Columbine Paintball Recreation - What do you think of this?

Palomar · 2003-07-28 11:42:26

Wonder if I can get my galfriend to let me hunt her naked... heh, I'm going to seriously propose that, see what she says.

*Are you going to keep us updated as to the response and outcome, Josh?

Josh Cryer · 2003-07-28 11:49:02

Depends on the outcome. :;):

clark · 2003-07-28 12:09:47

It's a matter of personal perspective, taste and opinion. These consenting adults can do whatever they want...and I, as a tax-paying adult, can voice my opinion about it; as can Shaun.

Well, no, these consenting adults cannot do whatever they want. Indeed, fanatics are now making it so free people, grown adults, cannot make a choice such as this.

You point out the imposition of wrong headed values on other peoples- things like women being raped as punishment for what we can all agree are minor offenses. I know this isn't the same exact thing, but the feeling is exactly the same.

Some people find the practice morally objectionable for no concrete reason. This isn't a matter of public health. This isn't a matter of children's rights. This isn't a matter of security.

This is a bunch of grown adult running naked out in some wilderness. Why is yours, Shaun's, or even my opinion even necessary in this situation?

I only ask because you intimated that the women involved with this are to 'blame'. Blame for what?

And aren't you overdoing it abit with your "Yeah, some people spend thier lives judging others choices. So who is it in this situation that dosen't have a life?" statement?

No, I don't think I am overdoing anything. Shaun, in an off-hand manner asks if these people 'have lives'. Intimating that people who choose this behavior have something wrong with themselves. The obvious answer is, yes, these people have lives, and they are living their life according to their own desires. What is wrong with people making choices like this if it is consenting, and not a public safety/health issue? How is there even grounds to question people who choose this?

And it's not fair to castigate an entitled complaint or negative opinion as being evidence that someone "doesn't have a life."

So then it's okay to castigate a personal life choice as evidence that someone doesn't have a life?

You say you don't condone this behavior...yet you defend it. Are you attempting to straddle the fence? Is there something other than approval (condoning) and disapproval (condemnation)?

I don't condone it in that I wouldn't choose it for myself. I fail to see how my personal preference in the matter is relevant to someone else who makes a different choice. And I am not defending the actual action, but the implications of all of this.

I find bestiality repugnant, but I fail to see what a person does with their pet is any of my business.

Now he's claiming it was "a hoax!" because feminist groups started haranguing him about it.

So then Pro-lifers who harangue would-be abortionist doctors and their patients are justified and right in their actions? It's fundamentally the same thing Cindy..

Women hunting naked men with paintball guns would be just as repulsive and repugnant to me.

So a nice game of naked hide-and-go seek is better? Is it the guns, the nudity, or all of it?

???

And goodluck Josh. May your sight be true, and her legs short.

Shaun Barrett · 2003-07-28 19:41:19

Oops! I think maybe I don't always make myself very clear.
I don't really have a problem at all with men or women chasing naked members of the opposite sex with paintball guns. (As long as it's physically harmless. Though I did have reservations when I realised these paintballs can hit hard enough to cause real pain. At that stage, it started to look less than fun - at least to me! )
On the other hand, I can see how a female with strong feminist leanings might see this as just another example of men demeaning women. (So I agreed with Josh that the reverse scenario should be available to women, to even things up a bit! )
I can also see that some males (a very very small minority, I hasten to add), who may be a little close to the edge psychologically, could be incited to carry on the fantasy back in the real world ... with potentially disastrous results. But then again, males in that category are likely to be pushed over the edge by something else sooner or later anyway. Appalling treatment of women by some men started long before the advent of paintball guns!

My comment about people not having lives was meant to express exasperation at the hoax thing. I was simply saying (or I fondly imagined I was! ) that I regard making up elaborate hoaxes and publishing them in the press as a puerile waste of time. I like to think I have better things to do. That was all I meant to say and I apologise for not making that clear.

I personally have no problem with variations in human sexuality and I don't criticise the fetishes of others - as long as all participants are happy and nobody gets hurt, physically or emotionally.
I certainly don't have any hang-ups at all about nudity either. In fact, I believe humanity in general today is inordinately prudish about the human body. I think it's unhealthy and unnatural that we're so embarrassed about our physical form. I've even heard it argued, quite persuasively, that the barriers between people are largely perpetuated by clothing; that clothing - especially uniforms- is instrumental in dehumanising us all to a large extent; that even the incidence of obesity might be less if it weren't so easy to cover up the results of our excesses!
Gang members often wear a certain type of identifying clothing, armies wear uniforms, wealthy social classes wear Armani and Gucci! Being in one of these groups tends to constrain your behaviour .. you do as the others in the group do and your individual humanity is diminished. If you're not part of such a well-marked group, you're isolated, perhaps ostracised .. your individual humanity may go unrecognised.
All this is either the result of, or exacerbated by, clothing.

Now, if you deduce from this that I must be a practising nudist, you're wrong. I'm not. But philosophically and logically, I am sympathetic to the views of nudists. Clothing is essential for warmth and protection and can be highly decorative - nobody argues with this. But, when it becomes illegal to swim in the sea without clothing, from a logical standpoint this is much harder to defend, at least to my mind.
In spite of my tendencies to lean politically to the right, I am very much a humanist. Probably more so than many of you here who lean to the left.
If, tomorrow, people took to the streets naked as a matter of course, it would trouble me not one jot. I'd join them. So you see, Clark, I'm actually a long way from being judgmental about naked women and paintball guns and how people should live their lives, OK?

[I wasn't offended, Cindy, that you saw fit to defend my comments. I took it in the spirit in which it was intended. ]

Palomar · 2003-07-28 20:15:55

Johnny Depp and Orlando Bloom are beautiful.
Not to men.

*I'll bet there are at least a couple of men in the Tenderloin district of San Francisco who would disagree with that statement, BGD.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2003-07-28 20:41:32

Clark: Well, no, these consenting adults cannot do whatever they want. Indeed, fanatics are now making it so free people, grown adults, cannot make a choice such as this.

*Fanatics, huh? So everyone "has to" go along with and condone -whatever- anyone else wants to do? Don't dare criticize or disapprove, because it's "fanaticism!!" to do so? Sorry...THAT is a fanatical attitude.

I've -not- taken a hand in stopping the guy in Las Vegas from having his "Hunt For Bambi" business. I didn't write letters, didn't partake in any telephone campaigns. I wouldn't stop he and his gals from doing this if I could, so long as it would have remained within the setting of CONSENTING adults. However, I do assert my right to disapprove of the activity.

Clark: You point out the imposition of wrong headed values on other peoples- things like women being raped as punishment for what we can all agree are minor offenses. I know this isn't the same exact thing, but the feeling is exactly the same.

Some people find the practice morally objectionable for no concrete reason. This isn't a matter of public health. This isn't a matter of children's rights. This isn't a matter of security.

*Right. But it is about certain women being willing to portray themselves as little better than animals being hunted by the dominant sex (men) and portraying themselves as victims. Why not ask them why they choose to do this, Clark? Why do you always attempt to throw the persons with a bit of scruples and principles onto the defensive? Go put those gals and that guy on the defensive...I dare ya!

Clark: This is a bunch of grown adult running naked out in some wilderness. Why is yours, Shaun's, or even my opinion even necessary in this situation?

*Who said our opinions are "necessary"? What's "necessary" got to do with it? Nothing. I'm simply entitled to air my opinion...like you and everyone else.

Clark: I only ask because you intimated that the women involved with this are to 'blame'. Blame for what?

*For being willing to portray themselves as victims. Did you read my first post relative to this? Again: Do you think (sans TV documentary, movie, TV program) you could get many (if ANY) African-Americans to sign up and take money for playing "slave" to white men brandishing whips and sticks, while being shackled and made to pick cotton "for fun"? Can you see this? I sure can't.

Me: And aren't you overdoing it abit with your "Yeah, some people spend thier lives judging others choices. So who is it in this situation that dosen't have a life?" statement?

Clark: No, I don't think I am overdoing anything. Shaun, in an off-hand manner asks if these people 'have lives'. Intimating that people who choose this behavior have something wrong with themselves. The obvious answer is, yes, these people have lives, and they are living their life according to their own desires. What is wrong with people making choices like this if it is consenting, and not a public safety/health issue? How is there even grounds to question people who choose this?

*There don't have to be "grounds" for asking questions pertaining to behavior. No one and nothing is above being questioned. They have a right -not- to answer said questions as well. The guy in Vegas isn't obligated to answer my questions or to give a hoot about my opinion...that's okay, because I'm still entitled to ask questions and air opinions -- just like you. Why don't you write the guy in Las Vegas as ask him why it's okay for him to do this, what is right about it, why women "should" participate in making sport of their gender and portraying themselves as little more than animals being hunted down, i.e. portraying themselves as victims?

Also, I could turn the tables and ask you: On what "grounds" do you question Shaun and I?

Me: And it's not fair to castigate an entitled complaint or negative opinion as being evidence that someone "doesn't have a life."

Clark: So then it's okay to castigate a personal life choice as evidence that someone doesn't have a life?

*Nope. And don't twist my words around.

Me: Now he's claiming it was "a hoax!" because feminist groups started haranguing him about it.

Clark: So then Pro-lifers who harangue would-be abortionist doctors and their patients are justified and right in their actions? It's fundamentally the same thing Cindy..

*There you go again...making assumptions and attempting to distort my meaning. You want to drag the abortion issue into this...okay: Pro-lifers have a right to voice their disapproval of abortion. They don't "HAVE TO" agree or believe abortion is okay. However, it's my opinion that they do NOT have a right to harangue, harrass, intimidate or threaten abortion doctors and patients, including attempting to physically bar the entrances to abortion clinics and the offices of physicians who perform abortions. Abortion is legal, and patients are entitled to exercise their rights in privacy. Again: I didn't participate in any telephone or written protests to the guy in Las Vegas, in order to shut him down or put him out of business. I could have, but I did not. I was simply pointing out that certain women's groups (and other non-feminist groups as well) DID start breathing down his back, and he begins this hypocritical canting of now claiming "it was just a hoax." Uh-huh.

Me: Women hunting naked men with paintball guns would be just as repulsive and repugnant to me.

Clark: So a nice game of naked hide-and-go seek is better? Is it the guns, the nudity, or all of it?

*It's the portrayal of victimization I dislike.

Enough of this...I answered your questions and I have a loooooong work week ahead of me.

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2003-07-29 00:51:02

The response was, ?eeee.? It looks promising.

My weapon is loaded and ready.

Haha, did I just say that?

Someone tell me if I should edit that out.

Palomar · 2003-07-29 05:37:13

The response was, ?eeee.? It looks promising.
My weapon is loaded and ready.
Haha, did I just say that?
Someone tell me if I should edit that out.

*You're a wild man, Josh.

Actually, this brings to mind a scene in the far-out movie "The Man Who Fell to Earth" (David Bowie, 1976). Rather tripy and weird; I think the producer, director and everyone else were intoxicated, stoned, or nearly so during the making of it.

In one scene, Bowie and his lover (can't recall her name), during a tryst, discover a stunt gun loaded with blanks...and they take turns "shooting" each other. Talk about kinky...

--Cindy

clark · 2003-08-07 10:24:33

So everyone "has to" go along with and condone -whatever- anyone else wants to do?

Of course not. However, what I take issue with is trying to condone, or not condone certain behaviour that does not affect any other individual, or society. Saying, "it ain't for me" is more appropriate than, "they shouldn't fo that."

However, I do assert my right to disapprove of the activity.

And I assert my right to disapprove the manner in which you voice your opinion.

Right. But it is about certain women being willing to portray themselves as little better than animals being hunted by the dominant sex (men) and portraying themselves as victims.

No, that's what *you* see their actions as. I see consenting adults engaging in role-play behvaior. Is S&M victimization, or role-play behaviour? Is it degradation of the individual, or mere fantasy enactment? If you look at an ink blot, what you see, is that what it is, or merely what you think it is?

Why not ask them why they choose to do this, Clark? Why do you always attempt to throw the persons with a bit of scruples and principles onto the defensive? Go put those gals and that guy on the defensive...I dare ya!

I really don't care why they choose to do this. I don't care why some people like being urinated on during sexual congress. Whatever gets you there, gets you there. Some people consider certain sexual positions to be the same as people who would do "bambi videos", do these people have more scruples or principles?

*For being willing to portray themselves as victims. Did you read my first post relative to this? Again: Do you think (sans TV documentary, movie, TV program) you could get many (if ANY) African-Americans to sign up and take money for playing "slave" to white men brandishing whips and sticks, while being shackled and made to pick cotton "for fun"? Can you see this? I sure can't.

Yes, I can. Look at the spate of reality tv to see what people are willing to do for money, and all of it public. There are agreat many things people will do, and do now, out of the public eye, all for money. Capitalism is touted becuase it exploits people innate greed, why would you think that this somehow stops over ideas of 'dignity'?

Why don't you write the guy in Las Vegas as ask him why it's okay for him to do this, what is right about it, why women "should" participate in making sport of their gender and portraying themselves as little more than animals being hunted down, i.e. portraying themselves as victims?

I don't need to write becuase it's not even an issue of right or wrong. I fail to see how it is 'wrong'. Explain how it is actually 'wrong' for people to engage in behaviour like this. If you do, then you have to explain what type of behaviour is 'correct'. See where this leads? Now we have to decide what is and is not acceptable sexual behaviour between consenting adults.

Also, I could turn the tables and ask you: On what "grounds" do you question Shaun and I?

Because I think you're wrong. :laugh:

However, it's my opinion that they do NOT have a right to harangue, harrass, intimidate or threaten abortion doctors and patients, including attempting to physically bar the entrances to abortion clinics and the offices of physicians who perform abortions.

BTW, I was using abortion as an example, not an attempt to bring it into discussion. You say people don't have a right to harangue, harrass, or intimidate- but that is, or was, exactly what happened to the people involved with trying to market 'Bambi hunts'. All in attempt to stop them. How is it any different?

*It's the portrayal of victimization I dislike.

How is hunting someone naked with a paintball gun a portrayal of victimization?

Palomar · 2003-08-07 10:29:47

*Hi Clarkie:

Sorry...I think my most-previous post covered all bases of my opinion on the matter; I'm not interested in pursuing it further.

But thank you for your continued interest in my thoughts and opinions!

--Cindy :laugh:

clark · 2003-08-07 10:33:30

Thanks Cindy,

But thank you for your continued interest in my thoughts and opinions!

You're certainly welcome.

Now, if only you're thoughts and opinions could be interesting.

ho-hum

Clark :laugh:

Palomar · 2003-08-07 10:50:25

Thanks Cindy,
But thank you for your continued interest in my thoughts and opinions!
You're certainly welcome.
Now, if only you're thoughts and opinions could be interesting.
ho-hum
Clark :laugh:

*LOL!!

Well...I walked right into that one, didn't I? ??? :;):

--Cindy

clark · 2003-08-07 11:03:44

Bah, I was reaching at best. You smarted me pretty well yourself. :;):

So, to throw caution to the wind, and to alienate myself further, here is corner I have backed myself into. Perhaps a more enlightened individal, or individuals can help me out of this predicament.

I pretty much subscribe to the view that anyone should be able to do anything, as long as it dosen't threaten the life or well being of anyone else. So, i can say 'Bambi hunt" good, but 'death penalty', bad.

Now, this little philosphy of mine has placed me in an intellectual quandry related to what President Bush has been saying related to "marriage".

Bush says that 'marriage' should be defined as 'man and women". Well, I tend to be a bit more liberal in my view, and I feel that marriage is a defined contract, recognized by your god and/or country, between two people, regardless of gender or sexual orientation.

Now, my problem, what if someone wants to 'marry' their pet chimp? I can't find a legitimate reason to say "no, this is bad", even though I would consider such an action as really bad.

But let's say that it's okay for anyone to marry anyone, or antything else- so people can marry a river? Should we recognize that? This open the door for polygamy as well.

Now we can make this really easy and say that marriage is just between man and woman, but then we are also saying that other individuals can have their relationships interefered with by the state. I really hate the idea of that.

So back to the chimp marriage- say we even recognize that- is it okay then for this union to adopt children? Think about this idea, how outrageous it all sounds, and realize that alot of people feel the same way about marriages other than the more traditional man-woman unions.

where's the balance?

dickbill · 2003-08-07 11:42:34

Now, my problem, what if someone wants to 'marry' their pet chimp?

What about a martian and a terran. I think in startrek, or is it in babylonV ?, you have the feeling that the terrans are fooling around a little bit with exotic life form.
G. dubya never talked about that or forbid it specifically, so I guess he agrees with the concept of interspecies marriage.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2003-07-28 11:42:26

Re: Columbine Paintball Recreation - What do you think of this?

#27 2003-07-28 11:49:02

Re: Columbine Paintball Recreation - What do you think of this?

#28 2003-07-28 12:09:47

Re: Columbine Paintball Recreation - What do you think of this?

#29 2003-07-28 19:41:19

Re: Columbine Paintball Recreation - What do you think of this?

#30 2003-07-28 20:15:55

Re: Columbine Paintball Recreation - What do you think of this?

#31 2003-07-28 20:41:32

Re: Columbine Paintball Recreation - What do you think of this?

#32 2003-07-29 00:51:02

Re: Columbine Paintball Recreation - What do you think of this?

#33 2003-07-29 05:37:13

Re: Columbine Paintball Recreation - What do you think of this?

#34 2003-08-07 10:24:33

Re: Columbine Paintball Recreation - What do you think of this?

#35 2003-08-07 10:29:47

Re: Columbine Paintball Recreation - What do you think of this?

#36 2003-08-07 10:33:30

Re: Columbine Paintball Recreation - What do you think of this?

#37 2003-08-07 10:50:25

Re: Columbine Paintball Recreation - What do you think of this?

#38 2003-08-07 11:03:44

Re: Columbine Paintball Recreation - What do you think of this?

#39 2003-08-07 11:42:34

Re: Columbine Paintball Recreation - What do you think of this?

Board footer