----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2002 7:52
AM
Subject: [CTRL] General Responses
BF>I get the point. I really cannot understand why you would
find me more offensive than the Nazis and Stalinists who post on this
list.
>if we always questioned the "more offensive"
evils on the list and forgot the "less?" offensive evils then the less
offensive evils would go unquestioned... no? ;)
I really find that strange. As far as the stratues that
Ashcroft covered, I honestly have not seen them
>oh dear... no need to reply to that partiicular
statement as it says enough about how you form your opinions on it's
own.
and perhaps they are "art" and not pornography (like David, Renoir, etc.)
but I would say that, even if so, it is best not to broadcast them on prime
time in the context given.
>why is best not to broadcast them on primetime?
you haven't even seen them... how do oyu know?
It is subjective, but remember that we are not talking about
censorship
> covering up a seminude sculpture *because* it
is seminude *is* censorship- whether it suits your point of view to name it as
such or not.
but a decision that Ashcroft has made with his personal space. I
support it, as we are not talking about PBS art programs, where the context is
clear.
> let's face it.. the nakedness in the statue is
consistent with the styling of that particular statue. no one ever really bats
an eyelid at it... because it is so consistent and within constext the breast
is pretty much invisible.. or at least a non- issue unless some prurient mind
projects dirtiness onto it.
We are talking about a context where I think that female or male
nudity is not appropriate.
>why? it is a breast. that's all... it is
not doing anyone any harm... on the other hand if it was a statue of a
painting of say, "the rape of lucretia" then i would agree with you that it is
innapropriate. this is the point , batesy old boy, you cannot define art or
nudity within art in a black and white way. just cause it is Rodin or leonardo
or whoever that painted it- the subject matter may make the "art"
innapropriate for some places... but this statue is just a passive
representation of a beautiful woman and must be regarded and judged in a
complex way. not simply is it nude ot is it not nude... or has it credibility
as art because you approve of the artist...
Do you really believe that the Department of Justice is where you
want to appreciate the joy of the human body? Ylgghhh...
>uh... whatever you say...pah.
Outright pornography is exactly what I said it
was.
>no, it is your opinion of what pornography is.
no-one elses. it does not become truth or an objective opinion ust because you
think it.
I stand by what I said.
>no problem with you standing by your own
opinion..
Disagree all you want, but it is the truth.
>no, it is not "the truth" it is your
opinion.
If you do not believe that violent and vulgar exploitation of the
human body and denial of women's rights are evil then we have nothing to
really discuss.
> is the statue best described as vulgar and
violent? oh yeah- youhaven't sen it but you spout off quite readily about
it... sheesh... lord preserve us from the pious...
At least be offended by the Nazis and Stalinists who defend Milosevik
and Arafat more than by li'l ole me. Please!
> excuse me, norman, what about the nazis who
defend bush and sharon? why do you insist on your own world view as the
definitive one?
Bates
