NY art gallery
Travis Pahl
remove funding for this particular art gallery because it is offensive to
catholics. Any thoughts on this?
Travis Pahl
http://students.washington.edu/tpahl
Kevin Moseley
news:Pine.A41.4.10.991001...@dante31.u.washington.edu...
I have a thought....how about removing funding for all art gallerys,
regardless of who is offended or not, and returning the money saved to it's
rightful owners. If people want gallerys enough, they'll pay for them. If
not, not.
KM
Clave
news:Pine.A41.4.10.991001...@dante31.u.washington.edu...
> I am sure everyone has heard of the NY art gallery and the mayor trying to
> remove funding for this particular art gallery because it is offensive to
> catholics. Any thoughts on this?
None beyond a basic yawn at a tinpot politician blatently pandering to
religious special interests. Why, did something about the story strike you
as unusual?
Jim
Travis Pahl
It struck me unusual that NYC is paying 7 million a year for that gallery.
It seems this subsidy has allowed people to produce art that is not even
worth paying to see. If it were not subsidized I think we would see alot
less of this crap. Maybe not, but in either case, only the people that
are interested in lame art would have to pay for it.
Travis Pahl
Eric da Red
Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>I am sure everyone has heard of the NY art gallery and the mayor trying to
>remove funding for this particular art gallery because it is offensive to
>catholics. Any thoughts on this?
It's perfectly in character for Kunstführer Rudi to do this.
--
Election 2000 Spin Of The Week: "I have no interest in seeing a corrupt
corporate whore from the South run against a corrupt corporate whore from
the South to replace a corrupt corporate whore from the South in the White
House." - me.
Clave
news:Pine.A41.4.10.991001...@dante31.u.washington.edu...
> On Fri, 1 Oct 1999, Clave wrote:
>
> >Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
> >news:Pine.A41.4.10.991001...@dante31.u.washington.edu...
to
> >> remove funding for this particular art gallery because it is offensive
to
> >> catholics. Any thoughts on this?
> >
> >religious special interests. Why, did something about the story strike
you
> >as unusual?
> >
> >Jim
>
> It struck me unusual that NYC is paying 7 million a year for that gallery.
> It seems this subsidy has allowed people to produce art that is not even
> worth paying to see. If it were not subsidized I think we would see alot
> less of this crap. Maybe not, but in either case, only the people that
> are interested in lame art would have to pay for it.
Seen it, have you? I'm betting not and that you pulled your opinion that
it's
"crap" out of your spoiled pasty white libertoonian butt.
Either that or you believe that Giuliani's opinion should be the final
arbiter of what good art is.
Don't tell me -- along with economics and the political and engineering
sciences, you haven't studied art either.
Jim
Frederick
Travis Pahl wrote:
>
> >
> It struck me unusual that NYC is paying 7 million a year for that gallery.
> It seems this subsidy has allowed people to produce art that is not even
> worth paying to see. If it were not subsidized I think we would see alot
> less of this crap. Maybe not, but in either case, only the people that
> are interested in lame art would have to pay for it.
>
It's not a gallery, its a freaking museum, one of the best art museums in
New York City. It has hundreds of thousands of visitors each year, many of
them schoolchildren from inner city neighborhoods (it is one of the few
MAJOR museums in NYC that is located in a mostly black neighborhood). The
subsidies it receives, along with hundreds of other cultural institutions
throughout the city, support countless items, community projects and
educational programs. The particular exhibit that is at controversy consists
of hundreds of works; the exhibit has received excellent reaction in other
cities where it has been shown, and in fact, set attendance records (which
of course helps to reduce the amount of outside monies that museums need to
operate) in the London museum where it originated. Many people thought that
what Van Gogh or Picasso painted, in their time, was "crap."
And isn't it interesting that a so-called libertarian aligns himself with a
proponent of censorship.
My my my, this certainly is a red-letter day in Libertoonia.
Frederick
Clave wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > My my my, this certainly is a red-letter day in Libertoonia.
>
swimming
> around in the barrel. We haven't had post counts this high since the days
> of you-know-who and you-know-who-else.
>
Shut your mouth. Don't even say his name. Last time you did that he
magically re-appeared, albeit and thankfully for a macrosecond.
But you're right, there is a plethora of libertoonians out this week.
Amazing how they goosestep in synch on the big issues, isn't it?
Clave
news:OIpFPSGD$GA.268@cpmsnbbsa02...
I'd call it a banner *week,* Frederick, what with all the new fish swimming
around in the barrel. We haven't had post counts this high since the days
of you-know-who and you-know-who-else.
Jim
Travis Pahl
>In article <Pine.A41.4.10.991001...@dante31.u.washington.edu>,
>Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>>I am sure everyone has heard of the NY art gallery and the mayor trying to
>>remove funding for this particular art gallery because it is offensive to
>>catholics. Any thoughts on this?
>
>
>It's perfectly in character for Kunstführer Rudi to do this.
>
So am I to assume you disagree? you think this art should be funded byt
tax payer dollars?
travis Pahl
Travis Pahl
>Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
>news:Pine.A41.4.10.991001...@dante31.u.washington.edu...
>> On Fri, 1 Oct 1999, Clave wrote:
>>
>> >Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
>> >news:Pine.A41.4.10.991001...@dante31.u.washington.edu...
>> >> I am sure everyone has heard of the NY art gallery and the mayor trying
>to
>> >> remove funding for this particular art gallery because it is offensive
>to
>> >> catholics. Any thoughts on this?
>> >
>> >None beyond a basic yawn at a tinpot politician blatently pandering to
>> >religious special interests. Why, did something about the story strike
>you
>> >as unusual?
>> >
>> >Jim
>>
>> It struck me unusual that NYC is paying 7 million a year for that gallery.
>> It seems this subsidy has allowed people to produce art that is not even
>> worth paying to see. If it were not subsidized I think we would see alot
>> less of this crap. Maybe not, but in either case, only the people that
>> are interested in lame art would have to pay for it.
>
>Seen it, have you? I'm betting not and that you pulled your opinion that
>it's
>"crap" out of your spoiled pasty white libertoonian butt.
>
>Either that or you believe that Giuliani's opinion should be the final
>arbiter of what good art is.
>
>Don't tell me -- along with economics and the political and engineering
>sciences, you haven't studied art either.
Saw it on tv. That was enough for me. And you do not need to stufy art
to tell whether it is crap or not.
Travis Pahl
>
>Travis Pahl wrote:
>>
>> >
>> It struck me unusual that NYC is paying 7 million a year for that gallery.
>> It seems this subsidy has allowed people to produce art that is not even
>> worth paying to see. If it were not subsidized I think we would see alot
>> less of this crap. Maybe not, but in either case, only the people that
>> are interested in lame art would have to pay for it.
>>
>
>It's not a gallery, its a freaking museum, one of the best art museums in
>New York City.
Whether it is a gallery or a musem is of little importance to my
arguement. The fact that it is a great one only strengthen my arguement
that it should not be subsidized.
>It has hundreds of thousands of visitors each year, many of
>them schoolchildren from inner city neighborhoods (it is one of the few
>MAJOR museums in NYC that is located in a mostly black neighborhood).
With hundred of thousands of visitors a year, there is NO ECUSE for it not
pulling ina profit. And who gives it shit what color the people are that
live around it.
>The subsidies it receives, along with hundreds of other cultural
>institutions throughout the city, support countless items, community
>projects and educational programs.
lets stick to this particular musem, and not get sidetracked please.
>The particular exhibit that is at controversy consists of hundreds of
>works; the exhibit has received excellent reaction in other cities where
>it has been shown, and in fact, set attendance records (which of course
>helps to reduce the amount of outside monies that museums need to
>operate) in the London museum where it originated.
Again, if it has set record attendance, why does it need to be subsidized?
it seems like that would be a cases to STOP giving it money.
>Many people thought that what Van Gogh or Picasso painted, in their
>time, was "crap."
I still do. I saw a picasso musem and it was full of crap.
>And isn't it interesting that a so-called libertarian aligns himself
>with a proponent of censorship. My my my, this certainly is a red-letter
>day in Libertoonia.
Where have I aligned myself with censorship? I beleive i have made it
quite clear that I want the government not supporting art. Only when it
begins sponsering some art or attacking some art that it could be
construed as censorship. I however have asked that all art be treated
equally by the govt, that is to say it not attack or sponser ANY art.
Travis Pahl
Travis Pahl
Travis Pahl
On Sat, 2 Oct 1999, Roger Kluck wrote:
>On Fri, 1 Oct 1999 16:45:07 -0700, "Frederick"
><rasho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Shut your mouth. Don't even say his name. Last time you did that he
>>magically re-appeared, albeit and thankfully for a macrosecond.
>>But you're right, there is a plethora of libertoonians out this week.
>>Amazing how they goosestep in synch on the big issues, isn't it?
>>
>
>It's like the gun crowd. They just start cross posting things to the
>every group full of their supporters till the locals are flooded out.
>
>
>I refuse to cross post replies to alt. talk.libertarian and the like.
>But the result is that I get no answers to the difficult questions I
>pose them. Oh well.
>
>
Mark Zenier
Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>It struck me unusual that NYC is paying 7 million a year for that gallery.
>It seems this subsidy has allowed people to produce art that is not even
>worth paying to see. If it were not subsidized I think we would see alot
>less of this crap. Maybe not, but in either case, only the people that
>are interested in lame art would have to pay for it.
Since the "art" in question was all from the United Kingdom, the subsidy
was likely from the UK National Lottery (which is devoted in part to arts
and culture subsidy), or perhaps the pretensions of rich collectors over
there. (I though libertarians supported lotteries as voluntary taxes).
Mark Zenier mze...@eskimo.com mze...@netcom.com Washington State resident
Clave
> On Fri, 1 Oct 1999, Clave wrote:
>
> >Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
> >news:Pine.A41.4.10.991001...@dante31.u.washington.edu...
> >> On Fri, 1 Oct 1999, Clave wrote:
> >>
> >> >Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
> >>
>news:Pine.A41.4.10.991001...@dante31.u.washington.edu...
> >> >> I am sure everyone has heard of the NY art gallery and the mayor
trying
> >to
> >> >> remove funding for this particular art gallery because it is
offensive
> >to
> >> >> catholics. Any thoughts on this?
> >> >
> >> >None beyond a basic yawn at a tinpot politician blatently pandering to
> >> >religious special interests. Why, did something about the story
strike
> >you
> >> >as unusual?
> >> >
> >> >Jim
> >>
gallery.
> >> It seems this subsidy has allowed people to produce art that is not
even
> >> worth paying to see. If it were not subsidized I think we would see
alot
> >> less of this crap. Maybe not, but in either case, only the people that
> >> are interested in lame art would have to pay for it.
> >
> >it's
> >"crap" out of your spoiled pasty white libertoonian butt.
> >
> >Either that or you believe that Giuliani's opinion should be the final
> >arbiter of what good art is.
> >
> >Don't tell me -- along with economics and the political and engineering
> >sciences, you haven't studied art either.
>
> Saw it on tv. That was enough for me. And you do not need to stufy art
> to tell whether it is crap or not.
Good God, Travis -- the depth of your shallowness is absolutely staggering.
No, you don't need to study *anything* in order to understand it, not with
intuitive understanding like *yours,* and especially not when you've got TV
to fill in the gaps. Just keep telling yourself that.
One wonders why, beyond the obvious delay in having to find a job, you
bother attending any classes at all.
Jim
Clave
news:Pine.A41.4.10.991001...@dante16.u.washington.edu...
>
> >
> >Travis Pahl wrote:
> >>
> >> >
gallery.
> >> It seems this subsidy has allowed people to produce art that is not
even
> >> worth paying to see. If it were not subsidized I think we would see
alot
> >> less of this crap. Maybe not, but in either case, only the people that
> >> are interested in lame art would have to pay for it.
> >>
> >
> >New York City.
>
> Whether it is a gallery or a musem is of little importance to my
> arguement. The fact that it is a great one only strengthen my arguement
> that it should not be subsidized.
You spoiled, selfish bastard. It's subsidized in order to allow people of
*all* incomes to be exposed to a wide, eclectic variety of art if they so
choose. Or are you going to argue that people should only be exposed to art
they can afford to see?
> >It has hundreds of thousands of visitors each year, many of
> >them schoolchildren from inner city neighborhoods (it is one of the few
> >MAJOR museums in NYC that is located in a mostly black neighborhood).
>
> With hundred of thousands of visitors a year, there is NO ECUSE for it not
> pulling ina profit. And who gives it shit what color the people are that
> live around it.
Nobody expects *you* to, Travis, since it doesn't involve your own ass in
any way.
> >The subsidies it receives, along with hundreds of other cultural
> >institutions throughout the city, support countless items, community
> >projects and educational programs.
>
> lets stick to this particular musem, and not get sidetracked please.
It's not a sidetrack -- it's a generality you'd rather not address.
> >The particular exhibit that is at controversy consists of hundreds of
> >works; the exhibit has received excellent reaction in other cities where
> >it has been shown, and in fact, set attendance records (which of course
> >helps to reduce the amount of outside monies that museums need to
> >operate) in the London museum where it originated.
>
> Again, if it has set record attendance, why does it need to be subsidized?
> it seems like that would be a cases to STOP giving it money.
For precisely the reason I gave above.
> >Many people thought that what Van Gogh or Picasso painted, in their
> >time, was "crap."
>
> I still do. I saw a picasso musem and it was full of crap.
That's because you don't know jack shit about art in general. Personally, I
don't care whether you choose to continue wallowing in abject ignorance
about nearly every goddam thing discussed on this newsgroup, but don't make
the mistake of assuming that even a noticeable percentage of the population
are interested in joining you down there.
<snip nothing else worth addressing, like the above *was*>
Jim
--
I really have no clue, can someone else help me out here?
Travis Pahl, seattle.politics
Clave
news:Pine.A41.4.10.991001...@dante16.u.washington.edu...
>
> feel free to ask me.
You won't get anything like an intelligent response, but feel free to ask.
Jim
Verne
> I am sure everyone has heard of the NY art gallery and the mayor trying to
> remove funding for this particular art gallery because it is offensive to
> catholics. Any thoughts on this?
One thought. Would these fine fellows be defending this artiest right to be
paid by the government if his work included "Martin Luther King covered in
crap"? And would the museum curator be brave enough if the offending picture
was "Mohammed sitting in pig shit"? For some reason public money never
seems to fund racist or sexist art. But Catholic's are fare game. Is it
censorship?
I'm sure all the fine fellows attacking your post also must be in favor of
remove all strings from federal education money as well. If it's wrong to
put strings on NEA money [defining art] It must be wrong to put strings on
education money [defining education]
Verne
Old Man Grumpus
>
> Travis Pahl wrote...
> > I am sure everyone has heard of the NY art gallery and the mayor
> > trying to remove funding for this particular art gallery because it
> > is offensive to catholics. Any thoughts on this?
>
> One thought. Would these fine fellows be defending this artiest right
> to be paid by the government if his work included "Martin Luther
> King covered in crap"? And would the museum curator be brave enough
> if the offending picture was "Mohammed sitting in pig shit"? For
> some reason public money never seems to fund racist or sexist art.
> But Catholic's are fare game. Is it censorship?
Why not? Their hypocrisy alone makes most such easy targets.
> I'm sure all the fine fellows attacking your post also must be in
> favor of remove all strings from federal education money as well. If
> it's wrong to put strings on NEA money [defining art] It must be
> wrong to put strings on education money [defining education]
No Moe, just that imbeciles like you and your brother Shemp believe
their arguments represent a movable feast. I suppose this allows you
to wallow blissfully in your ignorance.
--
Well! I Am A Grisly Crash
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Travis Pahl
>On Fri, 1 Oct 1999 18:05:24 -0700, Travis Pahl
><tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>>Whether it is a gallery or a musem is of little importance to my
>>arguement. The fact that it is a great one only strengthen my arguement
>>that it should not be subsidized.
>
>
>It never occurs to you that it might be great because of its
>subsidies?
I am to believe that government is somehow different than private money in
the hands of a musem? And that only government money can make it great
but private money of equal ammount does not have that affect? I think
not. If it is a great musem, it will attract paying customers to see the
works housed there. The money they give works EXACTLY the same as the
money they could take from the government.
To answer your question... yes it occured to me, and then i dismissed that
idea after realizing money is money whether it is stolen from the people
or giviing willing by art lovers.
Travis Pahl
Travis Pahl
>> to tell whether it is crap or not.
>
>
>Good God, Travis -- the depth of your shallowness is absolutely staggering.
>
>No, you don't need to study *anything* in order to understand it, not with
>intuitive understanding like *yours,* and especially not when you've got TV
>to fill in the gaps. Just keep telling yourself that.
I saw it on tv, i did not rely on them to analyze the art for me. i saw
it it was ugly, and that was enough for me. i not a fan of most art.
>One wonders why, beyond the obvious delay in having to find a job, you
>bother attending any classes at all.
have you ever taken an engineering class? They teach things that are not
easily understood. i found them to be quite valueable.
Travis Pahl
Travis Pahl
>> arguement. The fact that it is a great one only strengthen my arguement
>> that it should not be subsidized.
>
>*all* incomes to be exposed to a wide, eclectic variety of art if they so
>choose. Or are you going to argue that people should only be exposed to art
>they can afford to see?
Good tactic... call me names. My arguement is that the government should
not be subsidizing art. If that means some extrmely poor people are not
able to go see some art, so be it. Some day you will realize, being poor
means something. it means you are not rich, you do not get to do
somethings rich people are able to do. You are not able to live in a
mansion, you are not able to go for a month out on your yacht, you are not
able to take vacations to europe every year, and YES it may mean you can
not look at a picture of the virgin mary with vaginas around her.
Unless of course you go to a museum or gallery that is supported in a way
other than admission fees. There are such places. They operate on sales
of art peices or donations. It may be unfortunate but the poor people may
just have to limit themselves to those places instead of the admission
only places.
>> >It has hundreds of thousands of visitors each year, many of
>> >them schoolchildren from inner city neighborhoods (it is one of the few
>> >MAJOR museums in NYC that is located in a mostly black neighborhood).
>>
>> With hundred of thousands of visitors a year, there is NO ECUSE for it not
>> pulling ina profit. And who gives it shit what color the people are that
>> live around it.
>
>Nobody expects *you* to, Travis, since it doesn't involve your own ass in
>any way.
Seriously... What does the color of the people's skin have to do with the
musem? I have not heard this on the news or from anyone else. Why did
you bring it up? I thought you were for a color blind society, but here
you are pointing out the color of the people who live near a musems skin
for no apperant reason.
>> >The subsidies it receives, along with hundreds of other cultural
>> >institutions throughout the city, support countless items, community
>> >projects and educational programs.
>>
>> lets stick to this particular musem, and not get sidetracked please.
>
>It's not a sidetrack -- it's a generality you'd rather not address.
It is really not important what other museums are getting subsidies. We
could talk about any one of them and my reason as would yours would stay
the same.
>> >The particular exhibit that is at controversy consists of hundreds of
>> >works; the exhibit has received excellent reaction in other cities where
>> >it has been shown, and in fact, set attendance records (which of course
>> >helps to reduce the amount of outside monies that museums need to
>> >operate) in the London museum where it originated.
>>
>> Again, if it has set record attendance, why does it need to be subsidized?
>> it seems like that would be a cases to STOP giving it money.
>
>For precisely the reason I gave above.
Oh good. i already showed that is a poor excuse for subsidies. (pun
intended)
>> >Many people thought that what Van Gogh or Picasso painted, in their
>> >time, was "crap."
>>
>> I still do. I saw a picasso musem and it was full of crap.
>
>That's because you don't know jack shit about art in general. Personally, I
>don't care whether you choose to continue wallowing in abject ignorance
>about nearly every goddam thing discussed on this newsgroup, but don't make
>the mistake of assuming that even a noticeable percentage of the population
>are interested in joining you down there.
Oh... now because I have differing taste in art as you do, I am wallowing
in abject ignorance? Whatever man. I am sorry if you like picaso or the
vagina mary. i don't. Even if I did, I am opposed to government
subsisdies of art.
Travis pahl
Travis Pahl
lamepersonal attacks to yourself. or you can even privately email them to
me if you want.
Travis Pahl
On Sat, 2 Oct 1999, Clave wrote:
>Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
Travis Pahl
>Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>It struck me unusual that NYC is paying 7 million a year for that gallery.
>>It seems this subsidy has allowed people to produce art that is not even
>>worth paying to see. If it were not subsidized I think we would see alot
>>less of this crap. Maybe not, but in either case, only the people that
>>are interested in lame art would have to pay for it.
>
>was likely from the UK National Lottery (which is devoted in part to arts
>and culture subsidy), or perhaps the pretensions of rich collectors over
>there. (I though libertarians supported lotteries as voluntary taxes).
it is being subsidized by NYC, hence the contrverisal move by the mayor to
stop funding. as for lottery, they are fine with me as long as they lift
their ban on gambling.
Clave
> >> Saw it on tv. That was enough for me. And you do not need to stufy
art
> >> to tell whether it is crap or not.
> >
> >
> >Good God, Travis -- the depth of your shallowness is absolutely
staggering.
> >
> >No, you don't need to study *anything* in order to understand it, not
with
> >intuitive understanding like *yours,* and especially not when you've got
TV
> >to fill in the gaps. Just keep telling yourself that.
>
> I saw it on tv, i did not rely on them to analyze the art for me. i saw
> it it was ugly, and that was enough for me. i not a fan of most art.
Well, *duh.*
> >One wonders why, beyond the obvious delay in having to find a job, you
> >bother attending any classes at all.
>
> have you ever taken an engineering class? They teach things that are not
> easily understood. i found them to be quite valueable.
I have an engineering *degree,* Travis.
Jim
Travis Pahl
>> >bother attending any classes at all.
>>
>> have you ever taken an engineering class? They teach things that are not
>> easily understood. i found them to be quite valueable.
>
>I have an engineering *degree,* Travis.
Then you of all should people should understand why i went to college. It
was to obtain a degree such as yours and learn about engineering. Not
art.
Travis Pahl
Clave
Don't even *begin* to presume our motives are even similar. Unlike you, I
attended the University to get an *education,* not a degree. I took classes
in *everything* for nine years before accidentally graduating with an
engineering degree.
Jim
Clave
news:37ff58d8...@news.mindspring.com...
> On Sat, 02 Oct 1999 03:12:32 GMT, "Clave" <claviusN...@gte.net>
> wrote:
>
> >You spoiled, selfish bastard.
>
> Baby up a lot last night?
Not really, but someone accused me of not being mean any more. I've got a
rep to uphold, you know.
Jim
Verne
shi...@mailcity.com
<Pine.A41.4.10.991002...@dante29.u.washington.edu>,
Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> posed an interesting question when he
wrote:
[SNIP]
> I am to believe that government is somehow different than private money in
> the hands of a musem? And that only government money can make it great
> but private money of equal ammount does not have that affect? I think
> not. If it is a great musem, it will attract paying customers to see the
> works housed there. The money they give works EXACTLY the same as the
> money they could take from the government.
[SNIP]
> Travis Pahl
This is an interesting question that maybe we could explore in a separate
thread. I would think that the additional contribution of money by the
government would be of greater relevance to the museum than private
dollars because of the continuity of the income.
If a museum relies on private dollars, it would be forced to show/display
works and projects the public wants to see now. The presence of
government dollars allows the museum to show works that are on the fringe
(like the show in question). Granted, the content may be questionable to
some people, but lets save that for a different thread.
I would think that government support improves the ability of museums to
take risks by ensuring a steady stream of funding for projects that may
not be particularly popular now, but may prove to be popular in the future
(I believe a simialr statement was addressed earlier in the thread). In
addition, it may also serve to allow museums to display
works/shows/projects that are unpopular because of their historical
value. Thus it allows a museum to address a historical subject that
society may choose to ignore or avoid and would not likely be profitable
to show through admission.
Naturally, because of the subject, certain shows would be of greater
popularity than others. However, I would think that one of the primary
roles of a museum is to provide some validity to events that may not
always be popular to the public (and thus may not pay for themselves).
Shiva
Travis Pahl
the people with art that they do not want to see. Great answer.
Travis Pahl
shi...@mailcity.com
<Pine.A41.4.10.991002...@dante05.u.washington.edu>,
Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> Ahh.. grat... we have an answer... government money is needed to provide
> the people with art that they do not want to see. Great answer.
Actually, lets disregard art for a few minutes and focus on the many other
projects that museums undertake.
Does a museum have a responsibility to undertake projects that may not be
popular, but do provide some insight into a nation's history? If so, how
are we to pay for such projects to get a message out?
Travis Pahl
>On Sat, 2 Oct 1999 13:54:30 -0700, Travis Pahl
><tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>>Ahh.. grat... we have an answer... government money is needed to provide
>>the people with art that they do not want to see. Great answer.
>
>Now that's a truly trite and deceptive quip. It supports art SOME
>people don't want to see. And yet the exhibit that started this
>discussion has set record attendance in many of the places its been
>shown.
Again... if it is setting RECORD attendante, why does it need to be
publically supported? it should have no problem pulling in enough cash
from addmision.
>Guess what - some of the people don't want a military either! And yet
>you feel that is a governmental imperative and necessity. Defend
>that! Where's the consensus and full public support? Where's the
>consent of the governed, where's the rest of that high falutin
>libertarian jingoism?
Without a military, you end up being taken over by another hostile
government and end up paying for a military plus a whole lot more.
therefor a military is necessary.
>(And lest you say it can't be done consider Costa Rica.) But I'm more
>interested in seeing a justification for a military that is still
>consistent with all your attacks on these other governmental entities
>you disagree with. No references to public good, greater good, etc.
>allowed.
There are no references in there are there? nope, just the simple FACT
that w/o a military, you end up with an enemy military to pay for. As for
Costa Rica, I am willing to bet there is SOME military defending them. I
really have not studied their political culture.
Travis pahl
Travis Pahl
>On Sat, 2 Oct 1999 16:40:37 -0700, Travis Pahl
><tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 2 Oct 1999, Roger Kluck wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 2 Oct 1999 13:54:30 -0700, Travis Pahl
>>><tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Ahh.. grat... we have an answer... government money is needed to provide
>>>>the people with art that they do not want to see. Great answer.
>>>
>>>Now that's a truly trite and deceptive quip. It supports art SOME
>>>people don't want to see. And yet the exhibit that started this
>>>discussion has set record attendance in many of the places its been
>>>shown.
>>
>>Again... if it is setting RECORD attendante, why does it need to be
>>publically supported? it should have no problem pulling in enough cash
>>from addmision.
>
>The exhibit brings in the crowds. The museum gets public support.
>You still need a place to show the exhibit, and folks to hang it etc.
So??? what is your point?
travis Pahl
Travis Pahl
>>>you feel that is a governmental imperative and necessity. Defend
>>>that! Where's the consensus and full public support? Where's the
>>>consent of the governed, where's the rest of that high falutin
>>>libertarian jingoism?
>>
>>Without a military, you end up being taken over by another hostile
>>government and end up paying for a military plus a whole lot more.
>>therefor a military is necessary.
>
As I explain later, they may not have a military, but that does not mean
they are not relying on a military to protect them.
>You've offered only a conclusion. No justification Travis. Justify
>it!!! What is your rational for over riding the will of the people who
>do not want a military?
As explained aboce. They will pay for a military regardless of whether
the US has one. If the USA does not have one, another countries military
will march on in and force the people to support it.
>Their own good (which you then assert you know better than they do?)?
>The greater good as determined by the majority?
I said nothing of 'the greater good'. I claim that the governments ONLY
purpose is to protects its citizens rights. A military is necessary to do
this.
>What is your rational? You claim government is consensual.
I have never claimed that. You did.
>Government without the consent of the governed is invalid.
Do you beleive this?
>All the reasons you use to claim government has no business doing the
>things you disagree with apply equally here. You can't support this and
>be consistent with all those arguments.
My arguement as repeated above was that the governments purpose was to
protect its citizens rights. A Military is necesary to do this.
>if you think you can give us the rational. Answer the questions!
What questions?
>Are you going to tax the peaceniks for the military?
Well see how much it cost and how much can be gained in non coercive
ways.
>I mean you say taxes should be voluntary! If you don't what happens
>when millions decide to be free riders and not pay because they'd rather
>have the cash in their pockets?
The millions are not dumb. They know they need protection for forieng
invasion. Millions VOLUNTEER to fight in wars to protect american
citizens. i am sure millions would volunteer thier money torwards this
cause also.
>>>(And lest you say it can't be done consider Costa Rica.) But I'm more
>>>interested in seeing a justification for a military that is still
>>>consistent with all your attacks on these other governmental entities
>>>you disagree with. No references to public good, greater good, etc.
>>>allowed.
>>
>>There are no references in there are there? nope, just the simple FACT
>>that w/o a military, you end up with an enemy military to pay for. As for
>>Costa Rica, I am willing to bet there is SOME military defending them. I
>>really have not studied their political culture.
>
>No references.
As i admitted... I do not know much on the situation in Costa Rica. But I
have not really seen and references from your side either. I am willing
to bet they are relying on SOME military for their protection.
>No rational.
There is rational.. You just do not get it. Here, I will explain it in a
easier example. Canada. They do not have a military big enough to
protect themselves from foriegn invasion. They rely on us as an ally.
Costa rica has an even smaller military... they too rely on someone elses
military (probably ours also) to protect them.
This would not work here because there is no one that would be protecting
us.
>No defense. Just an assumption you call a fact.
What assumption are you refering to? I do not recall calling any of my
assumptions fact. In fact upon reviewing what I wrote I made it quite
clear that it was an asuumption.
>You've in essence decided that you know better than the peaceniks and
>for their own good will have a military.
yep.
>It seems to me what you are saying is in this one case you have
>decided that all your arguments for voluntary consensual government,
>taxation, pay for benefits received and total consensus etc. are less
>important than this desired service. Do you deny it?
no. I do not deny it... I have always claimed the ONE purpose of
government is to protect its citizens rights. Have you not been paying
attention?
>If so why aren't others free to place different programs under that
>same umbrella for themselves?
They are free to. Have you not noticed all the programs under that
umbrella? I however disagree with them and are attempting to persuade
them to see things my way.
>And if the majority decides art museums should be on the list, you'll
>just have to learn to live with it, while you seek to change their mind.
I have done exactly that.
>I challenge you to take these on directly and not just ignore these
>difficult questions because they're hard to answer with consistency.
>And with that ask yourself once you decide a military is desirable
>(you would say necessary) how do you as a society decide how big a
>military is big enough?
We elect leaders that are experts in determining things like that.
>I mean bigger is better, right? No one will ever mess with you if
>you've got the very biggest?
You obviously are not an expert. Bigger is not always better.
>How does your abhorrence of majority rule and representative government
>work that out?
Since when did i begin abhoring majority rule?
> If it will help you separate out an analysis, try this -IRAC.
>Identify the issue,
Is a government program protecting its citizens rights?
>identify the rule,
If it is protecting rights, then keep it.
If not, dismantle it.
>apply the rule to the facts and then draw a conclusion.
Military is necessary to protect citizens rights... keep it.
Art musems are not necessary to protect citizens rights...dismantle it.
travis Pahl
Travis Pahl
>On Sat, 2 Oct 1999 18:43:30 -0700, Travis Pahl
><tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>>>You've offered only a conclusion. No justification Travis. Justify
>>>it!!! What is your rational for over riding the will of the people who
>>>do not want a military?
>>
>>As explained aboce. They will pay for a military regardless of whether
>>the US has one. If the USA does not have one, another countries military
>>will march on in and force the people to support it.
>
>Ain't happened in Costa Rica. This is not an analysis. It is a
>conclusion. Issue, Rule, application of rules then conclusion. Try it.
okay will try this with your approach...
issue...
A country w/o a military will be conquered by a country with a military
Rule...
The country with a military will rule the country without and tax it at
least as much as the original citizens of that country (thus at least the
ammount needed for a military)
Application...
Build a military to defend against invading countries so you do not have
to pay high taxes to your agressors.
Travis Pahl
Clave
<...>
> Build a military to defend against invading countries so you do not have
> to pay high taxes to your agressors.
Right. Pay exhorbitant taxes to avoid paying exhorbitant taxes.
Travis, you are *so* full of shit.
Jim
Travis Pahl
>On Sat, 2 Oct 1999 18:43:30 -0700, Travis Pahl
><tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>>>I mean you say taxes should be voluntary! If you don't what happens
>>>when millions decide to be free riders and not pay because they'd rather
>>>have the cash in their pockets?
>>
>>The millions are not dumb. They know they need protection for forieng
>>invasion. Millions VOLUNTEER to fight in wars to protect american
>>citizens. i am sure millions would volunteer thier money torwards this
>>cause also.
>
>Forgive me if your certainty doesn't overwhelm me. I mean hey look
>who's voting to trash the state with I-695. tell me again millions
>aren't dumb or can't be wrong.
In this particular case (I 695) they are right. they see that they keep
getting taxed for things they specifically ask NOT to have. They realized
the only way to lower taxes is through an initiative.
>Risking Goodwin's law, lets ask how did the Nazis do what they did if
>the masses can't make mistakes?
By obeying thier government out of fear and letting it get to powerful.
Now who between the two of us, is supporting a powerful govt and trusts
the government way too much?
>And god when you put money on the line too? It's a shoe in there 'll
>be hoardes of free riders.
Like there is not already?
>I mean you're the one who said you're guiding principle was to get as
>much as you can and pay as little as possible.
That is true. But I have yet to break the law in order to do so. I pay
my taxes regularly.
travis Pahl
Travis Pahl
>On Sat, 2 Oct 1999 18:43:30 -0700, Travis Pahl
><tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>>>No defense. Just an assumption you call a fact.
>>
>>What assumption are you refering to? I do not recall calling any of my
>>assumptions fact. In fact upon reviewing what I wrote I made it quite
>>clear that it was an asuumption.
>
>
>Does this jog your memory. It's directly above :
>
>>>There are no references in there are there? nope, just the simple FACT
>>>that w/o a military, you end up with an enemy military to pay for.
>
>That;'s is not a fact. It is an assumption.
Actualy that is a fact. Give me one country that has NO military
protecting it that is not invaded?
Please note, I am not saying it must be THEIR military. Alot of countries
rely on other contries to protect them.
Travis Pahl
Travis Pahl
Travis Pahl
On Sun, 3 Oct 1999, Roger Kluck wrote:
>If I were anti matter Travis I would say the biggest threat to liberty
>and rights is a military. I don't want one. It doesn't protect my
>rights. That's my belief. I'm entitled to it. And I won't pay taxes
>for it. I didn't sign any social contract and I want no part of it.
>
>On the other hand I think exposure to art is a right. And I want
>public museums free so I can exercise that right regardless of wealth.
>
>
Travis Pahl
no social contract. I really do not even feel like argueing with you
because you are putting words in my mouth and also diving this into 20
threads for some reason.
Travis Pahl
On Sun, 3 Oct 1999, Roger Kluck wrote:
>On Sat, 2 Oct 1999 18:43:30 -0700, Travis Pahl
><tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>>>You've in essence decided that you know better than the peaceniks and
>>>for their own good will have a military.
>>
>>yep.
>>
>>>It seems to me what you are saying is in this one case you have
>>>decided that all your arguments for voluntary consensual government,
>>>taxation, pay for benefits received and total consensus etc. are less
>>>important than this desired service. Do you deny it?
>>
>>no. I do not deny it... I have always claimed the ONE purpose of
>>government is to protect its citizens rights. Have you not been paying
>>attention?
>
>
>But you have also said government has no business initiating force to
>make others do things they do not wish too. Paying for a military
>falls into that camp. You have argued at length before that there is
>no social contract. No obligations to society. That society is
>protected and best served by sheer reliance on self interest and
>greed. It works for you for art museums. I'm playing devils advocate
>and saying it works for others for the military. But you insist that
>you know better than they do and will initiate force to see that they
>get a military if they want one or not. And if need be you'll make
>them pay for it.
>
>Where's the principle in that?
>
>
Travis Pahl
On Sun, 3 Oct 1999, Roger Kluck wrote:
>On Sat, 2 Oct 1999 18:43:30 -0700, Travis Pahl
><tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>>>Are you going to tax the peaceniks for the military?
>>
>>Well see how much it cost and how much can be gained in non coercive
>>ways.
>
>COP OUT!!
BS. My main focus in politics is reducing the size of government
drastically. at that point I will start worrying about details like how
much the limited government i support would cost and how it would be
funded. In the mean time I am more concerned with the 90% of other stuff
that just needs to be cut completly.
> >What if it doesn't? >
>
does not waht?
Travis
Travis Pahl
>On Sat, 2 Oct 1999 18:43:30 -0700, Travis Pahl
><tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>>My arguement as repeated above was that the governments purpose was to
>>protect its citizens rights. A Military is necesary to do this.
>
>neighbor do. ANd yet it remains unbothered. Why?
>
>
as I have already said at least three times. It has an ally protecting it.
travis Phal
Travis Pahl
into 20 threads is a pretty good job at it. What do you think freddie?
Travis Pahl
On Sun, 3 Oct 1999, Roger Kluck wrote:
>This is circular. You have not identified an issue, you have merely
>restated your rule. (ANd added in your application of it - with no
>issue) It is this failure to separate such things and your bald
>reliance on conclusions that drives people to distraction in debating
>with you.
>
>
Frederick The Thug
Travis Pahl:
speaking of distracting people from debating... i think dividing thread
> into 20 threads is a pretty good job at it. What do you think freddie?
>
> Travis Pahl
I think when it comes to distracting people, you have the competition beat,
Right Wing Lie-Boy!
---Freddie
Frederick The Thug
Verne wrote:
>
> One thought. Would these fine fellows be defending this artiest right to
be
> paid by the government if his work included "Martin Luther King covered
in
> crap"? And would the museum curator be brave enough if the offending
picture
> was "Mohammed sitting in pig shit"? For some reason public money never
> seems to fund racist or sexist art. But Catholic's are fare game. Is it
> censorship?
Yes it is, particularly when the artist is himself a Catholic. Something
often overlooked by kultural kommisars like Guiliani. What's the matter,
doesn't a Catholic have the right to express himself and his views of the
religious icons that influenced his life in any way he sees fit? So you
immediately make a leap of faith that the work is anti-Catholic? Do a little
research before you put your foot in your mouth.
Travis Pahl
Since you are going to be paying taxes for a military no matter what, you
might as well pay taxes for a country that is taxing you ONLY for a
military, because the new invading country will have AT least a military
but most likely even more. Besides a military of fellow citizens is going
to be more freindly in general than an invdaing country.
Travis Pahl
Travis Pahl
>On Sun, 3 Oct 1999 00:43:43 -0700, Travis Pahl
><tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>>>>Well see how much it cost and how much can be gained in non coercive
>>>>ways.
>>>
>
>>
>> > >What if it doesn't? >
>>>
>>does not what?
>
>
>What if your voluntary contributions prove inadequate to fund the
>military you feel is necessary? How ill you get the money?
As I have explained already, My main concern with government at this time
is to DRASTICALLY reduce its size. Then and only then will I worry about
details that youa re refering to.
Clave
>
> >Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
> >news:Pine.A41.4.10.991003...@dante03.u.washington.edu...
> >
> ><...>
> >
> >> Build a military to defend against invading countries so you do not
have
> >> to pay high taxes to your agressors.
> >
> >Right. Pay exhorbitant taxes to avoid paying exhorbitant taxes.
> >
> >Travis, you are *so* full of shit.
>
> Since you are going to be paying taxes for a military no matter what,
<snip>
A premise I reject. Or shall I just respond by saying, "Since you're going
to be paying taxes to subsidize the arts no mater what,..."
Jim
Verne
Frederick The Thug <rasho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:esOxwNdD$GA.317@cpmsnbbsa02...
The work is anti- catholic don't be silly the Madonna decorated in dung can
be nothing else. As to the religion of the artist, its irrelevant!
If you feel like answering the question please do. Would you be defending
this artists right to
be
paid by the government if his work included "Martin Luther King covered in
crap". Would his being a black man make that as acceptable [due to his
religion] as his decorating the Madonna in shit is?
I love the hypocrisy of the left. Please try not to dodge the question this
time.
Verne
Verne
Travis Pahl
up because you guys always contradict yourself at some point between the
top of the message and the bottom, and I like those contradictions to stay
in the same thread. You however obviously have invest4ed interest in
trying to break up posts that show blaring contradictions.
Travis Pahl
Travis Pahl
be racist speech?
Travis Pahl
On Sun, 3 Oct 1999, Frederick The Thug wrote:
Travis Pahl
>
><snip>
>
>A premise I reject. Or shall I just respond by saying, "Since you're going
>to be paying taxes to subsidize the arts no mater what,..."
You COULD say that. if you want people to think that you believe that
your country will be conquered by another if you do not fund the arts
through taxation. That is not somehting I want people to think I beleive.
Art is not a national security problem.
Travis Pahl
Travis Pahl
>>might as well pay taxes for a country that is taxing you ONLY for a
>>military, because the new invading country will have AT least a military
>>but most likely even more.
>
>more just courts, tremendous infrastructure and a markedly higher
>standard of living. Wow! Forget the military let's surrender to them
>and take advantage of the economies of scale and their resources!
You fail to realize that we would be paying more than we get back when we
are forced to pay for universal health care, art museums ect...
Not let me ask you a question, did you decide to bring up funding of the
military on this art thread because you knew you had absolutly no where to
stand on the NYC art museum, or did you just feel like evading a tough
topic for the hell of it?
travis pahl
Travis Pahl
>On Sun, 3 Oct 1999 15:21:15 -0700, Travis Pahl
><tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>>>But maybe they'll have universal education, health care, art museums,
>>>more just courts, tremendous infrastructure and a markedly higher
>>>standard of living. Wow! Forget the military let's surrender to them
>>>and take advantage of the economies of scale and their resources!
>>
>>You fail to realize that we would be paying more than we get back when we
>>are forced to pay for universal health care, art museums ect...
>
>You are free to assume that if you wish. Others are free to assume
>they will get their value, or better, back from this, especially
>through economies of scale and indirect benefits and multipliers to
>the society at large.
>
>>Not[w?] let me ask you a question, did you decide to bring up funding of the
>>military on this art thread because you knew you had absolutly no where to
>>stand on the NYC art museum, or did you just feel like evading a tough
>>topic for the hell of it?
>
>I brought it up because your rationale for opposing public art is not
>tenable and inconsistent with other views you have stated. These are
>most easily brought to your attention by using the military example
>which you are adamant is a public "necessity" and worthy of tax
>support, etc. It allows a direct contrast of things you support with
>things you oppose, and a chance for you to define your principles for
>differentiating these. (Something you have entirely failed to do
>unfortunately, but not surprisingly.) I wanted to make you ask and
>answer certain questions for your self to identify those principles.
>I strongly suspected that the inconsistencies and the irony of
>mutually exclusive positions would come home to you. you have easily
>avoided these however by not addressing the obvious points.
I have not avoided them in the slightest. I defined my principles and you
did not accept what I said, and instead keep pretending my principles are
different from what I claim them to be.
I beleive that the governments only purpose is to defend its citizens
rights. Any program that gives as a whole protects more than it takes is
a valid program.
You however keep trying to argue that my principles are...
'No one can ever be taxed for anything.'
>I was trying to illustrate to you that you either need to define or
>refine your principals for these decisions, or at a minimum realize
>your inconsistent position. (Something you are not even capable of
>grasping evidently.)
My view is not inconsitant with MY principles. They are however
inconcistant with what you keep insisting my princples are.
>What you mean by your inflammatory phrase "nowhere to stand" escapes
>me. I was certainly not evading anything. Particularly not a "tough"
>topic.
Then why the diversion? It seems that it would be much easier to debate
why art should be publically funded by sticking to talking about the
subject at hand.
>My position on the matter is simple. I believe in our representative
>government the majority decides through our representatives what
>things society desires to fund to promote the general welfare.
Art does not promote my welfare at all. Am I to understand that when you
say general welfare, we are to read it 'special interest welfare'?
>I have no problem with communities deciding to offer subsidies to
>museums and programs on that basis. This is consistent with my view on
>the military also. Personally i think their budget is probably too
>large and contains a certain amount of waste. However, its a complex
>issue and AI am certainly not privy to details important to deciding
>what the threats to our nation are or what weaponry and staffing is
>desirable to protect us. I defer to the experts placed by our
>representatives and over seen by them.
>
>I do the same for art museums.
Wasn't it you that was getting on me about leaving these details up to the
experts or dealing with them after other major problems have bee solved?
Anyways, I too feel the same way you do. Communities should decide such
things. I prefer them to decide in a way consitant with my view that only
programs protecting citizens rights should be publically funded. You
instead base it on this general welfare concept that i disagree with,
particularly because of your idea of 'general welfare'
>However, when the government does such funding (speaking now of art
>museums) I think it is incredibly arrogant for one politician to
>demand (not request, not to discuss - but to demand) a show be
>canceled or HE will pull the funding. First the funding is not
>entirely his decision, but comes through the city council, as I
>understand it. His personal vendetta to punish content and extort
>compliance outside of the process is I believe violative of the First
>Amendment. Now he is free to march outside and complain and carry a
>protest sign. But to threaten to pull the funding based on content I
>believe is wrong headed and arrogant. all the more so because he is a
>trained lawyer and should know better.
the problem is simple, the people put 'art' in the hands of politicians,
not art experts.
>On a more cynical note I believe Guiliani is not doing it for any
>reason other than he is running for the Senate and is in need of
>issues to define himself as different from Ms. Clinton and to enrage
>and inflame his potential supporters. And I would point out that
>Guiliani has refused to meet with the museum managers to discuss his
>position or negotiate any kind of settlement of the matter.
Of course he is doing so. If i was an art museum lover, I would be
fighting like hell to get art museums out of the hands of politicians so
everytime there is an election I don't find my favorite musem under attack
by some politician.
Travis pahl
Clave
news:37f8e6d3...@news.mindspring.com...
<...>
> Did I answer that directly enough for you? Any follow ups?
>
> feel free.
Nope. That said it all. Well, too.
Jim
shi...@mailcity.com
<Pine.A41.4.10.991003...@dante16.u.washington.edu>,
Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> tried to avoid the argument when he
jotted down the following:
> I try to keep the threadsd together. it must be ahbit that I have picked
> up because you guys always contradict yourself at some point between the
> top of the message and the bottom, and I like those contradictions to stay
> in the same thread. You however obviously have invest4ed interest in
> trying to break up posts that show blaring contradictions.
>
> Travis Pahl
>
[SNIP]
Perhaps you could demonstrate your point by going back to the post offered
by R. Kluck:
<37f8f935...@news.mindspring.com>, r.k...@mindspring.com (Roger Kluck )
Travis Pahl
posts with about 8 or so replies. It is a pain to try and show
contradictions between posts compared to when they are all in one post.
Travis Pahl
Travis Pahl
>On Sun, 3 Oct 1999 17:31:54 -0700, Travis Pahl
>And I expressly stated many believe that a military threatens their
>rights, not protects them. (Look to Honduras, Guatemala, and El
>Salvador for examples). I asked how you would deal with this problem
>and you have totally failed to address it.
I am sure some people beleive that. I don't.
>And I have expressed that you have not defined how you determine what
>are the rights you are talking about defending. How do you decide
>what is a right? If a society concludes health care is a right, and
>taxes to make it available, are they protecting that right? (Germany
>and other western European nations in fact view health care as a
>right. So this is not some bizarre hypothetical.) Who decides what are
>rights and how?
You seem to think a right is a garuantee. It is not. We have a right to
health care, but that does not mean we are garuanteed it. We still need
to work to get it.
>That would seem fundamental in any analysis of whether something
>protects rights or not.
>
>>Any program that gives as a whole protects more than it takes is
>>a valid program.
>
>>You however keep trying to argue that my principles are...
>>'No one can ever be taxed for anything.'
>
>I'm sorry if you feel I've mischaracterized your position. But haven't
>you said no one should be taxed for things that do not benefit them?
>
>If you have how do you reconcile that with the peaceniks who feel they
>don't benefit from a military?
>
>(You've blown by this a number of times now.)
I feel they do. just as you feel i benifit from art museums. I never
said i do not beleive in democracy.
>>>I was trying to illustrate to you that you either need to define or
>>>refine your principals for these decisions, or at a minimum realize
>>>your inconsistent position. (Something you are not even capable of
>>>grasping evidently.)
>>
>>My view is not inconsitant with MY principles. They are however
>>inconcistant with what you keep insisting my princples are.
>
>Then pray tell us what your principles are. So far we have protect
>rights, not take them and some subjective balancing between infringing
>and protection of rights.
>
>Now we need to know what are the rights we're protecting for starters.
>Who decides and how. (let's not forget that ninth amendment in this.)
Rights are pretty easy to understand. We have been through this a million
times before and do not feel like going through it again right now.
It can best be summed up by the saying about people have the right to
swing their arms about until someones face gets in the way. In other
words, you do not have the right to iniatiate force against someone.
>>>My position on the matter is simple. I believe in our representative
>>>government the majority decides through our representatives what
>>>things society desires to fund to promote the general welfare.
>>
>>Art does not promote my welfare at all. Am I to understand that when you
>>say general welfare, we are to read it 'special interest welfare'?
>
>Understand it anyway you want. When you use it to justify a military
>do the peaceniks get to call you a special interest?
The peaceniks quite frankly are wrong. It does protect them as well as
everyone else in the country.
>>Anyways, I too feel the same way you do. Communities should decide such
>>things. I prefer them to decide in a way consitant with my view that only
>>programs protecting citizens rights should be publically funded. You
>>instead base it on this general welfare concept that i disagree with,
>>particularly because of your idea of 'general welfare'
>
>I'm saying general welfare is what the public through its
>representatives decides it is. How do you define it then, if you
>disagree? (See now this would be getting to the meat of the issue.)
general welfare would be something that applies to everyone, not just a
particular group.
>But now if you bounce back to protect rights, I'm lost because I want
>to know why general welfare is not broader than rights, and I want to
>know what rights and where that list comes from.
You have the right to do as you please so long as you do not impeded
others right to the same.
>>>However, when the government does such funding (speaking now of art
>>>museums) I think it is incredibly arrogant for one politician to
>>>demand (not request, not to discuss - but to demand) a show be
>>>canceled or HE will pull the funding. First the funding is not
>>>entirely his decision, but comes through the city council, as I
>>>understand it. His personal vendetta to punish content and extort
>>>compliance outside of the process is I believe violative of the First
>>>Amendment. Now he is free to march outside and complain and carry a
>>>protest sign. But to threaten to pull the funding based on content I
>>>believe is wrong headed and arrogant. all the more so because he is a
>>>trained lawyer and should know better.
>>
>>the problem is simple, the people put 'art' in the hands of politicians,
>>not art experts.
>
>Well no not quite. they put the funding of some museums partly in the
>hands of politicians. The politicians have funded experts. And now
>the experts have offended some minority group.
Actually Christians last I checked were still a majority (unfortunatly).
travis Pahl
Frederick
Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> I try to keep the threadsd together.
Yeah, as long as you can edit and delete (a nasty habit you picked up from
that other moral reprobate, Flush Hihn).
> it must be ahbit that I have picked
> up because you guys always contradict yourself at some point between the
> top of the message and the bottom, and I like those contradictions to stay
> in the same thread.
Your whole existence in these newsgroups are a living contradiction.
> You however obviously have invest4ed interest in
> trying to break up posts that show blaring contradictions.
>
You're still a right-wing lie-boy.
Frederick
Verne wrote:
> >
> > >
> > Yes it is, particularly when the artist is himself a Catholic. Something
> > often overlooked by kultural kommisars like Guiliani. What's the matter,
the
> > religious icons that influenced his life in any way he sees fit? So you
> > immediately make a leap of faith that the work is anti-Catholic? Do a
> little
> > research before you put your foot in your mouth.
>
>
can
> be nothing else. As to the religion of the artist, its irrelevant!
Proving, once again, Verne, that your knowledge of art is about equal to
your political sophistication. It so happens that elephant dung is often
used in African art for decorative purposes, and no offense is meant by its
use. If you even bothered to stop and read something about the artist and
the tradition that he is working in, and what he was trying to communicate,
you may have realized that.
And the religion of the artist is hardly irrelevant. He is a Catholic. He
may have a different way of trying to express his relationship with his
religion than you would, or to explore his very legitimate feelings. You
immediately associate the use of elephant dung as something profane and
obscene, when, in fact, the artist was using it because it is a symbol of
fertility, a legitimate theme in the context of the work as a whole.
But of course, to condemn a Catholic for looking at his religion in a very
expressive and controversial manner, really makes you no better than the
Ayatollahs who condemned Salman Rushdie, because they didnt like the way he
portrayed Islam in his work.
> If you feel like answering the question please do. Would you be defending
> this artists right to
> be
> paid by the government if his work included "Martin Luther King covered
in
> crap". Would his being a black man make that as acceptable [due to his
> religion] as his decorating the Madonna in shit is?
Quite possibly, Verne. It's all a matter of context. Something you don't
have a clue about.
> I love the hypocrisy of the left. Please try not to dodge the question
this
> time.
Didnt dodge it all. However, you have yet to show that this work is
anti-Catholic, except for the fact that it offends you (and Guiliani).
Somehow, that is a less than convincing argument.
---Frederick
Frederick
Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.A41.4.10.991003...@dante16.u.washington.edu...
> be racist speech?
>
I'm sorry...did you say something lie-boy?
Clave
news:uU1S4WoD$GA.299@cpmsnbbsa05...
>
> Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
> > I try to keep the threadsd together.
>
> Yeah, as long as you can edit and delete (a nasty habit you picked up from
> that other moral reprobate, Flush Hihn).
*Now* you've done it.
<crosses fingers>
<lights candle & incense>
<waves dead chicken>
<burns paper copy of Cato Institute's home page>
Don't make me do that again.
Jim
Frederick
Clave wrote:
> >
> > Yeah, as long as you can edit and delete (a nasty habit you picked up
from
> > that other moral reprobate, Flush Hihn).
>
> *Now* you've done it.
>
> <crosses fingers>
>
> <lights candle & incense>
>
> <waves dead chicken>
>
> <burns paper copy of Cato Institute's home page>
>
> Don't make me do that again.
>
> Jim
Oops. You're right, after I warned you not to do it.
However, I think its like Beetlejuice....you have to say it three times
before he appears.
>
>
>
Travis Pahl
>Travis strikes again with an incredibly nonresponsive post. After
>wanting me to tie it all together, and my taking the time to do so and
>repose my questions directly, you once again go skating by anything
>that looks like an issue.
>I have come to the conclusion you are totally incapable of expressing
>and defending the basis of your beliefs.
>
>Ciao!
>
>My last response for a good while is below. (I will still look to see
>if you are capable of response, but I'm giving up. You can't get
>thought from a stone.)
>
>On Mon, 4 Oct 1999 08:14:38 -0700, Travis Pahl
>ANd so it appears you dismiss all the arguments based on their
>beliefs. It would seem you are saying simply "I know better".
No, I did not say I know better. I said I beleive differently. here in
america, we vote on things. I simply will not vote in approval of any
programs i do not consider a valid function of government. Same goes for
everyone else. The peaceniks obviosly have a different view than I. If
thier view wins, I accept it and continue to fight to change the view of
the masses. if my view wins, they do the same.
>Notice above, I ask for the umpteenth time how you will address their
>belief in your system. and once again you go whistling by with not
>response.
Their views are expressed in thier protests, votes, letters to editors,
ect... just like mine are.
>>>And I have expressed that you have not defined how you determine what
>>>are the rights you are talking about defending. How do you decide
>>>what is a right?
I decide it by determining if it harms others. If it does not, then you
have a right to do it.
>>>If a society concludes health care is a right, and
>>>taxes to make it available, are they protecting that right? (Germany
>>>and other western European nations in fact view health care as a
>>>right. So this is not some bizarre hypothetical.)
No, they are protecting the right, they are trying to garuantee it. And
in doiong so infringing on other rights.
>>>Who decides what are
>>>rights and how?
Preferably we decide by voting upon them.
>>You seem to think a right is a garuantee. It is not. We have a right to
>>health care, but that does not mean we are garuanteed it. We still need
>>to work to get it.
>
>This is a response? Let me clue you in on something. A right is a
>guarantee. It says government will act to protect and enforce ability
>to exercise and to access to that activity. The right of free speech.
>Guaranteed. The right to vote. The right to assemble. The right to
>be free of unreasonable searches. All guaranteed. If violated you get
>recourse.
You have a right to free speech. That does not mean you have a right to
an audience or a right to be trained in the art of effective speech. All
it means is that someone can not prevent you from speaking out about
something.
As applied to health care. You have the right to health care. That does
not mena you are garunteed the means to get health care. it just means
one can not activily stop you from aquiring it.
>And let me clue you in too, health care is not a right in this
>country.
>You confuse opportunity and rights.
sorry. I suppose it is a matter of sematics. You could say that one has
the oppurtunity to obtain health care but not the right to health care. I
howeversee it as a right as long as no one is denying your oppurtunity.
>And notice the question marks in the sentence above. Those indicate
>questions. You asked what I was after in the post that generated this
>and I spent some time to lay it out in detail for you at your request.
>Well I took the time and you, I feel quite rudely, but typically, have
>skated by every single question.
Sorry, I thought my comments after that paragraph answered them questions
better than singly answering them, but I have no went back and answered
them for you.
>But I can understand that, because frankly the questions are difficult
>and they seek to go to the core of your very belief system. Your
>shallow responses and failure to answer them have only confirmed what
>many of us have expected. The core of your beliefs is empty and hollow
>with out intellectual justification. You have simply a fundamentalist
>religious approach to your philosophy. It is entirely a matter of
>faith, and no substance. (If you disagree take the time to give
>substantive answers and responses.)
I would like to see your answers to them also please.
>>>That would seem fundamental in any analysis of whether something
>>>protects rights or not.
>>>
>>>>Any program that gives as a whole protects more than it takes is
>>>>a valid program.
>>>
>>>>You however keep trying to argue that my principles are...
>>>>'No one can ever be taxed for anything.'
>>>
>>>I'm sorry if you feel I've mischaracterized your position. But haven't
>>>you said no one should be taxed for things that do not benefit them?
>
>A response would be indicated here.
yes I have said that. Does it really need to be explained every single
time? Anyways here it is again... no one SHOULD be taxed for things that
do not benifit them. Peaceniks however do benifit from a military in my
opinion. and as long as it is the majority opinion, it is tough luck for
them. Just as it is tough luck for me now concerning art museums.
>>>If you have, how do you reconcile that with the peaceniks who feel they
>>>don't benefit from a military?
>>>
>>>(You've blown by this a number of times now.)
>>
>>I feel they do. just as you feel i benifit from art museums. I never
>>said i do not beleive in democracy.
>>
>This is nonresponsive.
It is too responsive. You however do not want to accept that I beleive in
democracy. you think that libertarians beleifs are somehow totalitarian
and that we want to overide the will of the majority. I do not. I simply
want a smaller government. There will always be some people not happy
with some aspect of the government, but quite frankly it is unavoidable.
So these people may feel they do not benifit and I feel sorry for them
having to pay (if it is necessary that they will have to pay, which it may
not be), but we have a system (in which I fully support) where the voice
of the majority decides what is and is not funded.
>>>>>I was trying to illustrate to you that you either need to define or
>>>>>refine your principals for these decisions, or at a minimum realize
>>>>>your inconsistent position. (Something you are not even capable of
>>>>>grasping evidently.)
>>>>
>>>>My view is not inconsitant with MY principles. They are however
>>>>inconcistant with what you keep insisting my princples are.
>>>
>>>Then pray tell us what your principles are. So far we have protect
>>>rights, not take them and some subjective balancing between infringing
>>>and protection of rights.
>>>
>>>Now we need to know what are the rights we're protecting for starters.
>>>Who decides and how. (let's not forget that ninth amendment in this.)
>>
>>Rights are pretty easy to understand.
>
>To the simple minded perhaps. If so it should be easy for you to
>answer the question. At least once.
>
>>We have been through this a million times before and do not feel like
>>going through it again right now.
>
>Translation - I haven't done it in the past, I can't do it now, and I
>refuse to answer on the grounds it might embarrass me.
I am sorry that is how you translate things...
>>It can best be summed up by the saying about people have the right to
>>swing their arms about until someones face gets in the way. In other
>>words, you do not have the right to iniatiate force against someone.
>
>Aside from a lot of arm waving and hot air, care to answer the
>question?
>
>Where do rights come from? What list of rights are we talking about
>when you say government's only function is to protect rights and may
>only infringe on rights when it serves to protect them more.
You have the right to do as you please so long as you do not infringe on
others right to do the same.
>>>>>My position on the matter is simple. I believe in our representative
>>>>>government the majority decides through our representatives what
>>>>>things society desires to fund to promote the general welfare.
>>>>
>>>>Art does not promote my welfare at all. Am I to understand that when you
>>>>say general welfare, we are to read it 'special interest welfare'?
>>>
>>>Understand it anyway you want. When you use it to justify a military
>>>do the peaceniks get to call you a special interest?
>>
>>The peaceniks quite frankly are wrong. It does protect them as well as
>>everyone else in the country.
>
>Gee and I think you're wrong. SO what? Answer a question asked, just
>once. We would be so amazed.
yes they get to call me a special interest. But as I said before...
majority rules.
>>>>Anyways, I too feel the same way you do. Communities should decide such
>>>>things. I prefer them to decide in a way consitant with my view that only
>>>>programs protecting citizens rights should be publically funded. You
>>>>instead base it on this general welfare concept that i disagree with,
>>>>particularly because of your idea of 'general welfare'
>>>
>>>I'm saying general welfare is what the public through its
>>>representatives decides it is. How do you define it then, if you
>>>disagree? (See now this would be getting to the meat of the issue.)
>>
>>general welfare would be something that applies to everyone, not just a
>>particular group.
>
>But I've told you peaceniks think a military doesn't protect them it
>threatens them. Victims of military atrocities from Guatemala and
>Honduras,etc, have quite valid feelings about that. And the best
>response you've come up with is they're wrong? Oh, please. I mean
>talk about big brother! You know better. All you're saying is you
>know better than anyone else, which actually as I write it is the sum
>and total of your entire argument. You don't address questions. You
>just resort to conclusion based on the fact that you know the TRUTH.
I have addressed the question many times. I have just not answered it the
way you want. These people have valid concerns, but as I have sai it is
majority rules here in america.
>What can you think of that applies to everyone? Hint - this definition
>is unworkable. (And this is why the military-peacenik example sits
>before you. And I guess why you can't address it.)
I have addressed it.
>>>But now if you bounce back to protect rights, I'm lost because I want
>>>to know why general welfare is not broader than rights, and I want to
>>>know what rights and where that list comes from.
>>
>>You have the right to do as you please so long as you do not impede
>>others right to the same.
>
>And how do taxes figure into this? I have a right not to pay taxes as
>long as I do not interfere with your rights? This is at the nub of
>what I'm trying to get you to realize. Your governmental initiation
>of force is wrong tenet, needs to decide how to deal with people who
>don't pay taxes. Will you make them pay? Even for things they don't
>agree with. Try a yes or no answer rather than deflection for once.
As i said earlier, I do not know the exact cost and how it could be
funded. MY primary concern with politics is signifigantly reducing the
size of government. Then and only then would I start worrying about how
to fund a military without the initiation of force.
Travis Pahl
Travis Pahl
at all.
Travis Pahl
Verne
>
> Verne wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > Yes it is, particularly when the artist is himself a Catholic.
Something
> > > often overlooked by kultural kommisars like Guiliani. What's the
matter,
> > > doesn't a Catholic have the right to express himself and his views of
> the
> > > religious icons that influenced his life in any way he sees fit? So
you
> > > immediately make a leap of faith that the work is anti-Catholic? Do a
> > little
> > > research before you put your foot in your mouth.
> >
> >
> > The work is anti- catholic don't be silly the Madonna decorated in dung
> can
> > be nothing else. As to the religion of the artist, its irrelevant!
>
> Proving, once again, Verne, that your knowledge of art is about equal to
> your political sophistication. It so happens that elephant dung is often
> used in African art for decorative purposes,
Were the hell did you get that little tidbit? The artist himself claimed it
as his own unique expression of his African heritage. As to "political
sophistication" your right my politics are not as trendy as yours.
> and no offense is meant by its
> use. If you even bothered to stop and read something about the artist and
> the tradition that he is working in, and what he was trying to
communicate,
> you may have realized that.
I have and I found his words on the subject not very convincing as he only
stated that his use of shit was not meant to be offensive not that the work
itself was not meant to offend. He intende to shock.
> And the religion of the artist is hardly irrelevant. He is a Catholic. He
> may have a different way of trying to express his relationship with his
> religion than you would, or to explore his very legitimate feelings. You
> immediately associate the use of elephant dung as something profane and
> obscene, when, in fact, the artist was using it because it is a symbol of
> fertility, a legitimate theme in the context of the work as a whole.
> But of course, to condemn a Catholic for looking at his religion in a very
> expressive and controversial manner, really makes you no better than the
> Ayatollahs who condemned Salman Rushdie, because they didnt like the way
he
> portrayed Islam in his work.
He offended! Would you defend a racist piece of art if the artiest claimed
no bad intent?
>
> > If you feel like answering the question please do. Would you be
defending
> > this artists right to
> > be
> > paid by the government if his work included "Martin Luther King
covered
> in
> > crap". Would his being a black man make that as acceptable [due to his
> > religion] as his decorating the Madonna in shit is?
>
> Quite possibly, Verne. It's all a matter of context. Something you don't
> have a clue about.
Then a racist black man art should be funded? how about a racist white man?
Do you draw any lines?
>
> > I love the hypocrisy of the left. Please try not to dodge the question
> this
> > time.
>
> Didnt dodge it all. However, you have yet to show that this work is
> anti-Catholic, except for the fact that it offends you (and Guiliani).
> Somehow, that is a less than convincing argument.
Your avoiding the point by saying the artist is inoffensive. I'll buy that!
The artist was misunderstood.
So how about "Christ Pissed" should that have been funded?
My point still stands. Are you willing to draw no lines about what art is
funded. Should the public fund skin head art. Anti Jewish art. And are you a
hypocrite on this issue? You haven't shown your self to be yet as you refuse
to fully answer the question. When your though with your dance. Why don't
you get to the point.
Verne
Frederick
Verne wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > The work is anti- catholic don't be silly the Madonna decorated in
dung
> > can
> > > be nothing else. As to the religion of the artist, its irrelevant!
> >
> > Proving, once again, Verne, that your knowledge of art is about equal to
> > your political sophistication. It so happens that elephant dung is often
> > used in African art for decorative purposes,
>
> Were the hell did you get that little tidbit? The artist himself claimed
it
> as his own unique expression of his African heritage. As to "political
> sophistication" your right my politics are not as trendy as yours
>
> > use. If you even bothered to stop and read something about the artist
and
> > the tradition that he is working in, and what he was trying to
> communicate,
> > you may have realized that.
>
> I have and I found his words on the subject not very convincing as he only
> stated that his use of shit was not meant to be offensive not that the
work
> itself was not meant to offend. He intende to shock.
So what? There is nothing wrong with shocking people. The Bible is often
"shocking" in some of its stories, meant to teach something. What's your
point. As to whether YOU found his words convincing, uh, Verne, who gives a
shit (no pun intended)?
> > And the religion of the artist is hardly irrelevant. He is a Catholic.
He
> > may have a different way of trying to express his relationship with his
> > religion than you would, or to explore his very legitimate feelings. You
> > immediately associate the use of elephant dung as something profane and
> > obscene, when, in fact, the artist was using it because it is a symbol
of
> > fertility, a legitimate theme in the context of the work as a whole.
> > But of course, to condemn a Catholic for looking at his religion in a
very
> > expressive and controversial manner, really makes you no better than the
> > Ayatollahs who condemned Salman Rushdie, because they didnt like the way
> he
> > portrayed Islam in his work.
>
>
> He offended! Would you defend a racist piece of art if the artiest claimed
> no bad intent?
You have yet to show that this work is anti-Catholic, other than that you
were offended by it. And while I would not defend a racist piece of art, I
would not prevent its exhibition or display.
> > > If you feel like answering the question please do. Would you be
> defending
> > > this artists right to
> > > be
> > > paid by the government if his work included "Martin Luther King
> covered
> > in
> > > crap". Would his being a black man make that as acceptable [due to
his
> > > religion] as his decorating the Madonna in shit is?
> >
> > Quite possibly, Verne. It's all a matter of context. Something you don't
> > have a clue about.
>
>
> Then a racist black man art should be funded? how about a racist white
man?
> Do you draw any lines?
You keep talking about racist art. But you have yet to show that this work
was racist, or anti-Catholic, so you are setting up a straw-man argument.
> > > I love the hypocrisy of the left. Please try not to dodge the question
> > this
> > > time.
> >
> > Didnt dodge it all. However, you have yet to show that this work is
> > anti-Catholic, except for the fact that it offends you (and Guiliani).
> > Somehow, that is a less than convincing argument.
>
>
>
> Your avoiding the point by saying the artist is inoffensive. I'll buy
that!
> The artist was misunderstood.
I didnt say that either. But for the third (and probably not the last) time,
you have yet to show how the work is anti-Catholic. The fact that it offends
you is more than obvious. Now, tell me WHY it is anti-Catholic.
> So how about "Christ Pissed" should that have been funded?
Another work of art you obviously don't understand, or realize that the
artist is also Catholic. But of course, you would also condemn Scorscese's
LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST as being anti-Catholic, even though he is
Catholic, even though it is a very spiritula work, simply because it offends
you.
> My point still stands. Are you willing to draw no lines about what art
is
> funded. Should the public fund skin head art. Anti Jewish art. And are you
a
> hypocrite on this issue? You haven't shown your self to be yet as you
refuse
> to fully answer the question. When your though with your dance. Why don't
> you get to the point.
Of course I would draw lines as to what art is funded. The problem is, you
have yet to show that this exhibition, or even this particular work, is
anti-Catholic. That's why no one is taking you seriously. All you have said
is that the use of shit offends you, and that the work offends you. Other
people, including many Catholics, are not offended. Seems to me if there is
ambiguity or disagreement on that very important point, you have yet to make
your tortured point. First prove that the work is anti-Catholic.
---Frederick
Frederick
Travis Pahl wrote:
> If you are not going to respond with any substance, please do not respond
> at all.
>
My experience with you is that when I respond with substance (as I almost
always do), you selectively edit and delete my remarks. You are then
unprepared to accept the consequences of your action. Deal with it.
Clave
> If you are not going to respond with any substance, please do not respond
> at all.
Travis, with the quality of your arguments on this issue (among others), you
should feel happy as hell that anyone takes the time to respond to you at
all.
Jim
Clave
> On Mon, 4 Oct 1999 12:01:05 -0700, "Frederick"
> <rasho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> He offended! Would you defend a racist piece of art if the artiest
claimed
> >> no bad intent?
> >
> >You have yet to show that this work is anti-Catholic, other than that you
> >were offended by it. And while I would not defend a racist piece of art,
I
> >would not prevent its exhibition or display.
>
> with it!
Although in Giuliani's family, isn't it called "vendetta?"
Jim
Frederick
Clave wrote:
> >
> > Guiliani should just issue a fatwah against the heretic and have done
> > with it!
>
>
> Although in Giuliani's family, isn't it called "vendetta?"
>
Now you've done it. You will have the Italian anti-defamation league on your
case now.
Don't you realize how OFFENSIVE you can be, Jim?
Have you no sense of decency?
Clave
None that I know of.
At least I didn't put "family" in quotes.
Jim
Eric da Red
Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>On Sat, 2 Oct 1999, Roger Kluck wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 1 Oct 1999 18:05:24 -0700, Travis Pahl
>><tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Whether it is a gallery or a musem is of little importance to my
>>>arguement. The fact that it is a great one only strengthen my arguement
>>>that it should not be subsidized.
>>It never occurs to you that it might be great because of its
>>subsidies?
>I am to believe that government is somehow different than private money in
>the hands of a musem?
Yes. A few posts back you admitted this, when you claimed that without
government subsidies 'crap' art wouldn't exist.
> And that only government money can make it great
>but private money of equal ammount does not have that affect? I think
>not.
You would be wrong.
--
Historical Revelation Of The Week: In 1938, the 27-year-old actor [Ronald
Reagan] announced he wanted to signup. The [Communist Party] conducted an
investigation, said Fast, and "word came back he was a flake ... who
couldn't be trusted with a political opinion for more than 20 minutes."
Eric da Red
Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>Ahh.. grat... we have an answer... government money is needed to provide
>the people with art that they do not want to see. Great answer.
>
>Travis Pahl
Government money is useful to provide exposure of art to people who would
not otherwise see it.
Eric da Red
Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>> >One wonders why, beyond the obvious delay in having to find a job, you
>>> >bother attending any classes at all.
>>> have you ever taken an engineering class? They teach things that are not
>>> easily understood. i found them to be quite valueable.
>>
>>I have an engineering *degree,* Travis.
>Then you of all should people should understand why i went to college. It
>was to obtain a degree such as yours and learn about engineering. Not
>art.
Sigh.
If Travis were invited to the grandest Sunday brunch buffet in the city,
he would content himself with eating only breadsticks.
Eric da Red
Roger Kluck <r.k...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Oct 1999 21:14:11 GMT, "Clave" <claviusN...@gte.net>
>wrote:
...
>>A premise I reject. Or shall I just respond by saying, "Since you're going
>>to be paying taxes to subsidize the arts no mater what,..."
>hey maybe that invading country has better art?
Some of us have more in common culturally with our chums in British
Columbia than, say, our fellow citizens in The South. I would much
rather have my taxes support the defense of Vancouver BC than Jackson,
Mississippi, in part because they have better art.
Eric da Red
Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>If you have any 'difficult questions for libertarains feel free to ask me.
It's been done.
You skirted, evaded, skipped, changed the subject, feigned ignorance,
showed genuine ignorance, posted irrelevancies, displayed a shocking
shallowness, refused to correct your simplest errors, showed an inability
to apply simple rules of logic and evidence.
Eric da Red
Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>> Whether it is a gallery or a musem is of little importance to my
>>> arguement. The fact that it is a great one only strengthen my arguement
>>> that it should not be subsidized.
>>You spoiled, selfish bastard. It's subsidized in order to allow people of
>>*all* incomes to be exposed to a wide, eclectic variety of art if they so
>>choose. Or are you going to argue that people should only be exposed to art
>>they can afford to see?
>Good tactic... call me names.
Calling you names seems to be the only thing that you respond directly to.
> My arguement is that the government should
>not be subsidizing art.
No. Your belief is that government should not be subsidizing art. You
have virtually no argument - or, if you do, you haven't shown us here.
Hint: repeating the same bromides is not an argument.
>If that means some extrmely poor people are not
>able to go see some art, so be it. Some day you will realize, being poor
>means something. it means you are not rich, you do not get to do
>somethings rich people are able to do. You are not able to live in a
>mansion, you are not able to go for a month out on your yacht, you are not
>able to take vacations to europe every year, and YES it may mean you can
>not look at a picture of the virgin mary with vaginas around her.
That is what 'being poor' means to you. Why exactly should this rather
shabby view of 'poverty' be enforced on the rest of the public?
>Unless of course you go to a museum or gallery that is supported in a way
>other than admission fees. There are such places. They operate on sales
>of art peices or donations. It may be unfortunate but the poor people may
>just have to limit themselves to those places instead of the admission
>only places.
Similarly, college degrees may just have to be limited to people who can
pay tuition up front.
Eric da Red
Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>How does art protect you?
It protects you from the worldview that what you see around you is all
there is.
> how does a military NOT protect you?
When it works against you instead of for you.
Eric da Red
Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>On Fri, 1 Oct 1999, Eric da Red wrote:
>
>>In article <Pine.A41.4.10.991001...@dante31.u.washington.edu>,
>>Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>I am sure everyone has heard of the NY art gallery and the mayor trying to
>>>remove funding for this particular art gallery because it is offensive to
>>>catholics. Any thoughts on this?
>>It's perfectly in character for Kunstführer Rudi to do this.
>So am I to assume you disagree?
You don't have to assume. I disagree.
> you think this art should be funded byt
>tax payer dollars?
At this point, yes. A commitment was made by the city. This commitment
is being withdrawn solely because some people, especially the Mayor,
don't like the content of the show. This is bad policy.
The question 'do you think this art should be funded by the tax payer
dollars' is a question that might have had a different answer before the
commitment was made. I don't know what the choices were for the NYC
budget, so I cannot give an answer.
Travis Pahl
>In article <Pine.A41.4.10.991002...@dante05.u.washington.edu>,
>Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>>Ahh.. grat... we have an answer... government money is needed to provide
>>the people with art that they do not want to see. Great answer.
>>
>>Travis Pahl
>
>
>Government money is useful to provide exposure of art to people who would
>not otherwise see it.
Which would be special interest and not general intrest.
Verne
He has no answer. So he begins the insults.
>
> > > And the religion of the artist is hardly irrelevant. He is a Catholic.
> He
> > > may have a different way of trying to express his relationship with
his
> > > religion than you would, or to explore his very legitimate feelings.
You
> > > immediately associate the use of elephant dung as something profane
and
> > > obscene, when, in fact, the artist was using it because it is a symbol
> of
> > > fertility, a legitimate theme in the context of the work as a whole.
> > > But of course, to condemn a Catholic for looking at his religion in a
> very
> > > expressive and controversial manner, really makes you no better than
the
> > > Ayatollahs who condemned Salman Rushdie, because they didnt like the
way
> > he
> > > portrayed Islam in his work.
> >
> >
> > He offended! Would you defend a racist piece of art if the artiest
claimed
> > no bad intent?
>
> You have yet to show that this work is anti-Catholic, other than that you
> were offended by it. And while I would not defend a racist piece of art, I
> would not prevent its exhibition or display.
Let me get this right the Madonna decorated in dung and surrounded in
cutouts from porno magazines is not anti catholic? In your eyes nothing is
anti-catholic is it.
>
> > > > If you feel like answering the question please do. Would you be
> > defending
> > > > this artists right to
> > > > be
> > > > paid by the government if his work included "Martin Luther King
> > covered
> > > in
> > > > crap". Would his being a black man make that as acceptable [due to
> his
> > > > religion] as his decorating the Madonna in shit is?
> > >
> > > Quite possibly, Verne. It's all a matter of context. Something you
don't
> > > have a clue about.
> >
> >
> > Then a racist black man art should be funded? how about a racist white
> man?
> > Do you draw any lines?
>
> You keep talking about racist art. But you have yet to show that this work
> was racist, or anti-Catholic, so you are setting up a straw-man argument.
Your not being even a little honest when you state that this work is not
anti-catholic. I know that it is and so do you.
>
>
> > > > I love the hypocrisy of the left. Please try not to dodge the
question
> > > this
> > > > time.
> > >
> > > Didnt dodge it all. However, you have yet to show that this work is
> > > anti-Catholic, except for the fact that it offends you (and Guiliani).
> > > Somehow, that is a less than convincing argument.
> >
> >
> >
> > Your avoiding the point by saying the artist is inoffensive. I'll buy
> that!
> > The artist was misunderstood.
>
> I didnt say that either. But for the third (and probably not the last)
time,
> you have yet to show how the work is anti-Catholic. The fact that it
offends
> you is more than obvious. Now, tell me WHY it is anti-Catholic.
Because that was exactly what the artist had in mind.
>
> > So how about "Christ Pissed" should that have been funded?
>
> Another work of art you obviously don't understand, or realize that the
> artist is also Catholic.
I understand it. And I get a laugh out of those unwilling to admit that it
is nothing but a cross in a jar of piss. And he was payed for it! And how
many idiots were afraid they would be thought unsophisticated if they said
that truth. Are you one of the ones that "get it". And the "artist"is
laughing at all who think they did.
> But of course, you would also condemn Scorscese's
> LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST as being anti-Catholic, even though he is
> Catholic, even though it is a very spiritula work, simply because it
offends
> you.
Scorscese is not a practicing catholic and his work was an insult to his
former religion. But personally the only thing I found offensive was that it
coned me out of a few bucks and wasted a few hours of my life. It was a poor
movie
>
>
> > My point still stands. Are you willing to draw no lines about what art
> is
> > funded. Should the public fund skin head art. Anti Jewish art. And are
you
> a
> > hypocrite on this issue? You haven't shown your self to be yet as you
> refuse
> > to fully answer the question. When your though with your dance. Why
don't
> > you get to the point.
>
> Of course I would draw lines as to what art is funded. The problem is, you
> have yet to show that this exhibition, or even this particular work, is
> anti-Catholic.
Yes Fred I have. But your not one to ever admit he is full of shit.
> That's why no one is taking you seriously.
Frederick I could just jump into the ridiculous little cat fight your having
with Travis and have all the attention in the world from you and your
brethren. That is what you mean when you say "taken seriously". No thank
you I will stick to serious topics.
> All you have said
> is that the use of shit offends you, and that the work offends you. Other
> people, including many Catholics, are not offended. Seems to me if there
is
> ambiguity or disagreement on that very important point, you have yet to
make
> your tortured point. First prove that the work is anti-Catholic.
>
> ---Frederick
The point makes its self and needs no help from me. As long as your not in
the mood to be intellectually honest on this subject. As long as your
unwilling to admit what honestly can not be denied. Then their is no point
carrying on with you on this subject. As all your doing is pulling this
thread away from anything other than a pissing match.
Verne
Eric da Red
Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>On Mon, 4 Oct 1999, Eric da Red wrote:
>
>>In article <Pine.A41.4.10.991002...@dante05.u.washington.edu>,
>>Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>Ahh.. grat... we have an answer... government money is needed to provide
>>>the people with art that they do not want to see. Great answer.
>>>
>>>Travis Pahl
>>Government money is useful to provide exposure of art to people who would
>>not otherwise see it.
>Which would be special interest and not general intrest.
In about the same way a fire department that dispenses its skills only on
burning buildings is serving a 'special interest' because it does not also
pour water all over buildings that are not burning.
I'm better off living in a society that has a greater appreciation of art,
even if I'm helping to pay for shows and exhibits that I personally won't
see.
shi...@mailcity.com
(Roger Kluck) wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Oct 1999 03:49:18 GMT, shi...@mailcity.com ( ) wrote:
>
> >In article
> ><Pine.A41.4.10.991003...@dante16.u.washington.edu>,
> >Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> tried to avoid the argument when he
> >jotted down the following:
> >
> >> I try to keep the threadsd together. it must be ahbit that I have picked
> >> up because you guys always contradict yourself at some point between the
> >> top of the message and the bottom, and I like those contradictions to stay
> >> in the same thread. You however obviously have invest4ed interest in
> >> trying to break up posts that show blaring contradictions.
> >>
> >> Travis Pahl
> >>
> >[SNIP]
> >
> >
> >Perhaps you could demonstrate your point by going back to the post offered
> >by R. Kluck:
> >
> ><37f8f935...@news.mindspring.com>, r.k...@mindspring.com (Roger
Kluck )
>
>
> I've done that and I've got trouble following your thought here. Help
> me out a bit?
No problem. Mr. Pahl was commenting on the "contradictions" while
ignoring the comments and concerns you addressed in the message that I
noted. I thought he was slyly trying to side-step a discussion of some
relevant points you brought up. I was merely hoping he would adress
them. Sorry for the confusion.
wa...@blarg.net
wrote:
>Some of us have more in common culturally with our chums in British
>Columbia than, say, our fellow citizens in The South. I would much
>rather have my taxes support the defense of Vancouver BC than Jackson,
>Mississippi, in part because they have better art.
This shouldn't be hard for you to arrange, it's probably less than a
hundred miles meaning you can haul one truckload of your stuff a
day...
If you so despise everything that makes America great, and are so
enamored of everything that is dragging our neighbors down, please
become one of our neighbors.
Clave
What makes America great, son, is the *realities* of our constitution, not
the make-believe "rights" you've convinced yourself you were born with.
Jim
JohnGalt
wrote:
>In article <Pine.A41.4.10.991002...@dante05.u.washington.edu>,
>Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>>Ahh.. grat... we have an answer... government money is needed to provide
>>the people with art that they do not want to see. Great answer.
>>
>>Travis Pahl
>
>
>Government money is useful to provide exposure of art to people who would
>not otherwise see it.
Maybe I could get some government money to provide a Ferrari, which I
would not otherwise drive.
Or some caviar, which I would not otherwise eat.
JohnGalt
NRA Life
Libertarian
remove notreet to reply via e-mail
Eric da Red
>On Mon, 04 Oct 1999 22:05:16 GMT, berg...@drizzle.com (Eric da Red)
>wrote:
>>Some of us have more in common culturally with our chums in British
>>Columbia than, say, our fellow citizens in The South. I would much
>>rather have my taxes support the defense of Vancouver BC than Jackson,
>>Mississippi, in part because they have better art.
>This shouldn't be hard for you to arrange, it's probably less than a
>hundred miles meaning you can haul one truckload of your stuff a
>day...
I'm not going anywhere. I like it here.
>If you so despise everything that makes America great,
What exactly is it about Mississippi that 'makes America great?'
> and are so
>enamored of everything that is dragging our neighbors down, please
>become one of our neighbors.
You seem to be reacting to someone else. I like it here.
Eric da Red
JohnGalt <John...@notreet.speedfactory.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 04 Oct 1999 22:01:43 GMT, berg...@drizzle.com (Eric da Red)
>wrote:
>>In article <Pine.A41.4.10.991002...@dante05.u.washington.edu>,
>>Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>>Ahh.. grat... we have an answer... government money is needed to provide
>>>the people with art that they do not want to see. Great answer.
>>Government money is useful to provide exposure of art to people who would
>>not otherwise see it.
>Maybe I could get some government money to provide a Ferrari, which I
>would not otherwise drive.
Maybe you can. Give it a try.
>Or some caviar, which I would not otherwise eat.
Go for it.
Frederick
Verne wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > I have and I found his words on the subject not very convincing as he
> only
> > > stated that his use of shit was not meant to be offensive not that the
> > work
> > > itself was not meant to offend. He intende to shock.
> >
> > So what? There is nothing wrong with shocking people. The Bible is often
> > "shocking" in some of its stories, meant to teach something. What's your
> > point. As to whether YOU found his words convincing, uh, Verne, who
gives
> a
> > shit (no pun intended)?
>
> He has no answer. So he begins the insults.
And you avoided the point. Tell us how it is anti-Catholic.
And you once again avoid the question. How, exactly, is it anti-Catholic?
All you have said he has used materials that are offensive to you. You
haven't indicated how exactly that is transformed into an anti-Catholic
message or work of art.
> >
> > > > > If you feel like answering the question please do. Would you be
> > > defending
> > > > > this artists right to
> > > > > be
> > > > > paid by the government if his work included "Martin Luther King
> > > covered
> > > > in
> > > > > crap". Would his being a black man make that as acceptable [due
to
> > his
> > > > > religion] as his decorating the Madonna in shit is?
> > > >
> > > > Quite possibly, Verne. It's all a matter of context. Something you
> don't
> > > > have a clue about.
> > >
> > >
> > > Then a racist black man art should be funded? how about a racist white
> > man?
> > > Do you draw any lines?
> >
> > You keep talking about racist art. But you have yet to show that this
work
> > was racist, or anti-Catholic, so you are setting up a straw-man
argument.
>
>
> Your not being even a little honest when you state that this work is not
> anti-catholic. I know that it is and so do you.
Hmm, OK, that is three times, Verne. The artist used elephant dung and
pornographic images in his depiction of the Madonna. And this is
anti-Catholic, how, exactly? Anytime you want to make a specific statement,
feel free to do so.
> > > > > I love the hypocrisy of the left. Please try not to dodge the
> question
> > > > this
> > > > > time.
> > > >
> > > > Didnt dodge it all. However, you have yet to show that this work is
> > > > anti-Catholic, except for the fact that it offends you (and
Guiliani).
> > > > Somehow, that is a less than convincing argument.
> > > Your avoiding the point by saying the artist is inoffensive. I'll buy
> > that!
> > > The artist was misunderstood.
> >
> > I didnt say that either. But for the third (and probably not the last)
> time,
> > you have yet to show how the work is anti-Catholic. The fact that it
> offends
> > you is more than obvious. Now, tell me WHY it is anti-Catholic.
>
> Because that was exactly what the artist had in mind.
And you know this HOW, exactly? This makes four times, Verne.
>
> >
> > > So how about "Christ Pissed" should that have been funded?
> >
> > Another work of art you obviously don't understand, or realize that the
> > artist is also Catholic.
>
> I understand it. And I get a laugh out of those unwilling to admit that it
> is nothing but a cross in a jar of piss. And he was payed for it! And how
> many idiots were afraid they would be thought unsophisticated if they said
> that truth. Are you one of the ones that "get it". And the "artist"is
> laughing at all who think they did.
Serrano is generally regarded as one of the most gifted artists working
today. I have seen many of his sculptures and photographs and think he is
very good. PISS CHRIST is not one of my favorite works, but I am neither
offended by it, nor do I think it is anti-Catholic. And you dodged the
question for a fifth time.
> > But of course, you would also condemn Scorscese's
> > LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST as being anti-Catholic, even though he is
> > Catholic, even though it is a very spiritula work, simply because it
> offends
> > you.
>
> Scorscese is not a practicing catholic and his work was an insult to his
> former religion. But personally the only thing I found offensive was that
it
> coned me out of a few bucks and wasted a few hours of my life. It was a
poor
> movie
So now Verne is the arbiter of all that is good and catholic. You know what,
in addition to being a philistine, you're also a fascist. I thought it was a
brilliant movie, and there is absolutely nothing insulting to Catholicism in
that movie. Its a hell of a lot more reverent and spiritual than Ben-Hur or
The Ten Commandments. But that isnt really the issue, is it Verne? The fact
is, it offends you, ergo, it must be anti-Catholic. Right?
> > > My point still stands. Are you willing to draw no lines about what a
rt
> > is
> > > funded. Should the public fund skin head art. Anti Jewish art. And are
> you
> > a
> > > hypocrite on this issue? You haven't shown your self to be yet as you
> > refuse
> > > to fully answer the question. When your though with your dance. Why
> don't
> > > you get to the point.
> >
> > Of course I would draw lines as to what art is funded. The problem is,
you
> > have yet to show that this exhibition, or even this particular work, is
> > anti-Catholic.
>
> Yes Fred I have. But your not one to ever admit he is full of shit.
No, Verne, you have not. We can list all of your responses and nobody in his
right mind would think that you have even uttered a single syllable as to
why it is anti-Catholic. You have said, at least six time, that it offends
you. As does Serrano, as does Scorscese. All that we now know is that if
Verne is offended, it is anti-Catholic. You will forgive us, perhaps, if
some of us are less than impressed with that reasoning.
> > That's why no one is taking you seriously.
>
> Frederick I could just jump into the ridiculous little cat fight your
having
> with Travis and have all the attention in the world from you and your
> brethren. That is what you mean when you say "taken seriously". No thank
> you I will stick to serious topics.
Fine. Tell us why this work is anti-Catholic.
> > All you have said
> > is that the use of shit offends you, and that the work offends you.
Other
> > people, including many Catholics, are not offended. Seems to me if there
> is
> > ambiguity or disagreement on that very important point, you have yet to
> make
> > your tortured point. First prove that the work is anti-Catholic.
> >
> The point makes its self and needs no help from me.
Excuse me if I revert to my public school days.....BRRUCCKK, BRRUCCCK,
BRRUUUCK (sound of a chicken squawking).
Aren't you even embarrassed to claim you want to have a serious discussion,
and use the most cowardly dodge of them all......"the point makes its self
and needs no help from me." Man that is lame.
> As long as your not in
> the mood to be intellectually honest on this subject. As long as your
> unwilling to admit what honestly can not be denied. Then their is no point
> carrying on with you on this subject. As all your doing is pulling this
> thread away from anything other than a pissing match.
>
Intellectually honest???? That's a hoot coming from a guy who won't even
give us his reasons for feeling the way he does. You've got some nerve.
---Frederick
Travis Pahl
it is a picture of the virgin mary (a catholic symbol) covered in
elephant dung and vaginas. If I had a picture of you, with this
surrounding it and had people come look at it would you be flattered or
upset?
>> Let me get this right the Madonna decorated in dung and surrounded in
>> cutouts from porno magazines is not anti catholic? In your eyes nothing is
>> anti-catholic is it.
>>
>And you once again avoid the question. How, exactly, is it anti-Catholic?
>All you have said he has used materials that are offensive to you. You
>haven't indicated how exactly that is transformed into an anti-Catholic
>message or work of art.
Are catholics in favor of dung and vaginas being displayed in conjuction
with them? I always thought they were opposed to pornography in
conjunction with their religion.
Lastly, what art would you consider anti catholic if any fredie?
Travis Pahl
Frederick
Travis Pahl wrote:
> >And you avoided the point. Tell us how it is anti-Catholic.
>
> it is a picture of the virgin mary (a catholic symbol) covered in
> elephant dung and vaginas. If I had a picture of you, with this
> surrounding it and had people come look at it would you be flattered or
> upset?
Being flattered or upset is not the same as being anti-Catholic. Is it?
>
> >> Let me get this right the Madonna decorated in dung and surrounded in
> >> cutouts from porno magazines is not anti catholic? In your eyes nothing
is
> >> anti-catholic is it.
> >>
> >And you once again avoid the question. How, exactly, is it anti-Catholic?
> >All you have said he has used materials that are offensive to you. You
> >haven't indicated how exactly that is transformed into an anti-Catholic
> >message or work of art.
>
> Are catholics in favor of dung and vaginas being displayed in conjuction
> with them?
I didnt know it was something that one was either in favor of or not. All I
know is that the artist is Catholic, so it obviously didnt bother him. Don't
you believe in the free expression of one's religion?
> I always thought they were opposed to pornography in
> conjunction with their religion.
They may well be. How does that make the work anti-Catholic?
> Lastly, what art would you consider anti catholic if any fredie?
>
Haven't really thought about it, Lie-Boy!
Eric da Red
Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>And you avoided the point. Tell us how it is anti-Catholic.
>it is a picture of the virgin mary (a catholic symbol) covered in
>elephant dung and vaginas.
I saw pictures recently in a museum of the Virgin Mary with one breast
exposed. Is this anti-Catholic also?
> If I had a picture of you, with this
>surrounding it and had people come look at it would you be flattered or
>upset?
It depends. Whose vaginas are we talking about?
Clave
news:rvkkn9...@corp.supernews.com...
> In article
<Pine.A41.4.10.991005...@dante05.u.washington.edu>,
> Travis Pahl <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>
> >elephant dung and vaginas.
>
>
> I saw pictures recently in a museum of the Virgin Mary with one breast
> exposed. Is this anti-Catholic also?
Depends. Nice rack?
Jim
Verne
> In article <37f98152....@news.blarg.net>, <wa...@blarg.net> wrote:
> >On Mon, 04 Oct 1999 22:05:16 GMT, berg...@drizzle.com (Eric da Red)
> >wrote:
>
>
> >>Some of us have more in common culturally with our chums in British
> >>Columbia than, say, our fellow citizens in The South. I would much
> >>rather have my taxes support the defense of Vancouver BC than Jackson,
> >>Mississippi, in part because they have better art.
>
> >This shouldn't be hard for you to arrange, it's probably less than a
> >hundred miles meaning you can haul one truckload of your stuff a
> >day...
>
>
> I'm not going anywhere. I like it here.
>
>
> >If you so despise everything that makes America great,
>
>
> What exactly is it about Mississippi that 'makes America great?'
Catfish and hushpuppies, real biscuits and gravy, Bar Bee Q. And believe it
or not the races live together there. Unlike here were we talk diversity but
stay in our own part of town.
Verne
Clave
news:rvkuv5...@corp.supernews.com...
Don't forget the educational system, which consistently ranks #49 or #50,
and the average per-capita income, which also consistently ranks below #45,
stifling heat and humidity, cudzu, swamps, poisonous snakes, poisonous
insects, and politicians corrupt enough to make a Texan blush.
And as far as the races living together, that may be true in Jackson and
Hattiesburg and *maybe* Meridian, but you get more than about 50 miles
outside the city limits and it's 1930 in more ways than I care to think
about.
Jim
Travis Pahl
>
>Travis Pahl wrote:
>
>> >And you avoided the point. Tell us how it is anti-Catholic.
>>
>> it is a picture of the virgin mary (a catholic symbol) covered in
>> elephant dung and vaginas. If I had a picture of you, with this
>> surrounding it and had people come look at it would you be flattered or
>> upset?
>
>Being flattered or upset is not the same as being anti-Catholic. Is it?
If someone makes art that is meant to upset catholics, I consider it anti
catholic.
>> >> Let me get this right the Madonna decorated in dung and surrounded in
>> >> cutouts from porno magazines is not anti catholic? In your eyes nothing
>is
>> >> anti-catholic is it.
>> >>
>> >And you once again avoid the question. How, exactly, is it anti-Catholic?
>> >All you have said he has used materials that are offensive to you. You
>> >haven't indicated how exactly that is transformed into an anti-Catholic
>> >message or work of art.
>>
>> Are catholics in favor of dung and vaginas being displayed in conjuction
>> with them?
>
>I didnt know it was something that one was either in favor of or not. All I
>know is that the artist is Catholic, so it obviously didnt bother him. Don't
>you believe in the free expression of one's religion?
Yes I do beleive in freedom of expression. i have never said he should
not be able to make such art and display it. I have just been against
public funds funding it.
And of course people can be in favor or against having thier religious
idols being covered in idols and shit.
>> I always thought they were opposed to pornography in
>> conjunction with their religion.
>
>They may well be. How does that make the work anti-Catholic?
Well if something is going against the catholics beleif, it is by
definition anti-catholic.
>> Lastly, what art would you consider anti catholic if any fredie?
>
>Haven't really thought about it!
That is apparant. I was asking so that you would think about. Have you
had enough time to answer the question yet?
Travis Pahl
Verne
Frederick <rasho...@hotmail.com> wrote redundantly in message
news:ODIvUZ1D$GA.273@cpmsnbbsa02...
Snip
> >
> >
> > Let me get this right the Madonna decorated in dung and surrounded in
> > cutouts from porno magazines is not anti catholic? In your eyes nothing
is
> > anti-catholic is it.
> >
> And you once again avoid the question. How, exactly, is it anti-Catholic?
> All you have said he has used materials that are offensive to you. You
> haven't indicated how exactly that is transformed into an anti-Catholic
> message or work of art.
Fred your right porno is not insulting to Catholics were could I get such a
silly idea!
Snip more of Fred's insincere argument
>
> argument.
> >
> >
> > Your not being even a little honest when you state that this work is not
> > anti-catholic. I know that it is and so do you.
>
> Hmm, OK, that is three times, Verne. The artist used elephant dung and
> pornographic images in his depiction of the Madonna. And this is
> anti-Catholic, how, exactly? Anytime you want to make a specific
statement,
> feel free to do so.
But Fred your argument has won me over. Elephant dung and pornographic
images in his depiction of the Madonna is nothing if not respectful to
Catholics. Just because they consider the blessed virgin sacred is no reason
to consider defiling that image as an insult to that religion.
>
Snip more of Frederick's brilliant logic.
> >
> > Because that was exactly what the artist had in mind.
>
> And you know this HOW, exactly? This makes four times, Verne.
Your right again. I now believe the artist was expressing his love of the
church. As I look at a picture of this masterpiece it all falls into place.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > So how about "Christ Pissed" should that have been funded?
> > >
> > > Another work of art you obviously don't understand, or realize that
the
> > > artist is also Catholic.
> >
> > I understand it. And I get a laugh out of those unwilling to admit that
it
> > is nothing but a cross in a jar of piss. And he was payed for it! And
how
> > many idiots were afraid they would be thought unsophisticated if they
said
> > that truth. Are you one of the ones that "get it". And the "artist"is
> > laughing at all who think they did.
>
> Serrano is generally regarded as one of the most gifted artists working
> today. I have seen many of his sculptures and photographs and think he is
> very good. PISS CHRIST is not one of my favorite works, but I am neither
> offended by it, nor do I think it is anti-Catholic. And you dodged the
> question for a fifth time.
Again Fred your right. A bottle of urine with a crucifix in it was an
expression of the organic nature of Christ not ment to be taken badly.
On a more serious note congratulations for realizing that good artist often
produce shit. I know a very successful painter who every so often
intentionally produces a utter piece of shit normally a phallic symbol. As
you probably can guess their is always someone who "just love's it" as he is
highly regarded.
>
> > > But of course, you would also condemn Scorscese's
> > > LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST as being anti-Catholic, even though he is
> > > Catholic, even though it is a very spiritula work, simply because it
> > offends
> > > you.
> >
> > Scorscese is not a practicing catholic and his work was an insult to his
> > former religion. But personally the only thing I found offensive was
that
> it
> > coned me out of a few bucks and wasted a few hours of my life. It was a
> poor
> > movie
>
> So now Verne is the arbiter of all that is good and catholic
He claim's to be a practicing Buddhist. So I take him at his word he is not
a catholic
>You know what,
> in addition to being a philistine, you're also a fascist.
I love you to Fred!
> I thought it was a
> brilliant movie, and there is absolutely nothing insulting to Catholicism
in
> that movie.
Your right again Fred that movie insulted most Christians not just
Catholics. And worst of all it was boring.
> Its a hell of a lot more reverent and spiritual than Ben-Hur or
> The Ten Commandments. But that isnt really the issue, is it Verne? The
fact
> is, it offends you, ergo, it must be anti-Catholic. Right?
I got it Fred you think I'm a catholic and you think I have been offended.
Wrong and wrong again.
Snip for the hell of it.
>
> > > anti-Catholic.
> >
> > Yes Fred I have. But your not one to ever admit he is full of shit.
>
> No, Verne, you have not. We can list all of your responses and nobody in
his
> right mind would think that you have even uttered a single syllable as to
> why it is anti-Catholic. You have said, at least six time, that it offends
> you. As does Serrano, as does Scorscese. All that we now know is that if
> Verne is offended, it is anti-Catholic. You will forgive us, perhaps, if
> some of us are less than impressed with that reasoning.
Now that you have converted me to your point of veiw it really brings me
pain to point out to you that no were have I ever said I was offended and
I'm not Catholic.
Fred why are you using the royal "we" when writing? Am I to presume it's you
and god speaking?
>
> > > That's why no one is taking you seriously.
> >
> > Frederick I could just jump into the ridiculous little cat fight your
> having
> > with Travis and have all the attention in the world from you and your
> > brethren. That is what you mean when you say "taken seriously". No
thank
> > you I will stick to serious topics.
>
> Fine. Tell us why this work is anti-Catholic.
That is what I like about you Fred your persistently on your own subject.
Snip because this is to long
>
> > The point makes its self and needs no help from me.
>
> Excuse me if I revert to my public school days.....BRRUCCKK, BRRUCCCK,
> BRRUUUCK (sound of a chicken squawking).
>
> Aren't you even embarrassed to claim you want to have a serious
discussion,
> and use the most cowardly dodge of them all......"the point makes its self
> and needs no help from me." Man that is lame.
>
> > As long as your not in
> > the mood to be intellectually honest on this subject. As long as your
> > unwilling to admit what honestly can not be denied. Then their is no
point
> > carrying on with you on this subject. As all your doing is pulling this
> > thread away from anything other than a pissing match.
> >
>
> Intellectually honest???? That's a hoot coming from a guy who won't even
> give us his reasons for feeling the way he does. You've got some nerve.
>
The less said the better on this brilliant example of staying on the high
road.
Verne
Verne
Clave <claviusN...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:sxvK3.536$TD1....@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
You don't see me living there do you. But I do like to point out the
undeserved holier than thou way many like to speak of anything southern.
Verne
>
>
>