Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

Speech is expressed not just with the mouth, but with written words, with images, with music, even with certain events. The 1st Amendment guarantees that people can never have their right taken away or restricted to express themselves and their ideas. "Decency" is subjective.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

I don't see how porn lets you express your ideas.

_________________

Well, when your idea is "look at this hawt nekkid person", it seems to do the trick...
[/justsayin]

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Picture.
Savvy?

_________________

MY EYES!

Ok I'm done. Thats a painting. It's not a real person anyhow. It is different (not good) but different.

_________________

And who gets to decide what's different, what's good and what's bad? You? All these things you talk about are subjective--they can be broken down into a matter of degrees and specific instances, all of which will be judged differently by each different person. As long as no person is harmed (and I don't include being offended as being harmed) by this stuff, why should we restrict something like this?

What right would you have to restrict everything YOU personally find offensive from ever being seen by anyone else ever again? If you don't like porn, don't look at it. If you don't like religions other than your own, don't follow them. If you don't like to eat meat, don't eat meat. But don't try to suggest that your interpretation of the world and morality is the supreme one that all others should bend over backwards to follow. The world isn't that black and white.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

Last time I checked a painting was a picture and according to Merriam-Webster's dictionary, pornography is the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement. It doesn't matter if it is a real person anyway. That picture was designed to get a reaction of lust. Lust for the person being depicted, in this case Aphrodite.

_________________

There is no objective standard by which we can say that pornography is immoral. In fact, there is no objective standard by which we can say that anything is immoral. That's why morality does not belong in the law (at least, United States law), in my opinion.

- Kef

_________________
404 sig not found

Fist off, Simon, grow up.


Second, West, if certain things are immoral, who are we to judge? Are any of us without sin? There is only one person that can judge us, and he/she's not on Earth.

Tell me, is someone viewing pornography personally effecting you? Why should you care? If he is hurting no-one and nothing, then let him be. If what he is doing is truly wrong, then he will face his judgment in the afterworld. No-one is forcing him to watch porn, he is making that his choice.

_________________

Wesstarrunner, you believe porn is immoral and should be banned.
There are some dirty hippies that believe that war is immoral and should be banned.
There are religious groups that believe showing any part of a famale's body (ankles, face, hair) is immoral and should be banned.
There are people that think alcohol is immoral and should be banned.
There are people who believe that homosexuality is immoral and should be banned.

Then, to make it more confusing, there are people who believe all those things morally fine, and it would be immoral to ban them.

Whose morals do we use to legislate?

_________________
Listen to the Black Crowes.

I still say we consult the wheel of morality.

Personally, I get my morals from the Bible. That's my choice. It says to "flee from immorality" So if I see something immoral, I get closer and touch it. A better Christian would flee as it says, though. And that is our right as Americans. To flee from something we find immoral. The government gave us the right to avoid what we might think is immoral. They did their part. Now you do yours! recycle!

That's exactly what I do when somebody says "Be careful, that pan is hot!"

_________________
Listen to the Black Crowes.

Well. I see were all of you come from. "Just let them be" could be a good attitude towards people, but I want to help them. I don't want to let them be. Maybe I could help my cause other than forcing it upon people. I could just take my soap box to Wal- Mart and start disturbing the peace...

_________________

Yeah, but that would just be preaching to the choir.

_________________

How? How do I know if the people at Wal-Mart believe what I believe? The fact is that we have one of the biggest Super-Wal-Marts in the area.

Anyhow I see where your coming from and I respect that. I just feel that people need to be pointed in the right direction or else they don't know what the world to do. That's were laws come in...

_________________

Pointing people in the right direction is fine. Saying, "Hey man, why not do this instead?" is perfectly reasonable. Give them all the reasons you think so. And you might find a lot of people listen to you.

But once you start forcing people to do certain things, you'll run into problems. Adults don't want babysitters. They want to make choices for themselves. They want to be in charge of their own lives and their own destinies and develop their own sense of morals. You interfere with that, and people are going to get very angry. They'll start shouting "Who made you the ?"

And is it really "morality" if the only reason you don't do something is because "it's against the law." Sounds like that's missing the point.

_________________
Listen to the Black Crowes.

You want to help fix what some people don't see as a problem. This is where the argument lays. You see something as immoral, but not EVERYONE sees it as immoral. You want to ban things in the name of "decency," but everyone's concept of what's decent and what isn't differs from person to person. Amorican is right--you have the right to suggest to people an alternative to what they perceive to be either correct or the only way. But they should have just as much a right to not listen, not obey, and even tell you off for it.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

Kef hit the nail right on the head with this one. We cannot enforce standards of law on issues that are objective.

I've seen a lot of good reaction in this thread by Kef and others which seems to mirror mine. Amorican and PianoMan made really good points right there.

_________________

Like I said. I see were your coming from, and you are starting to convince me. I see that you can't force people. Whenever you hear something you don't agree with on this forum you start a heated discussion and a few of you flame. If the rest of the world is half as heated as you guys, I've got a problem trying to enforce these morals on people.

Now since many of our laws in the U.S. are based on religious laws (like killing and not stealing) do you think it's wrong to showcase pieces of history that many of our laws are derived from (that happens to have religious connection) in publicly owned places. I personally don't as long as it says that is is a piece of our law's history or something to that effect.

_________________

Actually, our laws are based on English Common Law, which grew out of Roman law and Anglo-Saxon traditions. You don't need any kind of higher power to tell you that it's in your best interest if everyone agrees not to kill each other or steal or whatever. Especially if you don't believe in an afterlife and this life is all you have.

You're getting the right idea. If you can't get people to agree that your morals are right, you're not gonna be able to force them. People are stubborn. If you push them, they push back. The only way to successfully impose your view on others is to somehow convince people it's in their best interests, either legitimately (which is incredibly hard) or through trickery (which is much easier but wrong). It's a good idea to accept that this is the earth, not heaven, and things will never be perfect here, ever. Best not to compromise your own morality through forcing and through trickery, which will always ultimately backfire, but just do the best you can and if no one listens, hey, at least you did your part.

_________________
ATTN: LOWER BOARD USERS HAVE MOVED TO ANOTHER FORUM. COME JOIN THE FUN!

I assume you are referring to The 10 Commandments being displayed, in particular at courthouses. I don't have a problem with it. I don't see how it infringes upon anybody's civil liberties. It's not like the judge is going to sentence you to prison for not keeping the sabbath holy. In terms of the history of law, the 10 Commandments, whether you believe they were written by God or not, have an important historical place. Even if they are placed there under a religious context, like the judge is a devout Christian and he wants his courthouse to reflect that, I would just look at them for their historical significance, or maybe even that it might be a nice piece of artwork.
I also have similar views on Nativity scenes being put in a town square, and other such things. I'm not sure why the ACLU wastes their time with things like that.

_________________
Listen to the Black Crowes.

I know this is from a little while ago, but I just wanna add some stuff



No one ever wants to become evil, or develop an addiction, or go insane, but it can happen because, over time, you trick yourself into thinking a different way. You gradually make connections and eventually develop a false logic. Similar to soem stuff said before, if you make one law restricting freedom, it makes the next one easier - "A is a freedom but it's being restricted. B is also a freedom, similar to the way A was. Therefore, B can be restricted." Everyone has the intention to do good, but each time so-and-so restricts another freedom, they skew their logic a bit more so that they think what they're doing is right. you don't want to create a tyranny, but going down what seems like a logical path could cause you to do so.

It's what I personally consider insanity - probably not what insanity actually is, but I think it fits well - and it obviously has different degrees of severeness. Everyone goes through it, probably multiple times a day, and it's hard not to fall victim to it, 'cause it seems so logical, maybe just for a minute, or maybe a lifetime. It can probably be attributed to almost every problem on Earth, though, one way or another - it makes sense that it would.

Ok, I'm done with my little tangent. It just got me thinking and I wanted a place to get it out. I tend to do that when I'm tried. So, back on track.

No problem with any religious things being put up in publicly owned buildings as long as they have relevance to our law today. I actually wouldn't care if it went further than that, but a secular society's gotta do what a secular society's gotta do I guess.

_________________

Just because certain laws presented in a religion coincide with the laws written by a government doesn't mean that the secular was derived from the religious. The laws you speak of--not killing or stealing--can be derived to be beneficial in a wholly secular fashion. We don't need a specific religion (or worse yet, a specific interpretation of a specific religion) reiterating the same laws when they work just fine outside a religious context. If you use your religious beliefs to continue to support said laws, then there's nothing wrong with that...but don't delude yourself into thinking that the laws are exclusively religious in nature and origin.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

I don't know if I can totally agree with that... seems like the most non-religious atheistic people put no value on life, believing that we are nothing more than just little organic 'machines' in a huge universe and there really is not 'harm' that can be done, because nothing matters. Even 'harm' can be considered subjective... like, is 'physical harm' wrong? 'Emotional harm'?

_________________

True, but obviously things would run much less smoothly if people just ran around killin' and stealin' from each other all the time.

_________________
So, so you think you can tell Heaven from Hell, blue skies from pain. Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail? A smile from a veil? Do you think you can tell?

Okay then, how can you define 'running smoothly' from a totally secular, scientific-only perspective? Scientifically, what would make hurting someone 'wrong', when pain is just another chemical reaction in the brain? If it's true that people have no more meaning than a bunch of atoms floating around, then anything that happens just happens, and there is no right or wrong.

_________________

Just because people are complex chemical systems doesn't mean they don't have a sense of self preservation and the wish to live a full and happy life. Forming societies in which there's an all-around cessation of hostility has been a big positive for humanity because everyone would rather live than have the freedom to kill if it means being killed. It doesn't take religion to figure that out. The golden rule was stated in other forms by both religious and non-religious philosophers even before the time of Christ. Any human society anywhere that isn't in a complete meltdown is based on that principle.

_________________
ATTN: LOWER BOARD USERS HAVE MOVED TO ANOTHER FORUM. COME JOIN THE FUN!

Not true.


That is true, but the only view of the universe I really have is through the eyes of one of these little organic machines. So to me, these machines are pretty darn important. They have great value. Life has great value.

.
I think the ideas of "right" and "wrong" are a completely human invention. But as humans, these are the rules we choose to live by. In the grand scheme of the universe, it may not matter, but it does matter to us because we only live in the tiny part of the universe that encompasses our lives. The ideas of right and wrong are important to us because we say so, and that's all that really matters.

What do I believe? This is the only life any of us will ever have. So we should make it as good as possible for as many as possible. Not because there is a universal "right" and "wrong", but because we choose it to be so.

But that's just one atheist hippie's opinion.

_________________
Listen to the Black Crowes.

I'm sure I've gone through this elsewhere in these forums, but I'll reiterate it again here:

When human societies were first forming, in the early stages of the development of the human species, we learned that we survive a heck of a lot better working as a group as opposed to working as individuals. Obviously, a group has to have trust in its individual components for the whole to function properly. If a person steals, it hurts the group. If a person kills, it hurts the group. Physical harm hurts the group, which makes it harder for the group to survive.

That at least covers the most basic, physiological needs. Maslow shows us that there's more to the needs of humans, though, than the physiological. Ironically, not only are many of the needs created on the upper tiers of his Heirarchy of Needs (e.g. belonging, respect of others) a direct byproduct of the need to operate as a group to more adequately meet the needs of the first tier and most of the second tier, but they also can be met through further cooperation within the very group that instigated them.

It's interesting that religion is nowhere to be found on Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs. That isn't to imply that it isn't needed by humans (after all, this guy Maslow and his ideas should be placed under the same amount of scrutiny as anyone and anything else--he's a human, and therefore not without flaws); it simply implies that it isn't needed for a rational, secular explanation of the needs of people, and how we can see that laws governing the actions of the group can be derived wholly from a secular standpoint for these highly secular needs.

I don't mind that people have religion--I'm a spiritual person myself (though I follow no organized religion). I just have some issues when people imply that morality is exclusive to religion...more specifically, to their religion...and even more specifically, to their interpretation of their religion. I'd challenge any dogmatic person who acts this way to tell someone of another faith (e.g. Ghandi, the Dalai Lama, or atheistic scientists that research medicine to benefit mankind, if you are a Christian) that they are (or were, as in the case of the late Ghandi) immoral.

People prove every single day that they don't need religion to be moral. Likewise, other people prove every single day that religion doesn't deter them from being immoral. Just open your eyes and meet some folks, be they everyday Joe Atheists or genocidal Bob Enyarts.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!