Re: Huh? -- Understanding thru talking

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 05:44:11 05/11/03 Sun
Author: The Damien Guckian Fan Club
Subject: Re: Huh?
In reply to: Smoked Cod 's message, "Re: Huh?" on 10:30:24 05/10/03 Sat

>>>>>>TOO BAD CHRISTINAS NAUGHTY BITS WERE HIDDEN BEHIND
>>A
>>>>>>GUITAR!! IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN A HARMONICA!!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Actually, I agree with you on this one. Some of
>>those
>>>>>conservative writers can be a bit too prudish.
>>>>>
>>>>>After all, Christina is no longer a
>>>>>teenager......she's 21.
>>>>>
>>>>>Regards
>>>>>194............
>>>>
>>>>What??? Conservative writers can be a bit too
>>>>prudish???That statement sounds so unlike you.
>>>
>>>
>>>What does politics have to do with it? What is sexual
>>>politics?
>>>
>>>And what is "The Religious Right?"
>>>
>>>What is the HRC?
>>
>>
>>"The Religious Right" is a term used to gain political
>>advantage in debates about public policy, as for
>>example when proposed new legislation is under
>>discussion.
>>
>>By labelling a particular viewpoint as belong to the
>>Religious Right, one automatically draws the
>>separation of Church and State into the equation, and
>>intrinsically undermines the arguments of those who
>>are said to belong to the "Religious Right" - because
>>in most Western democracies it is realised that
>>legislation ought not be formulated on the basis of a
>>particular religious viewpoint - even if this
>>religious viewpoint in question is that of the
>>majority of the populace.
>>
>>See for example:
>>
>>http://www.au.org/cs.htm
>>
>>Thus, claiming that a political group, where
>>legislation is being mooted or proposed, is from "The
>>Religious Right" can seriously undermine the
>>possibilities of that legislation being passed into
>>law.
>>
>>The "HRC" (should that be the IGLHRC??) is perhaps
>>something too complex to be outlined here, but you may
>>wish to bear in mind that an appeal to Human Rights
>>can force changes in legislation.
>>
>>Take a browse through these for starters:
>>
>>http://hrc.grassroots.com/
>>
>>and
>>
>>http://www.iglhrc.org/site/iglhrc/
>>
>>What politics has to do with all this is that Liberals
>>tend to be much more permissive than Conservatives as
>>regards sexual behavior.
>>
>>I.P.
>
>
>
>Don't you think this is all too much to digest for a
>mere traffic cop?

Look, b-o-o-o-y, that really is very heavy going alright, like, I dunno what to think of it all, like, you know what I mean, like, b-o-o-o-oy? It sounds really hi-falutin' like, you know?

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]