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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (9837)	10/16/1998 3:10:00 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

With Mapplethorpe you have chosen the extreme. Many think some of his works are offensive, especially to Chistians. How can you justify "Piss Christ"? I believe that's what Falwell resents, and rightfully so.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (9837)	10/16/1998 3:26:00 PM
From: mrknowitall	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Michelle, <<sort of OT>> the Maplethorpe "issue" was not the control of pornography, rather the NEA's support of controversial "art" with federal tax dollars. Taking a religiously significant image, placing it in a jar of urine and then photographing it (all under the financial auspices of our tax money) can at least be considered offensive to a large number of people, not just Mr. Fallwell. Would you not consider it offensive if a skinhead did the same thing with an artifact from a synagog? Personally, I think Maplethorpe is a crackpot, who thrives on publicity brought about through extremism. Because you believe he is an "artist" does not mean we, the general tax-paying public, should provide support for him financially. Mr. K.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (9837)	10/16/1998 4:09:00 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 67261

<<So imo, my resentment of Falwell vs. what Falwell is trying to do to the art world are two different things.>> I see what you mean. My original point is simply that lefties as a group are founded on moral judgement. Whether it is reacting to the ones of tradition or being presented by the RR, or whether it is promoting new standards. To be fair to you, you have said you don't support families, in the sense of family values. Family values implies a set of standards that have to be public. At least within one family group. If you are totally individual in thought and practice then promoting a public standard doesn't make sense, since they only apply to you and effect no one else. A public standard for one person, or totally individualized within a group is a standard of not allowing standards. It seems like on the one hand you identify with this, but on another you support a left wing agenda which is being promoted to effect everyone in society, is not individualized, and is definitely judging public standards including moral values.