🚀 go-pugleaf

ma...@omni.voicenet.com (Matthew Chiglinsky) writes:

>>Tell me, why are advertisements dealing with sex so "low-class"?
>>I enjoyed sex yesterday, and I enjoy games today. What makes one more 
>>"higher-class" than the other?

>	One is inappropriate; one is not.  One is low-class; one is 
>high-class.  Isn't it simple enough?

What makes sex "low-class" and what makes games "high-class"? On what 
*facts* do you base your opinion? Or is it just some vague moral 
background that you think justifies your opinion?

My opinion is just a logical conclusion. Sex and games are both 
enjoyable, can both be exploited for good and for bad, can be done on 
your own or with others, etc, etc. So, explain to us what's so 
"high-class" about games. To me they are just empty words you're uttering.
There's no moral difference.

>	Gee, that's an original idea.  How many people have said that in the 
>past?  Do you listen to Howard Stern a lot?  Problems don't go away by just 
>ignoring them.

There is no problem. People see problems where there aren't any. If I 
stick my poster of Doom to the front window, no one will care about 
it. If I stick a nude picture to my front window, there will be people 
complaining about it. Why?  Why is that a problem?  Those people are the 
problem, not the picture. It's just a picture of a beautiful body as God or 
nature created it. It should be admired. (You know what, I think I'll 
stick one to my window right away.)

>	If people feel guilty about sex ads. and that motivates them to get 
>rid of them, then I say good for them.  I'd say it's the amoral people like 
>you who *might* have the problem.  ;)

If people feel guilty about sex ads, then that's *their* problem, not mine.
I don't care if they feel it's wrong. I *do* care when they try to get 
those ads out of the magazine. Because then they are telling *me* what to 
read and what not to read. And I hate it when narrow-minded people want 
to influence things I might enjoy. (Which in this case I am not, but 
that's not the point here.)  If they don't want to see the ads, then 
*they* should flip the pages. Let me decide for myself what to look at.

(Some readers might have noticed by now that I easily get very, very 
angry when I notice that other people are trying to tell me how I should 
live. I think it's fine that people have different opinions. But it's bad 
when they try to impose them on others. History tells us that his is a 
very common cause for many of its black pages.)

>	Sex IS NOT filthy.  Only satan would have people believe that.  God 
>made sex, therefore sex is good.  What's wrong is abusing anything good.  
>Since sex is good, you shouldn't abuse it.  It's simple enough.

Exactly. And putting an ad in a magazine is not abusing anyone in any way.
So...?

Jurgen,
who obviously thinks he's always right. ;)