barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (08/29/86)
[moved here from net.books] From: stuart@BMS-AT.UUCP (Stuart D. Gathman): >In article <406@cbuxc.UUCP>, dtm@cbuxc.UUCP (Dattaram Mirvke) writes: >> coming for the movie '2010'. I was really amazed when he told me that he did >> not "want" to see this movie, since it happened to contain something that >> offended his religion. It seems that these guys had some kind of committee in >> their church that screened various movies released and then 'informed' the >> church members about the suitability of viewing the movies. Sort of an internal >> censor board.. This thing occurred to me as very odd. It seems that these so > >I also did not want to see the movie. I heard nothing from a church, >committee, etc. However, the commercials for the movie turned my >stomach, hence my lack of desire to see the movie. Having watched >2001 did not help any. Why do I find such movies disgusting? Well, >that is a discussion for net.religion. Now that the discussion's been moved here, I hope you will see fit to expand on the points you make. I have a couple of questions. >I will just say that they belong >to a genre which present Mankind as evolving to higher and higher states. >(This is often called Humanism). I find this concept arrogant and foolish >whether viewed from a christian or existential standpoint. Why? Oh, I can see that it runs counter to creationist dogma, but most Xians, and presumably all existentialists, are not creationists. I fail to find anything anti-religious in the notion that human evolution has not stopped with the current model. Arrogant? How so? If anything, the admission that the human race could stand some improvement shows an admirable humility. What I *do* find a bit arrogant and foolish is the desire to avoid being presented with ideas with which one does not agree. Arrogant, because it suggests that one's ideas are incapable of further refinement, and foolish because it inhibits such refinement. Whatever one thinks of the idea of the continuing evolution of our species, one should certainly favor the continuing evolution of our ideas. One need not accept the notions expressed in 2001/2010 in order to benefit from the stimulation provided by interesting ideas entertainingly presented. - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ELECTRIC AVENUE: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry
stuart@BMS-AT.UUCP (Stuart D. Gathman) (08/31/86)
In article <1637@ames.UUCP>, barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) writes: > Now that the discussion's been moved here, I hope you > will see fit to expand on the points you make. I have a couple of > questions. First the questions: > >I will just say that they belong > >to a genre which present Mankind as evolving to higher and higher states. > >(This is often called Humanism). I find this concept arrogant and foolish > >whether viewed from a christian or existential standpoint. > Why? Oh, I can see that it runs counter to creationist > dogma, but most Xians, and presumably all existentialists, are > not creationists. I fail to find anything anti-religious in the > notion that human evolution has not stopped with the current > model. Arrogant? How so? If anything, the admission that the > human race could stand some improvement shows an admirable humility. A christian does (should?) not accept Humanism because it tries to improve the human race without God. Trying to run our lives without consulting the manufacturer or His intructions is how we got into such a mess in the first place! An existentialist does (should?) not accept Humanism because he knows that any supposed 'improvement' is illusory. Why I don't diet exclusively on garbage: > What I *do* find a bit arrogant and foolish is the desire > to avoid being presented with ideas with which one does not > agree. Arrogant, because it suggests that one's ideas are > incapable of further refinement, and foolish because it inhibits > such refinement. When I read that many people eat garbage to stay alive, I went out to our garbage cans and looked at it, smelled, and put my finger in some slime (I couldn't bring myself to actually taste it). I wanted to have some idea of what these people went through. I don't, however, ever eat garbage. I might if I had to live in such conditions in order to befriend and help the people, but it would be foolish for me to do so just for kicks. When I first heard about the horror of pornography, I went out and found a copy of Playboy. I avoided the pictures (hoping to have a happy marriage someday) and read several articles. My conclusion: the articles were typical of magazines and only occasionally disgusting. People must buy it for the pictures. I have never since bothered reading (or looking at) such magazines. Do I need to keep looking at the latest issues to see if anything has changed? (Note, Playboy is considered very mild pornography. The real stuff is better compared with sewage than garbage. I have just the word of my friends who try to help people on 14th street in DC. I feel no need at the moment to find out for myself.) When I saw 2001, I enjoyed HAL and the gang. The first part of the movie was more enjoyable than the last. At the end, it abandons traditional storytelling and attempts to communicate Mankind's dream of becoming God via disconnected but increasingly visionary scenes. This last part is difficult to enjoy without sharing the philosophy of the authors. If I was a full-time movie critic, I would probably see 2010. Since I am not, I only have time for a movie 2 or 3 times a year. Based on the advertising I simply decided that I would rather see a rerun of 'The Return of the Jedi' than see 2010. (Note, the 'StarWars' series also contains anti-christian elements, especially in 'The Empire Strikes Back'. Nevertheless I have found it consistently entertaining and stimulating.) Since I watch so few movies, perhaps a list of the ones I have seen and would see again will attract some flames. The more times I watched it, the better I liked it. This is not a complete list from a journal. This is just what sticks in my conscious mind. Mary Poppins (5 times) Sound of Music (6 times, plus numerous TV reruns) Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (uncountable TV reruns) 2001 (1 time) The Cabaret (-1 time, I wished I hadn't) The Black Hole (2 times) StarWars (4 times) Empire Strikes Back (1 time) Return of the Jedi (2 times) The Last Starfighter (1 time) The Time Bandits (2 times) LadyHawk (2 times) The Gods must be Crazy! (3 times) Firefox (1 time) Chariots of Fire (5 times) (despite my preference for fantasy/sci-fi) The Chosen (1 time) I have enjoyed using NewsNet immensely since going on-line several weeks ago. I quickly discovered, however, that one cannot read every single article that comes in and expect to get anything else done. For this reason I began to unsubscribe to a number of groups. In some cases, the group was inherently worthless (e.g. net.jokes, talk.bizarre, FLAMES!). In other cases, I simply was not 'into' the subject (e.g. net.sports). "To fit everything into your schedule, you've got to be picky about what you do." -- Stuart D. Gathman himself. "If it doesn't work, delete the offending code." -- SDG on the art of programming. -- Stuart D. Gathman <..!seismo!{vrdxhq|dgis}!BMS-AT!stuart>
za56@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU (Brian McNeill) (09/01/86)
I had hoped that you Xian's out there weren't still on the warpath to censor things for our own "good". Unfortunately, this response is in response to just such an article. Oh well, here goes. In article <180@BMS-AT.UUCP> stuart@BMS-AT.UUCP (Stuart D. Gathman) writes: >In article <1637@ames.UUCP>, barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) writes: >> >I will just say that they belong >> >to a genre which present Mankind as evolving to higher and higher states. >> >(This is often called Humanism). I find this concept arrogant and foolish >> >whether viewed from a christian or existential standpoint. > >> Why? Oh, I can see that it runs counter to creationist >> dogma, but most Xians, and presumably all existentialists, are >> not creationists. I fail to find anything anti-religious in the >> notion that human evolution has not stopped with the current >> model. Arrogant? How so? If anything, the admission that the >> human race could stand some improvement shows an admirable humility. > >A christian does (should?) not accept Humanism because it tries to >improve the human race without God. Trying to run our lives without >consulting the manufacturer or His intructions is how we got >into such a mess in the first place! > Fine with you Xians...print up a blacklist or something, but banning any (repeat ANY) books/movies infringes upon my 1st amendment rights to free speech. I (as an atheist) believe humanism is a quite valid concept, and am quite capable of running my own life without interference from some mythical "manufacturer." Something you should learn about being human is that the operating instructions come built in (its called a BRAIN...get that?) >An existentialist does (should?) not accept Humanism because he knows >that any supposed 'improvement' is illusory. > Why is any supposed "improvement" illusory? I have known many existentialist who believed quite firmly in evolution...seems to me thats a whole chain of "improvements", huh? >Why I don't diet exclusively on garbage: > >> What I *do* find a bit arrogant and foolish is the desire >> to avoid being presented with ideas with which one does not >> agree. Arrogant, because it suggests that one's ideas are >> incapable of further refinement, and foolish because it inhibits >> such refinement. > I agree...terribly arrogant of you Xian's also to presume to know what is better for my (nonexistent/unproven) soul. I am quite capable of making my own decision as to what I will/will not read, and I feel that I am undoubtably the best judge of that. Try opening your mind sometime, and looking past the stone walls of your Xian dogma. >[irrevelent deleted] > >When I first heard about the horror of pornography, I went out and >found a copy of Playboy. I avoided the pictures (hoping to have a happy >marriage someday) and read several articles. My conclusion: the articles >were typical of magazines and only occasionally disgusting. People must >buy it for the pictures. I have never since bothered reading (or looking >at) such magazines. Do I need to keep looking at the latest issues to >see if anything has changed? (Note, Playboy is considered very mild >pornography. The real stuff is better compared with sewage than garbage. >I have just the word of my friends who try to help people on 14th street >in DC. I feel no need at the moment to find out for myself.) > Why does looking at a picture of a [shudder] nude woman preclude a happy marriage later on? My parents have been together for close to 20 years now and, gosh, they must be unhappy together because my dad reads Playboy every now and then :^) Personally, I view the female body as a work of art (PS: are you planning on banning daVinci too?), and while I do agree with you that the "real stuff" is garbage, I support other people's right to read it for the same reason I think you are out of line here. It is THEIR business what they read, and they ought to know best what they want out of life. It is not your business what they read, nor should you poke your nose into it. Censorship (of ANY kind) is a bad thing, as our forefathers realized when they set out the constitution (amendment no 1 (ONE) is against censorship of any kind). >When I saw 2001, I enjoyed HAL and the gang. The first part of the movie >was more enjoyable than the last. At the end, it abandons traditional >storytelling and attempts to communicate Mankind's dream of becoming God >via disconnected but increasingly visionary scenes. This last part is >difficult to enjoy without sharing the philosophy of the authors. If >I was a full-time movie critic, I would probably see 2010. Since I am >not, I only have time for a movie 2 or 3 times a year. Based on the >advertising I simply decided that I would rather see a rerun of >'The Return of the Jedi' than see 2010. (Note, the 'StarWars' series >also contains anti-christian elements, especially in 'The Empire Strikes >Back'. Nevertheless I have found it consistently entertaining and >stimulating.) Awwww! Anti-Xian elements. Poor baby. If you think it offends you, don't see it. I happen to like opposing viewpoints. It adds spice to life. If everybody agreed with me, well, I'd be awfully bored awfully quickly (not to mention these nets wouldn't exist). It's good for you to see different sides of life. If you only experience one side of life, you are limiting yourself to something much less than what you could be. The reason why one of the few documents from the 1st millenium is the Bible is because the church took over and instituted a "purge" wherein all non-Xian documents were destroyed, as well as most non-Xian's (hear about the Crusades?) Guess why the Church was all-powerful during the middle ages? Because of the above purge. Why? Because the people had no exposure to anything non-Xian (fortunately, this changed). Note that the middle ages were one of the most stagnant in all ways non-Xian (no technology, little non-Xian artwork, slavery rampant, power concentrated COMPLETELY in the hands of the Church and nobles, etc) >[List of movies he's seen deleted] >[deleted stuff] >-- >Stuart D. Gathman <..!seismo!{vrdxhq|dgis}!BMS-AT!stuart> NO! NO! Please don't cens[censored] /-----------------------------------------------------------\ | Brian McNeill ARPA : za56@sdcc3.ucsd.edu | | HASA "A" Division UUCP : ...!sdcsvax!sdcc6!sdcc3!za56 | |-----------------------------------------------------------| | Disclaimer: I hereby disclaim all knowledge of opinions, | | expressed or implied, including this disclaimer. | | Flames ---> /dev/null | \-----------------------------------------------------------/
speter@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU (Peter Osgood) (09/02/86)
>In article <180@BMS-AT.UUCP> stuart@BMS-AT.UUCP (Stuart D. Gathman) writes: >>In article <1637@ames.UUCP>, barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) writes: > >A christian does (should?) not accept Humanism because it tries to >improve the human race without God. Who says so? Are they necessarily mutually exclusive or is it just that you are totally prejudiced against the idea that a real Christian could be a humanist as well?? >An existentialist does (should?) not accept Humanism because he knows >that any supposed 'improvement' is illusory. Okay, before we go any further, a humanist according to Webster's New World dictionary is "a student of human nature and human affairs 2. a follower of Humanism." Humanism: "2. . . . specificly a modern, non-theistic, rationalist movement that holds man is capable of self-fulfillment." Even by definition, a humanist does not necessarily leave God out. It is simply a statement of belief. But this does not explain why you believe a trancendentalist would reject humanism. I do not necessarily ascribe to Humanism, but I would like you to explain yourself further. Simply rejecting an idea without good reason is bad. ---peter osgood---
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (09/03/86)
In article <180@BMS-AT.UUCP> stuart@BMS-AT.UUCP (Stuart D. Gathman) writes: On why, having seen 2001, he deliberately missed 2010: >> >I will just say that they belong >> >to a genre which present Mankind as evolving to higher and higher states. >> >(This is often called Humanism). I find this concept arrogant and foolish >> >whether viewed from a christian or existential standpoint. ... >A christian does (should?) not accept Humanism because it tries to >improve the human race without God. Trying to run our lives without >consulting the manufacturer or His intructions is how we got >into such a mess in the first place! > >Why I don't diet exclusively on garbage: > >> What I *do* find a bit arrogant and foolish is the desire >> to avoid being presented with ideas with which one does not >> agree. Arrogant, because it suggests that one's ideas are >> incapable of further refinement, and foolish because it inhibits >> such refinement. [Kenn Barry] > >When I read that many people eat garbage to stay alive, I went out >to our garbage cans and looked at it, smelled, and put my finger in some >slime (I couldn't bring myself to actually taste it). I wanted to >have some idea of what these people went through. I don't, however, >ever eat garbage. I might if I had to live in such conditions in order >to befriend and help the people, but it would be foolish for me to >do so just for kicks. In other words, you avoid exposure to the ideas of what you call "Humanism" because they disgust you -- or, more accurately, because you react to them with disgust. I read sometime within the last two years, of an experiment that was done, trying to get children to drink milk in which a dead fly (sterilized, of course) had been openly placed. Younger children drank the milk with the fly in it. Older children turned it down, looking disgusted. The point? We aren't born with a natural disgust towards dead flies, we *learn* it. Our parents teach us disgust in other ways, eg. "Don't put that dirty thing in your mouth! Gak! Caca!" And more subtly, if your parents always use a tone of disgust when they speak of something, such as atheists or humanists, you acquire the habit from them, and for the rest of your life you unthinkingly react to atheistic and humanistic ideas with disgust. Of course, since you react with disgust whenever you are confronted by certain ideas contrary to your religion, you are unable to examine those ideas to see if they are true or not. If, God forbid, some of your good Christian principles are mistaken and the damned humanists are right about some things, you will never know, because you automatically censor your inputs. You have been conditioned, just like Skinner's pigeons and Pavlov's dogs. Or, perhaps, programmed is the right word... -- David Canzi "... don't see the fnords ..."
mikem@heurikon.UUCP (mikem) (09/03/86)
In a discussion on censorship I ran accross the following statement by za56@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU (Brian McNeill): > Fine with you Xians...print up a blacklist or something, but banning ^^^^^^^ > any (repeat ANY) books/movies infringes upon my 1st amendment rights ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > to free speech. I (as an atheist) believe humanism is a quite valid If a book I write is banned, then MY first ammendment right to free speech has been violated. If a book YOU have written is banned, then YOUR first ammendment right to free speech has been violated. The first ammendment does not say that you have the right to read whatever you want. It says that you have the right to write whatever you want. (You can get in trouble if you libel someone, however). In the first case someone would have to be coerced into writing for you if what you wanted to read hadn't been written. This would be violating their rights. This is a very important distinction. (By "write" I mean speech, print, movies, etc.) Michael W. Mayer
barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (09/04/86)
From: stuart@BMS-AT.UUCP (Stuart D. Gathman): >In article <1637@ames.UUCP>, barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) writes: >>From: stuart@BMS-AT.UUCP (Stuart D. Gathman): >> >I will just say that they belong >> >to a genre which present Mankind as evolving to higher and higher states. >> >(This is often called Humanism). I find this concept arrogant and foolish >> >whether viewed from a christian or existential standpoint. > >> Why? Oh, I can see that it runs counter to creationist >> dogma, but most Xians, and presumably all existentialists, are >> not creationists. I fail to find anything anti-religious in the >> notion that human evolution has not stopped with the current >> model. Arrogant? How so? If anything, the admission that the >> human race could stand some improvement shows an admirable humility. > >A christian does (should?) not accept Humanism because it tries to >improve the human race without God. Trying to run our lives without >consulting the manufacturer or His intructions is how we got >into such a mess in the first place! Is everything that doesn't involve God explicitly anti-religious? If Clarke speculates about mankind evolving to higher states without God's direct help, does his vision exclude the possibility of God being around, too? Are airplanes sinful because God was not consulted about their development? >An existentialist does (should?) not accept Humanism because he knows >that any supposed 'improvement' is illusory. Since I'm not an existentialist, I'll do the sensible thing and let them speak for themselves. You might consider doing the same. >Why I don't diet exclusively on garbage: Glad to see you're being objective :-). >> What I *do* find a bit arrogant and foolish is the desire >> to avoid being presented with ideas with which one does not >> agree. Arrogant, because it suggests that one's ideas are >> incapable of further refinement, and foolish because it inhibits >> such refinement. > >When I read that many people eat garbage to stay alive, I went out >to our garbage cans and looked at it, smelled, and put my finger in some >slime (I couldn't bring myself to actually taste it). I wanted to >have some idea of what these people went through. I don't, however, >ever eat garbage. I might if I had to live in such conditions in order >to befriend and help the people, but it would be foolish for me to >do so just for kicks. Bad analogy. People only eat garbage out of desperation, though some eat things that might disgust *us* (slugs, grubs, insects), with delight. And they seem healthy. Many follow humanistic philosophies willingly and happily; why not just say it's not to *your* taste? >When I first heard about the horror of pornography, I went out and >found a copy of Playboy. I avoided the pictures (hoping to have a happy >marriage someday) and read several articles. My conclusion: the articles >were typical of magazines and only occasionally disgusting. People must >buy it for the pictures. It has enough besides the pictures for a lot of women to enjoy it. And if some buy it for the pictures, so what? I've yet to hear of Playboy's pictures destroying a marriage; by contrast, I *have* heard of marriages destroyed by religion, when one partner becomes "born again", and the other doesn't. Which do you suppose is a bigger threat to marriages, oral sex or Oral Roberts? :-) >When I saw 2001, I enjoyed HAL and the gang. The first part of the movie >was more enjoyable than the last. At the end, it abandons traditional >storytelling and attempts to communicate Mankind's dream of becoming God >via disconnected but increasingly visionary scenes. This last part is >difficult to enjoy without sharing the philosophy of the authors. If >I was a full-time movie critic, I would probably see 2010. Since I am >not, I only have time for a movie 2 or 3 times a year. Sorry you're unable to see more movies. I think the ending of 2001 is easier to understand if you also read the book. From what I know of Clarke's philosophy, "becoming God" in any literal sense is not his message. Becoming better than we are, is. I suspect there's a lot of room for improvement of humanity without invading God's turf. We're a long way from perfect. In any case, my intent was not to dispute your taste in movies. What seemed odd to me was avoiding movies (or books) because one simply disagreed with the philosophy in them. I'm a big Heinlein fan, myself, even though I have many disagreements with the political philosophy he presents. I find the differences of opinion thought-provoking, not offensive. - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ELECTRIC AVENUE: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,nsc,hao,hplabs}!ames!barry
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (09/05/86)
In article <180@BMS-AT.UUCP> stuart@BMS-AT.UUCP (Stuart D. Gathman) writes: >When I first heard about the horror of pornography, I went out and >found a copy of Playboy. I avoided the pictures (hoping to have a happy >marriage someday) and read several articles. My conclusion: the articles >were typical of magazines and only occasionally disgusting. People must >buy it for the pictures. ... If Playboy's articles are typical of other magazines, and people only buy Playboy for the pictures, then why do people buy other magazines? -- David Canzi "... don't see the fnords ..."
speter@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU (Peter Osgood) (09/05/86)
Sender: In article <136@heurikon.UUCP> mikem@heurikon.UUCP (mikem) writes: >In a discussion on censorship I ran accross the following statement >by za56@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU (Brian McNeill): > >The first ammendment does not say that you have the right to read whatever >you want. > Michael W. Mayer Why do you think the Scopes trial was held then?? It was because a certain school district took great exception to a public school teacher teaching Darwin and his theories on evolution. Since Darwin and the Bible don't match up the religous leaders, and many others of the day, were certain that it was ruinous to teach children such things. The idea was to ban the book, ban the thought. Furthermore, the Supreme Court's rulings on pornography in the late 60's, early 70's furthered the idea the we do indeed have the right to read what we wish. There are certain exceptions, but they are very few in number. So, what does all this mean? Certain religous leaders would love to see many types of books banned: ie. psychology, heredity, anthropology, "Lady Chatterly's Lover," "Splendor in the Grass," "Tom Jones," the Koran, etc. etc. This is nothing more censorship. Marxist societies thrive on censorship, but to maintain a free society which supports practicing many diverse religons openly, we cannot allow more than very minimal censorship (child pornography, slander). If we allow any one religous group to dictate what is right and what is wrong then we are in grave danger of forfeiting those very freedoms which the founders of this country worked so very hard to achieve. Jesus lead by example. He always had the power to change government but He said that we should give to Ceasar those things which are Ceasar's. He never forced His beliefs on anyone, He wanted people to follow Him because they wanted to not because they were forced to. The moral of all this is, if you want to get things out of print that you believe are harmful then you must speak out against them, show how you are unequivocavely correct, convince people that they do not want to read such things. If you are right and convincing, you will win, no one will buy the book and it will go out of print. Censorship only makes people want the "forbidden fruit" that much more. ---peter osgood---
nazgul@apollo.uucp (Kee Hinckley) (09/06/86)
In article <180@BMS-AT.UUCP> stuart@BMS-AT.UUCP writes: > > A christian does (should?) not accept Humanism because it tries to > improve the human race without God. Trying to run our lives without > consulting the manufacturer or His intructions is how we got > into such a mess in the first place! Perhaps you can answer a question which has always puzzled me. Assuming that you do not take everything in the bible literally (which would be difficult, since some of it seems contradictory), why must you assume that evolution is not part of God's plan. Whether he created us ten seconds ago or ten million years ago isn't really relevant. What is apparent is that evolution *seems* reasonable. Could it not be, therefore, that evolution (or the appearence of evolution) is part of God's plan as well? Or do you consider it a trick? > An existentialist does (should?) not accept Humanism because he knows > that any supposed 'improvement' is illusory. Unless you presuppose to know everything that God has in mind, how can you argue that God did not intend you as a person, and us as a race, to improve. I don't see why evolution as the medium for that improvement is contradictory to christian teachings. > I avoided the pictures (hoping to have a happy > marriage someday) This implies that you feel that viewing a picture might morally corrupt or otherwise permanently effect your life. Do you really feel that you have so little control over your life that what you see could damage it? Please don't take this as flame-baiting. I'm honestly quite curious. -kee -- ...{mit-erl,mit-eddie,yale,uw-beaver,decvax!wanginst}!apollo!nazgul Apollo Computer, Chelmsford MA. (617) 256-6600 x7587 or 499B Boston Rd, Groton MA. (617) 448-2863 I'm not sure which upsets me more; that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's.
za56@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU (Brian McNeill) (09/06/86)
In article <136@heurikon.UUCP> mikem@heurikon.UUCP (mikem) writes: > >[Deleted my discussion on book banning] > >The first ammendment does not say that you have the right to read whatever >you want. It says that you have the right to write whatever you >want. (You can get in trouble if you libel someone, however). >In the first case someone would have to be coerced into writing >for you if what you wanted to read hadn't been written. This would >be violating their rights. > Fine. But banning books infringes upon their first amendment rights, therefore, their rights are being violated if I cannot read/see their material. This is, to me, a trivial distinction, as rights ARE rights, regardless of whose they are. >This is a very important distinction. > Not really. It infringes on SOMEBODY's rights, and therefore shoul not be allowed to come to pass (I hope these Funnymentalists get nailed in Tenessee, but I suspect they won't, oh well) >(By "write" I mean speech, print, movies, etc.) > > Michael W. Mayer /-----------------------------------------------------------\ | Brian McNeill ARPA : za56@sdcc3.ucsd.edu | | HASA "A" Division UUCP : ...!sdcsvax!sdcc6!sdcc3!za56 | |-----------------------------------------------------------| | Disclaimer: I hereby disclaim all knowledge of opinions, | | expressed or implied, including this disclaimer. | | Flames ---> /dev/null | \-----------------------------------------------------------/
stuart@BMS-AT.UUCP (Stuart D. Gathman) (09/07/86)
I am pleased to see a plethora of response to my article on discrimination
in entertainment. Now let me blow your minds further by extending the
discussion to truth in general.
I belong to an ancient sect which believes, among other things, in absolute
truth. This means that any problem discussed on the net has a correct
answer: not necessarily any of the answers proposed by net readers, myself
included. There are a number of consequences to this absurd belief of
which the following are an incomplete list.
a In order to be meaningful (to us), truth must be available
to us in some way.
b "It doesn't matter what you believe, as long as you're sincere"
-- this is a deadly philosophy.
c Information is not of uniform value. The 1979 telephone book
for Northern Virginia is probably 99.99% accurate (for 1979).
Perhaps I should memorize it to improve my personal grasp
on truth. :-)
d Rational government does not obey the whims of a dictator, or the
whims of a majority, but is based on law. (This means that
many discussions in net.abortion and net.politics would have
been moot 200 years ago and seem ludicrous to members of our sect.)
e Some good things are more valuable than others. Watching a movie
every night can be very educational, but will have tragic results
unless you make your living as a critic. (Question: Why do we
have movie critics? Could it have anything to do with (c) or (e)?)
Eating garbage:
Here is a better analogy. I love (adore) potato chips.
(Especially with sour cream and onion.)
What would happen if I gave in to my desires and ate
nothing but potato chips?
Closed Minds:
I have already read countless books by humanists and new-agers.
I don't need one more movie to round out my knowlege of their thinking.
Existentialists:
I have read many books by Camus, Kaftka, et al. My own impressions
and those of analysts of literature agree in placing existentialists
with the writer of Ecclesiastes. There are, of course, many more
schools of thought which call themselves "existential". This is
because true existentialism has a reputation from ancient times
for consistent (if somewhat depressing) world views.
Christians:
"Man is capable of self-fulfillment [without God]."
-- this statement is the antithesis of Biblical christianity.
(James 4:13-17, Job 38, Psalm 2, Genesis 3, etc. Please read
in context: apologies for lengthy quotations in previous
articles. I got carried away with my online bible
[from Bible Research, Inc., $150, software adapted
for unix by yours truly.])
--
"Wherefore, laying aside every weight, let us run with discipline the
race that is set before us."
--
Stuart D. Gathman <..!seismo!{vrdxhq|dgis}!BMS-AT!stuart>stuart@BMS-AT.UUCP (Stuart D. Gathman) (09/07/86)
In article <2516@watdcsu.UUCP>, dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) writes: > If Playboy's articles are typical of other magazines, and people only > buy Playboy for the pictures, then why do people buy other magazines? Ya got me! (There are exceptions to the "generic magazine" category.) -- Stuart D. Gathman <..!seismo!{vrdxhq|dgis}!BMS-AT!stuart>
cc@locus.ucla.edu (Oleg "Kill the bastards" Kiselev) (09/08/86)
In article <191@BMS-AT.UUCP> stuart@BMS-AT.UUCP (Stuart D. Gathman) writes: >Now let me blow your minds further by extending the >discussion to truth in general. If I wanted to be rude, I'd say "you exhibit all signs of having undergone the process yourself!", BUT... I want to be nice today. Or, I could say "what blows the lesser minds is but a caress to some!", BUT... that would be nasty and I DO want to be nice today... I guess I'll just let this pass. And be nice for the duration of this whole article. >I belong to an ancient sect which believes, among other things, in absolute >truth. And I belong to a MORE ancient sect that believes, among other things, that the idea of absolute truth is absolutely absurd. >a In order to be meaningful (to us), truth must be available > to us in some way. Verifyability never enters the play, I see. What is the available truth about Hell, or Paradise? >c Information is not of uniform value. The 1979 telephone book > for Northern Virginia is probably 99.99% accurate (for 1979). > Perhaps I should memorize it to improve my personal grasp > on truth. :-) Hmmm.... Sounds like an indictment of the Bible to me... After all, 1979 phone book will be over 50% accurate in 1986 in most areas. Not so after 1700-1800 years. >Closed Minds: > I have already read countless books by humanists and new-agers. > I don't need one more movie to round out my knowlege of their thinking. Ever tried reading them with an open mind? Ever tried to understand them? A closed mind is not a sign of great virtue, despite your misconceptions. > "Man is capable of self-fulfillment [without God]." > -- this statement is the antithesis of Biblical christianity. The above quote needs no criticism, no flames, no questions. Those who disagree with such mentality will understand. I find it simply evil. --- "Untie a knot, tie a new knot..." Oleg Kiselev, HASA