[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[ga] Re: On human sexuality and other nonsense

On Wed, 19 Jan 2000, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> General reply: The definitions were left *intentionally* vague.
> "I can recognize it when I see it" has been an official ruling of an US 
> court (Judge Brown on Pornography, I believe); any attempt at strict 
> definition would be an invitation at rules-skirting.

Which US court - what ruling?  references?

> One example of slander (IMHO) is referring to someone as "a young man who 
> is very uncomfortable with his sexuality". This is completely irrelevant
> to 
> any issue at hand.

I disagree.  Maybe you should provide a reference so that we can more
fully appreciate the context.  This sounds to me like a persons concern
for anothers.  The full context may be of better assistance.

> A nice personal attack is this one:
> "he is in fact a villainous liar, cheat, and dispicable wretch, who will 
> sodomize and emasculate your cause by sheer association."

I remember this.  I felt it was a bit strong and I'm pleased I had the
opportunity to judge it on my own without Names Council sanitation.  The
sodomize part was somewhat provocative as I felt it might excite some of
the berkman boys.  I didn't want their tenders ears to be exposed to such
racy suggestions.  Cairo after all is just around the corner and sodomy
just ain't up allahs alley so i felt the list should refreain from such
sexual references.

> The word "feminazi", if used as a personal characterization, is offensive.
> (I trust that my use of the word here is not taken as offensive by
> anyone..)

No - that the politically correct expression - in my opinion - it's a
label and nothing more.  The weakness here is falling prey to the value of
the word.