Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (
More info?)
Thus spake Mean_Chlorine <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk>, Tue, 15 Mar
2005 23:43:29 +0100, Anno Domini:
>Thusly Nostromo <nostromo@spamfree.net.au> Spake Unto All:
>
>>>What's subjective about crime?
>>
>>I was talking about the decline of 'civilisation' over the past 50-60 years
>>or so.
>
>Well, it depends on what you mean by civilzation. 60 years ago the
>world was just emerging from the most devastating war off all time, a
>war in which even the allies were intentionally fire-bombing civilan
>population centers, with the express intention of killing civilians,
>and the Soviet troops were ordered to rape all german women they
>found.
>And those were the *good guys* of that war.
>
>50 years ago the US was segregated, with discrimination against
>blacks. The cold war was revving up, with Soviet detonating its first
>nuclear bomb, and Britain announcing nuclear capability.
>
>And, perhaps more relevant to the issue, throughout the west there was
>an uproar and a backlash over the way negro music, a primitive hybrid
>music known as 'rock', was corrupting the youth and leading to crime
>and vice.
I can find just as many examples, both for & against, today. The specifics
belie the underlying family & community values of which I'm talking about -
it all starts at home really. And then there's the spiritual climate (for
want of a better word) which has changed significantly (in many ways for the
worse) in the last 20-30 years. And yes, being 40, & having lived in both a
Socialist/Communist country AND capitalist democracy I have context.
>>>TV has informed the public, yes.
>>
>>Wow! TV is good for us?
>
>In the sense that humans now are more educated than any time in
>history, all thanks to TV, yes, sure.
>The world of 1955 seemed simpler and smaller than the world of 2005,
>and much, perhaps most, of the difference is due to television.
And I could also rant on for pages about the evils of TV, but I
won't...(don't get me wrong - I'm a couch potato through & through ;-)
>>>So your position really is that there is too much freedom in society?
>>>That a healthy dose of oppression is what's needed?
>>>Basically, that there's no problem with our civilization that a bit of
>>>Saddam couldn't fix?
>>
>>Only the 1st part. You made up the last 2 sentences & they're *your* words
>>out of *your* e-mouth, NOT mine ;-p
>
>The others follow from the first. If you say there is such a thing as
>too much freedom, then you advocate oppression. The taking away of
>freedom is.
No, I'm saying there are many things we can't *do* in a civilized society -
why should we be able to *say* anything then? The problem here is that stick
& stones can break ones but WORDS are what really gets Evil going! Words
have *far* more power than actions in actual fact. They are the principal
way we communicate. Why should we say it's ok to have an opinion about
public nudity yet pass a law that locks you up if you actually do it?
I guess I'm throwing a spanner in the works here, but it's an important
distinction to me, coming from a 'religious' (I use that term *very* loosely
;-) background & belief system in which God incarnate calls himself The
Word. Perhaps it's the inconsistencies/hypocrisies in our society which irk
me the most. Just some food for thought...
>>I think things are a *lot* more individual-oriented. The whole "I'm the
>>centre of the universe" thing & each man for himself is prevalent (&
>>possible) today as it never has been throughout history. Which is a sad
>>thing imo.
>
>I see this a result of information. If you see that the religion
>you've been taught is just one of many, and that all of them have
>obvious strengths and weaknesses, you're unlikely to go to war for it.
>
>>>Here's a very good article you might want to read:
>>>http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
>>
>>Page down. Will try again later.
>
>Hmmm... The link works for me. Do read it, it's very good.
Yeah, just a glitch - worked fine 2nd time.
My comments in brief are: what he says is very 'chic' & really just uncommon
sense. What he doesn't address is how someone knows what concepts to
challenge & which to accept. He just says "challenge everything in your head
but speak very little or nothing". Great if you like to be unhinged or live
in a state of mental anarchy, but not so great if you want to live (& to
some degree fit) in society.
>>I oppress no minorities.
>
>I see. So, what expressions presently free to express would you ban,
>specifically?
See above. As I've said before, I like to play devil's advocate. I can't
think of any expressions I would ban if I had the power, but many as an
individual that I *would* want banned. What I want doesn't make it right &
if I head the power I'd be very careful with it. I do recognise it's a short
trip from Woodstock to 1984 you know ;-)
>>rumour-mongering. But we're talking about social issues here, not
>>individuals.
>
>Society is just a big bunch of individuals. Anyone who tells you
>otherwise is trying to manipulate you into behaving in their best
>interests, but against yours.
>In fact, you should always be suspicious whenever anyone appeals to
>abstractions.
Yes & no. 'Society' can have a group conscience & direction & ideas which no
individual holds all on their own (kinda like government policies). It can
be greater than the sum of its part, or much lesser.
>>Basically, I reserve the right to point out what's wrong with
>>society while offering no solutions & keeping a healthy distance the from
>>secular world. It's a world (re)view thing
>
>It's much the same for me, but my fundamental moral compass is "every
>persons freedom is infinite, unless where it impinges on another
>persons equally infinite freedom".
I would agree with that in general terms, but caution against the hedonistic
mindset of "if it feels good & it's not hurting anyone it's ok". That's
probably a large part of how we got from post-war conservativism, to the
sexual revolution of the 60s, through to the apathy & individualism I see
prevalent today. We'd all like to think we're the centre of the Universe,
though we're not even the centre of the solar system
>For instance, I personally find nazis to be violent, stupid, incapable
>of arguing their way out of a wet paper bag, and basically embodying
>everything I dislike, but I would still give them freedom to freely
>express their stupidity in public.
And if they went from redneck racist minority to genocidal majority again?
....
>I wouldn't, however, necessarily give them permission to ACT on their
>stupid ideas, as that would likely mean that someone else's, quite
>possibly my, freedom was impinged.
The sad fact of a fallen world (yes, in my world view, of course
is that
someone's freedom *always* gets impinged, because people are never in
agreement & voters are the ones who make laws ultimately. I certainly
remember how farmers & gun-nuts in Aus received the gun abolition a few
years back. I know how a lot of women feel about anti-abortion laws. I know
how a cop on the street feels about me calling him a pig. Freedom of
expression carries with it defamation/libel laws in most countries. And it's
a short trip in some ppl's minds from freedom of expression to actual
freedom to act. Why can't pedophiles have their own chat groups & web sites
free from fear of reprisals? Why shouldn't I have a website on how to make
bombs from common household ingredients? Why can't murderers make money from
publishing their stories? Etc, etc, etc. Look forward to your reply (as
always ;-).
--
Replace 'spamfree' with the other word for 'maze' to reply via email.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram