Archive for Musicals.Net Musicals.Net
 


       Musicals.Net Forums -> The MdN Social Club
jesuiscommejesuis

mastachen wrote:
jesuiscommejesuis wrote:
mastachen wrote:
jesuiscommejesuis wrote:
mastachen wrote:
jesuiscommejesuis wrote:
Unfortunately, most voters are incapable of doing so.


"The biggest argument against democracy is a five minute discussion with an average voter"
-Winston Churchill


I think you strongly underestimate voters.

Most people won't vote unless they have an idea of who they want to vote for and why. Those who don't care enough about finding out about candidates probably won't be voting either.



That's not true at all. Plenty of people will flock to certain candidates for certain reasons... NYC people will vote for Giuliani, female dems will probably vote for Hillary, black dems for Obama, etc. All without knowing much or anything about their fellow running-mates. I mean, when the primaries are over, it's usually pretty obvious who's voting for who, but I mean especially in primaries.


You're generalizing with your use of the word "all".


I'm looking at both instances of where I said all, and don't see how I'm making generalizations with either one.


The way you structured your argument, you made it read like NYC people will vote for Guiliani all without knowing much or anything about their running mates. Or female/black dems will vote for Hilary/Obama all without knowing much or anything about their fellow running mates. My guess now is that's probably not what you meant, but since I'm not a mind reader, I took what you wrote at face value.

In any case, I know lots of female democrats that won't be voting for Hilary, and I'm sure you can find lots of black democrats who won't be voting for Obama.

And I don't see anything wrong with New Yorkers voting for Guiliani. It's not like he was a bad mayor of NY or anything and he was widely praised for his handling of the city after September 11th. It's his personal life that has brought his morals and ethics into question. lol


Ah yeah, I guess that wasn't worded perfectly, but you seem to understand what I mean.

I think Giuliani would be a pretty good president; same for Obama. I'm just saying, sometimes people only see in somebody what they want to see, and choose not to look at other options because they automatically feel satisfied with one person. Like NYers may think "Wow, Giuliani was a great mayor, so he'll be a great president" and vote for him without really looking past his experience as a mayor or what he stands for or his plans for our country. Maybe they'd find that they would be much happier with Richardson as president, for example, or McCain, or whatever.
Beagle On Stage

mastachen wrote:
It's his personal life that has brought his morals and ethics into question. lol


I think it's completely valid to question his morals and ethics based on his personal life. We're voting for people, not particular aspects of people's lives. And we want someone moral and ethical, don't we?
Cake_in_Song

jesuiscommejesuis wrote:
mastachen wrote:
jesuiscommejesuis wrote:
Unfortunately, most voters are incapable of doing so.


"The biggest argument against democracy is a five minute discussion with an average voter"
-Winston Churchill


I think you strongly underestimate voters.

Most people won't vote unless they have an idea of who they want to vote for and why. Those who don't care enough about finding out about candidates probably won't be voting either.


That's not true at all. Plenty of people will flock to certain candidates for certain reasons... NYC people will vote for Giuliani, female dems will probably vote for Hillary, black dems for Obama, etc. All without knowing much or anything about their fellow running-mates. I mean, when the primaries are over, it's usually pretty obvious who's voting for who, but I mean especially in primaries.

And I don't think it's a school's responsibility to inform students about presidential candidates. What about adults who do the exact same thing?


In my mind, it's a school's responsibility to open the minds of students so that they take an active interest in politics and the running of their nation.

Also, I'm female, and if I were living in the states, I'd be a democrat. I wouldn't vote Hillary. Thanks for the generalization.
Cake_in_Song

Beagle On Stage wrote:
mastachen wrote:
It's his personal life that has brought his morals and ethics into question. lol


I think it's completely valid to question his morals and ethics based on his personal life. We're voting for people, not particular aspects of people's lives. And we want someone moral and ethical, don't we?


To speak frankly, just becaus a man smokes pot, or likes it up the ass from male prostitutes, or worships Satan doesn't mean he'll be a bad president.
Salome

Exactly. CLinton waso ne of our greatest presidents ..so what if he had affairs??

Carter was a proper family man,never cheated, and he was a weak president.
Asha

[quote="Salome"]Exactly. CLinton waso ne of our greatest presidents ..so what if he had affairs??
[quote]

Agreed.
Roger's Chica

DontDoSadnessxx wrote:
Quote:
I liked the RENT movie but prefer to listen to the soundtrack.


I know that was a long time ago but I read and wanted to cry. It makes no sense!
ITS A CAST RECORDING. NOT A SOUNDTRACK. SOUNDTRACKS ARE MOVIESSSS
AHHHHH it makes me want to run into a wall!


Unless they are talking about the SOUNDTRACK. As in, you know. The soundtrack to the movie. That they like to listen to more than they like to watch the movie.

Not the cast recording.
Dax

Beagle On Stage wrote:
I think it's completely valid to question his morals and ethics based on his personal life. We're voting for people, not particular aspects of people's lives. And we want someone moral and ethical, don't we?

While it is certainly valid, historically the opposite has been the case. Our greatest presidents all have had dubious notes in their respective personal histories.

Cake_in_Song wrote:
To speak frankly, just becaus a man smokes pot, or likes it up the ass from male prostitutes, or worships Satan doesn't mean he'll be a bad president.

Doesn't mean he'll be a good president either. (Never imagine that anyone running for president would ever make such activities public knowledge and not have some sort of negative repercussions.)

And for the record, Bill Clinton was a merely average president. His greatest achievements were all conservative policies. Not liberal. He was a good conservative president.
mastachen

Dax wrote:


Cake_in_Song wrote:
To speak frankly, just becaus a man smokes pot, or likes it up the ass from male prostitutes, or worships Satan doesn't mean he'll be a bad president.

Doesn't mean he'll be a good president either. (Never imagine that anyone running for president would ever make such activities public knowledge and not have some sort of negative repercussions.)



Obama acknowledged that he experimented with drugs in high school and college. I read an article criticizing him for being too honest.

So did Bush, but that was after he won the presidency.
Dax

mastachen wrote:
Dax wrote:


Cake_in_Song wrote:
To speak frankly, just becaus a man smokes pot, or likes it up the ass from male prostitutes, or worships Satan doesn't mean he'll be a bad president.

Doesn't mean he'll be a good president either. (Never imagine that anyone running for president would ever make such activities public knowledge and not have some sort of negative repercussions.)



Obama acknowledged that he experimented with drugs in high school and college. I read an article criticizing him for being too honest.

So did Bush, but that was after he won the presidency.


And both have made it clear that neither of them do such things now.
mastachen

Dax wrote:
mastachen wrote:
Dax wrote:


Cake_in_Song wrote:
To speak frankly, just becaus a man smokes pot, or likes it up the ass from male prostitutes, or worships Satan doesn't mean he'll be a bad president.

Doesn't mean he'll be a good president either. (Never imagine that anyone running for president would ever make such activities public knowledge and not have some sort of negative repercussions.)



Obama acknowledged that he experimented with drugs in high school and college. I read an article criticizing him for being too honest.

So did Bush, but that was after he won the presidency.


And both have made it clear that neither of them do such things now.


I mistook your meaning. lol I thought you just meant that no one running for president would ever disclose the fact that they used drugs ever, and not just while they were campaigning.
le_moofin

theatre_grl wrote:
kozafluitmusique wrote:
my_work_my_name wrote:
le_moofin wrote:
kozafluitmusique wrote:
I don't like the Golden Compass book series...they are so weird...I hate them.

Being a Christian, I wasn't exactly pleased to hear about what happens at the end... -shakes head- But I've never read them. Are they on the level of Harry Potter books or more challenging?

The books do not reflect classical christian theology. Pullman may well believe that he has 'destroyed' christianity with His Dark Materials, but there are frankly very few, if any, direct parallels between the theology of the books and present-day christianity. I have a few close friends and family members who belong to various christian denominations, and all of them love the books. Quite apart from anything else, they are incredible stories which display a huge amount of depth and imagination. The conclusion of The Amber Spyglass is actually deeply moving. Look past the religious content, or better, dismiss those things that you don't recognise in your own belief system, and you will find so much richness in the trilogy - just please don't dismiss a work of fiction before reading it, on the vague impressions you hear from other readers.


I have friends who are the same religion as me (Roman Catholic) and loved them...I just couldn't get into them at all.

Hey I'm Catholic too! Smile
Anyway, I read the books and really liked them--I took as a fantasty story, which it is, not an attack on my religion. I was really surprised by the controversy made by the new movie.


Hmm. Now I'm really confused. HIGHLIGHT BELOW IF YOU HAVE READ THE BOOKS.

A friend of mine informed me that the main characters kill God at either the end of the series or the end of the first book. And I was like, WTF? I wanted to see that film, and generally I don't mind setting aside beliefs for fantasy, but for me, that pushes the envelope too far. Also, I have heard that Pullman is either an atheist (that's cool, doesn't bother me) or an anti-Christian (not-so-cool).
Dax

le_moofin wrote:
Hmm. Now I'm really confused. HIGHLIGHT BELOW IF YOU HAVE READ THE BOOKS.

A friend of mine informed me that the main characters kill God at either the end of the series or the end of the first book. And I was like, WTF? I wanted to see that film, and generally I don't mind setting aside beliefs for fantasy, but for me, that pushes the envelope too far. Also, I have heard that Pullman is either an atheist (that's cool, doesn't bother me) or an anti-Christian (not-so-cool).


Towards the end of the series.

As I posted in another forum:
(And since this might be a spoiler...)

It's not about God being killed. But about God being imprisoned. God, and the souls of all who have ever died, imprisoned in an "afterlife" that was created by a tyrant.

It's about God's and everyone's liberation.

A poem to best illustrate their freedom:

Do not stand at my grave and weep,
I am not there, I do not sleep.
I am in a thousand winds that blow,
I am the softly falling snow.
I am the gentle showers of rain,
I am the fields of ripening grain.
I am in the morning hush,
I am in the graceful rush
Of beautiful birds in circling flight,
I am the starshine of the night.
I am in the flowers that bloom,
I am in a quiet room.
I am in the birds that sing,
I am in each lovely thing.
Do not stand at my grave and cry,
I am not there. I do not die.

---Mary Elizabeth Frye
Salome

Christians seriously need to lighten up. especially Catholics.
jesuiscommejesuis

Catholic-haters are about fifteen times more annoying than the Catholics they claim to hate.
Patrick

jesuiscommejesuis wrote:
Catholic-haters are about fifteen times more annoying than the Catholics they claim to hate.


Too true.

I finally figured out my opinion that I had been chastised for in the past.

I do not at all care for James Lapine.
Cake_in_Song

le_moofin wrote:
theatre_grl wrote:
kozafluitmusique wrote:
my_work_my_name wrote:
le_moofin wrote:
kozafluitmusique wrote:
I don't like the Golden Compass book series...they are so weird...I hate them.

Being a Christian, I wasn't exactly pleased to hear about what happens at the end... -shakes head- But I've never read them. Are they on the level of Harry Potter books or more challenging?

The books do not reflect classical christian theology. Pullman may well believe that he has 'destroyed' christianity with His Dark Materials, but there are frankly very few, if any, direct parallels between the theology of the books and present-day christianity. I have a few close friends and family members who belong to various christian denominations, and all of them love the books. Quite apart from anything else, they are incredible stories which display a huge amount of depth and imagination. The conclusion of The Amber Spyglass is actually deeply moving. Look past the religious content, or better, dismiss those things that you don't recognise in your own belief system, and you will find so much richness in the trilogy - just please don't dismiss a work of fiction before reading it, on the vague impressions you hear from other readers.


I have friends who are the same religion as me (Roman Catholic) and loved them...I just couldn't get into them at all.

Hey I'm Catholic too! Smile
Anyway, I read the books and really liked them--I took as a fantasty story, which it is, not an attack on my religion. I was really surprised by the controversy made by the new movie.


Hmm. Now I'm really confused. HIGHLIGHT BELOW IF YOU HAVE READ THE BOOKS.

A friend of mine informed me that the main characters kill God at either the end of the series or the end of the first book. And I was like, WTF? I wanted to see that film, and generally I don't mind setting aside beliefs for fantasy, but for me, that pushes the envelope too far. Also, I have heard that Pullman is either an atheist (that's cool, doesn't bother me) or an anti-Christian (not-so-cool).


SPOILER wrote:
It's not a mallicious killing, or anything. It's kind of complicated. Basically, the Kingdom of Heaven has turned into a really corrupt dictatorship, with different angels taking different sides in this epic battle. One of the angels represents Lucifer/Satan. He's basically controlling the whole kingdom while God is too old and frail to do anything. Lord Asriel sacrifices himself to throw that angel into a giant abyss that's like a rift between the worlds, I think either created by Will using the subtle knife too much, or by Asriel when he harnessed that energy by severing Roger and his daemon. Meanwhile, Lyra and Will see the carriage of God, and I can't remember exactly what happens, but basically, the door opens or something, and God is just too old and fragile, and sort of dissolves into the air around him. I think we're intended to see this as a kind of peaceful, willing death. I can see where it would be controversial, though, as Christians tend to concieve of their God as all-powerful and immortal.
pish123c

jesuiscommejesuis wrote:
Catholic-haters are about fifteen times more annoying than the Catholics they claim to hate.

It wasn't until I sat in on ceremonies for other religions and forms of Christianity that I realized how very hypocrytical and uptight Catholicism actually is.
jesuiscommejesuis

pish123c wrote:
jesuiscommejesuis wrote:
Catholic-haters are about fifteen times more annoying than the Catholics they claim to hate.

It wasn't until I sat in on ceremonies for other religions and forms of Christianity that I realized how very hypocrytical and uptight Catholicism actually is.


Still just as annoying.
le_moofin

Cake_in_Song wrote:
le_moofin wrote:
theatre_grl wrote:
kozafluitmusique wrote:
my_work_my_name wrote:
le_moofin wrote:
kozafluitmusique wrote:
I don't like the Golden Compass book series...they are so weird...I hate them.

Being a Christian, I wasn't exactly pleased to hear about what happens at the end... -shakes head- But I've never read them. Are they on the level of Harry Potter books or more challenging?

The books do not reflect classical christian theology. Pullman may well believe that he has 'destroyed' christianity with His Dark Materials, but there are frankly very few, if any, direct parallels between the theology of the books and present-day christianity. I have a few close friends and family members who belong to various christian denominations, and all of them love the books. Quite apart from anything else, they are incredible stories which display a huge amount of depth and imagination. The conclusion of The Amber Spyglass is actually deeply moving. Look past the religious content, or better, dismiss those things that you don't recognise in your own belief system, and you will find so much richness in the trilogy - just please don't dismiss a work of fiction before reading it, on the vague impressions you hear from other readers.


I have friends who are the same religion as me (Roman Catholic) and loved them...I just couldn't get into them at all.

Hey I'm Catholic too! Smile
Anyway, I read the books and really liked them--I took as a fantasty story, which it is, not an attack on my religion. I was really surprised by the controversy made by the new movie.


Hmm. Now I'm really confused. HIGHLIGHT BELOW IF YOU HAVE READ THE BOOKS.

A friend of mine informed me that the main characters kill God at either the end of the series or the end of the first book. And I was like, WTF? I wanted to see that film, and generally I don't mind setting aside beliefs for fantasy, but for me, that pushes the envelope too far. Also, I have heard that Pullman is either an atheist (that's cool, doesn't bother me) or an anti-Christian (not-so-cool).


SPOILER wrote:
It's not a mallicious killing, or anything. It's kind of complicated. Basically, the Kingdom of Heaven has turned into a really corrupt dictatorship, with different angels taking different sides in this epic battle. One of the angels represents Lucifer/Satan. He's basically controlling the whole kingdom while God is too old and frail to do anything. Lord Asriel sacrifices himself to throw that angel into a giant abyss that's like a rift between the worlds, I think either created by Will using the subtle knife too much, or by Asriel when he harnessed that energy by severing Roger and his daemon. Meanwhile, Lyra and Will see the carriage of God, and I can't remember exactly what happens, but basically, the door opens or something, and God is just too old and fragile, and sort of dissolves into the air around him. I think we're intended to see this as a kind of peaceful, willing death. I can see where it would be controversial, though, as Christians tend to concieve of their God as all-powerful and immortal.


...

Yeah, I don't see how these books don't offend/oppose modern Christian theology. But hey, it's cool that other people enjoy them. I certainly don't mind that at all. In the words of Voltaire: "I disagree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it."
mastachen

Unpopular opinion:

Of the Disney musicals, I think Hercules is the best.
Beagle On Stage

Dax wrote:
Beagle On Stage wrote:
I think it's completely valid to question his morals and ethics based on his personal life. We're voting for people, not particular aspects of people's lives. And we want someone moral and ethical, don't we?

While it is certainly valid, historically the opposite has been the case. Our greatest presidents all have had dubious notes in their respective personal histories.


No one is saying they haven't. But I still say that it makes sense to judge people based on what they do in their personal lives. It may not mean that they will definitely be a bad president, but it can certainly mean that they are not someone I would want to support.
pish123c

The only thing enjoyable about The Light in the Piazza is its music, and even that isn't as earth shattering as some people like to think it is.
Salome

th only thing worth it aboyt PIAZZA isnt the music which is bland..but 3 performances. CLarke,O'Hara and Sarandon.
jesuiscommejesuis

Salome wrote:
th only thing worth it aboyt PIAZZA isnt the music which is bland..but 3 performances. CLarke,O'Hara and Sarandon.




UM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=F4TEbwhvTyA
Matthew

I believe that Salome doesn't know as much about good theatre as everyone thinks, except for what she's learned from others.

I'm not fighting with you over this because you still haven't responded to Dvarg's and my question on the Follies Rehearsal Thread. And also because it's Christmas time.
Che

i love piazza. in many ways. i think the music is beautiful, i love the characters. it may not be all it was trying to be, but i really like what it is.
Pounce

Che wrote:
i love piazza. in many ways. i think the music is beautiful, i love the characters. it may not be all it was trying to be, but i really like what it is.

I think Piazza is a great show. I like the story, songs, even that flying hat effect. So many shows like Wedding Singer, All Shook Up, Sweet Charity to name a few are just dull and hackneyed. So when a showl like Piazza comes a long, it makes me appreciate the value of MT. Piazza is a real gem.

And I think the touring cast did a great job as well.
shakalakababy

Matthew wrote:
I believe that Salome doesn't know as much about good theatre as everyone thinks, except for what she's learned from others.


i second that.

And I adore Light in the Piazza.
Salome

Matthew wrote:
I believe that Salome doesn't know as much about good theatre as everyone thinks, except for what she's learned from others.

I'm not fighting with you over this because you still haven't responded to Dvarg's and my question on the Follies Rehearsal Thread. And also because it's Christmas time.


Matthew..stop being a little snot ass. Piazza is dull..its written well but its dull as paint.
keep your little high school mouth shut and listen for a change.


as for Dvarg he knows i'm going to talk in detail to him about it.
jesuiscommejesuis

Salome wrote:
Matthew wrote:
I believe that Salome doesn't know as much about good theatre as everyone thinks, except for what she's learned from others.

I'm not fighting with you over this because you still haven't responded to Dvarg's and my question on the Follies Rehearsal Thread. And also because it's Christmas time.


Matthew..stop being a little snot ass. Piazza is dull..its written well but its dull as paint.
keep your little high school mouth shut and listen for a change.


as for Dvarg he knows i'm going to talk in detail to him about it.


But, the characters! How can you not fall in love with Fabrizio?
pish123c

jesuiscommejesuis wrote:
Salome wrote:
Matthew wrote:
I believe that Salome doesn't know as much about good theatre as everyone thinks, except for what she's learned from others.

I'm not fighting with you over this because you still haven't responded to Dvarg's and my question on the Follies Rehearsal Thread. And also because it's Christmas time.


Matthew..stop being a little snot ass. Piazza is dull..its written well but its dull as paint.
keep your little high school mouth shut and listen for a change.


as for Dvarg he knows i'm going to talk in detail to him about it.



But, the characters! How can you not fall in love with Fabrizio?

Any man who falls in love with a mildly mentally retarded girl is a few fries short of a Happy Meal, if you catch my drift.

Plus...Fabrizio is boring. He's hot and foreign. *Yawn*
shakalakababy

Rolling Eyes wow i'm not even going to touch that one.
pish123c

shakalakababy wrote:
Rolling Eyes wow i'm not even going to touch that one.

Please do...I've shared my opinions. Nothing's stopping you from sharing yours.
Mara

The show has never come to Australia so I've only read synopses but I love the music. I think Fable is an absolutely fantastic song.
Salome

pish123c wrote:


Plus...Fabrizio is boring. He's hot and foreign. *Yawn*


if you want hot and Foriegn i'd take Emile DeBeque over Fabrizio any day!
Mademoiselle Lanoire

Salome wrote:
pish123c wrote:


Plus...Fabrizio is boring. He's hot and foreign. *Yawn*


if you want hot and Foriegn i'd take Emile DeBeque over Fabrizio any day!


Dating murderers? Sounds like a wonderful idea.
pish123c

Salome wrote:
pish123c wrote:


Plus...Fabrizio is boring. He's hot and foreign. *Yawn*


if you want hot and Foriegn i'd take Emile DeBeque over Fabrizio any day!

You can have them both for all I care. Not my type. Razz
Salome

Mademoiselle Lanoire wrote:
Salome wrote:
pish123c wrote:


Plus...Fabrizio is boring. He's hot and foreign. *Yawn*


if you want hot and Foriegn i'd take Emile DeBeque over Fabrizio any day!


Dating murderers? Sounds like a wonderful idea.


what are you talking about.Emile killed in self defense.
Pounce

pish123c wrote:
jesuiscommejesuis wrote:
But, the characters! How can you not fall in love with Fabrizio?

Spoiler Alert
Any man who falls in love with a mildly mentally retarded girl is a few fries short of a Happy Meal, if you catch my drift.

Well, ergo they should make for a perfect couple. But no, I can't accept the idea that falling in love with a girl mildly mentally retarded is such a bad thing.

Quote:
Plus...Fabrizio is boring. He's hot and foreign. *Yawn*

He was the personification of the Italian lover. We aren't exploring his character. He is the reason for the plot complication.
blue wind

i love wicked and rent. and disney musicals....

i don't like west side story.

i can't stand ALW. the only one of his scores i can get through is POTO.

i'm sure there's more...but i can't think of them.
Matthew

Salome wrote:
Matthew..stop being a little snot ass...
keep your little high school mouth shut and listen for a change.

You make your self sound sillier and sillier with every post!
shakalakababy

pish123c wrote:
shakalakababy wrote:
Rolling Eyes wow i'm not even going to touch that one.

Please do...I've shared my opinions. Nothing's stopping you from sharing yours.


I'm sorry, I just found what you said incredibly offensive.

Why is something automatically wrong with him because he's in love with a mentally retarded girl? Just because she's handicap doesn't make her any less of person and she certainly should be capable of love just like anyone else. He likes her for who she is, i think that's romantic. Not to mention the whole language barrier thing that makes it hard for him to tell that somethings not quite right about her.
pish123c

shakalakababy wrote:
pish123c wrote:
shakalakababy wrote:
Rolling Eyes wow i'm not even going to touch that one.

Please do...I've shared my opinions. Nothing's stopping you from sharing yours.


I'm sorry, I just found what you said incredibly offensive.

Why is something automatically wrong with him because he's in love with a mentally retarded girl? Just because she's handicap doesn't make her any less of person and she certainly should be capable of love just like anyone else. He likes her for who she is, i think that's romantic. Not to mention the whole language barrier thing that makes it hard for him to tell that somethings not quite right about her.

The fact that she has the innocence and skills of a child at times always kind of boggles my mind when I think of their relationship.
jesuiscommejesuis

pish123c wrote:
jesuiscommejesuis wrote:
Salome wrote:
Matthew wrote:
I believe that Salome doesn't know as much about good theatre as everyone thinks, except for what she's learned from others.

I'm not fighting with you over this because you still haven't responded to Dvarg's and my question on the Follies Rehearsal Thread. And also because it's Christmas time.


Matthew..stop being a little snot ass. Piazza is dull..its written well but its dull as paint.
keep your little high school mouth shut and listen for a change.


as for Dvarg he knows i'm going to talk in detail to him about it.



But, the characters! How can you not fall in love with Fabrizio?

Any man who falls in love with a mildly mentally retarded girl is a few fries short of a Happy Meal, if you catch my drift.


What a dick.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Iob_JngT2Y

Who could not fall in love with someone as sweet and charming and everything as this?
Pounce

pish123c wrote:
shakalakababy wrote:
pish123c wrote:
shakalakababy wrote:
Rolling Eyes wow i'm not even going to touch that one.

Please do...I've shared my opinions. Nothing's stopping you from sharing yours.


I'm sorry, I just found what you said incredibly offensive.
Spoiler Alert

Why is something automatically wrong with him because he's in love with a mentally retarded girl? Just because she's handicap doesn't make her any less of person and she certainly should be capable of love just like anyone else. He likes her for who she is, i think that's romantic. Not to mention the whole language barrier thing that makes it hard for him to tell that somethings not quite right about her.

The fact that she has the innocence and skills of a child at times always kind of boggles my mind when I think of their relationship.

You know...I just realized that maybe we should have put in spoiler alerts.

Spoiler Alert
I think mentally she was supposed to be 12, so while not mature she's not exactly a child either. She would need just a few more years. But she's far from being debilitated by her condition.
Patrick

Dear Salome,

Please check your PM's I seriously need help against these high schoolers. And I need your reasoning.

Patrick
SuperKabob

I have to say I think Piazza is boring, but mainly because of the plot: They fall in love and then want to get married and then can't get married and then do anyway.

Yay?
jesuiscommejesuis

SuperKabob wrote:
I have to say I think Piazza is boring, but mainly because of the plot: They fall in love and then want to get married and then can't get married and then do anyway.

Yay?


Oh please, any plot can sound boring when you put it like that.

"There are some people from fairy tales, and this giant comes down and kills a bunch of people and everyones sad but they end up a family"

"This guy comes back from jail and kills a bunch of people who did mean shit to him"

"Some show about some lonely bachelor"

LitP is so much more than what you said.
SuperKabob

Not really. I don't remember ever being more bored seeing a show.
Matthew

I think you're almost as silly as Dawn.
SuperKabob

Every single freaking time I bring up my views on Piazza everyone jumps on me.

Could someone please explain why the show is so damn amazing? (And please not in vague feelings.) I missed the memo.
Matthew

It's a show with a complex story, a classically sweeping score, a marvelous, heart-wrenching yet humorous book and all those combine with stunning visual aspects to create a fantastic show.
SuperKabob

I'll give you the score (I adore it), but I still think the story is quite simple. The one major conflict isn't really that major, and is resolved rather quickly. They plan to get married, but then there's a problem with her age and mental state. So then, the mother comes to her senses and lets them get married anyway. And that's the show. Not to mention I found Clara and Fabrizio to be rather bland characters. *dodges bombs*. I didn't sympathize or identify with either of them at all.

This is my opinion, and I am standing with it.
Matthew

What about all the supporting characters?
Margaret's inner-conflicts? How is she trying to live her life through her daughter?
The Naccerelli family? All of their struggles?

And the beautiful juxtaposition of the new found love of Clara and Fabrizio with all of the depleting relationships of the adults surrounding them. All of this ending in Margaret's realization that we need to "love if we can and be loved".

Clara and Fabrizio are far from flat. Clara might come off as flat, however, due to her state of mind, seeing as at twelve years old, you are what you are: you aren't hiding any emotions or secrets. She's just an innocent. Fabrizio is simple but not flat. He has to please his family and make them happy and then please Clara and make her happy and then Margaret, etc. etc. etc.

Again, the simplicity of Clara and Fabrizio among the complex others is just beautiful.
shakalakababy

^well said

I don't think a story has to have a complex plot to be good. Something as simple as a forbidden romance can be good if it has the right elements.
pish123c

I can't stand Chita Rivera. Kind of odd considering I'm a huge Kander & Ebb and Fosse fan, but whatever.
Salome

I agree Pish.. Its not that I dont like Chita Rivera..but apart from the dancing,she isnt as great as her reputation.
Hated her in Spiderwoman. He best role was Rosie in Bye Bye Birdie, IMO.
Halofreak201

The one show I really can't stand is Oliver.
Little kids singing with cotney accents get really annoying really fast.
I don't get the apeal of the show.
DontDoSadnessxx

^^^ hoooray for ryan!! ^^^
pish123c

Salome wrote:
I agree Pish.. Its not that I dont like Chita Rivera..but apart from the dancing,she isnt as great as her reputation.
Hated her in Spiderwoman. He best role was Rosie in Bye Bye Birdie, IMO.

Yup...I just find her incredibly one dimmensional and past-her-prime to the point that it's obnoxious/annoying.
Alexia Dark

I think Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West, is a grand, but often boring book. I far prefer the musical.

I've fallen in love with Jekyll&Hyde, no matter how bad the staging might be.

Though the POTO movie could've been much better... it was still better than than weird, creepy, boring screech-fest I saw live in Toronto earlier this year. It gave me a headache.
bwayluvor31

Quote:
I think Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West, is a grand, but often boring book. I far prefer the musical.


While I openly admit to loving the musical it murdered the brilliance of the book! Which parts did you find boring???? Shocked

Quote:
I've fallen in love with Jekyll&Hyde, no matter how bad the staging might be.


100% agreed. J&H is amazing... Mr. Green
Salome

Halofreak201 wrote:
The one show I really can't stand is Oliver.
Little kids singing with cotney accents get really annoying really fast.
I don't get the apeal of the show.


uhm.... Its a dark brooding musical based on a Dickens classic.
its not about little kids at all. its about hunbger, murder, the poor trying to survive.
Asha

I really don't have an issue with cross-generational dating.
People think I'm a slut or something because I believe that--But I think that as long as two people love each other (which means that they probably are close in interests and if not worldly experience, maturity) it should work out fine. Chronological age truly doesn't matter to me. Unless it's a pre-pubecent child...which is then...creepy.
Nudelkopf

Asha, I agree with you Smile

I like/d a 34 year old man. Which is kinda creepy, but not so much. Not as 'creepy' as a 17 year old dating someone twice her age.
jesuiscommejesuis

Gay supporters who have issues with pedophiles are hypocritical idiots.
qpidsangel

jesuiscommejesuis wrote:
Gay supporters who have issues with pedophiles are hypocritical idiots.


wha?
Matthew

That sort of came off as saying that all gays are pedophiles.
Che

qpidsangel wrote:
jesuiscommejesuis wrote:
Gay supporters who have issues with pedophiles are hypocritical idiots.


wha?


how is homosexuality equated with pedophilia? i mean...i was sexually active while i was a minor, but not with adults...
qpidsangel

I have a closet of little girls.
shakalakababy

wow, i don't even know what to say.

it's sad that someone can think something so sick and twisted like that. i just kind of lost all respect for you, jesuiscommejesuis
The Very Angry Woman

Matthew wrote:
It's a show with a complex story, a classically sweeping score, a marvelous, heart-wrenching yet humorous book and all those combine with stunning visual aspects to create a fantastic show.


I disagree with all of that.

I saw it twice.

(And I saw Avenue Q twice and didn't think it was all that, either.)

And as you can see, I'm really bored because I'm quoting and replying to this a week later.
my_work_my_name

jesuiscommejesuis wrote:
Gay supporters who have issues with pedophiles are hypocritical idiots.

Some kind of explanation/clarification is in order, I suspect...
jesuiscommejesuis

Hahahah. See, these reactions are exactly what I mean.

Who are you to say that pedophiles are evil, vile human beings? The hole backstory to homosexuality is that you don't CHOOSE to be gay, either you're born with it, or somehow it's just naturally triggered and you can't really do anything about that?

How are pedophiles any "worse" than gays? We are born/end up uncontrollably being attracted to and wanting relationships with people of the same sex; they are born/end up uncontrollably being attracted to adolescents.

How would YOU like to be a fifty year old woman who's interested only in being in a relationship with twelve year old boys? And then everyone out there thinks you're some perverse piece of scum. Isn't that exactly the sort of reactions that we as gay men and women HATE to get and the same sort of discrimination we fight against?

Reactions like
shakalakababy wrote:
wow, i don't even know what to say.

it's sad that someone can think something so sick and twisted like that. i just kind of lost all respect for you, jesuiscommejesuis

...are retarded. You should feel like a hypocritical asshole.



Honestly. Think about it.

(And Matthew, I didn't mean that as all gays having to do with pedophiles if it came off like that)
Flitterbug

jesuiscommejesuis wrote:
How would YOU like to be a fifty year old woman who's interested only in being in a relationship with twelve year old boys? And then everyone out there thinks you're some perverse piece of scum. Isn't that exactly the sort of reactions that we as gay men and women HATE to get and the same sort of discrimination we fight against?


To me, that sounds like the next logical step in your argument is saying that pedophilia is OK. *raises an eyebrow*
Quique

Homosexuality involves consenting adults. Paedophilia doesn't. HUGE difference.

But you do have a point--I feel sorry for those who have a "natural" lust for young people. It must be mentally tormenting. My heart goes out to them....UNTIL they decide to corrupt young girls/ boys for the purpose of SATISFYING THEIR sexual desires.

Besides, unlike paedophilia , homosexuality isn't completely based on SEX. It is a much deeper self identification thing. A gay person does not soley identify himself/herself by their sexual desires. Most homosexuals I've known (including my own twin sis) have described it as almost being born in the wrong body. Pedophiles simply lust over very young skin. They like the link between youth, innocence, and sexual corruption. Homosexuality is merely a natural variation in human sexuality/identification. NOT a so called "fetish" or "alternative lifestyle."
jesuiscommejesuis

Quique wrote:
Homosexuality involves consenting adults. Paedophilia doesn't. HUGE difference.

But you do have a point--I feel sorry for those who have a NATURAL lust for young people. It must be mentally tormenting. My heart goes out to them....UNTIL they decide to corrupt young girls/ boys for the purpose of SATISFYING THEIR sexual desires.

Besides, unlike paedophilia , homosexuality isn't completely based on SEX. It is a much deeper self identification thing. A gay person does not soley identify himself/herself by their sexual desires. Most homosexuals I've known (including my own twin sis) have described it as almost being born in the wrong body. Pedophiles simply lust over very young skin. They like the link between youth, innocence, and sexual corruption. Homosexuality is merely a natural variation in human sexuality/identification. NOT a so called "fetish" or "alternative lifestyle."


Pedophilia is not a fetish, it is merely a term used to describe people who are naturally attracted to (usually exclusively) adolescents and youth. Just like homosexuality is a term used to describe people who are attracted to people of the same sex.

Homosexuality is between two consenting people. Gay teenage guys go out together all the time; even younger people do, too. Look at the heteros, as well - we had plenty of like fourth grade relationships when I was in elementary school, didn't you guys? Pedophilia, as far as relationships go, is a consenting relationship between one adult and one youth. It's foolish to say that youths cannot consent, as they of course can - if you can be held reliable for anything in court, you have enough credit to make decisions for yourself. If somebody is forcing you into a relationship and raping you, then they're forcing you into a relationship and are raping you; this can happen regardless of the ages of either member. Do you think a 25-year old woman is a better fight for her 35-year old boyfriend than a 15-year old boy would be?

I know you're a really nice guy, Quique, so this isn't an attack against you or anything. I'm just saying, it doesn't make sense. Why do we look down on pedophiles? The exact same reason people have looked down at gay people for so long. They're misunderstood, they're looked at as unnatural. It's no different, really.
Flitterbug

*innocent look* Perhaps you should be making the distinction more clearly. What of child-pornography - a common passtime of the pedophile? What of "youths" who are pre-pubsecent - is it still consent when you're under twelve?

The point you're arguing is one small side of a very large whole. Pedophilia as most people understand it is not about consenting relationships between teenagers and much-older persons.
Quique

I look down on pedophiles who take advantage of the underaged for their OWN sexual pleasure.

I myself lost my virginity at the age of 16 to a woman of 31. And no, I was NOT in any way abused. In that sense, I agree. But it is different for others, and there is a fine line between consensual and manipulative sex.
jesuiscommejesuis

Flitterbug wrote:
*innocent look* Perhaps you should be making the distinction more clearly. What of child-pornography - a common passtime of the pedophile? What of "youths" who are pre-pubsecent - is it still consent when you're under twelve?

The point you're arguing is one small side of a very large whole. Pedophilia as most people understand it is not about consenting relationships between teenagers and much-older persons.


And that's the fault of... who? Is it the pedophile's fault that people don't understand and think that they're f*cked up perverts who just want to screw all the little kids they can find? No. These are people who are incapable of falling in love with anyone who's not (as we see it) dramatically younger than they are. Gay people and gay supporters fight the EXACT same fight every day; people who don't understand their love, people who think that what they're doing is morally wrong, people who think they're perverts for loving who they love. Who are we to say that to love like this is wrong? Love is love.

And Quique, there is not a fine line. There is a huge difference between having a consensual relationship and having consensual sex, and being stuck in a relationship where you're forced to have sex. No matter what age, gender, or orientation the persons in question are, there is a huge difference - I don't see how that point could possibly be brought up.
Quique

I meant a fine line in the eyes of pedophiles.

Those bastards will use whatever excuse to justify the corruption of youth.

And gay people DO NOT fight the SAME fight everyday as pedophiles do. How you could say that is a mystery to me. Again, homosexuality is an inborn genetic trait. Pedophiles are more into sexual fetishes involving young flesh and innocence.
Flitterbug

Are you a pedophile m'dear? If not, I can't really see how you can speak for anyone who may happen to suffer from that particular affliction. Falling in love with someone dramatically younger than you are is very different from being attracted only to people who are, or have the appearance of being, young adolescents or children.

For example, a person over fifty may fall in love with a twenty year old. This is not pedophilia. But a person over fifty "falling in love with" a child of twelve is a very different thing. Even teenagers in affairs with much-older persons is often close to or crossing a line that shouldn't be crossed.
I believe that with persons aged between 15-18 these relationships should be judged on a case by case basis... anywhere younger than that, and you're pushing the line of indecency no matter what your intent.

The biggest problem I have with your arguments is that you are generalising. You're completely overlooking everything that may have a negative impact on the explanation of your veiws, and you seem to believe that pedophilia is based purely in love.
There is no love in someone manipulating a teenager into sex just because they have the kind of body that they're attracted to. There is no love in a middle-aged man taking nude photographs of children. Love is very different from sexual attraction.

And if you can only be attracted (or "fall in love with") people who are much younger than you and, say, in a certain age group, what happens when your 'love' grows up? Do you stop loving them when they're no longer a teenager? Do you stop being attracted to them as their body matures?
If that's the case, then was it ever really love in the first place? No. It was infatuation based on their looks and their innocence (or appearance thereof).
Che

not all pedophiles are incapable of loving someone of age. a few are, yes, but it's a very small percentage of them that is actually psychologically "diseased" in that particular way. most of them (and most of them admittedly) just think very young bodies are hot and like to be with them. that is not an affliction of chemical imbalance. it's perversion.

i'll admit that it's a perversion that is often not natural and comes from other experiences or circumstances beyond their own personal control, but it is not something that they cannot overcome or just have to live with and hope they don't get caught. it's something that if they had the willpower they could make themselves get over. they just like it too much to try.
jesuiscommejesuis

Look at you; you're all proving exactly what I'm saying.

I honestly don't know much about pedophilia; I don't know if, say, a 50 year old man and a 12 year old girl get together, if he loses interest after she's like 18, or if the fact that she's still almost 40 years younger and he may be in love with her is fine with him, for example. So, Flitterbug, I can't really answer that question... but thank you for trying to rationalize yourself. I do know, however, that there are people out there who are attracted to and solely interested in children and adolescents.

Similarly, there are men who are only interested in being with other men; there are women who are only interested in being with men.

Pedophilia and homosexuality have the same sort of history; once upon a time, it was all accepted and even normal. I remember a post of Matthew's a while ago - it said something about the Greeks (Romans?) having it right; gay relationships were very common and beautiful back during their reign. Same thing goes for pedophile relationships.

Che wrote:
not all pedophiles are incapable of loving someone of age.

Not all gay people are incapable of loving someone of the opposite sex.

Che wrote:
it's a very small percentage of them that is actually psychologically "diseased" in that particular way.

...Just like those homos. Very few are actually "diseased" and like people of the same sex.

Che wrote:
most of them (and most of them admittedly) just think very young bodies are hot and like to be with them. that is not an affliction of chemical imbalance. it's perversion.

Well, most gay guys are gay because they think other guys are hot. No chemical imbalances or abnormalities are proven, it's just a perversion from the norm.

Che wrote:
i'll admit that it's a perversion that is often not natural and comes from other experiences or circumstances beyond their own personal control, but it is not something that they cannot overcome or just have to live with and hope they don't get caught. it's something that if they had the willpower they could make themselves get over. they just like it too much to try.

Again, just like people say about the gays. Ship them off to Christian Camp so they can be de-gayified. Right?



Quique wrote:
I meant a fine line in the eyes of pedophiles.

Those bastards will use whatever excuse to justify the corruption of youth.

Clearly you have something against pedophiles. I'm not really sure what, but I assure you that not all pedophiles

Quique wrote:
And gay people DO NOT fight the SAME fight everyday as pedophiles do. How you could say that is a mystery to me.

Of course they do... how do they not?

Quique wrote:
Again, homosexuality is an inborn genetic trait.

Yeah, because this is unproven. How do you know the same isn't true for pedophiles?

Quique wrote:
Pedophiles are more into sexual fetishes involving young flesh and innocence.

Some may be involved in corrupting innocence; some are attracted by that innocence and fall in love with people who have it upon their meeting. What makes you think that all pedophiles do is meet kids, f*ck them like crazy, then drop them when they hit puberty? That's not true. Some do that, sure. Then again, some guys just meet girls, take them home for one night, then kick them out the next morning. It's a universal thing.




You know, I never said it's right (pedophilia). I'm really not sure how I'd feel about seeing a 12 year old and a 45-year old in a relationship. But as a gay teen who has had to deal with people telling me that I'm a pervert for falling in love with the types of people I'd fall in love with, who has been told that if I just try harder, I can get over this "disease", who has to deal with people judging me negatively for something I have no control over... I can at least sympathize and realize the absolute hypocrisy which the gay community has regarding pedophiles and pedophilia.
bwayluvor31

Quique wrote:


And gay people DO NOT fight the SAME fight everyday as pedophiles do. How you could say that is a mystery to me. Again, homosexuality is an inborn genetic trait. Pedophiles are more into sexual fetishes involving young flesh and innocence.


Not to mention that you don't exactly see the underage participants in a pedophilic relationship out there fighting (except in special cases). When homosexuals fight for their rights, that fight is based on two people wanting a fully consenual, desired relationship recognized. When pedopihiles fight, it's to gain the right to take advantage of kids, who in many cases are manipulated, even if they don't know it. Many of the sexually abused kids who my mom works with say that they didn't know the adult was doind anything wrong, because they were young enough to believe that the adult's action were natural and expected. Did they consent to the relationship? yes. did they know what they were consenting to? absolutely not. There's a HUGE difference.
Quique

Yeah, and at the risk of coming off heavily here...I was sexually abused as a child by my schizophrenic uncle. Now, I'm aware most pedophiles aren't schizo, but they share the common traits of a total lack of empathy toward victims of sexual abuse, and relish in the pleasure of soft, youthful, innocence. Where does that leave us? But in a total state of confusion where we sort of enjoy the sexual pleasure, and at the same time, abhor the complete lack of understanding of what's going on.
jesuiscommejesuis

Quique wrote:
Now, I'm aware most pedophiles aren't schizo, but they share the common traits of a total lack of empathy toward victims of sexual abuse


That's not true. Why would you lack empathy for somebody you like a lot or love?
Quique

They aren't at the proper intellectual/maturity level to know what's being done to them. They are objects. Sex toys. Exploited and used for the joys of others who are well aware of the type of sexual gratification that these young people have not yet grown to understand.
Flitterbug

A big point of your pedophilia debate, J, is the idea of love. Love must be consensual, otherwise it's not love. Children of the age that pedophiles are attracted to (usually pre-pubescent) cannot comprehend an adult relationship. While most will know the basics of sex they are not mature enough to willingly enter into a relationship that includes sexual acitivites.

Young girls or young boys idolising much-older movie stars or pop stars is not the same as wanting a real relationship with them or understanding what goes into such a relationship.

If you truly had fallen in love with someone that young it would be wiser and easier to just wait until they grew up.

Pedophiles get a bad rap because they are bad news. Having urges and acting on them are two different things. By your arguments for pedophilia you could also argue that rapists and murderers aren't so bad. After all, aren't some of those violent crimes just crimes of passion, of "love"?

I suggest you drop the topic of debate, J. Nobody here is likely to support you unless they themselves are "in love with" (read as: want to have sex with) young adolescents or children.
Bookworm

jesuiscommejesuis, I get what you're talking about. I think what everyone else is saying is that it is possible to love someone 40 years younger, but that child would not be willing yet to engage in sexual activities. If it was love and not perversion, the older one would be willing to wait, which is what people do sometimes. The ones we call "pedophiles" are the ones who have sexual intercourse with said child. You are all right in a way.
Flitterbug

That and the suffix automatically implies sex and fetishes, a pedophile being someone who is sexually attracted to children.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pedophile

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pedophilia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia
       Musicals.Net Forums -> The MdN Social Club Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Page 7 of 7