Persuading people to agree with you, depending on the subject, may require changing their basic assumptions about the universe. It is my contention that this is not always possible, and frankly would lead to a REMARKABLY boring planet if someone somehow found a way to achieve this with 100% effectiveness.
A world in which this had occurred would, to be completely honest, give me the screaming, crawling heebie-jeebies. It's why I don't live in Utah; I'm scared of the Pod People. Don't take this the wrong way, but I don't WANT to live in a world where it would never occur to a folk singer to write a song about lesbians. (That said, a world without folk music is one I would consider visiting.)
It's great when people are able to come to terms through persuasion -- but, frankly, I think compromise is often just as good a solution.
Moreover, insisting on -- and holding out for -- a world where everyone AGREES will inevitably lead to frustration and confusion, especially if your culture is a minority culture that makes a point of disagreeing with the larger one. You're basically setting yourself up for continual disappointment and bitterness, and eventual withdrawal from the world altogether (see Jettboy, commune dwellers, and folk singers).
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Themes, and the process of finding them, only matter to elitists.
The rest of us yokels are content to enjoy the artistry.
A Cardian sentiment that I find bizarre. Who are you to say that any particular way of deriving fulfillment from literature is wrong or stupid? That sort of view is elitism, which I think was Stormy's point in beginning the other thread.
Of course, many (most?) people who read literature from a 'critical' standpoint will belittle other ways of reading just as Scott did. They are also acting like elitists.
This kind of elitism may only be natural. Perhaps it is only because I find myself frequently enjoying both plot and theme (which is why Simmons's Hyperion is my all-time fave) that I can see this issue both ways.
quote:You tell me, what have *you* seen that really bothered you as far as children's programming that offended you, KEGE.
Tinky Winky, the gay Teletubby, of course!
Scott- part of my original point was that (non-violent, non-legal) ways of persuading people are just fine. Go on doing what you're doing. Practically speaking, though, you can't honestly believe that it will take less than a hundred years to convert the rest of the USA to Mormonism. Thus it also makes sense to seek legal protection from the excesses of other denominations.
I sympathize greatly with you guys; you are one of the few religious groups to have suffered actual large-scale, organized, violent attacks in American history. People act like it can't happen here, and so there's no harm bringing religion into government, but it has happened here.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, there *is* Kermit the Frog's song about 'the rainbow connection', now that you mention it....
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Reading this discussion, I find it ironic that it started out with Tom suggesting that there really was no cultural war, and that it is all in the imagination of Card, Jacare et al.
"Use the remote, Luke"
As in: turn off the TV, right?
We don't have cable or satellite anymore. I will admit that I don't watch TV very much, and part of the reason is that it is too hard for me to find something that I can actually enjoy without having to use my inner 'cultural censors'. Things like tuning out cuss words, having to think about how I shouldn't expect them to follow my own religious teachings, etc. The problem is that these people don't represent my ideals and values. I can understand and empathize, for some TV shows. In others, I simply switch in disgust. And others, I avoid like the plague.
Even with cable, most of my favorites were non-fiction.
That feels a cultural war to me, when I feel left out of the majority of the art produced for the masses. And that art produced for or by the elite is even worse, in that it doesn't merely depict a morality I am not a part of, it preaches against my own cultural values.
posted
I agree with Storm. If 'liberal entertainment' is vomitted on you, then you shouldn't stand under the liberal window! TV is choice. Movies are choice. Music is choice. Radio is choice. Internet is choice. Theatre is choice. Not one of these venues are forced on anyone. Heck, Ms. Kidd had to pay for tickets and make her way to the concert on her own! It didn't come to her! yet she feels the same way some of these posters do...that she was "vomitted on" by "liberal dogma." Sheesh.
To get the gobs of channels out there, you have to actively pay for it. If you only use the local channels, you have to turn it on. You get the point, as others have said it on here. Parents shouldn't blame liberals or conservatives for their lack of control over their own children's viewing habits.
That last post's definition for "cultural war" was exceedingly creepy. If I get the poster's point, "cultural war" comes out of a minority of folks feeling out of step with the majority of folks in terms of culture? I thought a war was a conflict in order for one side to dominate and destroy another side. I think that if you feel out of step with the majority of television, books and movies, get in line. The nature of the entertainment industry is that MOST people could or should feel that way, unless they are...er...easily entertained. I am for the most part a dyed in wool liberal, I suppose. Yet, this industry that supposedly caters to my life choices surely leaves me cold just as much as anyone else. We don't watch a ton of tv in our house with our 4 year old daughter. We watch movies from time to time and at times do some cartoons (usually PBSkids). As adults, we did the Buffy <sniff> and BBCAmerica. Most other channels leave us cold. Some folks can't find programming to fit a conservative religious bent and iIwould agree. It is also hard for us to find non-violent entertainment for our daughter, shows with strong female role-models, shows that don't objectify women, and even when we find a show that we enjoy, the ads in between break all of our criteria, etc.
So we mostly just don't watch. Books are better. Movies are good, too. Can choose the entire content and no ads in between. Play time is best. The point is, we can see where the holes are in programming and choose not to fall into them. I don't blame the conservative media for its tireless effort to sell ad time vs. providing quality programming. I don't think I am at war with some other culture because most television sucks. I just think there is more to do in this world than worry about the entertainment industry.
If you feel at war with part of the culture you don't like, declare a cease fire and move on. There is still plenty of room in this country for everyone to walk around and not get in each other's face.
We can control what our children watch, but do you suggest I take them out of public schools to avoid the interaction they'll have with other children who are raised on the television? Entertainment media is merely a reflection of what the majority of the culture wants, and that conflicts with what I want. So what do we do when our child comes home using a crude word they never heard from our mouths or the TV.
I know, we have to teach them. And I'm willing to do that. But the fact of the matter is that in this world where people travel so much, and there is no such thing as a village anymore, people who don't follow the majority culture feel marginalized and defensive. So yes. We do feel like we are fighting a war against a predominantly secular and amoral attitude seen in most entertainment.
It doesn't feel like a war to you, because every time you see a normal two parent family on TV it is normal to you. But then "Sex in the City" is normal to those of a 'liberal' bent as well. It is not to me. That is one of the shows I will never watch, simply because of it's name. Will I tolerate a certain amount of this? Of course. But where you have to exert no effort at all to enjoy the proceedings, I have to 'forgive' the characters for doing things that I consider wrong, in order to relate to them.
There are some levels to this. Seeing other people drink in social situations doesn't bother me too much (I'm LDS and we don't drink alcohol). But 'seeing' or having the implication of people having sex at the first rise of hormones does bother me a great deal. Watching shows that make the religious conservative (like me) out to be a narrominded, blind, bigoted jerks bothers me.
Being told that I am full of hate because I believe certain things are a sin bothers me a great deal.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I have to 'forgive' the characters for doing things that I consider wrong, in order to relate to them."
I'm sorry, Amka, I really am, but I can't muster much more than a "world's smallest violin" worth of sympathy, here.
You've made the conscious choice to be "better" than the surrounding culture.
That means, natch, that you ARE "better" than the surrounding culture. This also means that the surrounding culture will almost ALWAYS disappoint you.
I am a fat man. This means that certain things -- like shopping at the Gap, or enjoying amusement parks -- are difficult or off-limits. Do I resent the amusement park because they don't make roller coasters to accomodate the ludicrously obese? Of course not.
So why do you resent the majority culture for not accepting your fringe values?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
KEGE- I was specifically referring to the reality shows Fox has been showing. Those have been far more morally revolting than even Sex and the City (and sex in the city shows nudity!).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Watching shows that make the religious conservative (like me) out to be a narrominded, blind, bigoted jerks bothers me.
Being told that I am full of hate because I believe certain things are a sin bothers me a great deal.
What shows do that? I haven't seen a lot of TV that actually attacks specific ideals, liberal or conservative (except on 'news' shows). Seems like that would be a bad marketing move.
To tell the truth, I also think the people on Sex and the City are quite sleazy. Most films which portray fast-moving sexual relationships have them take place between characters who are in extremely stressful situations, which at least makes it a bit more believable.
The only promiscuous sex I've seen happen among adults has much to do with alcohol, which shows you LDS folks are on the right track -- monogamy and sobriety are closely related. Kids, of course, are frequently promiscuous because they're at the age when primates in the wild are supposed to start reproducing.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Persuading people to agree with you, depending on the subject, may require changing their basic assumptions about the universe. It is my contention that this is not always possible, and frankly would lead to a REMARKABLY boring planet if someone somehow found a way to achieve this with 100% effectiveness.
I contend that the type of unity acheived by reasonable persuasion is both possible and emotionally/mentally stimulating.
At the very worst, unity of thought cannot be more boring than watching people beat dead horses ad nauseum, ala--
Let's take a poll-- which icons express positive thoughts, and which negatives? Which icon would you rather have at a party?
<- Tom's idea of utopia.
<- Scott's idea of utopia.
<- Ralphie's idea of utopia.
<- Jettboy's idea of utopia.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: But then "Sex in the City" is normal to those of a 'liberal' bent as well.
Why do you immediately associate "liberal" with "promiscuous"? The two most certainly do NOT go hand in hand. I am an agnostic liberal, and I was a virgin until I was married. I know plenty of people from whom this is true.
On the reverse, at my undergrad. institution, I also knew plenty of conservative fundamentalists who were extremely promiscuous.
Liberal does not necessarily equal promiscuous, just as conservative does not necessarily equal virtuous.
I realize this is a bit off-topic, but this sort of demonization of the "other side" really bugs me--when it comes from either conservatives or liberals.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott--In response to your poll, if my alternatives are a world in which I must be persuaded to believe as everyone else does, or a world in which everyone thinks for themselves and comes to their own conclusions (as diverse and contradictory as they might be), I'll take the latter.
I think compromise is a much better solution than, "No, you're wrong, you must think like me! Here are the reasons..." This, however, may be my instinctive resistance to someone attempting to persuade me how wrong my views are. My mental response is always, "I've thought this through...what makes your answer any better than mine?" Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, I'm afraid your smilies don't quite work. A world in which everyone had been persuaded to agree on everything would, indeed, be a group hug smiley -- but all the smilies would be exactly the same color.
MY utopia -- in which smilies would not be required to share the same opinions -- would be one where smilies of different colors were, indeed, separated by a big wall. But instead of beating their heads against it, they'd install a door and occasionally pop over to the other side for a group hug, then retreat when one of the smilies does something kinky that scares the other smilies.
Sadly, our array of smilies is still relatively small for the purposes of extended utopian metaphor. (Note: this is not a request to the mods to expand that array further. *grin*)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:A world in which everyone had been persuaded to agree on everything would, indeed, be a group hug smiley -- but all the smilies would be exactly the same color.
How does unity in thought lead to stultification?
How does the ability to be persuaded lead to a lack of freedom of thought?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
First, unity in thought seems to be a ludicrous goal for the world, based on history. Second, unity in general is a really bad survival practice: when the world changes, a unified (ie basically identical) group of beings dies out. Third, if unity is chosen, and it turns out what was chosen for unity is wrong/flawed, everyone is screwed (this is somewhat of a variant on reason number 2).
I applaud you for being so certain that your choice of philosophy is right, Scott, but this country was built on an idea that I greatly admire, that each person gets to choose what they think is right in as great a range as possible for a civil society, and that this diversity is what secures each of us in that ability.
Attempts at unity lead to great oppression of the minority.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: But then "Sex in the City" is normal to those of a 'liberal' bent as well.
Well, I don't think they come much more liberal than me, but I'm offended by that statement. That show doesn't seem "normal" to me.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: know, we have to teach them. And I'm willing to do that. But the fact of the matter is that in this world where people travel so much, and there is no such thing as a village anymore, people who don't follow the majority culture feel marginalized and defensive.
Why do you think there is a majority culture? I think there is a median that public (and by that, I mean the three major networks) television shoots for, but I don't think that defines the tastes of the majority of people. So, what that means is that there is always going to be something on television that is going to be either too wholesome or too dirty for some viewers. As I mentioned, if you have cable, there are networks like PAX and some others that carry nothing but family television. I don't understand why you don't subscribe to cable and get them.
I say this not in the sense that you should give up, but in the sense that it's what everyone does. Specialized tastes are what makes pay for TV able to survive. And when you get right down to it, all it is is a matter of taste, is it not? For instance, I want to see 'good' science fiction and fantasy like I read in books. I know a lot of people like me, but I also know that as a reader, and especially as a reader of sci-fi, comic books, and fantasy, I am in a small minority. Where am I going to see it on television? Even the so-called Sci-Fi channel only, for the most part, carries dreck. It's pretty clear to me that my and my friends' tastes are based upon good, solid reasons. It saddens me that there isn't more programming that I like, but I like to think that the reason for it is because I have refined tastes.
I think the case is analogous to your sitution. Your tastes are different from most other people's for obvious reasons, but what it comes down to is having refined tastes. I don't understand why you don't understand why you can't find anything to watch when it is clear that commercial television shoots for the lowest denominator. If that is so and your tastes are even a little different from the lcd, then of course there's going to be something that offends you in most television. The fact that your tastes reflect religious values just means that when you experience what the rest of us who have refined tastes experience, you just experience it to a harsher degree, I think. There are, ah, rather more serious connotations to it. I shouldn't just blame it on your religion, though. I'm sure that being intelligent and being able to imagine the social consequences if what is being shown on TV is taken to its worst possible conclusion scares you as well. I know it does me. I mean, to give you another example, there is a whole slew of government agent shows that glorify the state as protector. This bugs me to no end. We need more programming with average joes and less hysterical, the sky is falling stuff, I think.
I guess what I'm saying is that everyone experiences what you're experiencing. Everyone's kid, if they go to public schools, experiences values different from their own. You are no different from me or a lot of other people. Thus, I guess what I'm tring to say is that we, you, create a lot of the cultural divides that we experience. If there is a cultural war, then it is all our fault, don't you think?
This is not to say that refined tastes are wrong. Certainly not. Leave the rest to their stuff. Just don't take away what you and I need to feed our soul.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:unity in thought seems to be a ludicrous goal for the world, based on history.
Based on history, LOTS of goals seem ludicrous. Because no one's accomplished them yet. Get it?
quote:but this country was built on an idea that I greatly admire, that each person gets to choose what they think is right in as great a range as possible for a civil society, and that this diversity is what secures each of us in that ability.
Certainly. That's why I specified 'persuasion.'
And there's a reason why E Plurbis Unum is on our money. . . And America wasn't built on diversity (as if diversity is the crown jewel of secular law-- it ain't). . . And diversity does NOT secure agency.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
America was very much built upon diversity. I mean, literally built. It was diversity, for instance, that drove the great expansion to the west.
Perhaps diversity does not ensure autonomy. But I will argue to my death that uniformity will ensure the lack of autonomy.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually the expansion west has more to do with greed than diversity. I would also say that our country was built on the inalienable rights of freedom and liberty.
Diversity is overrated.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, you misunderstand e pluribus unum. It is a celebration of diversity. "Out of many, one". A country that is a unity in spite of all the difference that make it up. Benajamin Franklin was one of the greatest proponents of the motto, and he was very fixed on that idea that one should be accepting of differences so as to form a greater whole.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Diversity is a good thing, just not when it begins to infringe upon the right of the majority. There is definantly the possibility of a lack of unity with diversity. Racial tension would be an example.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And you have not been building upon persuasion. You ahve been complaining about television shows you don't like. If persuasion is how you feel things should work, feel free to try to persuade people that such things shouldn't be watched/shouldn't be on the air (and heck, feel free to complain to me that you don't like them, I don't mind), but if you assert persuasion as the way things should go, to assert that what is broadcast should conform to your beliefs before you have persuaded people is more than a little contradictory.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not infringe on the rights of the majority . . .
Of course, the largest problem with that is that, at sufficient granularity, there is never a majority in anything. Conversely, at a small enough granularity (of a given choice) one can engineer almost any majority.
I'm not saying the rights of the majority should be trampled. I am saying that one should make darn sure one is actually talking about the majority, and one should also make sure one is not trampling on the rights of the minority if at all possible.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"How does unity in thought lead to stultification?"
How can it NOT? The only conceivable circumstance in which unity in thought does NOT lead to stultification is one in which all the united thought is already flawlessly perfect and ideal for all situations.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The only conceivable circumstance in which unity in thought does NOT lead to stultification is one in which all the united thought is already flawlessly perfect and ideal for all situations.
Can you elaborate on why?
Why such a strong reaction against what is the essential human emotional need-- utter connection with other people?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: I would also say that our country was built on the inalienable rights of freedom and liberty.
Diversity is overrated.
quote: Diversity is a good thing, just not when it begins to infringe upon the right of the majority. There is definantly the possibility of a lack of unity with diversity. Racial tension would be an example.
Is it just me, or does Ryan seem like he'd be happy with an all white, straight, Republican country?
Ryan, one word. Idaho. Check it out. Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not to insult anyone's intelligence, but Neil Simon obviously pulled his play for the publicity and to snub the Mormons.
Sorry, that insulted someone's intelligence right off.
Please go to the Salt Lake Tribune and read the articles about the situation. Not only did Simon not obviously do anything, it's very likely he wasn't aware of the situation until it made the news. The people doing the play have admitted that they knew they weren't supposed to be making changes. Simon didn't do anything. The company licensing his play simply enforced a clause that the producers of the play knew about when they signed the contract. The production group had the options of doing the play as written or not doing it. The fact that they had already been working and designing costumes and sets for two weeks is, frankly, their own fault.
[ August 24, 2003, 10:16 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not to insult anyone's intelligence, but Neil Simon obviously pulled his play for the publicity and to snub the Mormons.
Or, possibly, they were breaking the law. Not a criminal law, but a civil law. That's insulting. Were they hoping to get away with it? Talk about your strong moral convictions. I'd rather spend the evening hearing the F-word seven times that watch the farce of holier than thou people purposfully thumbing their noses at legal document they signed. Yeah, they have the upper hand in the moral superiority department.
Ryan, Ralphie was wrong. You couldn't be any more alienating if you ran around kicking people in the shins.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
FWIW, I love folk music, especially Peter, Paul, & Mary, and hope to see them live some day before they stop touring. Though I do agree that some of their more recent songs are trying a bit too hard, and being more than a bit too earnest.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Diversity is a good thing, just not when it begins to infringe upon the right of the majority. There is definantly the possibility of a lack of unity with diversity. Racial tension would be an example.
Ryan, what's your take on the whole Civil Rights movement thing?
(Not trying to be inflammatory, I'm truly interested.)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
I would love to take my kids to one of their concerts, especially, if they played some of their more heartwarming songs.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Way to go Mr. Bridges! I wonder if Mr. Card will recant some of his cant?
Yah, I too feel insulted when it is assumed that everything a conservative christian hates in culture, the media, etc. is automatically assumed to be loved by the leftist heathens. Give me a break. As noted in my original response, I am just as disappointed in most television, too, as well as most major studio released movies or studio released CDs. Sure, the shows we have in common are probably different. You probably won't like "Coupling" on BBC America while I may think "Touched By an Angel" isn't my cup of tea. Yet we probably would both agree on TONS of shows that we both would rather avoid. Does that make us at "war?"
Yes, your children will be exposed to people different than you. That is the point of living in such a society as ours. If the big city is too much, move away. There are parts of this country where you can disappear into a homogenous group if you don't think you or your children are able to handle it. That isn't war, that is choice.
Diversity "overrated?" Who said it needs rating? It is kind of like gravity...it is the law. The tensions that come out of diversity happens when folks can't live with it, not just because there IS diversity. My church accepts members of all faiths, many of which don't necessarily jibe in all ways. Yet, we all get along and find strength in our diversity. I feel badly for those who can't live in such a world.
posted
"Why such a strong reaction against what is the essential human emotional need-- utter connection with other people?"
While I agree that CONNECTION is an essential -- perhaps even THE essential -- need, I disagree that unanimous agreement is a necessary component of connection.
Christy and I disagree on a number of fundamental issues; that doesn't mean that I'm less "connected" to her, or that I'd be happier if she were a Stepford wife.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm going to reply virtuously that I'd eventually get bored with all the wild sex, photo opportunities, and eager, fawing servitude. Um. Yeah.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Civil Rights Movement was a great thing. Segregation is an abomidable thing. I completely support the actions of Martin Luther King, however when things take the turn of Malcom X, things have gone too far.
I only meant that racial tension is an undesirable biproduct of diverstiy.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: . I completely support the actions of Martin Luther King, however when things take the turn of Malcom X, things have gone too far.
This statement puzzles me. What do you mean by "the turn of Malcom [sic] X"? What do you think you know about him that leads you to make this statement?
Earlier you said:
quote: Diversity is a good thing, just not when it begins to infringe upon the right of the majority. There is definantly the possibility of a lack of unity with diversity. Racial tension would be an example.
What rights of the majority are you referring to? Racial tension is more a by-product of the slowness of the majority to release their historically monopolistic grip on basic liberties than it is on the diverse minority infringing on anything.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
I think there is a perception among the majority, when a minority group is trying to assert its rights, that this is infringing on the majority's rights. However, this is a perception that is actually defensiveness on the part of the majority because they don't want to give up the exclusive privileges that they have become used to.
The majority perceives that something is being taken away from them. This is silly, because they are not losing anything but exclusive possession of rights that should have been universal in the first place. They aren't losing any actual rights, just the sole posession of them.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is silly, because they are not losing anything but exclusive possession of rights that should have been universal in the first place.
It is NOT silly. The 'majority attitude' may be wrong, but there is reason for the feeling.
We are talking about a culture change. We are saying one group's culture is unjust, repressive, or bad for society in general. This is a serious accusation, so don't be surprised when those opposed to the changes make serious efforts to keep the changes from happening. Their reaction is not silly, and treating it as such can only delay the culture change because it will inevitably create resentment in those who oppose the change.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Umm Ryan, wasn't racial tension much, much heavier before diversity became a goal?
And please, quit painting North Carolina as your perfect place. We're not filled with narrow-minded idiots, contrary to your microscopian views of the community that surrounds you. Trust me, pal, you are in the minority.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Don't take this the wrong way, but I don't WANT to live in a world where it would never occur to a folk singer to write a song about lesbians. (That said, a world without folk music is one I would consider visiting.)![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Kids, of course, are frequently promiscuous because they're at the age when primates in the wild are supposed to start reproducing.
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
<- Scott's idea of utopia.![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
<- Ralphie's idea of utopia.![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
<- Jettboy's idea of utopia.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
