On Feb 13, 12:31=A0pm, Karel Kriz <ka...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> In article
> <0c74a8a0-9e7a-45f4-a975-e55b612a3...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>
>
>
>
>
> =A0kujebak <kuje...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > On Feb 13, 10:57=A0am, Karel Kriz <ka...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > In article <fovata$ui...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> > > =A0Frank Bures <f...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > Diversity of opinion is squashed, sometimes with savagely
hypocritic=
al
> > > > zeal. At Indian River Community College in Florida, the Christian
> > > > Fellow****p was refused the right to show The Passion of the Christ
b=
ecause
> > > > 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
Passi=
on
> > > 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
Christm=
as
> > > 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
s=
ee
> > > 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- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You can spin this all you want, but you cannot in any
way challenge the fact that conservative viewpoint does
not get equal time, and equal sanction on our college
campuses. The only thing you can do is to grope for
justifications in order to give yourself something to feel
better about it. That is intellectually dishonest.
|
