From: Jay Thomas (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon May 14 2001 - 16:11:40 PDT
Jeff Bone wrote:
> Jay Thomas wrote:
> ...at 7:02 am on a Sunday, no surprise, bet he made it to church on time.
> Hey Jay, I bet you had a wild and crazy and fun Sat. nite last night,
Geez, Jeff, I really didn't think that posting *my* idea of a perfect
America would touch such a raw nerve with you. I'm sorry for offending
you so deeply. I've never before been called a yahoo, at least to my
face, and so many times.
I promise, if my side ever so completely dominates the political
landscape that we have carte blanche, I'll lobby them not to close bars
early or take away your porno :-)
> > Why? In what way is that [LITB] Hell?
> Let's see: bland, sedate, rigid, authoritarian, homogeneous, passive...
> terminally uninteresting. An isomorphic society of zombies. And that's
> just on the surface. The "dark underbelly" you mention is a significant
> concern as well...
Look, I didn't say anything about bland or sedate, or any of the rest.
When I lived in Miami, I loved the diversity of foods, music, women,
experiences. Is it so much to ask not to have truly *offensive*
behavior shoved in miy face? Never mind, I think I can guess your
> > Desperate? Not at all. I just want my kids to grow up in a world where
> > they're not bombarded with filth
> Your filth is somebody else's art. Live and let live. Don't want to be
> bombarded by "filth?" Then don't let your kids watch TV. (Lost cause, but
So, when my federal tax dollars fund someone's idea of art that consists
of desecration of sacred images, I have no right to complain?
> you can try it.) But IMO, that's a "hear no evil, see no evil" form of
> denial. Much better to teach your kids to *cope* with the fact that the
> world isn't always going to be just exactly the way you want it to be;
> teach your kids to be tough, smart, critical, tolerant while not embracing
> those things you despise for whatever reason.
I'd like my daughters to be a bit older than three before sending them
out to get street smart. And when it streams into my house faster than I
can grab the clicker and change the channel, it bugs me. Save the
patronizing "Turn on PAX" crap. That was uncalled for.
> So then an abortion doesn't impact you as long as you don't see it. Good
> attitude to have, seriously, wish more of your ilk were like you. ;-) :-)
I thought we were talking about stuff coming into my house, things
directly involving my family. If you're going to come up with arguments
like that, then why should I care about laws against rape, murder,
theft, etc. as long as it doesn't involve me, right? Theres a very good
reason conservatives concern themselves with larger social issues like
> Here's a hot tip: "sweeping social change" has already happened since the
> LITB house, and there's more to come. You can't turn back the clock. Each
> generation mourns "the good old days," when in fact it's almost never the
> case that the "good old days" were really that good. The problem with the
> current crop of conservatives is that they're actually *trying* to turn back
> the clock, rather than just sitting around bitching about things. The
> "culture war" is a purely conservative creation --- and the rest of us are
> damned sick of it, Jay.
I'm sorry to hear that. But like I said before, the previous post was
what I wanted, and I will vote for candidates who promise that. Feel
free to vote against them. If "the rest of you" all vote against my
candidate, you've got nothing to worry about from people like me.
> Really, that's why we have them? Give me one single tiny itty-bitty shred
> of evidence to support your contention that the reason we have laws is as a
> substitute for common sense. You don't need a surrogate parent, Jay, you
> need to go back and take high school level American history again. Though
First, I never said I wanted a surrogate parent. I am very much against
an over reaching federal government. One reason I moved out of
Massachusetts, was to escape the maternalistic government there. Second,
evidence? Motorcycle helmet laws, seatbelt laws, DUI laws. These arent
an effort to legislate common sense? And by the way, I don't really
agree with them either (maybe the DUI laws, but not with the current
trend to keep lowering the limit until no one can drink outside their
> unfortunately we've started using law as an attempt to create surrogate
> common sense, that's clearly not the original motivation. It's all about
> incentives and penalties.
> > When you read the tag on the hairdryer that
> > says "Do not use in the tub", it's because someone did.
> Yeah, and it's too bad we've gone down that road. Why protect idiots from
> themselves? Do you really want, say, your daughter marrying some yahoo who
> would've accidentally killed himself by dropping his hairdryer in the tub,
> except for some little tag? Darwinism, man. It's a good thing.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. Does this make me less of a yahoo now?
Again, JB, sorry to have pissed you off so royally. Not my intent.
-- "You see, in this world there's two kinds of people, my friend: Those with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig" -Clint Eastwood, "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly" 1967
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 14 2001 - 16:42:21 PDT