Subject:
|
Re: I think I'm going to puke....
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 13 Jun 2005 14:58:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2093 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
It’s all how you look at it. The Right is against the Left redefining
marriage.
|
Not to steer it in a totally different direction, but I still just don’t get
that. It’s not the act redefining that you object to (or, it SHOULDN’T be).
Redefining “who’s allowed to vote” or “which race can use this bathroom” I’ll
hope you’ll agree were things that required redefining because they infringed on
people’s rights. Same for the current laws about marriage. It’s infringing on
people’s rights, therefore it MUST be changed. Whether you call it “marriage” or
not should be totally irrelevant. If we’re choosing “the sanctity of a word”
over the rights of a citizen, that’s absolutely awful IMHO. The rights of our
citizens come first.
| |
| |
Suddenly people’s closetted lives are being exposed, and it’s seen as
commonplace. How often does the topic of “porn” come up in casual
conversation nowadays versus 30 years ago?
|
Yes. And why is this a good thing? It’s as if anything “private” is now a
bad thing.
|
It’s good insofar as it’s normal to an extent. Sex is normal and shouldn’t be
shunned or treated as contraband. Doing so does often lead to people feeling
like they can’t or shouldn’t have sex, be gay, or whatever.
What I think *is* missing is an acceptable definition for a moral boundary. I
think the topics are fine, but I’d still like to see a strong adherence to
morality that often gets dropped by the wayside. Probably because in order to
*get* to the point of discussing taboo subjects, people had to already overcome
their moral sense.
I have a hunch that as freedom of information (mostly the Internet) continues,
morals will re-emerge (take South Park for example, which is suprisingly moral
considering its content). But it’ll take some time before it settles to any sort
of cultural norm.
| |
| |
How much do kids see now versus then?
|
Exactly. And how does a kid continue to be a kid after having been exposed
to such mature subjects? Pandora’s box, and there goes childhood.
|
Heh, and what’s wrong with that?
I find it interesting how much value people often put on inexperience (often
referred to as “innocence” in children). What’s so great about having kids who
aren’t exposed to the real world?
For instance, what is it that you REALLY object to, or SHOULD object to if a
child swears versus an adult? Are they hurting anyone? They’re not even using
the Lord’s name in vain or anything. What is it that’s truly bad about it?
I think it’s an instinctive desire to see children act as children. Adults
generally swear because they’re genuinely upset or expressive about a situation.
A child usually can’t actually grasp all the aspects of that same situation, and
so it bothers us to think that *their* expressions of frustration (or whatever)
are somehow valid *because* of their inexperience. But really, that’s just an
instinctive reaction-- I don’t think there’s any actual moral reason for it.
I think it’s similar to why horror movies often use children (or symbols of
childhood) to produce a “freaky” effect. Seeing a child who’s somehow as
experienced (or moreso) than an adult is very strange and unsettling to us,
enhancing the “creepy” factor. But when all is said and done, is there anything
actually wrong with having experienced children?
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: I think I'm going to puke....
|
| (...) Every person has the right to choose one person of the opposite sex for marriage and have that union recognized by the government. The exact same right for everyone. If one choses a same-sex partner, or 3 partners, or any variety of farm (...) (19 years ago, 22-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: I think I'm going to puke....
|
| (...) It's all how you look at it. The Right is against the Left redefining marriage. (...) Mainly the Right is against government funding for such research. Same with abortion. But yes, there is a moral component to it as well. (...) Prostitution, (...) (19 years ago, 10-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
65 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
