In article
<0c74a8a0-9e7a-45f4-a975-e55b612a3d25@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
kujebak <kujebak@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Feb 13, 10:57 am, Karel Kriz <ka...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > In article <fovata$ui...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> > Frank Bures <f...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >
> > > Diversity of opinion is squashed, sometimes with savagely
hypocritical
> > > zeal. At Indian River Community College in Florida, the Christian
> > > Fellow****p was refused the right to show The Passion of the Christ
because
> > > it was "R rated," but a play called F--king for Jesus was permitted,
> > > featuring a girl masturbating before a picture of Jesus.
> >
> > While any kind of censor****p is deplorable, personally I'd go to see
> > "****ing for Jesus" before wild horses would drag me to see "The
Passion
> > of Christ". But that is a purely personal preference - masturbation
> > being decidedly a more benign activity than sado-maso torture,
> > gratuitous violence flavored with racist overtones and human
> > crucifixion. But each to his own.
> >
> > The rest of the article is a total waste of time. Some of these
> > incidents may be true, some partially true, some are invented. It all
> > belongs into the same box of curios and myths that O'Reilly dusts off
> > every Christmas trying to show himself off as The Crusader for
Christmas
> > that he imagines is under some obscure attack. Did you notice that
> > there's NEVER any kind of a corroboration in these articles? I don't
see
> > any. All I read is sniveling.
> >
> > But again, each to his own. If you feel that "niggah" is preferable to
> > "African American" take your sorry ass to Brooklyn and talk to a few
> > people that way. You'll make many friends, fer sure.
> >
> > K
>
> Your personal preferences are irrelevant.
> The issue brought up here is campus censor****p,
> which, apparently, does not bother you.
> I'm not the only one who finds your attitude intel-
> lectually dishonest, and somewhat peculiar, con-
> sidering your background.
My personal preferences are what matters - to me. It's a well known fact
that you believe that all teachers and scientists are raving communists.
I think that your viewpoint is biased, narrow and exaggerated. There is
nothing "intellectually dishonest" about having an opinion about an
article. I think the article is pure bull**** designed to reinforce
biased, narrow and exaggerated opinion. I am, frankly, astonished that
anyone takes this stuff seriously. This kind of "we are under attack by
some nasty people who don't have the same principles" is played by the
evangelicals all the time. And that is also bull**** as there is no
attack.
Intellectually dishonest?
Here's an example from an editorial in yesterdays LA Times. The writer
received a letter asking for financial contribution to defend Boy Scouts
of America against a lawsuit filed against them by the ACLU. The
lawsuit, if won, would force Boy Scouts to hire gay scout leaders.
Here's the rub. There is no open lawsuit against the Boy Scouts by the
ACLU. There were suits in the past that have been settled, but they
dealt mostly with the Boy Scouts DENYING member****p to someone because
of religious (or lack) beliefs.
Is this dishonest? It is in my book.
So, it's always the same tired theme -" our values are under attack,
help us to defend them and - if you are not with us, you are against
us!" And where did I hear that before...Sorry, it's really pathetic.
****ers.
Karel
|
