Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Poet who wrote (21454)	8/10/2001 11:15:17 PM
From: coug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Hi Poet, While this cad, (edit hehe, not really, just sounded fun) was having a glass of Cab, I read with much interest, in the August 13, 01, issue of "The New Yorker" an article, in the "The Art World Section" , called "Desert Songs" , (page 82). about an exhibit in Santa Fe, NM called "Beau Monde".. To quote: "The curator of "Beau Monde" is the maverick art critic, theorist, and fiction writer Dave Hickey, who teaches at the the University of Nevada in Las Vegas. Hickey, who is Sixty-two years old has been an art dealer, a magazine editor......." Going on, the article states,, "A romantic individualist and a philosophical pragmatist, Hickey espouses the oneness of all art whether high or popular, a field with room for both a Tiepolo and a Norman Rockwell"... And finishing the article, a quote from Peter Schjeldal, the author, "Before we can usefully disagree about what we like in art, we need to reestablish, publicly, the dignity of liking. The importance of pleasure in aesthetic experience is so simple and self-evident." It says it all IMO.. m

To: Poet who wrote (21454)	8/11/2001 12:50:23 AM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

I assume, then, that you are fully in favor of plural marriages. If two people of the same sex can marry, then there is no logical reason why three, or four, of the same or different sexes can't marry. So any group of people should be able to marry in whatever combination suits them. Right?

To: Poet who wrote (21454)	8/11/2001 5:59:35 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I understand, but consider: if the sexual orientation were pedophilia, would it be just to penalize it? Of course it would, due to palpable harm. Now, even granting the comparative harmless of homosexuality, there is a social- impact issue, or rather several issues. For one thing, at a time when the origins of homosexuality are still in dispute, it jumps the gun in saying that it is a fixed condition, and therefore lowers the standards according to which claims that one couldn't help oneself may be forwarded. Thus, it weakens sexual mores that are already pretty weak. For another, the declaration of war on the religious would make todays politics look like a picnic........