Jeff Ream Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 An attempt at self-expression. Maybe a cigar is just a cigar, to quote Freud. Some of this sounds like the people who protested and removed Harry Potter books from school libraries because they read some Satanic sub-text into it, when the kids just thought they were good books. Some things in life just need to be taken at face value, not everything has a deep, dark immoral sub-text behind it. can you tell DCI designers and GE judges that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Some of her work! :throwupen: :throwupen: :throwupen: :throwupen: :throwupen: :throwupen: :throwupen: :throwupen: great. flag ideas. we're going to hell! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted March 21, 2014 Author Share Posted March 21, 2014 great. flag ideas. we're going to hell! Hmmmm..... If I remember correctly you work with a high school drum line. Try telling your head band director that you know this great artist named Millie Brown and you want her to design the winter drum line uniforms; and you also want to invite her to do a clinic on how to create the designs. You may not be going to hell for that, but let's see if you still have the drum line gig after the clinic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted March 21, 2014 Author Share Posted March 21, 2014 In the same way that I Think what I do is not morally deprave, in the same way you believe what you do is not morally depraved... so what? We each have our own subjective morals and most of us get to live them out freely. Some of us do not because of laws but there is nothing we can do to change what a person believes is morally right or wrong. And I don't think its our business to change what someone believes to be is morally wrong, we are not thought police. Now you'll say... oh we have laws!! We create laws not to impose a moral code on other people, but basically we have laws to protect us from other people's "moral code" so to speak. It may be moral for someone to kill me but I do not want to be killed so we make a law saying someone can't kill me even if you feel it is morally justified. (If i did consent to wanting to die it would be euthanasia a practice that is seen as moral and immoral by many people) We can live freely to the point that we do not "harm" (in its most general usage) others and that we only personally engage in things that we implicitly or explicitly consent to (again very generally). But morally we are free to believe, (though not always practice), whatever subjective morals we would like! (feel free to use the same logic to the 'organization'). Ok; using the ‘moral code law’ aspect as a basis for your position of harm or no harm to children: What you must contend then is that the lyrics and performance behavior of not only Gaga, but Lil Kim, N.W.A, 50 cent, 2 Live Crew, Lil Wayne, Cam’ron, Khia, are not ‘harmful’ to children. While their recordings and videos may contain Explicit Lyric Labels, those recordings and videos certainly can be legally sold to minors even without parental consent. So, because there is no moral code law against selling them to minors, one must thus contend that no ‘harm’ is done to the kids when they purchase, watch, and listen to those performers. Or…. is it possible that while things may be legal in a free society, they may also still be very harmful; not only to kids, but also to adults who freely partake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted March 21, 2014 Author Share Posted March 21, 2014 but you arent raging against them. you're just raging about the fact someone may fake puke on the field. No, I am raging against the incremental social acceptance of abhorrent behaviors by so called artists in in the name of ‘freedom’. I am glad that we live in a free society, but the more freedom one has the more personal responsibility is required of that person; which apparently is a concept that is also degenerating in our culture. And my concern is that this incremental acceptance without a sense of responsibility may, I said may have an impact on DCI and WGI as more and more perception is reality, truth is relative ‘artists’ become a part of marching art show concepts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 (edited) Ok; using the moral code law aspect as a basis for your position of harm or no harm to children: What you must contend then is that the lyrics and performance behavior of not only Gaga, but Lil Kim, N.W.A, 50 cent, 2 Live Crew, Lil Wayne, Camron, Khia, are not harmful to children. While their recordings and videos may contain Explicit Lyric Labels, those recordings and videos certainly can be legally sold to minors even without parental consent. So, because there is no moral code law against selling them to minors, one must thus contend that no harm is done to the kids when they purchase, watch, and listen to those performers. Or. is it possible that while things may be legal in a free society, they may also still be very harmful; not only to kids, but also to adults who freely partake.Because there isn't a law against selling explicit music to minors does not in any way imply there is no harm. Why would you assume or "contend" this? It's an erroneous leap in logic. Adultery is pretty emotionally harmful to someone but it's perfectly legal in many places (not all, though I doubt you'll get arrested for it) your example proves my point that laws do not impose morals on people and they are just as subjective as the morals they spring from. Our personal morals are believed without compromise, however laws must pass through social judgement and scrutiny, which makes them subjective, and they change all the time because of that. Edited March 21, 2014 by charlie1223 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 (edited) No, I am raging against the incremental social acceptance of abhorrent behaviors by so called artists in in the name of freedom. I am glad that we live in a free society, but the more freedom one has the more personal responsibility is required of that person; which apparently is a concept that is also degenerating in our culture. And my concern is that this incremental acceptance without a sense of responsibility may, I said may have an impact on DCI and WGI as more and more perception is reality, truth is relative artists become a part of marching art show concepts. That's fine that you believe that. However straight question. Do you think that because you hold this moral code that you are "more moral/righteous" than someone who has a different moral code? Edited March 21, 2014 by charlie1223 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fsubone Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 No, I am raging against the incremental social acceptance of abhorrent behaviors by so called artists in in the name of ‘freedom’. I am glad that we live in a free society, but the more freedom one has the more personal responsibility is required of that person; which apparently is a concept that is also degenerating in our culture. And my concern is that this incremental acceptance without a sense of responsibility may, I said may have an impact on DCI and WGI as more and more perception is reality, truth is relative ‘artists’ become a part of marching art show concepts. So, what about the examples brought up form shows in the 70s and 80s. Were those incremental acceptances of abhorrent behavior by the "artists" invading the marching arts? Or my example of Alice Cooper being "killed" multiple times in each of his rock concerts over the last 40~ years. Has his act led to a spike in Satanic cults and people putting murder and death into their shows? (Side note, one winter guard did do a fake hanging in the mid-90s.) Or is it that people can choose to make their own decisions in life, and don't base everything off of what they see on TV or hear on the radio? Your assumption seems to be that all DCI designers are mindless robots with no thought process besides what they see on TV, and they have to copy it. Not that they're free thinking individuals that think long and hard about bringing a concept onto the field that will present well to the members, audience, and judging community. They're not these perverted beings having depraved orgies like Caligula, they're generally great people. Give them some credit. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted March 21, 2014 Author Share Posted March 21, 2014 Because there isn't a law against selling explicit music to minors does not in any way imply there is no harm. Why would you assume or "contend" this? It's an erroneous leap in logic. Adultery is pretty emotionally harmful to someone but it's perfectly legal in many places (not all, though I doubt you'll get arrested for it) your example proves my point that laws do not impose morals on people and they are just as subjective as the morals they spring from. Our personal morals are believed without compromise, however laws must pass through social judgement and scrutiny, which makes them subjective, and they change all the time because of that. What would you say to someone who disagrees with you on performance art that you consider to be 'harmful' to kids, and the other person considers it as nothing more than nonthreatening artistic freedom?... especially if it were someone who was going into the realm of becoming a marching arts designer in BOA, WGI, and DCI. By the way, (and no kidding here) I actually had a PHD Sociology Professor in college who maintained that prostitution and adultery are actually helpful, not harmful, to the social construct of marriage; and he, as a sociology expert, gave lectures on why he contends that is the case. What would you say to that professor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted March 21, 2014 Author Share Posted March 21, 2014 That's fine that you believe that. However straight question. Do you think that because you hold this moral code that you are "more moral/righteous" than someone who has a different moral code? There are various levels, so it depends. A person at the level who holds to the moral code of the, um, the 'organization', Yes, by all means I am saying that my moral code certainly is far, far superior. A person at the level who thinks flatulence jokes are funny and ok to place in kids films; I will not say that my code is superior at all. And there is a sliding scale between those two end-cap levels. Without typing a lengthy dissertation, does that answer your question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts