Officer, arrest that man! He...he manipulated my emotions!!
m.terribile
> >>other groups, an author with whom I have locked horns a few times (his
> >>choice!), an author who makes humor and deciBel level substitute for clear
> >>thought about facts and feelings. It's brilliant, in a Primitive sort of
> >>way. I'm amused by its presumption ;^} ...
>
> And who could Mark possibly be referring to? Does he eat cheeseburgers?
Ok, Mikki, it's unfair to compare Muffin Cosmique with Whoopee Franqueesi the
All Dopey and his Prophet ... You're right, and I apologize to both of them.
> >Really? ...Gosh. And I thought you did it with mirrors.
> >Oh... you couldn't have... that implies a shiny chrome vibrator ...? B-)
> Chrome, Dorothy? I thought it was bronzed.
Wasn't (and isn't) bronze used as an anti-friction alloy?
> In fact, I thought it used to
> belong to a certain individual on the net who implies that the government
> should control our "prurient interests" because it is obvious that *we*
> can't. But he doesn't believe that other "manipulators of emotion", for
> example, preachers on the 700 club who show pictures of starving kids and
> ask for money, nor anti-abortion people who show pictures of chopped up
> fetuses should be regulated in this way. Even though those preachers
> bankrupt little old ladies, and those pictures incite people to throw bombs
> at health clinics that may be performing abortions.
Hmm. If I could prohibit people who don't feed starving kids from showing
pictures of starvng kids, I would. You are alleging, I think, that religion
is used as a front for a confidence racket. If this is true, I want to see the
confidence racket stopped as much as you want to see the religion stopped.
By the way, if the money *really is* going to feed hungry children ... let's
just say that it was ... what would be ignoble about an old woman with un-
grateful heirs turning most of her money over to the care of those children?
> Forgive me for bringing up abortion in this group.
Which is why I will not belabor the net with the obvious reply. I'm not
angry with you.
> I'm afraid it is not enough said. Nor will it be until people stop trying
> to run our lives for us.
Does that include the advertisers who entice you to buy their product? Does
it include the people whose notion of ``public decency'' in some way exceeds
the notion of ``minimum common morality''? Does it include the offenders whose
illness is pandered to and encouraged (even if not *caused*) by certain types
of published matter?
Lots of people influence your life. Some of them do not have the right to. We
are trying to consider which ones do and which ones don't and what means are
appropriate for them to use.
An aside to another poster: Yes, the Chernobyl point was exaggerated; I
admitted it before I even made it! But it does point out some advantages to
a conservative approach to things.
--
from Mole End Mark Terribile
(scrape .. dig ) mtx5b!mat
(Please mail to mtx5b!mat, NOT mtx5a!
mat, or to mtx5a!mtx5b!mat)
(mtx5b!mole-end!mat will also reach me)
,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.
Mikki Barry
>Lots of people influence your life. Some of them do not have the right to. We
>are trying to consider which ones do and which ones don't and what means are
>appropriate for them to use.
This is the entire point of this discussion. I don't want "we" deciding
what is appropriate for me. *I* want to do it MYSELF!
I don't like porn per-se, but if my husband wants to read it, or the old
lady up the street likes it, so what? There have been *NO* conclusive
studies that porn is harmful to the general population.
Rape and sexual assault existed before porn, and will continue to exist
after porn if it is banned. The way to stop these crimes is education of
society and elevation of the status of women from less than subordinate to
males. Why not work on these things rather than waste your energy challenging
our right to choose for ourselves?
Mikki Barry
HASA
---------------------------
"Every law creates a whole new criminal class overnight"