posted
I'm sorry Dagonee. With all the problems that are in the world that could use some cash help such as education, homelessness, health care, or cancer research, the idea of spending over $100,000 on a tarp to cover a statue seems a little ridiculous. Sure, Ashcroft's got a right to his opinion, but I've got a right to call him a relict of medieval times.
I'm not trying to belittle anyone's opinon. I'm just disagreeing and using colorful language while doing so. Posts: 511 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by cheiros do ender: [QB] I've now seen this "Lady Justice" with and without the Tarp change. I don't get how you could think she looks better without it.
OK, but I'm sure Ashcroft disagrees with you. I'm sure he can't get how you think it looks better without the tarp (I assume you meant "with it"). This is the ultimate matter of opinion - is this art good. If the original statue came with a tarp which most found ugly, would we be somehow bound by the original intentions of the procurer of the statue?
No. It's a question of decoration.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
stephan: you put some words in my mouth. i never said that all women should dress the way they do in conservatve islamic countries. i think there is a big difference between disapproving of all pornography, and thinking it should be illegal to display ANY part of your body in public. as for nude beaches, they are also evil and sick, as are strip clubs and adult book stores.
Jim-me: i am not labeling anyone who disagrees with me as a pervert, i am merely saying that anyone who looks at pornography is a pervert. just like stephan, you have jumped to conclusions.
TheGrimace: appreciating art like that isnt innappropriate so long as you don't do it for sexual pleasure. and poeple like you are why i think that the united states is a lewd and sexually immoral country.
luet13: as i said, symbolic statues of naked poeple are appropriate as long as they are not intended to serve sexual purposes. i don't think it is nessacary to get so riled up about this, the way you were ranting in that post of yours.
Posts: 10 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:OK, but I'm sure Ashcroft disagrees with you. I'm sure he can't get how you think it looks better without the tarp (I assume you meant "with it").
No I didn't mean with it. I said without; I'm not stupid.
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In Ashcroft's defense, certain photographers were clearly enjoying the irony of being able to photograph him right in front of a bare breast when speaking out on an anti-pornography issue (just as one example). I'd imagine that he put up the tarp as much to protect himself from that sort of ironic juxtaposition (which easily opens him up to unfair assertions of hypocrisy) than to protect himself from sculpted nudity.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm sorry Dagonee. With all the problems that are in the world that could use some cash help such as education, homelessness, health care, or cancer research, the idea of spending over $100,000 on a tarp to cover a statue seems a little ridiculous.
Can you source the $100,000?
Second, with all the problems that are in the world that could use some cash help such as education, homelessness, health care, or cancer research, the idea of spending over $X on a statue seems a little ridiculous.
Are you under the impression that the statue was installed at a time when education, homelessness, health care, or cancer research couldn't have used the cash?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:OK, but I'm sure Ashcroft disagrees with you. I'm sure he can't get how you think it looks better without the tarp (I assume you meant "with it").
No I didn't mean with it. I said without; I'm not stupid.
OK, so you meant "I don't get how you could think she looks better without it."
You think she looks better with the tarp?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:i am not labeling anyone who disagrees with me as a pervert, i am merely saying that anyone who looks at pornography is a pervert.
*laugh* You realize that stats put that at something like 80% of adults in the country, right? In fact, by most technical definitions of the word "pervert," it would be more correct to argue that people who do not look at pornography are perverted.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok. I'm sure someone, somewhere, will derive sexual pleasure from viewing anything... and at a great effort to limit my imagination i will keep the list of examples to this: spatulas, obelisks, various fruit and vegetables, a couch.
Posts: 3636 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But it wasn't like the statue came in against his wishes and he had it covered. They've been there since the 1930's, and Lady Justice has been depicted that way since before the States were United. Making such a big deal about covering them, especially when we were fighting an enemy that forces its women to cover themselves head to foot, was just stupid on Ashcroft's part.
My impression wasn't that he covered them because he got shaky at the sight of a human breast, but because the press made a game of getting shots of people standing directly under it.
If he wanted it gone he'd have been better served redecorating the whole area, removing both statues, and putting something else there in their place. This just made him look like an insecure prude.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kyvin said: "TheGrimace: appreciating art like that isnt innappropriate so long as you don't do it for sexual pleasure. and poeple like you are why i think that the united states is a lewd and sexually immoral country.
luet13: as i said, symbolic statues of naked poeple are appropriate as long as they are not intended to serve sexual purposes. i don't think it is nessacary to get so riled up about this, the way you were ranting in that post of yours. "
What I'm finding issue with is where you draw the line. So now you stat that the David (for example) is not pornography (correct me if I'm wrong). But there's multiple problems with this: 1) there is still the potential (primarily with the young who dont have as great an appreciation for art yet) to view this as an object of arousal. 2) we can't be certain that there wasn't some initial intention of what you would consider pornographic depiction when the statue was first created... what if it really was intended to be arousing and we've since just stopped looking at it in that way?
Additionally, using the justification that says my looking upon the David is NOT lewd behavior that I could say my looking at a partially or fully nude photograph without the intent to be aroused, but only to appreciate some combination of the human form and the artistic use of light and shadow (assuming the photograph was not intended to be pornographic, but artistic).
I'm again asking where you draw the line? What is it exactly that makes some form of sexual expression/representation acceptable, and others not?
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/01/29/statues.htm Okay, I'll be the first to admit, I was wrong about the dollar amount. It was only $8,000. Yes that's a big difference, please don't waste your time telling me what a dolt I am. This all happened years ago, and I guess through my own biases against this administration and a time warp, I have not remembered as clearly as I would like.
I suppose you think the best way to win this war is for all the women in America to walk around topless? Sounds like a plan to me. Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:When President Bush visited the Justice Department to rededicate the building to Robert Kennedy, his advance men insisted on a nice blue backdrop: "TV blue," infinitely preferable to the usual dingy background of the Great Hall. Everyone thought the backdrop worked nicely — made for "good visuals," as they say. This was Deaverism, pure and simple. Ashcroft's people intended to keep using it.
An advance woman on his team had the bright idea of buying the backdrop: It would be cheaper than renting it repeatedly. So she did — without Ashcroft's knowledge, without his permission, without his caring, everyone in the department insists.
But ABC put out the story that Ashcroft, the old prude, had wanted the Breast covered up, so much did it offend his churchly sensibilities. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, ever clever, wrote that Ashcroft had forced a "blue burka" on Minnie Lou. Comedians had a field day (and are still having it). The Washington Post has devoted great space to the story, letting Cher, for example, tee off on it — as she went on to do on David Letterman's show.
And yet the story is complete and total bunk. First, Ashcroft had nothing to do with the purchase of the backdrop. Second, the backdrop had nothing to do with Breast aversion. But the story was just "too good to check," as we say, and it will probably live forever. Generations from now, if we're reading about John Ashcroft, we will read that he was the boob who draped the Boob. The story is ineffaceable.
So it was an aesthetic decision.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe this is just my leftish leanings talking, but I do find it hard to believe that Ashcroft had "nothing to do with the purchase of the backdrop." Is there any hard evidence, like quotes from Ashcroft himself (not his flunkies) that he had nothing to do with it?
Posts: 511 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Westerners have a long history of seeing others who they believe are immoral and simply destroying cultures because of it.
At the same time the English forced Australian Aborigines to lose their self control by alcohol, a substance not at all in Aborigine bloodlines; all wear clothes, despite not having in any way the sexual promiscuity of the British; making them slaves; stealing their children from them by any means possible and literally trying to breed them white, and on top of all that treated them as even more inferior if they didn’t subscribe to the twisted British idea of Christianity.
This kind of western stupidity isn’t unique to Australian history.
Notice the part I put emphasis on. Fact is, Westerner’s just don’t get it. At least not on a large scale. Beauty, profanity, danger, is all in the eye of the beholder. It’s be nice to think you Americans had finally figure it out, but the defenses I’m hearing of the porn industry from some of you makes me think differently.
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not a Western thing. It's a human thing. The idea of the evil Westerners and the noble natives makes for good copy, but it's twisting the events.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not really. The aborigines had dozens of different cultures, langauages, local areas, histories, stories, and belief systems in general, all coexisting peacefully on the huge continent of Australia. Not once, in something like 60,000 years, did one group try to force their beliefs on another.
They shared ideas, not power structures (like the modern military allieships).
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
cheiros, I'm curious what defenses you are hearing of the porn industry. at best what I've seen in this discussion is people placing that dicsussion on hold in favor of a purely legal discussion.
Part of the problem here is we have two parallel discussions going right now: 1) is this act legal or not? accepting that pornography in itself IS legal, and not bringing into question the moral aspect of this. 2) what is morally classifiable as pornography (and this ventures a little into what should be classified legally as pornography)
I don't think anyone has been seriously arguing that the porn industry is good or doesnt degrade/abuse/exploit many of the people involved. There IS some argument that sexual self expression should be acceptable, but from what I'm reading you're not entirely opposed to that either, so I'm confused by your last statement.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
You talk about us Westerners and our stupidity, and then you note about old Christian ideals. I'm frankly offended.
Posts: 3636 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
I already stated the purpose of law is to protect others from having different belief system's forced on them, not to stop people from acting as they choose in general. I don't think porn should be illegal, watching or making it, I don't think alcohol, or any other drug should be illegal, etc.
I'm a Libertarian, except not so anarchist as your Libertarian Party seem to want.
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Last I checked, the boomerang was primarily an instrument of combat. That sure sounds like force to me.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm talking about conquesting, monarchist Westerners of the past, not today where individuals aren't so ruled over by aristocracies.
As for Christianity, I'm not against original Christianity, the marvellous ways these segregated groups (like black Americans) have adapted it, what Pope John Paul did or Gordon B Hinckley have done for the world, and so on.
Doesn't mean I have to like Christianity wholeheartedly, especially not those factioned that have used it to justify enslaving other human beings in the past.
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Last I checked, the boomerang was primarily an instrument of combat. That sure sounds like force to me.
1. That's individuals, not cultures, conflicting, and it's not over petty matters, it's over justice.
2. It's primary use was for hunting, though not neccessarily hitting the animal itself (what would be the point of that with an instrument designed to come back?)
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: It’s be nice to think you Americans had finally figure it out, but the defenses I’m hearing of the porn industry from some of you makes me think differently.
Not the monarchist governments of the past I'm just really confused about this. We don't get what? We are just like the British conquestors you mentioned? We like porn because we want to change everyone into us? I don't understand what you're saying.
Posts: 3636 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Westerners have a hard time seperating freedom of expression and promiscuity, being offensive/shocking for the sake of it.
We can't just be free, we always have to drag some moral message (worldview) along with it and yes, try to change everyone else into us.
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kyvin: stephan: you put some words in my mouth. i never said that all women should dress the way they do in conservatve islamic countries. i think there is a big difference between disapproving of all pornography, and thinking it should be illegal to display ANY part of your body in public. as for nude beaches, they are also evil and sick, as are strip clubs and adult book stores.
Nude beaches are evil and sick? Well at least I know how truly extreme your beliefs are. I went to a couple with my family growing up. I feel because of it that I find the naked human body to be LESS purely sexual then most find it.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cheiros: It's nice copy, but the support for your argument rests on assuming a snapshot of some people that may or may not be accurate is indicative of 60,000 years of history.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
First, I find the beginning of this whole coversation very confusing, almost as if I walking into the middle of a conversation and wasn't sure what the subject was.
It seems the first post in this thread was from pH who was vaguely complaining about having to view pornography on his/her way to Target, but beyond that, everything is a little vague. There seems to be a substantial lack of setup here that would allow anyone to comment intelligently on the subject.
Is this a hypothetical? Is this based on an extension of comments found in another thread that I missed? Is this based on a news article? Is this based on pure speculation of what could happen, but so far hasn't? Is this based on personal experience, and if so what was that personal experience?
I can certainly comment on other people's responses, but I have no idea what the original comment was.
Are we referring to normal video systems now found in many mini-Vans and SUVs?
Or, alternately, is this about a person who intensionally rigged up a van (or other vehicle) with side facing video screens with the specific intent of broadcasting pornography to the world at large?
Did such an event occur, or are we dealing with speculation?
A little explanation of what we are talking about would go a long way here.
Since I haven't a clue what the actual subject is, I can only comment on the comments.
First and foremost, the video screens in normal Vans and SUVs are tiny. I don't think any one is going to be offended seeing a penis that is smaller than the tip of a ball point pen or a breast roughly the diameter of a small pencil eraser. For the most part, you can't even discern those details as cars pass on the highway unless you are trying really hard.
Next, nudity is not pornography, that has been established many many times. There is a general legal and civil/social context in which nudity and even pornography can be displayed.
If this is someone who has intentionally rigged video screens for public view and is indiscriminantly broadcasting REAL pornography, then certainly there are an assortment of legal actions that can be taken.
On the other hand, if this is just a bunch of kids cruising and watching REAL pornography in a normal Van, then while I suspect milder legal complications, I'm sure if someone complained, some legal action could and would be taken.
Free speech does have limits, and it is limited by context. You can't yell FIRE in a crowded theater. You can view Porn in private. But when you start indiscriminantly broadcasting it, you are entering into the realm of illegal actions.
That's about all I can say given that I have no idea what the original subject was.
quote:Originally posted by cheiros do ender: 2. It's primary use was for hunting, though not neccessarily hitting the animal itself (what would be the point of that with an instrument designed to come back?)
quote:First and foremost, the video screens in normal Vans and SUVs are tiny. I don't think any one is going to be offended seeing a penis that is smaller than the tip of a ball point pen or a breast roughly the diameter of a small pencil eraser. For the most part, you can't even discern those details as cars pass on the highway unless you are trying really hard.
Most of them are 7", but I believe they go as big as 13" screens. I've seen plenty of cars that have dual 13" flatscreens, one behind each seat. Whatever they're watching is plenty clear, even on the interstate. Furthermore, it's not at all unusual in my part of the world for the screens to be installed behind the last row of seats, whichever one that may be. In other words, they're installed where no one in the car can watch them while the car's moving. This is predominantly a status thing (look how rich I am), although I'm sure there are people who use them for tailgating or something like that.
And the size of the display doesn't really matter. If you can see it from outside the car, you're no longer watching it in private, and you've most likely violated some laws.
Edit: Wow, the KarlEd seal of approval. I'm very proud of myself now. Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
stephan, nude beaches are evil and sick because they are places where just anyone can go to look at someone elses genitals, and where exhibitionists can display theirs. and you said you went to some growing up... i'll bet pedophiles like to hang out at nude beaches, where they can look at childrens' genitals and have it be legal. i wonder if Robin K. ever goes to nude beaches for that reason...
Posts: 10 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kyvin, because I believe in freedom of expression I won't try to speculate as to your reasoning or the sources of your beliefs. I'll just say that I couldn't disagree with you more if I quit my job and worked at it full time.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kyvin: Would you mind telling me your home area, age range, and basic religious beliefs? I would like to have a framework to better able to understand where you are coming from.
I think it's pretty silly to say that anyone who looks at nudity and is aroused by it is a pervert. First, if you accept that a large percentage of people enjoy looking at nude people, you're not using the word pervert in any meaningful way.
Second, you're defining pornography in such general terms that almost anything to do with a nude person is pornography to you. Further, you make pornography dependent on the viewer, not the medium. You stated that a piece of art showing a nude woman is art, unless someone gets sexual pleasure from looking at it, in which case it is pornography. Pornography is a label for an item, not the state of mind of the person who looks at it.
Finally, I really don't understand the idea of victimizing a person by looking at them nude, either in person, or particularly in a picture or movie. To me, that makes as much sense as the idea that the picture has stolen their soul.
By that logic, if you look at a picture of a nude person from 80 years ago, are you somehow victimizing a dead person? If you look at a sketch or sculpture of a stylized person, are you victimizing an idea? Seems pretty silly to me.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm pretty sure Kyvin = RK. It's taking an extreme stand on a sex topic in order to get people to pay attention to him.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I could, Chris. If you gave me more hours in the day and some high-quality training, I'll bet I could make all of you disagreeing-with-Kyvin people look like amateurs.Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I'm pretty sure Kyvin = RK. It's taking an extreme stand on a sex topic in order to get people to pay attention to him.
It is tiresome, tedious, and the antithesis of effective. Unless, of course, the intent is to drive people away from this site out of yawning boredom with his capers.
I, for one, will be hanging out only at various other for awhile, as my stress level is high enough these days.
Good luck to the Cards and Papa J. I hope you can Make something positive out of this, and all my positive vibes are winging your way for it. Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
We could just ignore him. I think it's easy enough - ignore all the posts that sound like they are coming from someone begging for attention.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kyvin: stephan, nude beaches are evil and sick because they are places where just anyone can go to look at someone elses genitals, and where exhibitionists can display theirs. and you said you went to some growing up... i'll bet pedophiles like to hang out at nude beaches, where they can look at childrens' genitals and have it be legal. i wonder if Robin K. ever goes to nude beaches for that reason...
Exhibitionists don't get off on going some place where its expected. They get off stripping down places where its not ok, its part of the thrill.
Except for the rare circumstance (jerks with cameras trying to post to internet sites, who are usually dealt with quickly) voyeurs quickly realize the human body is not exactly the strip club/playboy fantasy they think it is. Any sexiness one might find goes out the window the first time one sees an elderly person.
Children are no more at risk from pedophiles then they are at any other beach in the world. Toddlers are often seen naked at many other beaches anyways.
Paranoia should not stop people from trying to be more comfortable in their bodies.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Kyvin is most definitely not RK. He's my son, he is 15 years old, he's a Christian. He definitely has some strong opinions and he does love to argue. He has Asperger's syndrome.
Some background:
He just got back from a weekend with his dad. He discovered by accident that his dad, whose infidelity led to our divorce, is looking around on the internet for another woman while still in THAT relationship. So, as you can imagine, sex seems like a bad thing to him at the moment.
I'm quite surprised at some of the opinions he's expressed here and we will be doing a lot of talking over the next few days. In the meantime I'm going to be exercising parental control and restrict him from posting here for a while.
I'm grateful to those of you who tried to gently guide him to express himself more appropriately, I really do appreciate it.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I said without; I'm not stupid.
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I'm just really confused about this. We don't get what? We are just like the British conquestors you mentioned? We like porn because we want to change everyone into us? I don't understand what you're saying.
