Subject:
|
Re: I think I'm going to puke....
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 22 Jun 2005 15:09:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1457 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote:
| |
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.
|
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 animals, fine, it’s nobody’s business, but it isn’t incumbent upon the
governement to recognize such unions.
| |
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?
|
Well, because they aren’t mature enough to handle it. And what exactly is so
GOOO about the “real world” that we are in such a hurry to show them? My hope
is that children grow up, not to accept the real world, but to change it for
the better.
| |
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.
|
For good reason. A child’s psyche is a delicate thing, and shouldn’t be
burdened with matters for which it isn’t ready or capable to handle. This is
why pedophiles are so completely destructive and evil.
| |
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?
|
It’s simply a perversion.
JOHN
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: I think I'm going to puke....
|
| (...) 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 (...) (19 years ago, 13-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
|
|
|
|
