Books, movies, plays, civilizations, scientific theories and religious tomes are all things that we judge on their content.
Does content matter? Is it ok to fill a movie with nothing but violence and sex? Is a book still a book if it is an instruction manual on how to kill women for daring send their daughters to school? Is a "scientific theory" a good theory if it offers nothing new to test and no new ideas? Is a religion a religion if it's only goal is to take money from fools?
Is a civilization really civilized if it chooses to retain garbage baby-killers and sexual predators alive and voting in prisons?
It is all about what different people "want". What they find as acceptable "content".
There is a reason why pseudo libs fight to keep murderous killers alive. They like the content that these sub-human monsters add to their "liberal" and "progressive" vision of a society. They don't want to kill guys like Joseph Edward Duncan III. He is the kind of content that they like. He adds to their vision of what a civilization should be.
Don't believe me? Which group of people were stacking the ballot boxes with votes from Prisoners while fighting to dis-allow military absentee ballots? Who will be protesting with "ten thousand candles" to keep Duncan alive when he is marched to the death chamber in twenty years?
Originally posted by StarValleyWyyes, content matters. anything else?
Books, movies, plays, civilizations, scientific theories and religious tomes are all things that we judge on their content.
Does content matter? Is it ok to fill a movie with nothing but violence and sex? Is a book still a book if it is an instruction manual on how to kill women for daring send their daughters to school? Is a "scientific theory" a ...[text shortened]... thousand candles" to keep Duncan alive when he is marched to the death chamber in twenty years?
I judge books, plays, and other such arts on their content and their form, and I view the two as inseparable in the best works--the novels of William Faulkner and of James Baldwin, for example.
Many liberals oppose the death penalty because they find inconsistent the view that the State may act in premeditation to take the life of another, while a private citizen may not do the same. Many liberals also criticize the extent to which American society invests the public trust (taxes) in punitive justice because there must be another way. Several restorative justice movements ranging from drug courts to Navajo "common law" offer hope for change.
Originally posted by StarValleyWysurprise you with what? people are always influenced by "content". this is no new revelation. if i lived in an Islamic country, wouldnt the "content" that was taught me influence me to have a dislike for the same things that Americans are taught to love? again i say, yes, people are obviously affected by "content". what am i missing here?
It's really up to you, isn't it? From past experience though, I will say that you are running on empty, having shot your intellectual wad with that one single question. Just a guess. Surprise me.
Originally posted by lioyankYou added nothing new. No opinions either way. Just a snide interogative that was meant to show what a powerful being you are.
surprise you with what? people are always influenced by "content". this is no new revelation. if i lived in an Islamic country, wouldnt the "content" that was taught me influence me to have a dislike for the same things that Americans a ...[text shortened]... ple are obviously affected by "content". what am i missing here?
Why? Then you came back again without contributing any ideas. I am in no mood. Ok?
Who, What, When, Why, Where and/or How does content matter? In your necessarily humble opinion?
Originally posted by StarValleyWyIf you call that an idea, I'm sure you think you're a genius.
You added nothing new. No opinions either way. Just a snide interogative that was meant to show what a powerful being you are.
Why? Then you came back again without contributing any ideas. I am in no mood. Ok?
Originally posted by PalynkaAnd your big contribution is???
If you call that an idea, I'm sure you think you're a genius.
Thought so. You can rest now. You have really stretched that mind of yours here. Go rest. We don't want you collapsing from the intellectual effort required to be a five year old.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyIf you call your first post a "big contribution", you must consider yourself a messiah.
And your big contribution is???
Thought so. You can rest now. You have really stretched that mind of yours here. Go rest. We don't want you collapsing from the intellectual effort required to be a five year old.
Originally posted by PalynkaBetter. At least you managed what for you is a giant "insult". Pittiful.
If you call your first post a "big contribution", you must consider yourself a messiah.
It is just a thread. Like most it states an idea or two which is designed to stimulate debate. Instead, you giant intellectual midgets come on and just slam me. I know it is because you really can't think in a rational manner. But most people here don't know that.
The last "big contribution" was made by Jonas Salk. The rest of us are just putterin' in the garden of life trying to avoid the grim reaper.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyApparently, rational is not an universal concept.
Better. At least you managed what for you is a giant "insult". Pittiful.
It is just a thread. Like most it states an idea or two which is designed to stimulate debate. Instead, you giant intellectual midgets come on and just slam me. I know it is because you really can't think in a rational manner. But most people here don't know that.
The las ...[text shortened]... Salk. The rest of us are just putterin' in the garden of life trying to avoid the grim reaper.
Originally posted by PalynkaJeez! Why? Tell us a bit more than that please. Why isn't it a universal concept? Who said it was and why did you not say "Rationality IS a universal concept" or "Rationality is not a universal concept"???
Apparently, rational is not an universal concept.
"Rational" is a verb. It can't be much of an object for discussion. But that is just nit-picking. Discuss why "Rationality" isn't universal.
And forget the "apparently". That is just a tool you learned in school. By using it, you can back-step later. State an idea. An opinion. Don't use the trick of never having an opinion. It is childish and silly to do so.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyi added nothing new because there was nothing to add, smart ass. my remark wasn't meant to be snide, you just interpret it that way. is that my fault too? (see, now that's me trying to be sarcastic.) and you've got "issues" if you think my post had anything to do with me trying to be "powerful". im not into "chimpism". im into learning. didnt i make that clear in our last discussion?
You added nothing new. No opinions either way. Just a snide interogative that was meant to show what a powerful being you are.
Why? Then you came back again without contributing any ideas. I am in no mood. Ok?
Who, What, When, Why, Where and/or How does content matter? In your necessarily humble opinion?
your in no mood for what?
It matters to everyone. It matters to me because I was taught to live one way. I was influenced to believe that way was the "one, true, way". and i believed it.... for awhile. it was religion. Why? because it was all that I knew. it matters if enough of the same-minded (mind-wiped) people started reacting to the "outside" world on their beliefs.
Sufficient?
Originally posted by lioyankNo, it isn't sufficient. I will give you a bad time because you admit you had nothing to add. i added nothing new because there was nothing to add yet you did add. Is that logical? Not really.
i added nothing new because there was nothing to add, smart ass. my remark wasn't meant to be snide, you just interpret it that way. is that my fault too? (see, now that's me trying to be sarcastic.) and you've got "issues" if you thin ...[text shortened]... reacting to the "outside" world on their beliefs.
Sufficient?
If you really want to learn, then start thinking of questions or arguments. A good question is a good way to learn, but a good argument is even better. You are still doing it. Are you going to post all night now attacking me because I called you on not contributing?
I'm in no mood for silly kids who can't take a side in anything and assume that the world doesn't see that they are just empty shells.
It matters to everyone. It matters to me because I was taught to live one way. I was influenced to believe that way was the "one, true, way". and i believed it.... for awhile. it was religion. Why? because it was all that I knew. it matters if enough of the same-minded (mind-wiped) people started reacting to the "outside" world on their beliefs.
Sufficient
I assume that "It" is "content of religion" then? Sorry if I can't read minds. Assuming that you are now against your upbringing in said religion... that is cool that you have now put this context into this discussion. I will say that this last paragraph contains a thought or two, which your first posts didn't. So yea. That is quite sufficient. Just why did I have to get you angry in order to induce a thought instead of a "grunt" in passing?