I am a musician, and an American. Before I induce vomiting or you think I'm going to spew some flag waving Toby Keith bullshit I realise that we have had some dark days in the past 30 years. I was doing some research on a VH1 movie called "Warning: Parental Advisory" about the PMRC Hearings and came across these 2 priceless relics: http://www.vh1.com/shows/series/movies_that_rock/warning/frank_speaks2.jhtml http://www.vh1.com/shows/series/movies_that_rock/warning/artists_speak.jhtml This was in a way a victory for the first amendment. But the battle isn't over the USA Patriot act has also done a good job on the Bill of Rights. Peace Out, Rev J
Part of the reason that I posted those links is because I've talked to alot of kids your age and perhaps a little older that have no idea this happened. Those who don't know the past are damned to repeat it. Keep the memory of this event alive. Peace Out, Rev J
I don't like buzzwords like "legislating morality." Lots of our laws are based on morals, such as laws against killing and stealing.
yeah, see... i don't consider 'legislating morality' to be a buzzword. i seldom read the phrase or hear it used. while not killing(for instance) is certainly classifiable as a moral, these aren't the morals i was referring to. in this context, i was referring to the whole censorship ordeal, which is very much an instance of conservative-christians forcing their will on everyone else. here's a thought... does legality imply morality?
Not one bit. So you're really only against legislating a certain kind of morality? Unless you can justify prohibiting murder without using ethical premises. I think you can. Trouble is you can "justify" a lot of things.
Everything is permitted there is no flat morality, if you do something to benefit someone else it also must benefit you in some way, be it illusionary or otherwise.
morality is subjective. murder, for instance, is something the vast majority of people are on the same side about, and have been for a very long time. unless, of course, it pertains to eliminating 'infidel' throngs and what not. further, i think that is an important concept for humanity to enforce. but this isn't really ever an issue when 'morality' is discussed. 'morality' generally (in my own observations) consists of fringe groups attempting to impose their own personal morals (abortions are bad, the word 'fuck' is reprehensible, etc.) on the rest of society rather than let an individual operate on his or her own principles.
words are magnificent because they are flexible while remaining constant. To paint over a word with the narrow brush of your personal experience (anecdotal evidence) is to do them a horrific injustice.
Murder being illegal is not so because it is a moral issue, (some may dissagree) but because society would fall apart were it an acceptible occurance. The same is true for stealing, rape, vandilism, and identity theft. These are all things that harm others, and benifit the criminal. While these things may (depending on who you talk to) be immoral, they are illegal not because of this fact, but for the purpose of keeping society from crumbling into nothing. Even a pack of wolves stick together and have enough sense not to eat each other, for it would be counter productive. They have no need for the religious to tell them how to live, common sense dictates that. When groups of people start demanding that others live at a standard equal to theirs is when problems arise. The standard I refer to is not at all similar to that of the wolves, but a subjective one set by their imaginary friend. The subjective standard, that does not destroy society is one that must not be set by law, for this is the point where one of the imaginary friends has power over all the others though he himself is still imaginary and has no real knowlege of anything. When faced with the subjective standard, everyone must be allowed to apply their own.
When I was a freshman in high school we talked about this all the time. Lose not all hope, some young people still got some shit going on in their head
so you're suggesting i somehow manipulated some words to express and support my view that morality is purely subjective?
No, you're using morality in a super select way, so that if were removed all "legistaleted morality" according to you, we'd still have laws against killing, raping, and stealing.
