IS EDDY GAY?
Wes Walden
I was wondering since i've heard rumors about Eddie playing with
transvestite bands and so forth, is he bisexual or transvetite? Are any
of the other band members Gay or Bi? I like Pearl Jam's music and some of
it really speaks to me, but Supporting gays or transvestites, or BEING
gay for that matter would turn me away from the band in a heartbeat, then
i would be a 100 percent "Cracker" and "Beck" fan.
-Mopar Man
Laurie Hester
If Eddie being gay would turn you off the music, then, as far as your
small mind is concerned, consider him gay, and go listen to country
music.
Matthew Powell
Wes Walden wrote:
>
> I was wondering since i've heard rumors about Eddie playing with
> transvestite bands and so forth, is he bisexual or transvetite? Are any
> of the other band members Gay or Bi? I like Pearl Jam's music and some of
> it really speaks to me, but Supporting gays or transvestites, or BEING
> gay for that matter would turn me away from the band in a heartbeat, then
> i would be a 100 percent "Cracker" and "Beck" fan.
>
> -Mopar Man
I shant participate, but prepare to be flamed Mopar Man.
Mikey62823
In article <3366E3...@earthlink.net>, Laurie Hester
<fun...@earthlink.net> writes:
>Wes Walden wrote:
>>
>> I was wondering since i've heard rumors about Eddie playing with
>> transvestite bands and so forth, is he bisexual or transvetite? Are any
>> of the other band members Gay or Bi? I like Pearl Jam's music and some
of
>> it really speaks to me, but Supporting gays or transvestites, or BEING
>> gay for that matter would turn me away from the band in a heartbeat,
then
>> i would be a 100 percent "Cracker" and "Beck" fan.
>>
>> -Mopar Man
>
>If Eddie being gay would turn you off the music, then, as far as your
>small mind is concerned, consider him gay, and go listen to country
>music.
Well spoken.
Mike
Yngver
In article <01bc55a4$ea062500$60f2...@chongus.lightspeed.net>
"Barry Chong" <cho...@lightspeed.net> writes:
> Saw a photo of him French kissing Anthony Keidis in Time Magazine. Does it
> answer your question? It would bother me if Eddie or the band were gay. On
> the other hand, I would respect them for their musical talent
Considering that all of the people in the background of that photo are
laughing, I'd take that kiss as a joke, wouldn't you?
-Yngver
Mata
Wes Walden <wwa...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>I was wondering since i've heard rumors about Eddie playing with
>transvestite bands and so forth, is he bisexual or transvetite?
yes! he was gonna join Ellen in her coming out party but Orgasm
doesn't want the secret out, just yet!
Mata
Mata
jett writes:
> Sit down, take a deep breath, and put on your Cracker or Beck cd.
> Ever heard of Artists for a Hate-Free America? Ever thought about
> supporting a hate-free America? Think.
he never said he was gonna "hate" the band. if ed or any other
one of the band members were gay, it would be difficult to look
at them the same way. i don't think most people would "hate"
them.
Mata
-Mike-
Well, I might have taken Wes here seriously had he not made his title
"IS EDDY GAY?" Based on your ignorance, you'd do PJ and the rest of us a
favor by turning away now to your Cracker CDs. Got that, Wesy?
It breaks down to this: If Eddie was gay I'd buy more CDs. If Eddie was
bi, I'd buy more CDs. If Eddie was straight I'd buy more CDs.
Matthew Powell wrote:
>
> Wes Walden wrote:
> >
> > I was wondering since i've heard rumors about Eddie playing with
> > transvestite bands and so forth, is he bisexual or transvetite? Are any
> > of the other band members Gay or Bi? I like Pearl Jam's music and some of
> > it really speaks to me, but Supporting gays or transvestites, or BEING
> > gay for that matter would turn me away from the band in a heartbeat, then
> > i would be a 100 percent "Cracker" and "Beck" fan.
> >
> > -Mopar Man
>
> I shant participate, but prepare to be flamed Mopar Man.
--
-Mike-
My web page (& tapes for trade)
http://www.buffnet.net/~igotid
Jon McFadden
OK, first it's common knowledge that he's married, but anyway. Why would
that bother you? Are you afraid they're going to come to your house and
force you to have sex with them? Does someone's being gay threaten you?
I mean, there are certain things we can't help. If I'm hanging out with
a gay friend, the fact that he's gay doesn't bother me. But I can
understand that there's always the underlying feeling of being
uncomfortable around them. That's something alot of people can't help.
But it's something that you're brought up to think. So I can understand
that it might give a whole new meaning to their songs, but if it makes
you not like them, then you are a homophobe dickhead fuck.
--
mailto:jmcf...@aristotle.net
http://www.aristotle.net/~jmcfadden
LEE HARVEY'S GRAVE--THE BUTTHOLE SURFERS HOMEPAGE
"Whoa! What'd you do? Step in a pig?"
-The Tick
John Wallace
Wes Walden <wwa...@erols.com> wrote in article =
<3366EB...@erols.com>...
>=20
> I was wondering since i've heard rumors about Eddie playing with=20
> transvestite bands and so forth, is he bisexual or transvetite? Are =
any=20
> of the other band members Gay or Bi? I like Pearl Jam's music and some =
of=20
> it really speaks to me, but Supporting gays or transvestites, or BEING =
> gay for that matter would turn me away from the band in a heartbeat, =
then=20
> i would be a 100 percent "Cracker" and "Beck" fan.
>=20
> -Mopar Man
>=20
In a recent LA Times article, it said he was married. Also, Jack Irons =
is married and has a daughter.
Eleanor
Well Mata, the guy did write:
>but Supporting gays or transvestites, or BEING
> > gay for that matter would turn me away from the band in a heartbeat
how much different is that than hating them? It is still ignorant
prejudice, and intolorance. What new "way" as you put it, would you
look at Ed and any of the other band members if you found out they were
gay?
Eleanor
Eleanor
Mata
alex tobias wrote:
> It's no ones business anyway what Eddie does in his bedroom...
no it isn't. and i don't want to know. i really hope he
doesn't follow ellen's path if he is gay.
> and what the hell does it have to do with the bands music?
absolutely nothing. the music would be the same.
> Some people are so shallow...
yes. it is shallow to boycott an artist because of a difference
in moral, religious, and personal beliefs(not that that would be
my stance, i just like to stick up for others... like those who
would stop listening to PJ if one of the members was gay.). yes
that's shallow.
look if Ed is gay i don't agree that people should say it is bad
or go and kick his butt. but if they choose not to listen to the
music because of it, that doesn't make them shallow or wrong.
Mata
Mata
el wrote:
> Well Mata, the guy did write:
> > but Supporting gays or transvestites, or BEING
> > gay for that matter would turn me away from the band in a heartbeat
> how much different is that than hating them?
it is very different. i choose not to listen to hootie and his
blowfish, spice girls, and alanis morissette (although i love
what she does in theatres ;-) ), but i don't hate those artists.
> It is still ignorant prejudice, and intolorance.
why is this? it seems as if you are putting a person down for
their beliefs. it is not a given that homosexuality is natural
or that it isn't wrong. that is not my opinion, but i don't
think that it is right for others to condemn a person for not
having the same moral, religious, and personal values that other
people might have, and choosing to not deal with those other
values.
> What new "way" as you put it, would you look at Ed and any of the other
> band members if you found out they were gay?
that is a good question. i believe that there is something wrong
with the concept of homosexuality. sex (and you can't say that
that is not part of homosexuality... i know that there is love
involved but sex is too) is supposed to be for reproduction. that
can't happen among gay couples. so maybe that is so for some
reason... that it is wrong. i don't know (and that is the key
point... nobody knows for sure). i guess i've done a good job
of diverting from the question. i guess i would see them as
living an immoral life... same as a criminal perhaps. i don't
know.
Mata
Alessiana
not only that, calling it french kissing is really a stretch. a really
long stretch.
there is no question that ed supports gay rights and is proud of that
support. the man wears a pink triangle almost all the time nowadays.
he seems to be very confortable with his sexuality (whatever) and has no
problem with anyone else's sexuality... whatever.
i agree with laurie's comment to the original poster. if you have
problems dealing with other people's sexual orientation, then this band
is not for you. in fact, most jamily would prefer it if you didn't like
the band and just went away.
god that is so harsh but maaan, i've seen some nasty shit and we don't
need it. no one needs that crap. we lost one of our best poets on aol
due to some right wing christian's hate filled, fag bashing, asshole
posts. i can't forgive that. will tupper was awesome.
and i wish he'd come back. :(
aless
Eleanor
Mata wrote:
>
> el wrote:
>
> > Well Mata, the guy did write:
>
> > > but Supporting gays or transvestites, or BEING
> > > gay for that matter would turn me away from the band in a heartbeat
>
> > how much different is that than hating them?
>
> it is very different. i choose not to listen to hootie and his
> blowfish, spice girls, and alanis morissette (although i love
> what she does in theatres ;-) ), but i don't hate those artists.
Yes, you may not hate these artists because you don't care for the music
they make and choose not to listen to them, that's true. But at least
you've chosen not to listen to them based upon hearing their music.
This guy, who says he would not listen to Pearl Jam if any member of the
band turned out to be gay, would not be judging the band by their
music. He'd be judging them on their sexual orientation, which has
nothing to do with the music. Wouldn't Pearl Jam deserve to be
evaluated on their merits of their music, and not what people think is
going on in the privacy of their bedrooms, just the way hootie, the
spice girls, and Alanis are?
>
> > It is still ignorant prejudice, and intolorance.
>
> why is this? it seems as if you are putting a person down for
> their beliefs. it is not a given that homosexuality is natural
> or that it isn't wrong. that is not my opinion, but i don't
> think that it is right for others to condemn a person for not
> having the same moral, religious, and personal values that other
> people might have, and choosing to not deal with those other
> values.
you're free to believe whatever you want, but when someone says that he
is not going to buy a product because of a person's sexual orientation,
*he* is the the one who is condemning a person for not having the same
values. It crosses the line into an activist stance, where is is
deliberately attempting to "punish" the band monetarily.
> > What new "way" as you put it, would you look at Ed and any of the other
> > band members if you found out they were gay?
>
> that is a good question. i believe that there is something wrong
> with the concept of homosexuality. sex (and you can't say that
> that is not part of homosexuality... i know that there is love
> involved but sex is too) is supposed to be for reproduction. that
> can't happen among gay couples. so maybe that is so for some
> reason... that it is wrong. i don't know (and that is the key
> point... nobody knows for sure). i guess i've done a good job
> of diverting from the question. i guess i would see them as
> living an immoral life... same as a criminal perhaps. i don't
> know.
>
>
So, what about a hetersexual couple that has no desire to reproduce, but
they have sex with contraception, are they immoral too, criminal
perhaps? Should we keep all the old laws outlawing sodemy (sex that is
not intercourse)on the books? And contraception used to be illegal in
this country until sometime this century. Should it be made illegal
again? Where do we draw the line and stop typecasting people as
immoral?
Eleano
Alessiana
Mata wrote:
>
> jett writes:
>
> > Sit down, take a deep breath, and put on your Cracker or Beck cd.
> > Ever heard of Artists for a Hate-Free America? Ever thought about
> > supporting a hate-free America? Think.
>
> he never said he was gonna "hate" the band. if ed or any other
> one of the band members were gay, it would be difficult to look
> at them the same way. i don't think most people would "hate"
> them.
>
> Mata
you wanna make a bet mata? you wanna bet on that? get real. its an
ugly world full of hatred for what's different. hatred for the other.
god...
aless
Alessiana
Mata wrote:
>
> alex tobias wrote:
>
> > It's no ones business anyway what Eddie does in his bedroom...
>
> no it isn't. and i don't want to know. i really hope he
> doesn't follow ellen's path if he is gay.
why is that? is it cos it wouldn't be accepted?
> look if Ed is gay i don't agree that people should say it is bad
> or go and kick his butt. but if they choose not to listen to the
> music because of it, that doesn't make them shallow or wrong.
its their right not to listen but it is wrong to place people in such
catogories or to dislike them for something so personal.
aless
Hester
S Kokott wrote:
> Hello people the guy's married.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Have a nice day
>
> ooooooooooooooooo
> o o
> o 0 0 o
> o o o
> o + + o <----this is what I look like
> o ++++++++ o
> o o
> ooooooooooooooooo
>
> Sascha Kokott
> Year One Undergraduate Physics
> University of Waterloo
>
> SWKo...@Science2.Watstar.UWaterloo.CA
Yes, this thread has already dismissed the title subject, but we are
discussing whether it would matter.
Hester
Jett Karma wrote:
>
> Mata <ma...@phakt.usc.edu> wrote:
>
> > yes. it is shallow to boycott an artist because of a difference
> > in moral, religious, and personal beliefs(not that that would be
> > my stance, i just like to stick up for others... like those who
> > would stop listening to PJ if one of the members was gay.). yes
> > that's shallow.
> >
> > or go and kick his butt. but if they choose not to listen to the
> > music because of it, that doesn't make them shallow or wrong.
> >
> *******
>
> Mata, I don't think that boycotting an artist because of a belief, or
> boycotting anyone or thing else over beliefs, is ever a shallow act.
> (Although, I admit, I'm having trouble with the term "shallow" here,
> which I am not using to denote "a lack of intelligence.") Obviously,
> the boycotter cares deeply enough about the subject not to implicitly
> lend support through buying products, etc. However commendable it is,
> though, to lend your support to a person or cause, the mere fact of
> vehemently supporting something to the extent of condemning (in
> essence) another does not make the supported thing right.
>
> I kinda hate to drag out the old Nazi thing (though it does come in
> very handy as an example), but those folks believed with all of their
> hard little hearts that the Aryans were the one true "race." And
> literally death, not just boycotting, to those groups (everyone else)
> who couldn't be counted in. Were they shallow? No, but they had a
> need to believe something that was so blinding that the word "reason"
> didn't enter the picture at all. Were they all stupid? Far from it,
> if the creative ways to inflict misery on their fellow humans is any
> indication. Were they right just because they believed blindly? They
> were obviously a very twisted and powerful majority that were not
> right just because they felt they were and because there were a lot of
> 'em that believed the same way. Need to believe doesn't equal morally
> correct.
>
> If someone chose not to listen to PJ because they found out that Eddie
> was really a Puerto Rican Mormon would not make them shallow, if they
> despised Puerto Rican Mormons and found Puerto Rican Mormons to be
> morally abhorrent (biologicial/moral connotations, which are somewhat
> akin to those of "gayness"). It wouldn't make them right, either;
> but, it would say a lot about them and their psychological
> inadequacies and what they desperately needed to hold on to, if they
> were of average intelligence, IMHO.
>
> --Jett
I'm going to have to agree here, but maybe make a little stronger
statement. Absolutely, people have the right to think anything they
want, and there is no right or wrong. But it is usually fear and
ignorance that causes hate (whether it is open hatred, judging someone
to be inferior because they are different, or simply not wanting to be
around someone because you are uncomfortable). These are all forms of
hate. And who is to say I'm right or wrong, but you have to admit the
world would be a better place without hatred (speaking as a child of the
60s).
Laurie
Hester
Yngver wrote:
>
> In article <5km05o$51u$2...@newshound.csrv.uidaho.edu>
> mel...@buzzard.csrv.uidaho.edu (Melora Foy) writes:
>
> > When you get down to specifics Mata has a point. Assume an artist has a
> > belief that really is at odds with your own moral values. If I found out
> > that Pearl Jam had neonazi sympathies, for example, I personally would
> > have a very hard time overlooking that. Would that make me shallow?
>
> As with anything in pop culture, there are no right or wrong reasons to
> like or dislike an artist. It's tempting to say that art ought to be
> judged on its own merits, regardless of the character of the artist who
> created it, but in reality, because the artist projects himself into
> his art, it's impossible to completely separate the two. A friend of
> mine dislikes Guns N Roses not because of their music, but because of
> Axl's abuse of women. Some people may decry his actions but enjoy his
> music anyway, whereas others find it impossible to enjoy music created
> by a person whose behavior they find abhorrent. Currently it's more
> acceptable to be appalled by wife-battering than homosexuality, but if
> a person does find homosexuality so personally offensive he really
> could not bring himself to enjoy art created by a homosexual, I suppose
> that's as valid a reason as disliking an artist because he is pro-life
> or pro-choice, for example.
> -Yngver
I'm sorry, but I see a difference between disliking someone for their
actions or behavior, and disliking someone for who they are (i.e. race,
religion or sexuality). The former is called opinion, and the latter
prejudice.
Laurie
Yngver
Yngver
In article <336FE2...@earthlink.net>
Hester <fun...@earthlink.net> writes:
> I'm sorry, but I see a difference between disliking someone for their
> actions or behavior, and disliking someone for who they are (i.e. race,
> religion or sexuality). The former is called opinion, and the latter
> prejudice.
So you are saying that if a conservative Christian dislikes music that
clearly avows Satanic worship because it deeply conflicts with that
person's religious beliefs, that person is prejudiced?
While I personally don't care what the sexuality of an artist is, I
understand that it may matter to some people, and may offend them at a
very basic level. If their reaction is simply not to buy the music,
that's obviously their right to do so. If their reaction is to beat up
that person, then that's a completely different matter.
We all judge artists by who they are, to one degree or another. I'll
bet there's not a single person on this ng who hasn't refused to see a
movie, no matter how fine a work it was purported to be, merely because
he/she disliked an actor or actress that was in it.
-Yngver
Alex Tobias
Yes, the rumor mill has it that he is leaving Beth and moving in
with Dennis Rodman....
They are starting a new cock rock band..."the Rod-Men"
and will live together as virtual lovers....
This might impact PJ album sales..and the Christian Right is
already gearing up to boycott them...
Eleanor
Melora Foy wrote:
>
> Eleanor (elg...@earthlink.net) wrote:
> : Mata wrote:
>
> : > why is this? it seems as if you are putting a person down for
> : > their beliefs. it is not a given that homosexuality is natural
> : > or that it isn't wrong. that is not my opinion, but i don't
> : > think that it is right for others to condemn a person for not
> : > having the same moral, religious, and personal values that other
> : > people might have, and choosing to not deal with those other
> : > values.
>
> : you're free to believe whatever you want, but when someone says that he
> : is not going to buy a product because of a person's sexual orientation,
> : *he* is the the one who is condemning a person for not having the same
> : values. It crosses the line into an activist stance, where is is
> : deliberately attempting to "punish" the band monetarily.
>
> belief that really is at odds with your own moral values. If I found out
> that Pearl Jam had neonazi sympathies, for example, I personally would
> have a very hard time overlooking that. Would that make me shallow?
I never used the word shallow in describing the actions of someone who
chooses not to listen to a band because of the band's sexual
orientation. There are many deep thinkers, with strong feelings that
have boycotted things they disagreed with morally before.
My belief is that the attitude behind the action of deciding you won't
listen to a band, because a member is gay, is based on a pre-judgement
of a whole group of people. It is one standard,(and I feel an unfair
one) applied, that negates ALL the other qualities a person may
possess. I feel that the thinking behind that is predudicial. It is
wrong, and based on a supposition that humans must behave, love, think,
have sex, etc ONE way, and that every other way is wrong. Though they
are free to feel the way they do, I believe that attitude is wrong.
You used an example of Nazi sympathizers, which is interesting.
Didn't the Nazi's put hundred's of thousands of homosexuals to their
deaths during WWII, and the years leading up to it? A perfect example
of a group of people that took their idea that, "*Our* way is the only
true way" to it's extreme.
I do not think that disliking and avoiding the music of gay people has
the same moral legitimacy that disliking and boycotting an artist who is
a nazi-sympathizer has. So, I feel your analogy is a poor one.
Eleanor
Yngver
In article <336FFB...@ix.netcom.com>
Alessiana <Ales...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> > I'm sorry, but I see a difference between disliking someone for their
> > actions or behavior, and disliking someone for who they are (i.e. race,
> > religion or sexuality). The former is called opinion, and the latter
> > prejudice.
> >
> > Laurie
>
> laurie laurie laurie. you put it so well. how is it that we can
> "understand" people for not wanting to associate with gays but find the
> same ideas abhorrent when turned to race? its the same damn thing.
But you are distorting the original point. If someone doesn't want to
listen to music created by a Zulu, for example, because he doesn't like
Zulus, that is his perogative. You may tell that person he is being
racially bigotted, because he is, but it's still his right not to
listen to that kind of music, no matter what his reason, whether you
agree with that reason or not.
Canadian magazine Maclean's dropped fiddler Ashley MacIsaac from its
annual list of most honored Canadians after he made public his sexual
orientation and practices. Does his homosexuality affect the quality of
his music? Of course not. Was Maclean's wrong to drop him? Although I
personally think his sexual life has nothing to do with his
achievements as a musician, there are people who fervently believe such
a man should not be held up as a role model.If they don't want to buy
his records because they find his lifestyle repugnant, that is
certainly their right, as much as it is my right to enjoy his music and
not care what he does offstage.
-Yngver
Mata
claire wrote:
> hmm...good point...but remember that it was once the same way with race.
> no interracial marriages, segregation and the like. all these policies
> lawmakers are making about gays...the military stuff, marriage, etc...
> i cant wait until theyre falling all over themselves twenty years from
> now trying to explain their actions...just like all the people who made
> bad racial decisions twenty years ago.
now that's a good observation. but it remains to be seen if
homosexuality is indeed a natural occurence and not simply
a choice.
Mata
> its just too bad that scoiety will accept their excuses, isnt it?
> claire :O
Mata
aless writes:
> laurie laurie laurie. you put it so well. how is it that we can
> "understand" people for not wanting to associate with gays but find the
> same ideas abhorrent when turned to race? its the same damn thing.
but sexual behavior may not be viewed like race. a person is
naturally a certain race since birth. perhaps gays aren't
naturally gay since birth. it may be a choice to be gay because
of different life experiences that make them like that type of
relationship.
Mata
aless
Mata
eleanor wrote:
> I do not think that disliking and avoiding the music of gay people has
> the same moral legitimacy that disliking and boycotting an artist who is
> a nazi-sympathizer has. So, I feel your analogy is a poor one.
why is that? because nazi-sympathizers are clearly and
unquestionably wrong and homosexuality is clearly and
unquestionably right?
i feel the analogy is a good one... it's all about a person's
beliefs, and it really doesn't matter what is popularly wrong
or right.
Mata
Hester
Who would 'choose' a lifestyle that would subject them to hostility,
ridicule, prejudice, hate, etc?
Laurie
Alessiana
Mata wrote:
>
> laurie wrote:
>
> > I'm sorry, but I see a difference between disliking someone for their
> > actions or behavior, and disliking someone for who they are (i.e. race,
> > religion or sexuality). The former is called opinion, and the latter
> > prejudice.
>
> hispanic for example. but homosexuality is not necessarily
> something that is part of a person. it may be something that a
> person chooses (for whatever reason). it is not a fact that gays
> are in fact born gay... it may be that, through certain
> experiences, they choose that lifestyle. in that sense, a person
> may view that as a person's action or behavior.
>
> Mata
well this is the thing isn't it. you say its a choice. i have yet to
find a gay man who would confirm your viewpoint. women, yeah... but
that may have more to do with how thoroughly females are taught to deny
much of what they require to serve others, then choice.
that's why i see this the way i do. now, does the bigot have a right to
be a bigot? he sure does. but i think the problem lies within
him/her... and not with the other. and we can only hope that education
and social pressures will have an effect upon this over time.
what freaks me is hearing, "hey its how you're taught. be compassionate
and understanding of that". ok. but only to a point. we don't have an
enormous tolerance for racists in our society because it denies the
essence of another being. this is *very* much the same thing. and
turning ones head tolerantly to one who would so demean another for what
they are, is immoral
this has nothing to do with political correctness. god what a sickening
term. this is flung around to diminish and neuter a value system of
which the central principle is equality. if you turn the ideas into a
meaningless phrase, then you can make fun of it. cos you surely can't
make light of the real principles. not without sounding like a huge
asshole. but we can mock *political correctness*, can't we?
aless
Hester
> > actions or behavior, and disliking someone for who they are (i.e. race,
> > religion or sexuality). The former is called opinion, and the latter
> > prejudice.
>
> clearly avows Satanic worship because it deeply conflicts with that
> person's religious beliefs, that person is prejudiced?
> While I personally don't care what the sexuality of an artist is, I
> understand that it may matter to some people, and may offend them at a
> very basic level. If their reaction is simply not to buy the music,
> that's obviously their right to do so. If their reaction is to beat up
> that person, then that's a completely different matter.
> We all judge artists by who they are, to one degree or another. I'll
> bet there's not a single person on this ng who hasn't refused to see a
> movie, no matter how fine a work it was purported to be, merely because
> he/she disliked an actor or actress that was in it.
> -Yngver
>
who hate Jews, because they are of a different religion (which is from
the same Judeo-Christian tradition, so there is no great conflict in
values). The example you gave is a 'religion' that someone would choose
(as opposed to being born into), which, to me, would put it in the
category of opinions.
I, for example, may boycott OJ Simpson because I don't like the fact
that he killed 2 people, but to boycott him because he's Black would be
inexcusable. Or I may dislike Shapiro for helping to get a murderer off
scott free, but to dislike him because he's Jewish would be prejudice.
:)
Laurie
Hester
Eleanor wrote:
>
> Mata wrote:
> > why is that? because nazi-sympathizers are clearly and
> > unquestionably wrong and homosexuality is clearly and
> > unquestionably right?
> >
>
> experience of Nazi philosophy, and the death and destruction that the
> Nazis, and their sympathizers perpetrated on the world in this century.
> 12 million people were murdered in Europe by the Nazi's. (plus another
> 30 million in Russia as a result of the war) Whole countries were torn
> apart and destroyed. Millions of people had relatives who were starved,
> became refugees, were killed and tortured in concentration camps. To
> compare Nazi sympathizers with homosexuals is so wrongheaded to ME, it's
> unreal. How many fascists, murderous plots to take over the world, did
> "The Homosexuals" devise?
>
> # 2: Your statement tells me that it's doubtful you've ever known a
> homosexual in your life. If, you did, you'd know that they are all
> types of people that happen to be gay, and in most cases it is not
> something that they have purposefully chosen. There are gay people who
> are good and bad, religious and agnostic, not all are sexually active.
> They hold every kind of job there is, they raise families too, and come
> from all walks of life. Sometimes it's difficult for people to separate
> gay people from the homosexual sex act that they find so immoral. They
> find it hard to see them for anything else.
>
> You asked if homosexuality is so "clearly and unquestionably right?".
> Well Mata, I don't get my values and principles from a doctrine, or
> scripture that tells me what is right and what is wrong. (Not that that
> isn't fine for someone else)
>
> I have a very strong set of principles which I've gathered throughout my
> various life experiences. I feel that whatever two consenting adults
> choose to do in their bedroom, as long as it's not hurting anybody else,
> is Their business. I'm not interested in making judgements on them. I
> have my own life to lead. As for the Nazi Sympathizers- I do see them
> as having an agenda against me, and millions of others who are unlike
> them in race and religion.
>
> Eleanor
Eleanor,
I agree that the difference here is that gays are not hurting anyone,
while Nazis, criminals, etc ARE hurting others, even if it's only
advocating harm to others. In my mind, as long as someone is not
hurting others, then let them be.
Mata, you are brave to take the position you are taking! You're making
us think!
Laurie
David S. Pensyl
Why are you people so stupid? Eddie is married. He's not gay.
Mata
laurie wrote:
> I'm sorry, but I see a difference between disliking someone for their
> actions or behavior, and disliking someone for who they are (i.e. race,
> religion or sexuality). The former is called opinion, and the latter
> prejudice.
Mata
laurie wrote:
> I, for example, may boycott OJ Simpson because I don't like the fact
> that he killed 2 people,
OJ didn't kill 2 people because he's a trojan (he went to USC).
all trojans are good people.
> but to boycott him because he's Black would be
> inexcusable.
yes. but i have to ask why so many hate oj with the greatest
of passions for killing 2 people, but a guy who kills scores of
people, (mcveigh) including children, isn't as hated. oj was
hated prior to and during the trial... i dont see the same with
mcveigh. i don't want to bring up their racial differences
because i truly don't want to believe that this is the reason
for the differences.
> Or I may dislike Shapiro for helping to get a murderer off
> scott free
he was doing his job. so was cochran. although clark and co.
were not.
Mata
Yngver
In article <3370C2...@earthlink.net>
Eleanor <elg...@earthlink.net> writes:
> My belief is that the attitude behind the action of deciding you won't
> listen to a band, because a member is gay, is based on a pre-judgement
> of a whole group of people. It is one standard,(and I feel an unfair
> one) applied, that negates ALL the other qualities a person may
> possess. I feel that the thinking behind that is predudicial. It is
> wrong, and based on a supposition that humans must behave, love, think,
> have sex, etc ONE way, and that every other way is wrong. Though they
> are free to feel the way they do, I believe that attitude is wrong.
While I have uncomfortably backed myself into a position of defending
homophobia, which I really do not sympathize with, I guess what is
bothering me about this discussion is the hypocrisy I sense in jumping
all over a person who says that he would not enjoy listening to PJ
anymore if he knew they were gay (and if I recall, that's all he said,
despite another post which used the word "boycott," which implies an
activist stance. I think he only said he wouldn't enjoy it anymore, and
enjoying music is a matter of personal taste, not morality).
The truth is that if Eddie Vedder looked like John Popper, there would
be a lot fewer people on this ng. If PJ were women, there would be a
lot fewer people on this ng. If they were African American or another
minority, there would be fewer people here. And if EV were an African
American woman who looked like John Popper, I don't believe this ng
would exist.
It's currently more acceptable to judge a person by his age and
appearance than it is to judge by his race or sexuality. But I have yet
to encounter anyone who could truly, completely separate the art from
the artist. None of us are really as open-minded as we like to think we
are. The fact is, right or wrong, the enormity of Pearl Jam's success
is due in part because they are young (but not too young),
good-looking, Caucasian heterosexual males. I think everyone here, if
honest to themselves, could imagine qualities which, if PJ possessed
them, would cause you to enjoy their music less, even though the music
itself was not changed.
-Yngver
bmc...@icaen.uiowa.edu
Not all...
|> OJ didn't kill 2 people because he's a trojan (he went to USC).
|> all trojans are good people.
--
Bryan Corcoran
bryan-c...@uiowa.edu
http://www.icaen.uiowa.edu/~bmcorc
Eleanor
At 05:46 PM 5/7/97 -0700, Mata wrote:
>eleanor wrote:
>
>> I do not think that disliking and avoiding the music of gay people has
>> the same moral legitimacy that disliking and boycotting an artist who is
>> a nazi-sympathizer has. So, I feel your analogy is a poor one.
>
>> i feel the analogy is a good one... it's all about a person's
> beliefs, and it really doesn't matter what is popularly wrong
> or right.
> Mata
>
>
>
I never said that what is popularly wrong or right affects moral
legitimacy. In fact, there are many who heroically, fight for the
rights of those who are considered unpopular by the majority. Our Bill
of Rights insures protection for those marginalized, or part of a
unpopular minoriy. That's part of why this country is great.
I feel that equating Nazi sympathizers with gay people, for an analogy
on boycotting music, is as similar morally to saying that it's "ok" to
boycott the music of black people, because, "you don't like black
people, and that's the way you feel." You have the right to boycott
them (and gay artists) all you want, but don't expect every person you
meet to approve of the attitudes behind that action.
Eleanor
Yngver wrote:
>
> In article <3370C2...@earthlink.net>
> Eleanor <elg...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
> > My belief is that the attitude behind the action of deciding you won't
> > listen to a band, because a member is gay, is based on a pre-judgement
> > of a whole group of people. It is one standard,(and I feel an unfair
> > one) applied, that negates ALL the other qualities a person may
> > possess. I feel that the thinking behind that is predudicial. It is
> > wrong, and based on a supposition that humans must behave, love, think,
> > have sex, etc ONE way, and that every other way is wrong. Though they
> > are free to feel the way they do, I believe that attitude is wrong.
>
> While I have uncomfortably backed myself into a position of defending
> homophobia, which I really do not sympathize with, I guess what is
> bothering me about this discussion is the hypocrisy I sense in jumping
> all over a person who says that he would not enjoy listening to PJ
> anymore if he knew they were gay (and if I recall, that's all he said,
> despite another post which used the word "boycott," which implies an
> activist stance. I think he only said he wouldn't enjoy it anymore, and
> enjoying music is a matter of personal taste, not morality).
Since you chose to use the blanket phrases, "jumping all over a person"
and "hypocrisy" in a reply to my post, I am compelled to answer you,
although I don't know for sure if they were directed to me, or to
everyone who has a similar position to mine.
As far as "jumping all over a person" goes, I always maintained that
someone has the right to dislike an artist (or anyone else) if they know
that artist was gay. Enjoying music is a matter of personal taste.
However, the issue does not stop at "enjoying music". It IS a question
of a person's moral values, (good or bad), if they make their listening
decisions based on the artist's sexual orientation. You can't separate
the two in that instance.
And people have a right to criticize and debate someone else's potential
actions that they publicly stated on this ng. I'm not forcing them to
adopt my opinion, or asking them to leave this ng because they said
that. I'm just stating that i feel their attitudes are wrong.
> The truth is that if Eddie Vedder looked like John Popper, there would
> be a lot fewer people on this ng. If PJ were women, there would be a
> lot fewer people on this ng. If they were African American or another
> minority, there would be fewer people here. And if EV were an African
> American woman who looked like John Popper, I don't believe this ng
> would exist.
Well, i think Jett responded to this part of your post beautifully, so I
won't touch it, except to say that for me personally, I was already on
my way to obsession with PJ in spring of '94, while barely knowing what
Eddie Vedder looked like. At the time i had some fuzzy pictures in my
mind of him on SNL with a mop of curly hair. It was the music and
lyrics of Ten and VS that completely overtook me. Of course,the way he
looks is definately an added plus! ;)
Eleanor
Jett Karma
yng...@aol.com (Yngver) wrote:
>>While I have uncomfortably backed myself into a position of defending
>homophobia, which I really do not sympathize with, I guess what is
>bothering me about this discussion is the hypocrisy I sense in jumping
>all over a person who says that he would not enjoy listening to PJ
>anymore if he knew they were gay (and if I recall, that's all he said,
>despite another post which used the word "boycott," which implies an
>activist stance. I think he only said he wouldn't enjoy it anymore, and
>enjoying music is a matter of personal taste, not morality).
>The truth is that if Eddie Vedder looked like John Popper, there would
>be a lot fewer people on this ng. If PJ were women, there would be a
>lot fewer people on this ng. If they were African American or another
>minority, there would be fewer people here. And if EV were an African
>American woman who looked like John Popper, I don't believe this ng
>would exist.
>It's currently more acceptable to judge a person by his age and
>appearance than it is to judge by his race or sexuality. But I have yet
>to encounter anyone who could truly, completely separate the art from
>the artist. None of us are really as open-minded as we like to think we
>are. The fact is, right or wrong, the enormity of Pearl Jam's success
>is due in part because they are young (but not too young),
>good-looking, Caucasian heterosexual males. I think everyone here, if
>honest to themselves, could imagine qualities which, if PJ possessed
>them, would cause you to enjoy their music less, even though the music
>itself was not changed.
>-Yngver
******
Well, Yngver, not only is it currently acceptable to judge by age and
appearance, that's a fact of life that will probably never change. We
make decisions, unconscious ones, about people in the twinkling of an
eye. It's a psychological fact of life. And you're right; none of
us is as open-minded as we like to think we are. True, if PJ were
ugly, if PJ were old, if PJ were more ethnic, as a whole, we would
value their music less--and probably value *them* less. Sad
pronouncement on us, but true.
That said, I think that we are not just animals who need to go with
our basest instincts, our innate fears of the "other." These feelings
that we all harbor towards those who are in any way different than
ourselves are not the productive, necessary gene-preserving behaviors
they once were way, way back when, when it was imperative for our
ancestors to rely on instinctive responses more than on their own
ability to reason. It strikes me that we humans are in some ways in
our "infancy." We have strongly relied on our inborn "reflexes" to
keep us from harm in the past; but, like most infants' reflexes today,
they no longer serve practical purposes in our lives, though they are
vestiges of what was once undeniably necessary.
There is a fundamental difference between stating that judgments made
on the fly are equal to judgments we can make over time. To dismiss
someone out of hand due to an age difference or a looks shortcoming is
a human thing. It's not something we are proud of, but it is still a
very human thing. To dismiss someone whom we have accepted, someone
whom we've invested part of ourselves in, based on that person's now
known sexual orientation (something which is not readily apparent as
are looks, age, etc.) is a premeditated act of exclusion. It is an
act based on twisted reason, almost on vengeance for our having been
"hoodwinked" into respecting someone so different from ourselves. It
is *not* equivalent to unthinkingly dismissing someone out of hand.
It is the *withdrawal* of respect and/or affection previously freely
and abundantly given. And based on what? Who someone
loves/lusts--things that do not affect us negatively. Something that
sense, and in my opinion, true morality can never support. (And, no
one better give me the "AIDS argument" as an example of how
homosexuality affects us negatively...150 years ago, syphilis, etc.,
were primarily nature's or God's curse on heterosexuals--the
"innocent" and the highly sexed equally suffered and died for their
"sins.")
There isn't any hypocrisy in making the distinction between the two
types of judgments. Listening to music per se is, of course, not an
act implying morality. It *is* just an act of personal taste--*if*
you leave it at that. Enjoying someone's music one second, and not
enjoying it the next--in a heartbeat--doesn't strike me as fitting
into the mold of "personal taste." In this case, you have made a
value judgment and negated a person's work, the person him/herself,
and your own respect/love for that person very much based on your
moral stance and your judgment that yours is not only superior, but
the only way to go.
We can't completely separate art from the artist; but, hopefully, we
learn to separate the reasonable from the unreasonable as we "grow
up."
--Jett
Wondr101
In article <3372A0...@earthlink.net>, Eleanor <elg...@earthlink.net>
writes:
>> The truth is that if Eddie Vedder looked like John Popper, there would
>> be a lot fewer people on this ng. If PJ were women, there would be a
>> lot fewer people on this ng. If they were African American or another
>> minority, there would be fewer people here. And if EV were an African
>> American woman who looked like John Popper, I don't believe this ng
>> would exist.
>
>Well, i think Jett responded to this part of your post beautifully, so I
>won't touch it, except to say that for me personally, I was already on
>my way to obsession with PJ in spring of '94, while barely knowing what
>Eddie Vedder looked like. At the time i had some fuzzy pictures in my
>mind of him on SNL with a mop of curly hair. It was the music and
>lyrics of Ten and VS that completely overtook me. Of course,the way he
>looks is definately an added plus! ;)
>Eleanor
>
>
I must have missed this original post, but I have to back Eleanor, here. I
do not get mtv , nor do I know anyone who likes PJ. For three years I only
knew of their commercial releases. Chance blamed fate that I would hear
Daughter on a radiio station that doesn't normally play PJ. Bought their
records, waited anxiously for new releases. I had NO clue as to what any
of them looked like. I sadly assumed that they were incredibly talented
drug addicted ungrateful genius'.
When I purchased No Code, I found the book by MicK Wall, and only then did
I ever see pictures or learn about the real people in the band.
I only found out about boots and such when I signed online last fall. I
have a much larger collection of the music, now - and video's so I can see
the band members. It's a lot more fun, I know them a bit more intimately
now, but nothing has changed the way I feel about the music and lyrics.
And they don't need fans who would judge them by anything but their
musical talents, period.
AV
Mata
mike wrote:
>>> I am a very symetrical person.I like things even.I believe that 0 is
an even number. Not like 2 is even, though . Zero is the middle of
infinity . Both + & - balence on the zero . (zero is my hero!) Do you
see where I am going here ? Lets think of men as +1 & women as -1 for
obvious reasons (I dont mean anything besides sexual parts here) If you
add +1 &-1 you get 0 . If you add +1 & +1 you get 2 . & vice versa for
-'s . That is one of MY many reasons to be straight . Technically we can
only be born , One from None . Ok ?<<<
WHAT?
Mata
Mata
kavirla wrote:
> mcveigh, on the other hand, has never been anything but a psychotic
> loner loser/turned mass murderer in the minds of the public.
he still killed many more innocent people than did oj.
> if frank gifford were to off kathy lee (trying hard not to make a joke
> here) in such a brutal manner, i think people would be equally outraged.
i think most people would be happy that they wouldn't have to see
that plastic figure that is kathy lee. and they won't have to
here about coby or cody or whatever the hell his name is.
Mata
Hester
> What if your best friend , or a releative , told you that they thought
> they may be gay or whatever . Would you stop being friends ? If so , I
> wouldn't want to be your friend. Would you love your wife less if she
> were a bisexual , yet still loved you ?
>
> think about it .
>
> mike - confused freak
To all: What if you found out that Eddie had done something totally
against his image, like you found out he DID sell the rights to "Go" to
a car commercial? Would you still listen to the music? Would you like
it as much? If not, is that right or wrong? I've forgotten which side
of the debate I'm on!
This did happen (sort of) to me. I used to admire Bruce Springsteen for
much of the same reasons I admire and respect Eddie. He was a good guy,
cared about the little people, doing right by his fans, etc. Then I
heard that he not only cheated on his wife, but did it publicly, and she
found out about it via the press. I really felt that was a shitty thing
to do to someone, and it ruined his image for me. I still listen to his
music sometimes, but it just doesn't do the same thing for me.
Laurie
Mata
ifubleve wrote:
> Oj is free . He got away . We hate people who defeat the system .
do we really? how many groups are protesting the four police
officers that beat rodney king. they, like oj, also got away in
their criminal trials. there was an immediate reaction, but
those four are now living normal lives, yet oj will be hated for
the rest of his life for trying to do the same. william(?)
kennedy defeated the system after raping someone, yet gloria
alred(sp?) and other feminists are not openly protesting
him for going on with his life like they are doing with oj.
i'm not pro oj, but it seems that he has gotten an unfair
shake when compared to other criminals who got away.
however, i do have to say that it is wrong to try and take
his children away after being found not guilty of the charges
in the criminal trial (the civil trial being one that basically
tries someone twice for the same charge and thus should never have
happened).
Mata
ifubleve
Mata wrote:
> > but to boycott him because he's Black would be
> > inexcusable.
>
> yes. but i have to ask why so many hate oj with the greatest
> of passions for killing 2 people, but a guy who kills scores of
> people, (mcveigh) including children, isn't as hated. oj was
> hated prior to and during the trial... i dont see the same with
> mcveigh. i don't want to bring up their racial differences
> because i truly don't want to believe that this is the reason
> for the differences.
Um , which is in jail ? McVie , right . We aren't worried now .
Oj is free . He got away . We hate people who defeat the system .
Whether oj killed 2 strangers , 2 children or ,2 dogs , he still killed
& he shouldn't get away with it .
> > Or I may dislike Shapiro for helping to get a murderer off
> > scott free
>
> he was doing his job. so was cochran. although clark and co.
> were not.
But , in this world we humans have MORALS . Occaisionally we use them ,
too.
mike
Yngver
In article <33757c6c...@news.swcp.com>
jetk...@swcp.com (Jett Karma) writes:
> There is a fundamental difference between stating that judgments made
> on the fly are equal to judgments we can make over time. To dismiss
> someone out of hand due to an age difference or a looks shortcoming is
> a human thing. It's not something we are proud of, but it is still a
> very human thing.
Yet why are these judgments more human nature than judging on one's
sexuality or race? Different cultures have assumed that women's powers
of reason are innately inferior to men's. In those cultures, in those
times, pretty much everyone believed it to be true, and made judgments
based on that belief. The bases of our judgments about each other are
based on the cultures we live in, and you really can't call any of
these criteria more human nature than any other, other than to simply
say, it's human nature to make judgments about other people.
No, I don't think so. You have decided that you can no longer enjoy
this person's music because something about him is repugnant to you. We
are not talking about a personal relationship here, although I suspect
that you would agree that if you found out your husband or boyfriend
was gay, a withdrawal of affection previously given might certainly be
considered within the realm of"a human thing". We are simply talking
about whether or not you can continue to enjoy something you previously
enjoyed, when you discover that the person who created it has a value
system or lifestyle that you yourself find unacceptable.
You say that who someone loves or lusts after does not affect us
negatively. Yet how many fans would have a sudden change of heart about
PJ if they discovered one of them were a pedophile? (And pedophilia,
btw, is no more a conscious choice than homosexuality, as most
psychologists who work with sex offenders will tell you). As we all
know, this did happen with Michael Jackson, and I wonder how many of
his fans were telling other fans that they were being unreasonable in
withdrawing their respect and affection. I am certainly not equating
pedophilia with homosexuality, but pointing out that there can be
circumstances under which any of us might find that our enjoyment of
music or art could be marred by a discovery about the person who
created it.
> We can't completely separate art from the artist; but, hopefully, we
> learn to separate the reasonable from the unreasonable as we "grow
> up."
I agree that is an ideal to aspire to, but if course to arrive at a
universal standard of what is reasonable and what isn't would be
extremely difficult. It still comes down to deciding that one value
system is superior to another.
-Yngver
Kavirla
>> yes. but i have to ask why so many hate oj with the greatest
>> of passions for killing 2 people, but a guy who kills scores of
>> people, (mcveigh) including children, isn't as hated. oj was
>> hated prior to and during the trial... i dont see the same with
>> mcveigh. i don't want to bring up their racial differences
>> because i truly don't want to believe that this is the reason
>> for the differences.
i think it makes a big difference that oj was a beloved public figure
before he killed 2 people. people who liked and respected oj for his
football days, his appearance of grace and good nature when the cameras
were rolling, and ...ahem... his movie career, feel their trust and
respect were betrayed when it was revealed he was such a psychotic, brutal
creature. mcveigh, on the other hand, has never been anything but a
psychotic loner loser/turned mass murderer in the minds of the public.
if frank gifford were to off kathy lee (trying hard not to make a joke
here) in such a brutal manner, i think people would be equally outraged.
and lets not forget that unbelievable bronco scene, watched live by
millions. i don't believe the original outrage had to do with race, but
obviously the tactics of the criminal defense team changed all that.
kate
Alex Tobias
Re: IS OJ GUILTY? (was: IS EDDIE GAY?)
What a stupid freakin thread.....
What does Eddie's sexuality have to do with OJ being guilty or
inoccent?
Eddie happens to be straight...and OJ is probably guilty....what a
concept...
Smoke some dope and listen to No Code....it sounds better that way....
Hester
ifubleve wrote:
>
> Mata wrote:
> > > but to boycott him because he's Black would be
> > > inexcusable.
> >
> > of passions for killing 2 people, but a guy who kills scores of
> > people, (mcveigh) including children, isn't as hated. oj was
> > hated prior to and during the trial... i dont see the same with
> > mcveigh. i don't want to bring up their racial differences
> > because i truly don't want to believe that this is the reason
> > for the differences.
>
> Oj is free . He got away . We hate people who defeat the system .
> Whether oj killed 2 strangers , 2 children or ,2 dogs , he still killed
> & he shouldn't get away with it .
>
> > > Or I may dislike Shapiro for helping to get a murderer off
> > > scott free
> >
> > he was doing his job. so was cochran. although clark and co.
> > were not.
>
> But , in this world we humans have MORALS . Occaisionally we use them ,
> too.
>
> mike
You put it very well.
Laurie
Hester
Mata wrote:
>
> ifubleve wrote:
>
> > Oj is free . He got away . We hate people who defeat the system .
>
> officers that beat rodney king. they, like oj, also got away in
> their criminal trials. there was an immediate reaction, but
> those four are now living normal lives, yet oj will be hated for
> the rest of his life for trying to do the same. william(?)
> kennedy defeated the system after raping someone, yet gloria
> alred(sp?) and other feminists are not openly protesting
> him for going on with his life like they are doing with oj.
> i'm not pro oj, but it seems that he has gotten an unfair
> shake when compared to other criminals who got away.
>
I hate OJ for getting away with murder. Although I agree that the cops
who beat Rodney King also got away with something, it is a bit harder to
get as upset with them, since they weren't someone famous, that we
thought we knew and respected. I don't see Rodney as an innocent victim
as I do the woman raped or the two people murdered. After all, he did
try to run away from the cops. He didn't deserve the beating, but the
cops are no longer in that position to abuse people.
> however, i do have to say that it is wrong to try and take
> his children away after being found not guilty of the charges
> in the criminal trial (the civil trial being one that basically
> tries someone twice for the same charge and thus should never have
> happened).
>
> Mata
I hate it when people cry "double jeopardy" when it comes to OJ. The
idea of double jeopardy is to prevent the state from trying someone
twice for the same crime. There is nothing morally or legally to
prevent people from suing someone many times over for the same
behavior. And what does that have to do with the fact that a jury,
unswayed by bullshit racial emotions, found him guilty of murdering two
people? Can you even imagine what it would be like to be a child living
with a father who murdered your mom? Talk about child abuse! It is
abhorrent to me that any judge would let him have custody.
Laurie
Yngver
In article <3372A0...@earthlink.net>
Eleanor <elg...@earthlink.net> writes:
> Since you chose to use the blanket phrases, "jumping all over a person"
> and "hypocrisy" in a reply to my post, I am compelled to answer you,
> although I don't know for sure if they were directed to me, or to
> everyone who has a similar position to mine.
I really don't know; I had the general impression of several posts
along the same line, but I didn't pay much attention to the names on
them.
> As far as "jumping all over a person" goes, I always maintained that
> someone has the right to dislike an artist (or anyone else) if they know
> that artist was gay.
Then what I said probably wasn't aimed at you.
Enjoying music is a matter of personal taste.
> However, the issue does not stop at "enjoying music". It IS a question
> of a person's moral values, (good or bad), if they make their listening
> decisions based on the artist's sexual orientation. You can't separate
> the two in that instance.
Yes, I can, and that's what I've been doing. Being unable to enjoy
someone's art any more because you are uncomfortable with his sexual
orientation is not on par with boycotting the artist, as some have
said. The music simply no longer has the same meaning to you. This is
nothing like deciding not to hire someone because he is gay, or not to
rent to him because he is gay. If some viewers decide they don't want
to watch "Ellen" anymore because her sexual orientation conflicts with
their own values, it's not the same as deciding to write letters of
protest to the station asking them to cancel the show. The first is
controlling your environment, the second is an attempt to impose your
values on others. Basing your listening habits on artists' sexual
orientation does not impose your values on anyone else; you do not have
a personal relationship with these artists, you are simply turning off
the radio or getting rid of the records you bought.
-Yngver
Alex Tobias
>> Mata wrote:
>> > > but to boycott him because he's Black would be
>> > > inexcusable.
>> >
>> > yes. but i have to ask why so many hate oj with the greatest
>> > of passions for killing 2 people, but a guy who kills scores of
>> > people, (mcveigh) including children, isn't as hated. oj was
>> > hated prior to and during the trial... i dont see the same with
>> > mcveigh. i don't want to bring up their racial differences
>> > because i truly don't want to believe that this is the reason
>> > for the differences.
>>
I noticed the same thing myself....people are not as pissed off
about McVeigh blowing up a few hundred little children as they are
about OJ walking. That's kind of sick...and probably racist.
Alex Tobias
On 9 May 1997 20:14:23 -0700, Mata <ma...@aludra.usc.edu> wrote:
>ifubleve wrote:
>
>> Oj is free . He got away . We hate people who defeat the system .
>
> i'm not pro oj, but it seems that he has gotten an unfair
> shake when compared to other criminals who got away.
>
> Mata
>
You make a good point dude, OJ is not the first person to walk away
from a crime because of money...the Kennedy family has it down to an
art form. And there have been countless other cases...
I think it has to do with OJ being black and him wasting two
whities...it plays into every white persons fears...
Eleanor
I agree with the points that you made here. However, when someone
states in a public forum (like a ng),that he's going to cease to be a
fan of a certain artist because of the artist's sexual orientation, (or
for whatever reason), then than that person should expect that they are
going to get criticism (positive, objective, or negative) on their
stand.
It doesn't matter if they stated whether they're going to become an
activist against the music, or if they just personally decided that the
music is't the same for them anymore and they won't listen to it.
Someone can come in like I did, and say to them, "I think that the
values you hold whereby you feel that way, are wrong."
Eleanor
Mata
> > But , in this world we humans have MORALS . Occaisionally we use them
>
> > mike
> You put it very well.
> Laurie
morals, shmorals. what's moral to you is not moral to everyone
else.
Mata
Mata
On Fri, 9 May 1997, Hester wrote:
> I don't see Rodney as an innocent victim as I do the woman raped or the
> two people murdered. After all, he did try to run away from the cops.
oh come on laurie, would you not see the woman raped as an
innocent victim if she had been flirting or hinting that she
wanted to have sex. would you not see nicole as an innocent
victim if she had an affair while married to oj. all those
three (rodney king, nicole brown, and the rape victim) are
innocent victims. king could have killed someone and would
still not deserve the inhumane beating that he got. he was
not a threat to the police (how can someone be a threat lying
in pain on the floor), and the police are not the judge and jury
in deciding if he's guilty of something and thus deserves a
beating... what's worse about the whole incident is that the
officers were recorded saying that it was a good baseball game
or something like that, after the crime. now why was that not
blown up by the media, while a black person killing two innocent
victims became the "trial of the century." it seems just as, or
perhaps more so, inhumane to beat an innocent person and then
laugh and make jokes about it than to kill two people because of
some crazy jealous rage (that's probably what drove oj to do it...
something made him so crazy that he just flipped).
> He didn't deserve the beating, but the
> cops are no longer in that position to abuse people.
huh?!? abusive police officers are still out there. they may
be the minority, but i guarantee you that every time an ethnic
minority (black and hispanic primarily) is stopped by a cop
in a lonely place, there is a natural fear there. i've
experienced it, and i know others have. they are still in the
position to abuse people.
> I hate it when people cry "double jeopardy" when it comes to OJ. The
> idea of double jeopardy is to prevent the state from trying someone
> twice for the same crime.
yes, but oj is now "officially" guilty even though he was found
not guilty in the criminal trial. the public now disregards
the last verdict, and that is the biggest injustice that there
could ever be.
> There is nothing morally or legally to
> prevent people from suing someone many times over for the same
> behavior.
there is something definitely morally wrong about it. would
oj have been continually sued had he been found not guilty?
of course! the justice system would have allowed a man who
had already been found not guilty to be put to trial over and
over until the "right" verdict came through. of course this
was easily averted by having the trial in santa monica.
> And what does that have to do with the fact that a jury,
> unswayed by bullshit racial emotions, found him guilty of murdering two
> people?
in the eyes of everyone he's guilty. in fact he's not guilty
because a jury already decided that. why is the last more
important or more credible? because the last jury was primarily
white (including that hot woman with her luscious lips...mmmm!)?
because the verdict was "right?"
> Can you even imagine what it would be like to be a child living
> with a father who murdered your mom?
i hate to repeat myself laurie, but he was not found guilty by
a jury. i agree it would be a bad situation, but that is not
the fault of oj, it's the fault of the judicial system.
> It is abhorrent to me that any judge would let him have custody.
that opens up another can of worms. why is a judge, who goes
through school, passes tests (i presume), and is deemed worthy
to be a judge, all of a sudden a bad judge? is that because her
decision is unpopular? that is a bunch of bull! no offense to
you personally laurie.
Mata
Hester
doesn't have the money to hire an expensive team of lawyers to confuse
the jury. If he did, you would not hear the end of outrage. This is
strictly rich & famous vs. poor. Look at the outrage over Bill Cosby's
son being killed (by a white guy, I might add).
Let's cross-post this thread to the OJ ng.
Laurie
Patrick Henry
In article <Pine.SV4.3.94.97050...@aludra.usc.edu>, Mata
<ma...@aludra.usc.edu> wrote:
> laurie wrote:
>
> > I, for example, may boycott OJ Simpson because I don't like the fact
> > that he killed 2 people,
>
> OJ didn't kill 2 people because he's a trojan (he went to USC).
> all trojans are good people.
>
> > but to boycott him because he's Black would be
> > inexcusable.
>
> yes. but i have to ask why so many hate oj with the greatest
> of passions for killing 2 people, but a guy who kills scores of
> people, (mcveigh) including children, isn't as hated. oj was
> hated prior to and during the trial... i dont see the same with
> mcveigh. i don't want to bring up their racial differences
> because i truly don't want to believe that this is the reason
> for the differences.
>
> > Or I may dislike Shapiro for helping to get a murderer off
> > scott free
>
> he was doing his job. so was cochran. although clark and co.
> were not.
>
> Mata
OJ is clearly guilty, McVeigh's case is cloudy. Oj was well known,
McVeigh was not. Key differences.
Jett Karma
Hester <fun...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>To all: What if you found out that Eddie had done something totally
>against his image, like you found out he DID sell the rights to "Go" to
>a car commercial? Would you still listen to the music? Would you like
>it as much? If not, is that right or wrong? I've forgotten which side
>of the debate I'm on!
**********
Well, you and Yngver have a point. I have this fuzzy image of Ed as
being a liberal, intelligent, passionate (yet balanced) person. If I
found out that he was/had become a very staunch, religious-right
supporter of the pro-life folks, I *would* like him less. I would be
disappointed in him. So much so, that I couldn't enjoy his music.
But this would be because he had make a reasoned political decision
(and, quite frankly, I think of him as being smarter than that) and
then go with it. If he did it, I would also be pissed at myself...I
like to think I'm smarter than to really lend my support and respect
to someone who would stop believing a more enlightened thing for a
less enlightened one.
I like to believe a lot of things about EV, and since I don't know him
and never will, they are complete fictions; but, they are fictions
based on some things that I can reasonably believe are true. Within
my fictions, there is a wide, wide range of things that "can be" true,
and still not affect how I feel about him and PJ. If he were to do
something completely outside this "horizon of expectation" *I* have, I
would be shocked and would have to do some serious soul searching.
Some things could be resolved (they already have been, e.g., the RS
article), some things couldn't. These things would not be things such
as sexual orientation, or ancestry, or even (to some degree) religious
beliefs (who really knows anything here anyway?). They would be
deliberately chosen and reasoned out things...things like if he were
to align himself with the religious right, or hate groups, or
political extremists. I would have to think, I know he's not an
idiot, yet he believes this. And if he's clearly not an idiot and
believes this, then I cannot respect him because he has deliberately
chosen a belief system which is directly in opposition to everything
I hold sacred.
So, yes, there is plenty he could do to make me like him/PJ/the music
(innocent bystander that it is<g>) less. Or even to cause me to pitch
all of my albums in the trash. But, unless everything about EV and PJ
are complete fictions to start with, it's highly unlikely. EV and PJ
can make a lot of honest mistakes, fall prey to a few little red
mosquitos, or even take a lot of shaky missteps, and it would be okay.
Deliberate, reasoned actions completely out of character/out of what
I've been lead to believe is fundamentally true, would be the only
things that would really cause me to value the music less/completely
turn away.
--Jett
Hester
Mata wrote:
>
> oh come on laurie, would you not see the woman raped as an
> innocent victim if she had been flirting or hinting that she
> wanted to have sex. would you not see nicole as an innocent
> victim if she had an affair while married to oj. all those
> three (rodney king, nicole brown, and the rape victim) are
> innocent victims. king could have killed someone and would
> still not deserve the inhumane beating that he got. he was
> not a threat to the police (how can someone be a threat lying
> in pain on the floor), and the police are not the judge and jury
> in deciding if he's guilty of something and thus deserves a
> beating... what's worse about the whole incident is that the
> officers were recorded saying that it was a good baseball game
> or something like that, after the crime. now why was that not
> blown up by the media, while a black person killing two innocent
> victims became the "trial of the century." it seems just as, or
> perhaps more so, inhumane to beat an innocent person and then
> laugh and make jokes about it than to kill two people because of
> some crazy jealous rage (that's probably what drove oj to do it...
> something made him so crazy that he just flipped).
>
anyone deserves that. But what I was trying to say, was why some people
are not as upset about that as about Nicole getting brutally murdered.
RK is a loser, so we don't identify with him. Has nothing to do with
race. There was a local San Francisco story of a 14 year old Black girl
who got raped and murdered walking through the projects. Another
Richmond story of an Hispanic girl who got raped and murdered on her way
home from a friend's house. These are the stories that get me upset.
Maybe it's because I'm a woman.
And I'm sorry, but you cannot compare someone 'flirting' and then being
raped with someone who exhibits criminal activity and gets chased and
beaten by the police. A rapist does not rape because of flirting - he
rapes from anger, from a need to control. It is not about sex, it is
about violence. There is no causality between flirting and rape. Don't
even go there. However, if you run from, then resist the police, there
is a good chance you will get hurt. There is a direct causality here.
Fact is, the police were racist, went overboard and this was wrong. I
don't agree with the verdict, but again, I believe the jury was not
allowed to hear the part of the tape with them joking. Too bad.
>
> huh?!? abusive police officers are still out there. they may
> be the minority, but i guarantee you that every time an ethnic
> minority (black and hispanic primarily) is stopped by a cop
> in a lonely place, there is a natural fear there. i've
> experienced it, and i know others have. they are still in the
> position to abuse people.
I meant that those particular cops are no longer in a position to abuse
people. OJ is free. I have nothing but sympathy for those who are
hassled by racist cops. I hope they dig down deep and get rid of all of
them.
> yes, but oj is now "officially" guilty even though he was found
> not guilty in the criminal trial. the public now disregards
> the last verdict, and that is the biggest injustice that there
> could ever be.
A criminal trial has different standards of evidence, different standard
for 'guilty' (beyond reasonable doubt as opposed to preponderence of
guilt), and different standards for jury selection, etc. The judge
excused anyone on the criminal jury who READS THE NEWSPAPER DAILY!!!!
My god, that would cut out most educated people. The first jury did not
see the same evidence (abuse evidence, pictures of OJ wearing the shoes,
that the fibers found on the cap at the scene were in only a rare few
Broncos such as OJ's, etc, etc). The second jury got to hear Simpson on
the stand,
watched him deny beating Nicole and tell other lies. Of course, they
would find him guilty. I'm sure an all black jury in the second trial
would have found him guilty, because it was a different trial. But the
fact that any criminal jury cannot find someone guilty 'beyond
reasonable doubt' does NOT mean he is innocent. Fact is, OJ did the
deed, and whether he had one trial or two makes no difference in that
fact. He deserves what he got. You imply that the public is racist
because they 'accept' the second verdict as more valid than the first.
That is absurd. We all knew he was guilty in the first trial, because
we saw and heard evidence the jury didn't. We know that OJ's blood
drops next to the footprints at the scene alone would convict someone
who was not rich enough to hire fancy lawyers to confuse the jury.
>
> there is something definitely morally wrong about it. would
> oj have been continually sued had he been found not guilty?
> of course! the justice system would have allowed a man who
> had already been found not guilty to be put to trial over and
> over until the "right" verdict came through. of course this
> was easily averted by having the trial in santa monica.
All I meant here was that there is no limit on the number of civil
lawsuits. Again, by emphasizing the racial makeup of the second jury,
you are ignoring the many other differences between the two trials.
> in the eyes of everyone he's guilty. in fact he's not guilty
> because a jury already decided that. why is the last more
> important or more credible? because the last jury was primarily
> white (including that hot woman with her luscious lips...mmmm!)?
> because the verdict was "right?"
>
No, because the truth came out in the second trial.
> i hate to repeat myself laurie, but he was not found guilty by
> a jury. i agree it would be a bad situation, but that is not
> the fault of oj, it's the fault of the judicial system.
>
It doesn't matter whether he was found not guilty. I hate to repeat
myself, but 'not guilty' does not mean innocent. The fact remains that
he did murder their mother, and it is child abuse.
> that opens up another can of worms. why is a judge, who goes
> through school, passes tests (i presume), and is deemed worthy
> to be a judge, all of a sudden a bad judge? is that because her
> decision is unpopular? that is a bunch of bull! no offense to
> you personally laurie.
I don't think it is right to recall a judge based on one unpopular
decision. And actually, she had no choice at the time, the second trial
had not been concluded. Although I can say that I knew he was guilty
from the beginning, a judge cannot publicly make a decision like that.
She was bound by law to give custody to the father unless they proved
that he had harmed the children. Bad law, though, it should be
changed. But the judge did what she had to do. Hope that in the
appeal, truth will win out and the kids will be taken from him to be put
in a stable, loving home.
Laurie
>
> Mata
Robert Goble
Mc-V will fry. All that's happened to O.J. was he now has to use
public courses when he golfs. That's sad. He gets shittier Tee
times. Lets all cry for him.
--
Robert Goble
70673...@compuserve.com
Jett Karma
Eleanor <elg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>(On the sex appeal angle: )
>This may be true for some of Pearl Jam's fans, but then how would you
>explain all the guys who are obsessed with the band? I hope you are not
>going to say that all these fans are latent homosexuals!
>
>El
I think that their main appeal is not sex appeal (although this
quality never hurts)...it's brain appeal! I'm willing to bet that all
those obsessed guys are latent, if not overt, honest-to-goodness
thinkers!!
--Jett, actually a member of Densa, though she has pretensions to that
more prestigious organization
Yngver
In article <337885...@earthlink.net>
Eleanor <elg...@earthlink.net> writes:
> This may be true for some of Pearl Jam's fans, but then how would you
> explain all the guys who are obsessed with the band? I hope you are not
> going to say that all these fans are latent homosexuals!
That's not the point. Most "alternative" rock bands of PJ's ilk have
large male followings. PJ has also attracted a proportionately large
female following, due to their sexual appeal. I never saw Screaming
Trees featured in Sassy magazine, unlike PJ.(Although I once saw a "How
to Dress Like Axl" story :-))
Additionally, studies have shown that we all respond more favorably to
good-looking people, whether they are the same gender as we are or not.
-Yngver
Alex Tobias
Lachlan Davis <" lachlan_davis"@geocities.com> wrote:
> I couldn't care less where someone sticks their prick, as long as
>it's not inside me.
That quote should go down in history.....it's a good point....
Jett Karma
>money can't buy happiness are full of shit, but I think I would choose
>music over money...gay or not.
>
>Lachlan
***********
Thank you for your rant. It was darn good. Religion is such a
bizarre thing. Oooh, nasty pun on the going up in flames thing, but
hey! I appreciate it!!
On your statement that money can buy happiness though...my dear old
Daddy always used to say, "Money can't buy happiness; however, the
*lack* of money has sure made many a person miserable." Take it or
leave it, but I'm inclined to think that was pretty wise.
--Jett
Lachlan Davis
Jett Karma wrote:
>
> Lachlan Davis <" lachlan_davis"@geocities.com> wrote:
> I think people who say
> >money can't buy happiness are full of shit, but I think I would choose
> >music over money...gay or not.
> >
> >Lachlan
>
>
> bizarre thing. Oooh, nasty pun on the going up in flames thing, but
> hey! I appreciate it!!
That, my friend, I think sums it up quite well (religion is such a
bizarre thing). I know this is now *totally* off topic for this NG.
Religion does so much good for so many people. It doesn't matter
whether it's all true or not. As far as I'm concerned, that's pretty
well irrelivent. The fact that people can be *good* simply because they
have the fear of God in them is a positive thing. This is a really
cheesy and very basic example, but what I mean is this: Guy A wants to
kill guy B because he doesn't like him (for no good reason). Guy A
decides not to kill guy B because he knows he's not supposed to.
Instead, because his religion states so, he chooses to treat guy B with
basic human respect--even though he may not really like him. Bad
example, I know, but you get the picture. It's a good thing.
The other side of the coin are the idiots, who have made themselves
known withing this NG, who say things like "I hate you because you're
gay and that's not the way God intended you to be." In their *true*
human nature, there may be no part of them that would dislike someone
for such a stupid reason. However, because they have the fear of God in
them, they choose to hate rather than love. I guess it all boils down
to the person and which way they choose to look at/apply religion to
their lives. For the most part, though, I think religion is generally a
good thing (despite the fact that I think the bible is a fairy tale, a
good one though, written by a drugged out visionary). This is *far*
from concrete evidence, but take for example Revelations. John, or
whoever he was, keeps talking about eating tiny books. Each time he
eats one he has another vision. I wonder what he's *really* eating?
Visions. Hmmm...isn't another word for that 'hallucination'? They must
have had some good drugs back then.
Re the pun. Thanks. I can't really take credit for it though. I wrote
it, then began deleting because I realized it could have been taken two
ways and I didn't want to confuse people. Then I thought, 'what the
hell' and left it in.
> On your statement that money can buy happiness though...my dear old
> Daddy always used to say, "Money can't buy happiness; however, the
> *lack* of money has sure made many a person miserable." Take it or
> leave it, but I'm inclined to think that was pretty wise.
You do have a point. I used that more to lend an example to my point.
You're right in the sense that you can't go to the store and pick up a
bag of happiness (well, I guess you can if you're a crack head and the
store is your dealer's house). You're also quite right in stating that
the lack of funds makes me and everyone else *very* unhappy. That's a
good statement. Your father must have been/is very wise. I guess a
better way of saying that would be, "money can buy more happiness!" But
you're right. The roots of happiness don't stem from cash.
Lachlan
> --Jett
Johnjylee
Yes, I think he is...but it's his life and he should be able to do what he
wants.
Eddie being gay has nothing to do with Pearl Jam's music being
awful...because it is...every single song.
Joe Cigarette