Illegal Tits... WAS: WAY of Topic, Superbowl, morality, blah,blah...

[mr.utility at highstream.net (David Utley)]

  Okay, this seems to me to be getting a little silly.  It is obvious that the 
only reason there is this much of an angry reaction is because breasts, or 
what we believe to be represented by bearing them, is very dear to our hearts 
or beliefs...  I think that at this point, with so many differing opinions on 
the topic, that perhaps we should all be a bit more circumspect on the 
matter...  This is the Scirocco list, afterall...  :-)


> 
> I don't have to ask where you stand on gay marriages.
> In Massachusetts, on May 17th, gays will be allowed to
> marry, and be allowed the same rights and privileges you
> and your wife enjoy.
> 
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2004/02/05/officials_st
ate_legislators_ponder_their_next_moves/
> It is obvious that the state's Supreme Judicial Court doesn't
> want live within the rules of society. Let me correct that:
> doesn't live within the rules that *you* think society should
> have.
> 

  That is a bit personal, don't you think?  I think you may be reading into 
his statement a bit much.  And even if not, I was told early on that there 
were certain topics that are a bit taboo...  I think we screwed the pooch 
here...  :-)

> Society changes. Mores change. Rules change. You have
> the freedom to be outraged by that and to make your
> displeasure known because you are an American. One
> could also argue that JJ has the freedom to express herself,
> even if  you find it offensive, also because she is an American.
> 

  With any right, comes a responsibility...  We have the right to vote, and 
the responsibility to find the best candidate for the job.  The right to drink 
beer, and the responsiblility not to do it before driving.  The right to drive 
a fast car, and the responsibility to pay the tickets when when you get 
nipped...  Speaking of that, I have been VERY responsible on that note...  :-( 
We all have rights here, but often we forget the responsibility that must go 
hand in hand with the right...  Janet has been responsible up to now, 
apologizing and all.  She and the other tit may have to step up to the plate 
and pay the piper.  It is a Federal crime to do what they did, so sayeth the 
FCC, so regardless whether I think it is right or not, I think they should be 
responsible and pay for their offenses (such as they were).  The excuse that 
they are entertainers definately does not give them free-reign...

> If you can get enough people to agree with you, you can
> elect officials who will outlaw such expressions. Maybe
> they will even enact laws that women should show no skin
> in public, such as it is the rule of society in Iraq.  Maybe
> the women will band together and elect officials that will
> enact laws that men must not show their breasts in public.
> Or that men must be completely covered, too. It could
> happen.  I hope it doesn't.
> 

  Is it possible that this is a bit of an over-reaction?  This particular 
expression is already outlawed, see above...  I am sure that in some 
municipalities it is illegal for mothers to openly nurse.  While I think that 
is wrong, it only matters when I can or chose to do something about it, by 
voting, picketing, whatever.  On another point, entertainment does not equal 
real life.  She was not nursing, although whatshisface prolly wishes 
otherwise...  :-)




> Peace,
> Kent

I am not singling you out Kent, as there have been several others to offer a 
reaction (key word).  I am just offering my appraisal of the situation as I 
see it...  I do think, however, that you should carefully consider the word 
above your name before offering the opinions you offered....

I just got some new undies (asbestos type), and I am feeling lucky...  :-P

 -- 
Regards,
David Utley
-----------
Cable Volkswagen
405-470-3129
1-800-522-6793
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Scirocco-l mailing list
> Scirocco-l@scirocco.org
> http://neubayern.net/mailman/listinfo/scirocco-l
>