Re: Evolution in Cartoons

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Ruby Rohrlich: "Re: Patriarchy and matriarchy"
• Previous message: Jim Moore: "Patriarchy and matriarchy"
• Maybe in reply to: Andrew Petto: "Evolution in Cartoons"
• Next in thread: Tanned, Rested, & Ready for 2000: "Re: Evolution in Cartoons"

The fact that you are worried about a fictional cartoon scares me. If
fiction cannot go beyond the limitations of reality then it isn't fiction.
While I can sympathize if not agree with those opposed to programs such as
MOM, I cannot with those who are opposing directly or indirectly at opposing
fictional programs that claim to be nothing more than fictional programs.
This is censorship and getting to be a lot like Orwell's 1984. Granted as a
parent you may be concerned that your child is getting an erroneous view of
life, but then if you haven't been teaching your children that TV is not
reality that is where the problem exists not in the medium.

At 09:12 AM 03/17/96 CDT, Andrew Petto wrote:

>Well, give Lee and co. a little credit for trying, but really...to say we've
>evolved differently, but that the difference does not add up to racial
variation
>(which most of us assume is an degree of variation LESS than that associated
>with evolving new lineages).... Well, this scares me a little.

• Next message: Ruby Rohrlich: "Re: Patriarchy and matriarchy"
• Previous message: Jim Moore: "Patriarchy and matriarchy"
• Maybe in reply to: Andrew Petto: "Evolution in Cartoons"
• Next in thread: Tanned, Rested, & Ready for 2000: "Re: Evolution in Cartoons"