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.  ::)

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.


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

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.


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:)

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Zen Redneck on June 19, 2007, 08:34:54 am
You're right — they do keep pushing the envelope, don't they?

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

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.

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

 

anything