----- Original Message ----- From: "Sulis'tp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <e90ftui@..........................> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2002 9:07 PM Subject: [e90ftui] On Pornography & Morality
> From: "wilsonindra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Sun May 26, 2002 10:11 pm > Subject: Informasi Tempat Beli VCD Iklan Sabun Di Jakarta > > Tempat beli VCD iklan sabun di Jakarta ada di daerah Pinangsia, > tepatnya di belakang Orion Plaza. Di situ ada tempat penampungan toko- > toko yang menjual VCD. Loe ke sana dech, entar pasti ditawarin sama > orang-orang di situ. Judul VCDnya "9 Artis",harganya Rp. 10.000 per > keping. Ati-ati banyak yang palsu, kalo loe nawarnya goceng entar > dikasih yang palsu. Semoga informasi ini berguna bagi yang masih > penasaran. > > Salam damai dan sejahtera > Wilson > > --------- > > From: "c hamilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Tue May 7, 2002 10:41 am > Subject: Fw: Nudism & morality > > > Another interesting discussion from a different nudist group. Comments > welcome. > C Hamilton > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Larrikin70 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Nudity] Re: Morality > > > Hi John, > > John Rogers wrote: > > > I think that "morality" and "ethics" can be justified on pragmatic > > grounds. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is an > > excellent principle. We should all encourage each other as much as > > possible to avoid doing harm to anyone. This is just plain good sense -- > > minimize the possibility of having harm done to onself and one's family. > > > > I agree -- and I think a lot of people would. > > > > Of course the trouble with some religionists is they may > interpret the > idea of harm differently. They may see, for > instance, anyone who doesn't > believe as they do as being > harmful to themselves or their families. While > burning at > the stake has gone out of fashion, there are still those > who > would persecute or shun members of the community who > by all reasonable > measures are harming no one -- or only > themselves at the very worst (I'm > thinking of those who > > use illegal, recreational drugs like cannibis). So even > > the "Do unto others..." rule remains somewhat > > problematic. > > To some extent, I agree with you here, John. Burning at the stake still > exists in today's society, except in less cumbersome ways. > These days people are shot by religious fanatics, beaten up by gangs or > organised crime agents, ridiculed to a socio/political death or sent to > Coventry for having ideas that do not conform to "mainstream" sexual > decorum, especially where nudism/public nudity is concerned. > > I can argue that people who harm themselves with illegal, recreational drugs > are also harming other people. They steal, break into innocent people's > cars, beat up or shoot people to get money for their fix, and also screw up > not just their physical, but mental, emotional and spiritual health. > > The difficulty with the morality issue behind this is the fact that the sale > of illegal drugs is controlled by organised crime. > > If we were to legalise them all across the board so that one can buy an > ounce of crack in the pharmacy, or cannabis in the coffee shops like in > Amsterdam, the organised crime cartels will be one step ahead in finding > other things to trade. Which is why we will probably never see illicit > drugs legalised the world over in our time. Organised crime means that they > are resourceful in being able to profit from alternative ventures. > > But we're talking about n-ism and attitudes to Nudity here. > > If nudity was allowed in public and not subject to censorship - sex-related > nudity being another matter - it would aggravate the religionists (who are a > powerful and more influential minority than we are) even more. > > Nudism and being naked in public is not dangerous, but it is kept segregated > in order to avoid undue trouble from these people whose religious cultures > condone death to people who do not abide by their code of practise. > > I can only think of one religious order that punishes public nudity across > the board and ostracism for any member who gets into nudism. > > > We should have reasonable rules and agreements in society -- reasonable > > "laws" -- that codify the meaning of "harm", and what the consequences of > breaking the rules should be. > > "Harm" means different things. Let's look at some of the Animal > Liberationists, for example. > They claim to have compassion for animals, yet they believe that it is OK > for them to inflict harm or death to a human being who tolerates or causes > harm to animals in whatever shape or form. Can these people be seen as > reasonable? > > In some cultures, the regular beating of children is considered OK - even in > civilised nations where we have organisations to prevent cruelty and > violence towards children. > Yet in some undeveloped tribes, corporal punishment is unthinkable. > > What laws should be introduced for human beings that inflict 'harm' on their > species or the animal species? > > Human beings are not rabbits, mice, cows, or sheep. They have the capacity > to harm others, and also capacity for reason and intellect. > It is the last two that give us the power to create religion and political > dogma, and also the reason why most human beings do not go naked. > In fact, some anti-Nudity protesters in favour of closing down a nude beach > had placards saying "Nudity is for animals, not humans." > > > But for the laws to be reasonable those who legislate (or > vote for the > legislators) would have to be reasonable -- > and there's our problem. > > Well, democracy means the reasonable and unreasonable have equal rights. > But I don't know any legislator who is 100% reasonable, least of all any > voter who is. > > > However, ultimately, I don't think the universe gives a > > damn what happens to us, whether we totally butcher each > other, > whatever. One well-targeted asteroid could wipe us > out, and the universe > would feel no loss. So in this > > sense, there is no "ultimate" basis for the above notion > of morality, > because our feelings count for nothing, and > the universe has no feelings. > > There are universal laws (or what we know as the laws of nature). What > makes them better than our legal system is that the universe cannot be > lobbied, voted for, or bribed to amend them. > > > In the end if anyone (or anything) is to care, it has to > be us. We can't > leave that up to some vague, undefined > > "entity". No, there is no ultimate basis, but there is a > consensual one. > That's also a problem though, since we > > have to reach a consensus with individuals who fail to > > accept the premise that our lives are ultimately our own > responsibility. > If they want to believe there's some > > great Nododaddy out there, that's there business. > > If there is anyone who has come close to defining God, it is writer Neal > Donald-Walsch (famous for the trilogy "Conversations With God"). He goes to > say that God personally does not care about what decisions we make, and that > Hitler went to heaven. We have freedom of choice. > > > Unfortunately they want to use that projection to justify > their own > irrational impulses -- and to impose those > > justifications on the rest of us. > > The beauty of the n-ists and nude recreationists, is that they do not impose > their justifications on the rest of society (although I will exempt Andrew > Martinez, Vincent Bethell and a small number of cyber-cranks from this > comment). > > Even though Bethell has now started to sign reality checks, Martinez was > thought by most to be such a public nuisance that the town of Berkeley had > brought in anti-nudity ordinances when it didn't have them before. > > > This viewpoint is at a disadvantage vis a vis religion, > > since religionists can proclaim that life isn't > > ultimately absurd and meaningless. And the vast majority > of people WANT > to believe that religion is right about > > this. I think that what people want is wishful thinking > > and self-delusion, but there it is anyhow. > > Apart from the fear of death and hell, I think that people want to believe > that this is right. If life was truly absurd and meaningless we would all > now be dancing around naked in the fields and forests like a bunch of > monkeys. Even animals have their own set customs and ways that very few > human beings understand (apart from those eccentric Attenborough brothers). > > > And of course they want to use their "revealed wisdom" -- > the ideas they > imagine are a product of some great big > > policeman (or judge or whatever) in the sky -- to boss > > around others. > > If that is so, we should rationalise: "OK, if God says nudity and nudism is > bad, then let *HIM* deal with me. No police, no preachers, no politicians. > Let's see if God will strike me down, curse my family and my neighbourhood > with a fireball or lightning if it is against his rules!" Are God and man > the same thing? No. > > We can have a relationship with God, and even if nudists who are Christians > understand this, then I don't know why their own siblings in Christ cannot. > > Objectively, God does not care a jot if we go naked or we don't. God hasn't > brought floods or earthquakes on nudist venue grounds. He did not strike > Robbert Broekstra down with a terrible plague. Neither did he strike dumb > Nikki Craft for bringing the movement to its knees regarding her findings. > > To me, God is more interested in making sure that the Earth gets 24 hours a > day, the ocean and rivers don't dry up overnight, the sun doesn't break its > contract and go supernova tomorrow instead of a billion years into the > future, and that nothing stays the same forever. > > > The truth, though, it that even if one accepts religion, > it doesn't > really solve the morality problem, because > > there is so much disagreement within religion itself > > about what is "harmful" and what is right or wrong. > > Just about every legit religion teaches that drug, alcohol and sexual abuse > is wrong. They teach that immodest behaviour from the 'fairer sex' is > wrong. They teach that for children to disgrace their parents, and to use > their God's name for evil deeds is wrong. > > These are valid teachings, and God did not set clauses for nudism/naturism. > Neither are there clauses for the teachings of Charles Darwin and Albert > Einstein. Why should I give a flying f..k as to why E=MC2 or whether man > was descended from the monkey or was created the way we are now? Our > ancestors didn't seem to worry about those things. > > > That's apparent from the number of sects and schisms that > exist. > > Humanism itself is a schism of religion. As indeed nudism/naturism is also > a schism of social ideology, and a small one compared with the likes of > racism and sexism for example. > > This century gone has seen more cults and political/social/religious > ideologies rise and fall. > > The only difference between nudism and other ideologies is that it is not a > product or pre-requisite of them, and hence it cannot be viewed as a > simplified issue by them. > > What I have found though is that being amongst nude people, there aren't too > many lines and borders to cut through in order to be able to relate to them > or get on with them. > It doesn't mean to say that everyone in n-ism is your friend or will treat > you with more respect than a ridiculing relative or neighbour will. > > Communism, Capitalism, Socialism, Environmenatalism, Feminism, Nazism, > Satanism, the Rajneesh Foundation, Davidians -- all of these have caused > much dissention and despondency never seen before in human history. Out of > them, Capitalism is the only system that is not supported by a minority. > > The fact that electronic multimedia can transmit these conflicting and > blurring ideologies to young minds and profit from it shows the increase in > our youth wanting to study information technology. > > Eventually though, isn't someone going to say "Enough's enough!! We don't > need any more of this crap to live well!" He or she would go nuts, rip off > his clothes, smash the computer to smithereens and torch the library. > That's exactly what our 'drop outs' did and are doing. > > Like the Ages, the Information Age will eventually come to an end. What > will replace it? > > I remember an Arab businessman saying "My father rode a camel. I drive a > Rolls Royce. My son will have a BMW. My grandson will have a supersonic > jet. My great-grandson will be riding a camel." > > > So it doesn't matter at all whether there is or is not > > some ultimate source of morality and ethics. Even if > > there were, people still would not be able to agree on > > it. > > Ethics are nothing but social graces to make other people feel they can > trust us and being honest with ourselves. It has always been so much harder > to be honest with ourselves and other people when in positions of power or > influence than it is to be dishonest or cunning. > > > I think, in the end, we're forced to agree on *something* > -- if not we > could have no basis for law or justice. > > Ultimate authority is an illusion (or delusion if you > > will): it's a product of the religionists desire to have > power -- and > insistance on imposing his ideas on others > > to gain a sense of superiority or security. > > We *do* need laws, and justice means that you get what you deserve - whether > it is reward or punishment. > > Ultimate objective authority is an illusion, but there is obviously some > unseen law or authority at work if we were to live in a society where > everyone did what they pleased, even if it meant they were to hurt and harm > other people 'because there is no God we can do what the hell we like'. > > > Whatever the psychology, we have to reach a point where > > we can defang the arguments which are used against us and > against > freedom in general. I use the term "morality" in > a relative way while the > religionist believes there is > > some kind of absolute form of it. > > The religionist (or what my friend Peter Riden might call Religious > Recreationist) is someone who feels that the hole in his life can be filled > for him to feel somewhat more powerful than others, and can tell whether the > bottle is half-full or half-empty better than others. > > Compared to other religions like Wicca, Hinduism, Buddhism, Paganism - just > what *is* it about Christianity, Islam and Judaism and their literature that > has produced more societal control freaks than any other recognised > religious system or makes them any better than the others? > > Apart from Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah saying that they are the only way and that > Moses/Jesus/Mohammed are the only true prophets (even though Jesus is > revered by all three systems), they don't turn us into the likes of Clark > Kent, Doctor Who, or some other alien being with higher strength and > intellect. > > > Between the two > > positions there are many people, scratching their heads, > not willing to > follow the religionist path but falling > > into it by default because they know there must be some > > kind of compass for human behavior. They, too, like the > > religionists may want something more solid than > > relativism but part of growing up and becoming an adult > > involves putting aside security blankets and seemingly > > rock-solid beliefs. > > The reason, more often than not, is children. Until a child is old enough > to understand what ethics and morality is, we give them rock-solid beliefs > to prevent them from getting into things that they are not ready to > comprehend the dangers of. These days, we are teaching things to children > that most of us didn't learn about until we were in our 20's at least. > > How many 12-year-olds understand how to balance a graphic equaliser, > programme a computer, and steal $15m from the bank using their dad's credit > card? > > Children know more things today than they did in a bygone era, but they lack > one thing: wisdom. > > > Maybe that's really the problem we're faced with in > > society -- people need to mature and accept their own > > responsibility. > > All religions teach these things: "You reap what you sow." "What goes > around comes around." "As a man thinks, so he is." "What benefits a man if > he gains the world and loses his soul?" > > I think that our community needs to mature and accept responsibility for the > way it views nudity currently. That means that the people in our media and > churches need to change what their followers and consumers see it being. Of > course, many will protest at the thought of something largely as an adult > novelty being thrust into the arena of family interests like diet, > education, sport, parenting and finance. > > Unless PC extends to public nudity being forced to be tolerated and accepted > the way it is now considered unacceptable to ridicule or laugh at someone > for their skin colour, or denying women positions of power in politics and > religion, attitudes towards human dignity will be severely undermined. > > It's all rather confusing really. ;-p > > > Best, > > Dario Western > (Larrikin70)
