gooddad@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> ****ists have rights. You have an unalienable right to go ****d.
> ****ists have been oppressed for far too long. This country has always
> been imperfect and never lived up to the true nature of its creed.
> That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their
> creator, with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life,
> LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness. Because of the evil people in
> this land, this country has never lived up to pristine and holy
> concepts it was based on. Hence Segregation. And Slavery. The truth
> is, we really need another 10-20 rights written into our Constitution,
> to protect freedom or something. You have an unalienable right to
> freedom, whilst perhaps, no one owes you this right, all rights come
> from this basic right to freedom. Wearing no clothing is freedom of
> speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of religion. It is just
> like wearing a Christian Cross, or a Jewish Star, a Nazi sign, or an
> Indian headdress. It is just like dressing like a Hari Krishna, or
> wearing the attire of the Ku Klux Klan.
>
> We are more than ****ists, we are ***ualists.
go back far enough in time and we were all ****ists,
long before we invented our first imaginary gods
>
>
> ***ualists are like ****ists, except while they believe in the freedom
> to go ****, they also believe in the freedom to have *** in public.
> People who condemn ***uality are bigots, intolerant of others
> lifestyles, religions, or methods of expression. Telling intolerant
> people to be tolerant is not the same as being intolerant. Freedom
> should prevail, and the law should follow freedom. i.e. it is not the
> blacks, Jews, Christians, ****ists, ***ualists, or other minorities who
> are in the wrong, but the Nazis, Klansmen, anti-****ists, and anti-
> ***ualists who are in the wrong. However, while the Nazis, Klansmen,
> anti-****ists, and anti-***ualists are in the wrong, the law should
> still give them the right to free speech. I just hope that they will
> listen to my reasoning and come to be tolerant.
>
> "I may detest what you say, but I would fight to the death for your
> right to say it."
> - Voltaire
>
> Hate speech is bad and wrong, it should even be condemned, but it
> should still be legal. Otherwise we be unable to make the point of
> tolerance itself, and instead come to resort to mindless oppression.
> For if we can outlaw one thing we find odious, then why not another.
> And perhaps it is you the condemner who is odious, rather than that
> which you condemn. Though it is true, the haters are kind of
> attacking, but if we outlaw hate speech we loose the free speech
> principle, and have no arguments merely oppression.
>
> The above and below is not meant to be construed as an advocation to
> break any laws. The currently immoral statutory laws say ***ual
> activities are illegal everywhere I know of in public.
>
> While you have an unalienable right to wear what you want and do what
> you want in public, on private property there can be dress codes, and
> codes of conduct. What private property owners should not
> discriminate against are things a person can not change such as race,
> handicap, or in some cases, political and religious ideologies. The
> line is grayer in public institutions such as public schools; but they
> should definitely make an attempt to at first accommodate everyone
> rather than to inhibit someone's desires; yet in some cases things
> such as gang signs or colors may necessarily be prohibited.
>
> Free love is not all inclusive, just less exclusive. You shouldn't
> just find someone to have *** with, you should find someone who you
> _want_ to have *** with. All of *** is and should be fun, even before
> you have an orgasm.
>
> We are pro-gawkers. We know there is nothing to see, and believe
> everyone should gawk away. If someone is beautiful, how is it wrong to
> be staring at them? Gawkers should join the ****d party. We are
> exhibitionists and voyeurs. But really, it's no big deal. For after
> the initial novelty wears off there's nothing to stare at (or exhibit)
> but beauty. You might stare at a beautiful sunset or a beautiful woman
> - it isn't wrong. Staring at someone because they're **** is just
> because it's a novelty. It would just be a problem if it bothers
> someone. But staring ***ually?? ****ity does not equal ***. Even so,
> people might be ***ually attractive ****d or clothed. Seeing ***ually
> attractive as well as beautiful women is a natural part of life. I am
> sure it is just the novelty that makes ****ity seem much different. The
> real issue is when one person wants *** with another who does not.
|
