chief.

Title: Re: Mmmmmm... Nudity.
Post by: Zeppflyer on December 05, 2006, 07:11:57 pm

Oh, it's just my little statement against the moralistic scum who think that the portrayal of any of the more erotic portions of the human anatomy or a sex act between consenting adults itself is somehow a threat to civilization . I mean, what's better for society: Sex or priggish scolds?


Beg pardon for any technical or attribution errors.  First time posting and all that. 

Speaking as someone who does believe in a God who calls us to avoid displays of sexuality outside the bounds of marriage, I would like to inform Akira that not every believing and practicing Christian, Jew, or Muslm in the world is a hypocritical bigot determined to quash free thinking anywhere that it rears its ugly head.  (I suppose I'm assuming a bit there, but given your above statement, I doubt that I'm misconstruing your views too badly.)

Please know that I find many of my more puritanical friends who believe all atheists and agnostics to be depraved idiots listing their way through life without meaning or purpose to be equally infuriating. 

Polemics and foolish insults will not help your argument any more than the admonishments of the 700 Club have helped ours.

Sean O'Brien
President, Grove City College Libertarians
Title: Re: Mmmmmm... Nudity.
Post by: Scott on December 06, 2006, 04:38:07 pm
Zepp, since Christians were not mentioned in the quote you're responding to, I wonder what is making you feel defensive. Anyone can be a "moralistic scum." Marxists, especially the Maoist variety, are famous for it.

Title: Re: Mmmmmm... Nudity.
Post by: Zen Redneck on December 06, 2006, 04:52:39 pm
I'm not a Xian myself, but I'd bet money that Akira wasn't referring Pol Pot:)
Title: Re: Mmmmmm... Nudity.
Post by: Zeppflyer on December 06, 2006, 08:52:11 pm
Thank you Scott.  While I think you are right, Mr. Redneck's point is certainly quite within the realm of possibility.  I was hasty in assuming that the generalization was limited to only members of the Big Three monotheisms (Note that I did not limit it to Christianity.) and did not include many others whose moral code includes abstinence from  (Buggrit, there's just no word that can go here with no negative connotations.) explicit images.   I certainly became defensive far to quickly.   

I would certainly agree with Akira's condemnation as it applies to famous tyrants such as Pol Pot.  Hitler, while an incredible prude in his public policy, (and aside from the obvious problems with a  moral code that involved mass murder) did not live up to his own meager expectations in his personal life.  I simply wish to say that these men are the exception to the rule and that it is foolish to lump the majority of humanity in with them with an insulting and poorly thought out diatribe.

The vast majority of theists of any stripe have no desire to force their views on others as it is A) morally wrong, and B) ineffective; and we would prefer not to be categorized with those who would.
Title: Re: Mmmmmm... Nudity.
Post by: jrl on June 17, 2007, 08:09:20 pm
Sorry to respond to such a cold thread, but Zepflyer wrote:

“The vast majority of theists of any stripe have no desire to force their views on others as it is A) morally wrong, and B) ineffective; and we would prefer not to be categorized with those who would.”

Perhaps this is true today, but historically, political “leaders” have been inclined to force those they rule to follow their religious preferences. Look at the “Hundred Years War:” The whole point of the exercise was to force Central Europe to be Catholic or Protestant, depending on who won.

Likewise, in the recent past the Taliban used it's power to enforce conformity to a singularly narrow interpretation of Islam. Indeed the Saudi royal family to this day dares not step far from the line dictated by Wahhabi leaders.

“Freedom of Religion” was a pretty radical concept in the eighteenth century when it was incorporated into the U.S. Constitution, and it is far from universal even today.
Title: Re: Mmmmmm... Nudity.
Post by: Leviathan on June 18, 2007, 03:51:35 am
And to feed the undead thread the flesh of an additional post, heh...

Even in the US, many of the laws we have on the books have no good justification outside of religious morality.  For instance, in Florida it's illegal to so much as kiss your wife's breast.  Much less engage in any number of other consensual activities.  The FCC content restrictions are based seemingly on the values of the more religious.  After all, not taking the lord's name in vain is what lead to things like "goddammit!" being considered profane.  Half of profanity are simply things that offend the sensibilities of the devoutly religious.

Speaking of the crazy fundamentalists, I ran into somebody on freenode's ron paul channel that thought sex was dirty and immoral even behind closed doors between married people.  Once government starts acting on these peoples' insanity, it never stops.  This person's (extremely partial) redemption was that he or she acknowledged that his or her views should remain outside of the legal system.  That didn't stop the person from preaching to half the channel for a bit about how evil and dirty sex was.
Title: Re: Mmmmmm... Nudity.
Post by: Rocketman on June 18, 2007, 09:01:40 am
"I ran into somebody on freenode's ron paul channel that thought sex was dirty and immoral even behind closed doors between married people."  A number of years ago I heard a variation of the same statement only it was the ultra radical feminists who were saying it.  They were claiming that ALL sex was automatically rape even between a legally married couple that consented to it with each other.  One good thing, if all those nuts do the same as they expect other people to do it won't be long before they're extinct.   ;D
Title: Re: Mmmmmm... Nudity.
Post by: Zen Redneck on June 18, 2007, 11:17:24 pm
Radical feminists exist to make all us others, no matter how daffy our ideologies might be, seem a little saner by conrast.
Title: Re: Mmmmmm... Nudity.
Post by: Rocketman on June 18, 2007, 11:28:13 pm
Zen:

With the exception of the ultra radical vegetarian environmentalists who have been heard saying that mankind is a cancer on this planet and hopes for a great plague to wipe us all out, I totally agree.
Title: Re: Mmmmmm... Nudity.
Post by: Zen Redneck on June 19, 2007, 08:34:54 am
You're right — they do keep pushing the envelope, don't they?
Title: Re: Mmmmmm... Nudity.
Post by: Rocketman on June 19, 2007, 10:17:05 am
I think that they're a little past the envelope.  More like they're on the neither side of pluto.   ;D
Title: Re: Mmmmmm... Nudity.
Post by: jrl on June 24, 2007, 11:00:26 pm
Rocketman wrote:

" if all those nuts do the same as they expect other people to do it won't be long before they're extinct. "
 
"The most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity." I believe Robert A. Heinlein said that.

There will never be a shortage of stupid people advocatinf foolishness. . . As P.T. Barnum is alleged to have said " There's a sucker born every miniute."

"You could argue that the welfare system is a selective breeding program where the selection criterion is stupidity." - Anonymous.
Title: Re: Mmmmmm... Nudity.
Post by: Rocketman on June 25, 2007, 02:49:45 am
JRL:
     I can't disagree with anything that is in your prior post.  You got me on the extinct remark.  I've said in a previous post somewhere that people in this country are getting stupider and should have realized that the two remarks contradicted each other.  ;D
Title: Re: Mmmmmm... Nudity.
Post by: jrl on June 27, 2007, 10:51:20 am
Rocketman - You know, if you don't contradict yourself once in a while over time, you probably aren't thinking any new thoughts, a fate largely indistinguishable from death.

One of the things other people are for is to make you think about what you said.

You know, some of the things I said and more of what I thought 35 years ago when I was in love with authority raise my blood pressure just thinking about 'em.

An ex-communist who eventually became an officer of a monarchist group, started me on the journey towards anarcho-capitalism. He put me on to a book by an Austrian monarchist, Eric von Kuehnelt-Leddihn (SP?) entitled _Leftism_ which so far as I can tell, was the first to re-organize political movements & theories by ranking them with respect to individual freedom, putting anarchists on the far left and communists and fascists together on the far right. Needless to say, while he was a monarchist, he was also a minarchist.
Title: Re: Mmmmmm... Nudity.
Post by: Rocketman on June 28, 2007, 08:23:54 pm
JRL:
Instead of a straight line graph I prefer using a slight variation of the two dimensional one the Libertarian Party
uses.  As far as your first comment goes, it reminds me of a saying that my grandfather said to me many times when I was growing up.  "The only people who never make mistakes are the people who never do anything."
 ;D
Title: Re: Mmmmmm... Nudity.
Post by: Zeppflyer on June 28, 2007, 08:50:17 pm
Sorry to respond to such a cold thread, but Zepflyer wrote:

“The vast majority of theists of any stripe have no desire to force their views on others as it is A) morally wrong, and B) ineffective; and we would prefer not to be categorized with those who would.”

Perhaps this is true today, but historically, political “leaders” have been inclined to force those they rule to follow their religious preferences. Look at the “Hundred Years War:” The whole point of the exercise was to force Central Europe to be Catholic or Protestant, depending on who won.

Likewise, in the recent past the Taliban used it's power to enforce conformity to a singularly narrow interpretation of Islam. Indeed the Saudi royal family to this day dares not step far from the line dictated by Wahhabi leaders.

“Freedom of Religion” was a pretty radical concept in the eighteenth century when it was incorporated into the U.S. Constitution, and it is far from universal even today.

Wow!  I haven't been here in ages and I find this Frankenstein's Monster of a thread.

Granted.  I think, though, that you mean the 30 Years War.  While it was ostensibly Protestant vs. Catholic, the real cause in the background was to see whether the continent would be dominated by the Hapsburgs of Spain and Austria or the French under Cardinal Richelieu, who used Lutheran Sweden and it's North German (Protestant) allies as a cat's paw.  Most of the war was fought by mercenaries who switched their denomination to whoever was paying better that week.

That said, it is true that there have been many theocratic dictatorships throughout history.  However, there have also been some pretty brutal atheistic ones (USSR, China, etc.)  It just goes to show that those who want power will latch onto whatever they can use to get and hold it.  Religion, here, has been corrupted and is now merely a tool of dictators.

As to the laws remaining in this country.  Us Christian libertarians are fighting a bit of an uphill battle here, but rest assured that there are those of us who realize that while it may have been OK for the Puritans to set rules for themselves in their little colony, we do not have the right to force them on everyone else.  Speaking to that Florida law, do you really think that one gets enforced too often?
Title: Re: Mmmmmm... Nudity.
Post by: Roberta X on June 29, 2007, 07:22:24 am
Wouldn't even once be "too often" for said Florida how-you-may-do-it law?  (I'm pretty sure all of Key West has express tickets to jail.  Guess that explains that whole "Conch Republic" schtick!)
Title: Re: Mmmmmm... Nudity.
Post by: Zeppflyer on June 29, 2007, 08:04:33 am
Wouldn't even once be "too often" for said Florida how-you-may-do-it law?  (I'm pretty sure all of Key West has express tickets to jail.  Guess that explains that whole "Conch Republic" schtick!)

Granted.  Once is once to many for any unjust law.  (Whether there can be a just law requires a thread of its own.)  At a guess, it probably hasn't been enforced at least since the invention of Viagra.  Can you imagine the hoards of frustrated seniors storming government buildings with their walkers and scooters?
Title: Re: Mmmmmm... Nudity.
Post by: Rocketman on June 29, 2007, 09:19:49 pm
Just wait until the market tanks and the seniors find out their pensions are barely enough to put cat food on the table, let alone pay the rent and taxes.  :(
Title: Re: Mmmmmm... Nudity.
Post by: jrl on June 29, 2007, 10:13:00 pm
Oops. That was the thirty-years war. I suppose it would be more accurate to say that the point of the exercise was to determine who would have the power to decide the fate of the reformation in central Europe.

It seems that many of the monarchs of the day considered keeping their subjects from going to hell as part of their responsibility, and were therefore morally required to intervene in various ways to get their subjects to make the correct choices. (In the king/prince/archduke/whatever's opinion.)

Within a generation of the baptism of Constantine, the Roman empire was largely Christian, with the administrative structure of the church absorbed into the Roman state. Only a few generations later a Christian mob felt entitled to murder the last of the notable pagan philosophers, Hypatia of Alexandria. (Unfortunately her works have been lost so we only have hearsay evidence to their quality.)

To the founding fathers of the US, democracy was the rule of the mob. While the US Constitution was written well before the French revolution, they envisioned democracy as being very like the reign of terror which subsequently happened, and therefore erected elaborate precautions to prevent the government from becoming "the tyrany of the people," precautions which held up pretty well for decades.

"Democracy is snake oil. Freedom is the real deal."
Title: Re: Mmmmmm... Nudity.
Post by: Zeppflyer on July 06, 2007, 09:15:41 pm
"Democracy is snake oil. Freedom is the real deal."

Great quote.  You, or someone else?  I'd like to look them up.  It bugs me to no end when people praise our 'democracy'.

Religion, like democracy, communism, environmentalism, or any other cause in which people believe strongly can, has, and still is used by governments and mob leaders to whip people into a frenzy and do terrible things.

But, fortunately for those of us who must side with militant Muslims on the existence of God, this is ultimately irrelevant to the ultimate control of the universe.

Title: Re: Mmmmmm... Nudity.
Post by: wdg3rd on July 07, 2007, 11:24:16 am
Any god is welcome to try to control the universe as long as it keeps its filthy appendages away from me and mine.
Title: Re: Mmmmmm... Nudity.
Post by: Rocketman on July 07, 2007, 12:14:36 pm
I remember reading somewhere that prior to around the first decade of the 20th century that United States military manuals scorned in the strongest sense of the term "Democracy" for the very reasons that you outlined.  They knew that this country would then only last as long as the average citizen figured out that they could elect corrrupt self serving politicians that would then tax the general population in order to give loot to the prilvieged few.  Read a speech sometime that Tennessee Congressman Davy Crockett gave before the the United States congress concerning given a pension to a bunch of widows and orphans.  Except for Ron Paul no one nowadays even approaches his patriotism.  :'(
Title: Re: Mmmmmm... Nudity.
Post by: jrl on July 08, 2007, 12:07:52 am
Zeppflyer, I'm not sure if "Democracy is snake oil. Freedom is the real deal." is original to me, or if I swiped it from someone else or modified from someone else's statement.

I've been using it for a few years.

It feels like something Heinlein could have said, but I can't find it on my list of quotes.

A Google search on "democracy is snake oil" returns no results, but a search on +democracy +"snake oil" returns 174,000 results.

If it is original to me, I hereby donate the line, "Democracy is snake oil. Freedom is the real deal." to the public domain. Feel free to use it in anyway that might do some good.
Title: Re: Mmmmmm... Nudity.
Post by: Rocketman on July 08, 2007, 12:49:59 am
If anyone is interested you can read all about Congressman Crockett's speech at http://www.trimonline.org/congress/articles/crockett.htm
When I read it it just reminds me how far Amerika has sunk.   :'(