Religious Right launches moral crusade

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by jeff

The good thing from the chicken's point of view is that Soldier has come out firmly on the side of barbecueing cows. That should be helpful for maintaining domestic peace and quiet among the domestic fowl.

And yet the vegetarians insist that all meat is foul. Go figure.

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by jBirch

And yet the vegetarians insist that all meat is foul. Go figure.

Yes, I always wondered at their confusion. All meat is fowl, and yet some will eat fowl, because they don't consider it meat?

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Soldier

Yes, I always wondered at their confusion. All meat is fowl, and yet some will eat fowl, because they don't consider it meat?

Well, the whole vegetarian thing is confusing.

See, I once went to meet a vegetarian about their Meat Meet. Seems the meat were meeting to discuss whether fowl was foul or fair, the fowl being lean meat at the Meet and enticing the fatter red meat to meet. The vegetarian conglomeration wanted to break up the potential vegetarian meat convention contamination.

Seems the fatty red meat at the Meet were interested in losing red meat weight but had to wait until the end of the Meat Meet to meet as the foul fowl were being inspected by the vegetarians for net weight. "Net Weight" refers to what happens to meat when it's caught and still struggling, a good test of how lean the meat at the Meet is. The vegetarians were ok with lean white meat, but not fat red meat and they figured that lean white meat was more fowl then foul red meat (which is fair).

For some reason, the vegetarians had no trouble with white meat (they being white meat supremists and all) but they had major issue with fatty red meat that didn't meet their net meat weight weighting. Lean red meat at the Meet seemed to be in a bit of a nebulous situation, it having high net weight but low net weight weighting. I don't think it's fair. In fact, I think that the net weight weightings are foul for fowl.

Unfortunatly the Meat Meet didn't meet my meat expectations, so I stayed in my room. Your darn chickens, which may or may not live in your room, though, could make a fair killing selling darn chicken socks to the fair white meat at the Meat Meet Fair. Red meat likes fair Red Sox for some reason and I'm sure that the vegetarians at the Meat Meet Fair would find the white meat of your fair fowl meat to meet their foul high net weight weightings (your chickens working out darning darn chicken Red Sox), though you'd have to wait till next year to find out for sure. I have a sneaking suspicion that the Meat Meet Fair isn't fair to foul fowl.

But yeah, vegetarians are confusing.

[Soldier]

...you win.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Soldier

...you win.

Hey man, don't blame me. Blame the chickens in your room. They're the ones that started this.

[Gav]

I worked for BSkyB for a while [temping when I was a student]. I sort of fell into their technical help line. Most of the time that consisted of telling people how to get the European porn' channels... One of the things we had to learn about was how the advanced users (read dish geeks) set up their satellite receivers. I learned some interesting things: how to pick up broadcasts from Mir; that there was a channel called Herb-a-life; It was possible to watch live feeds of operations from the US; the genocide in Rwanda ...

That's right, if you lived in Africa you could watch 24hr coverage Live from the scene. Rwanda was remarked upon in the press here, yet it was one of those far away bad things that didn't touch you - unless you had a 3 metre satellite dish complete with actuator. It helped if you lived in southern Europe - it was much harder if you lived in the UK - line of sight and all that. So it seemed at the time that whether you got to see the horror depended on whether you could see the horror. I still think that Rwanda is one of the biggest mistakes that the so-called civilised world has ever made. I suppose it doesn't matter, I don't think that there is much oil there.

Having access to all the competing views is only valid if you make the effort to study those views.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Gav

I worked for BSkyB for a while [temping when I was a student]. I sort of fell into their technical help line. Most of the time that consisted of telling people how to get the European porn' channels... One of the things we had to learn about was how the advanced users (read dish geeks) set up their satellite receivers. I learned some interesting things: how to pick up broadcasts from Mir; that there was a channel called Herb-a-life; It was possible to watch live feeds of operations from the US; the genocide in Rwanda ...

That's right, if you lived in Africa you could watch 24hr coverage Live from the scene. Rwanda was remarked upon in the press here, yet it was one of those far away bad things that didn't touch you - unless you had a 3 metre satellite dish complete with actuator. It helped if you lived in southern Europe - it was much harder if you lived in the UK - line of sight and all that. So it seemed at the time that whether you got to see the horror depended on whether you could see the horror. I still think that Rwanda is one of the biggest mistakes that the so-called civilised world has ever made. I suppose it doesn't matter, I don't think that there is much oil there.

Having access to all the competing views is only valid if you make the effort to study those views.

This sequays nicely back to the original topic, namely that the Religious Right considers some ideas to be so dangerous that they need to be removed from experience until they can be understood "in the proper context". Is this possible? Are there things that just shouldn't be spoken about? What about children? Are there ideas that children should not ever be exposed to?

[Soldier]

Yes - the concept behind their own conception. No child should be exposed to the idea of their parents actually doing anything besides sleeping in that bed.

Seriously, yes, there are many things children shouldn't be exposed to. But I think the responsibility for that censorship should fall to their parents. The problem is that parents have been failing to take that responsibility. I don't know what the solution is, but the increasing attempts of governments to take a parent's place, are not the solution.

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by Bokken

It's a small distinction, but there is the religious right and there's the Religious Right. In common usage those words typically describe the ultra-right-wing zealots of whom Jeff speaks and not the majority of religious conservatives.

By the way, if you want to talk about blowing things out of proportion check this out (link courtesty of 8-bit theater): http://www.lex18.com/Global/story.as...4&nav=EQlpWjof

It seems to me that what this organization is really up in arms about is, bluntly, sex. They don't like it, they don't want it displayed or publicized or talked about at all. Ever. Look at how ferociously they go after sexual content compared with violent content...curious, no?

>Freud<Tell me about your muzza. Interestink...

Dude, that link is scary. IF what the kid asserts is true...