Stu Posted March 21, 2014 Author Share Posted March 21, 2014 "Requiring people to adhere to the personal responsability of engaging in the freedom..." What does this even mean? The opposite of requiring is allowing; and true allowing without any sense of requiring at all means we have to allow anarchy to unfold. So to keep people in check within the context of freedom, different entities apart from the Government must set up acceptable and unacceptable rules and regulations on behavior which is being engaged at their establishment or under their banner; and the government should step in when people harm one another. The thing is that as societies move into the future, those rules and regulations generated by those entities tend to become more, and more, and more relaxed in the name of anything goes freedom instead of standing firm on the responsibly of freedom. Thus, things like the culture of art which moves forward without some sense of unified moral purpose, and the artists are allowed to engage in an anything goes view of artistic freedom, that culture will always ‘regress’ not ‘progress’. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seen-it-all Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Yes I advocate marching arts organizations creating rules and regulations which install limits on what show designs people can do, and Yes I advocate marching arts organizations creating some sort of structure to watch over everything and keep people in line with those rules and regulations. So in you're zeal to ensure that the activity steers clear of going down the slippery slope of eventual (if incremental) depravity, you're in favor of creating some sort of organization-wide regulations and/or watch dog entity to actually police the content of what designers put on the field, which some would argue is nothing more than a slippery slope to all-out censorship. Hey, it might only be incremental, but you never know where that kind of thing could lead. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted March 21, 2014 Author Share Posted March 21, 2014 That's the most important thing. Freedom of speech and expression means that you can do what you want as long as it does not cause harm to others, even if people shouldn't admire the behavior. Heck, burning the American Flag is protected under the Constitution, but you'd be hard pressed to find a large number of people who think it's an admirable behavior that should become part of society. The allowance for freedom of speech only applies to the Federal Government; again the first amendment begins with the words, “Congress shall make no law…” This means that all other entities certainly can curtail speech as much as they desire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted March 21, 2014 Author Share Posted March 21, 2014 So in you're zeal to ensure that the activity steers clear of going down the slippery slope of eventual (if incremental) depravity, you're in favor of creating some sort of organization-wide regulations and/or watch dog entity to actually police the content of what designers put on the field, which some would argue is nothing more than a slippery slope to all-out censorship. Hey, it might only be incremental, but you never know where that kind of thing could lead. Yes!!!! I am in favor of DCI, WGI, BOA, etc… creating some sort of organization-wide regulations and/or watch dog entity within their respective organizations to actually police the content of what designers put on the field; mainly because these organizations are considered 'youth' activities. Moreover, the mods have the right to censor DCP in the same manner even though most of us who engage in posting are adults!!!!! Again, the only entity in the United States which is prohibited from all out censorship is the Federal Government; all other entities can, and should, censor words and behaviors; especially those which target youth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 (edited) The opposite of requiring is allowing; and true allowing without any sense of requiring at all means we have to allow anarchy to unfold. So to keep people in check within the context of freedom, different entities apart from the Government must set up acceptable and unacceptable rules and regulations on behavior which is being engaged at their establishment or under their banner; and the government should step in when people harm one another. %2Are we not allowed to break the law? Is there any law in the world that has never been broken? Laws are broken because we are allowed to break them. In the movie "minority report" there are these beings called precogs that can look into the future and the police use this information to arrest people even before they committ a crime. In this sci-fi movie society is not allowed to break the law because they are never given the opportunity to do so. In our society you, for better or worse, can't be stopped before you break a law. (Planning to kill someone is against the law but you can't arrest someone before they actually decided to plan ie. before they actually break the law). So your assessment that says "true allowing" must mean anarchy is not correct since our society allows you to break the law but we are not in anarchy (but there are consequences if you decide to break the law).But the reality is the decision to break the law is our own and factor in all information against our own subjective morals to decide if we want to live within the law. Edited March 21, 2014 by charlie1223 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted March 21, 2014 Author Share Posted March 21, 2014 (edited) Are we not allowed to break the law? Is there any law in the world that has never been broken? Laws are broken because we are allowed to break them. In the movie "minority report" there are these beings called precogs that can look into the future and the police use this information to arrest people even before they committ a crime. In this sci-fi movie society is not allowed to break the law because they are never given the opportunity to do so. In our society you, for better or worse, can't be stopped before you break a law. (Planning to kill someone is against the law but you can't arrest someone before they actually decided to plan ie. before they actually break the law). So your assessment that says "true allowing" must mean anarchy is not correct since our society allows you to break the law but we are not in anarchy (but there are consequences if you decide to break the law). But the reality is the decision to break the law is our own and factor in all information against our own subjective morals to decide if we want to live within the law. No; we are not 'allowed' to break the law. While there is no way to prevent any action being done by any person, the idea of 'True Allowance' for behavior by an overseeing entity means having no laws, no rules, no regulations and institutional 'acceptance' for said behavior. Laws against behavior do not 'allow' for the behavior to occur without consequence; it punishes people if they choose ‘on their own’ and ‘allow themselves’ to engage in the behavior. As for the movie Minority Report, you may not be aware that most Behavioral Analysts in our world today actually do subscribe to the notion that ‘thoughts’ are considered behavior. It is a Brave New World out there. Edited March 21, 2014 by Stu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 (edited) Thus, things like the culture of art which moves forward without some sense of unified moral purpose, and the artists are allowed to engage in an anything goes view of artistic freedom, that culture will always ‘regress’ not ‘progress’. "Tolstoy was ambivalent about the role of the artist (despite being one himself). In "What is Art?" he castigated now-canonical artists such as Shakespeare, Goethe and Wagner for failing to express the 'simple truths' about morality (as he saw them), opting instead to show off their poetic cleverness. He saw their work as morally reprehensible, effectively a wasting of their talents through their failure to communicate moral truth to the masses." Sound like someone you may know?? "In purely philosophical terms, the precise nature of art's links with morality have been long been questioned. Some have found no link between the aesthetic and the moral (i.e. being morally reprehensible does not deny an artwork its art status; it does not cease having aesthetic value no matter how depraved some might see it being), whereas others, who have not gone down the explicitly Platonist route, have argued that the relationship is one akin to supervenience. Here, it is argued that an essential component of the production of art, the human factor, can only be made sensible if taken along with the perceived moral codes which govern humanity." Read this short, entirely subjective and possibly inaccurate article that I found in 5 seconds on wikipedia. It's at the very least applicable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_and_morality 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 No; we are not 'allowed' to break the law. While there is no way to prevent any action being done by any person, the idea of 'True Allowance' for behavior by an overseeing entity means having no laws, no rules, no regulations and institutional 'acceptance' for said behavior. Laws against behavior do not 'allow' for the behavior to occur without consequence; it punishes people if they choose ‘on their own’ and ‘allow themselves’ to engage in the behavior. As for the movie Minority Report, you may not be aware that most Behavioral Analysts in our world today actually do subscribe to the notion that ‘thoughts’ are considered behavior. It is a Brave New World out there. No, "True allowance" does not imply acceptance. You again reiterated my point that a person allows themselves to break the law. The government does not permit the allowance it is the person that permits it because it is the person that decided whether or not to follow the laws. The government enforces consequences of law breaking (this is enforcing the law) but the government can do little to compel an individual to follow the law outside of their ability to enforce the consequences of breaking it. BTW In the movie minority report they are not persecuted for "thought crimes". They are persecuted even before they had any "thought" of doing a crime. This is a key hook in the movie in which Tom Cruise's characters wonders why he would kill a man he had never met or knew (even though the precogs foretold that he would and sent the cops after him). Turns out the man was the stranger that had killed/kidnapped his daughter and upon this realization he knew then why he would kill him but the police were after him long before this realization/mental thought took place for Tom Cruise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fsubone Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 The allowance for freedom of speech only applies to the Federal Government; again the first amendment begins with the words, “Congress shall make no law…” This means that all other entities certainly can curtail speech as much as they desire. No they can't. Those laws apply to all peoples, which is the Constitutional protection you enjoy. No one is allowed to censor speech or expression unless it can be conclusively proven that said speech would lead to harm coming to someone. That distinction was made back in World War I, which seems to be a period after your Puritanical views came to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fsubone Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Yes!!!! I am in favor of DCI, WGI, BOA, etc… creating some sort of organization-wide regulations and/or watch dog entity within their respective organizations to actually police the content of what designers put on the field; mainly because these organizations are considered 'youth' activities. So, who would you want in charge of this? Clergy? Little old ladies? Yourself? You've spent all of this time given hypothetical arguments, but never any hard facts or examples. What you're proposing is censorship and someone having to decide what is acceptable to be put on the field. Rules governing what can and can't be done. That was a major grievance from the Midwest Combine as a reason to break away from the VFW originally. Oh how things have come full circle. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts