If You Don't Like Something, Leave it Alone!

I think this has been a big problem in society for many many years. Groups of people or just a few people don't agree with something, or don't like it - so they try and ruin it for everyone. They can't just ignore it and get on with there lives.

Music

How come just because a group of people doesn't like a band they try to get everyone else to not like them too?

In the 50's it was Elvis. Thousands and thousands of people loved Elvis, but there was a small amount of people who didn't and tried to stop Elvis from performing for the huge amount of people who loved him. Why couldn't they just not see him and get on with their lives?

In later years there was always people complaining about Rock groups and others saying they were devil worshippers and other crazy things to try and get people to stop buying their albums. KISS = Knights in Satans Service?? Come on people, just don't buy KISS albums!

In the 80's the PMRC was trying to get people to stop buying records by making crazy stories up, and saying how they didn't want their kids to see the videos and buy the records. Just don't let your kids buy them! Don't stop other adults and children who like the music buy them. Saying their children got pregant because they bought Shout at the Devil??



But music certainly isn't the only place where this happens.

Movies - people complain how they are too graphic and scary. Then don't go and see them. See another movie and let those who want to see them go and see them.

Food - People complain about how they have gotten fat because the food isn't healthy for them and they want them to stop making it. Just don't eat so much of it or don't eat it at all! Leave the people who can eat it once in a while and are still healthy alone.

And all these new laws being passed telling people they can't Boo at ball games and go on websites? Why don't the people who wanted the laws passed just not boo or not go on those websites? Leave the people who don't care alone.

Plus the whole Muslim thing. If they don't want to touch things, give rides to people or learn about certain things, they should either go someplace where they don't have to, or just deal with it. Kids can put there heads down during the session can't they? Why do they have to make it so NOBODY can learn about it, just because they don't want too?

If I think something is bad for me should I try and stop it for everyone? No, I should just ignore it and get on with my life.

I think there would be alot less problems in the world if people did just that instead of trying to stop everyone from doing or liking something just because one group of people doesn't like it.







[edit on 10/4/2007 by enjoies05]

I totally agree!

Don't agree with gay marriage? Don't marry a gay person!!
Don't approve of abortion? Don't get one!
Hate recreational drugs? Don't take them!
Don't want a strip club in your town? Don't go there!
Don't want your kids learning about sex in school? Teach them yourself!

Live and Let Live has, sadly, become an idea of the past. People think they have some right to tell everyone how they should live their lives. And since we all have slightly different opinions, trying to force others to live by our own morals and values causes a lot of problems.

KISS Army verteran here.

I agree with you totally and completely. The only point of contention I have is this: If I missed this in your post I apologize. There is nothing wrong with expressing doubts as to the social worth of a particular cultural phenomena. For example: I may be the only person in America who has never watched a reality TV program of any sort in its entirety, I find them to be of less reality than a good SF book. Nothing wrong with me emailing the networks responsible and telling them precisely what I think of their programming choices.

Not exactly what you were refering to perhaps, but opinions are what fuel changes that must occur for societies to remain green and growing.

However, when or if the changes I'd like to see don't occur, I simply change the channel or don't read the book whatever. I was in no way advocating censorship. Despite comments on other threads to the contrary. Some of you will remember the subject matter was Holocaust Deniers.

[edit on 10-4-2007 by seagull]

enjoies and Benevolent, I completely agree with you both. Way too many times everyday things are brought up because they are a bit "racy" or against someones beliefs. I am very tired of everyone else trying to tell me what is best for ME. This is my life and I should be able to make my own decisions. Someone needs to start a movement against censorship. Whether it's music, profanity, or anything else, just turn it off or don't do it if you don't like it!

This topic always gets me a little heated!

Oh, they started a move against censorship alright. In fact they almost removed it altogether, which is why we now have a world flooded with filth in movies, tv, music and books.

Ever heard of 'majority rule' ? It's the natural order of things. Lose it and societies collapse.

In the natural world, a lion may mate with an antelope if it wishes. But it will excluded from the tribe if it succeeds in surviving at all. And it will live its life on the margins. And its life will be tough and short.

You want to be able to do as you please?

Then go form your own State, your own country.

And you will not survive.

If you *WANT* to survive, you must accept the rules.

Your choice.

For example, there are those who believe -- and who will try to convince YOU to believe -- that forcing sex on infants is 'fine'.

Fine for whom --- the infant?

There are those who believe -- and who will atempt to convince YOU to believe --- that murdering 'rich' people is fine.

Fine for whom --- the 'rich' people?

Look, if you want to rebel, go ahead.

If your form of rebellion is of disadvantage or inconvience to the majority or contravenes what the majority believes to be decent and fair etc, then you will be penalised.

Your only option, should you continue to insist on your right to rebel against the majority, will be to establish your own little world somewhere.

Which will undoubtedly be of inconvenience to you.

Otherwise, deal with it. You're part of a society, whether you like it or not. And in successful societies, the majority rules

[edit on 10-4-2007 by Dock6]

Whoa, you're talking about a world with no morals, mine would have no censorship. Big difference. I NEVER said anything about murdering, molesting etc. Fist, I don't believe media should be censored (music, t.v., movies etc.) Second like the OP stated, if you think a food is making you fat, don't eat it. Don't take your kid to McDonald's everyday and then try to sue them for making your kid fat. Also, there are way too many dumb laws in this world. It should be up to the mother and when possibe the father whether or not to get an abortion. If two people are in love they should be able to get married. I'm just tired of everyone telling me what is best for me.

Oh, and yes censorship IS overboard, in America at least. Just think about movies they show on the networks.
Oh no, someone cursed, I need to bleep it, or put some other crazy word/phrase in it's place.

Originally posted by seagull
Nothing wrong with me emailing the networks responsible and telling them precisely what I think of their programming choices.

Yes, that would be the sensible thing to do. But what you shouldn't do is go crazy and make up lies about how the TV shows are corrupting your children and you want all of the shows to end for everyone. Which is what a lot of people are doing.

KISS Army verteran here

That makes two of us.

Secret Titan: *YOU* may not have " said anything about murdering, molesting etc. ".

But what about the 'No Rules' supporter who DOES consider 'murdering and molesting' to be 'fine'? And what if it's *YOUR* children he feels like murdering and molesting as a way of expressing 'his right to live in a world without rules'?

So what do you do THEN ? Do *YOU* impose *YOUR* standards of behaviour upon *HIM* ?

What do you imagine he will say to you? Huh?

That's right. He'll tell you that *HE* is sick and tired of people like *YOU* and *YOUR* rules, which only serve to impede on *HIS* enjoyment!

Just imagine you manage to halt this character as he's heading down your driveway with your children slung over his shoulder. You have the above discussion with him and he tells you to get out of his way, because *HE* doesn't agree with *YOUR* personal rules against molestation and murder.

And he's bigger than you are and he means business. Your kids are screaming for you to help. But this character is taking you at *YOUR* word. *YOU* are the one who believes EVERYONE should be able to live by their *OWN* code. This character is living by his. No biggie. Except your kids are in for a painful experience.

What do you do?

Do you scream for the police? Do you beg them to stop this murdering molestor before he gets away with your kids?

Do you?

Or do you run inside and grab your gun?

Do you shoot the molestor?

What right do *YOU* have to shoot someone for living by their own personal code?

What right do *YOU* have to enforce *YOUR* personal 'rules' on someone else?

Getting it yet?

Ok. Suppose you don't HAVE a gun.

Do you scream to the police for help? Because they're standing right there.

What do the police reply?

Do they say: 'Hey, listen, we'd like to help and all, because this guy is sure going to molest and murder your kids. But we are now compelled via legislation to respect the Personal Right of Individuals NOT to comply with what were formerly Society's Rules and Laws. Sorry about that. Try to get over it. After all, we'd recognise *YOUR* rights to molest and murder if the boot was on the other foot. Ciao now.'

Hear, Hear! (referencing the OP)

It's the age-old fight between authoritarianism and true freedom. True freedom is sometimes scary. And it always seems to be that those that want laws to restrict freedom are for restricting someone else's freedom.

When is the last time you heard someone say:

"We need a law to prohibit [something], because I do that all the time, and I just can't stop myself, so I need a law to limit my freedom in this regard."?

A minimal amount of freedom-restricting laws are probably necessary in order to have a functioning society... we should not be free to rob or murder someone else, naturally. But it goes too far when we have laws that restrict personal freedoms that do not cause measurable harm to others.

Never much of a kiss fan, myself... Alice Cooper and Deep Purple!


[edit on 10-4-2007 by Open_Minded Skeptic]

Gee. Most people have a difficult time establishing a working system within their own family!

Junior believes it his right to drink straight from the juice bottle, whilst sister believes that's gross (because she doesn't enjoy imbibing junior's saliva mixed with whatever he was eating earlier) so she objects to junior's habit.

Mom tries to arbitrate and to instill in her offspring respect for others. What does she say?

Does she suggest to junior that he use a glass as do the rest of the family?

And how does junior respond? Does he claim it his 'right' to drink juice any old way he chooses?

At that point, does Dad step into the fray and remind junior that as consequence of his drinking straight from the bottle, the rest of the family all caught junior's flu two weeks ago --- resulting in two weeks off work on the part of the father and mother (and subsequent loss of income, plus medical expenses) and a week off school for the other children in the family, meaning they are now behind in lessons and are having to work extra hard to catch up, etc.?

Does junior still insist it is his right to drink from the bottle if he chooses?

Ok. One one side we have junior and his beliefs in his 'speshul-ness' --- and on the other we have two adult parents who are PAYING for that juice and for everything else that junior takes for granted. Also opposing junior are three other children of the family.

That means junior and his beliefs and 'rights' are in opposition to five other family members.

Who should 'win'?

If so, why?

Please include the benefits, if any, gained by the rest of the family as consequence of junior's drinking straight from the juice bottle.

I was talking about censorship, people telling me that I can't watch certain programs because they are controversial. Like the many people that want to bann all guns because the guns shoot people, or music or games promote violence. I don't blame my keyboard for mispelled words.


NOT a world without LAWS, but if you want to keep twisting my words, feel free.

I never said that people should be able to kill if they want, and yes, by the way YOU were talking I would have the right to shoot because it would be within my beliefs to kill those that have wrongfully killed, or even raped another being.

Enjoies.

It's self defeating to make up lies to prove your point, eventually they're going to come out, and all the "good" you're attempting to do is lost. MHO.

Originally posted by seagull
Enjoies.

It's self defeating to make up lies to prove your point, eventually they're going to come out, and all the "good" you're attempting to do is lost. MHO.

Thats why you shouldn't do it.

Dock6 - And I suppose if there were 6 children and they all voted to drink from the bottle, the whole family should comply? Majority rules, right?

Nobody is saying there should be no rules, I'm not sure where you get that. A functioning society needs rules. We have tons of rules.

The rights we're talking about are those that don't hurt anyone else. Why shouldn't I have the option of watching a raunchy movie if I want? It's not hurting anyone else. That's the key. Gay marriage (for example) doesn't hurt anyone, yet the very people who know nothing about it and will never be involved in it in any way are the ones keeping gay people from getting married.

Murder, molestation, etc. hurt other people. We're talking about "victimless" situations.

I don't want this to turn into a gay marriage debate, but it's a perfect example of the OP idea.

Originally posted by secret titan
I was talking about censorship, people telling me that I can't watch certain programs because they are controversial. Like the many people that want to bann all guns because the guns shoot people, or music or games promote violence. I don't blame my keyboard for mispelled words.


NOT a world without LAWS, but if you want to keep twisting my words, feel free.

I never said that people should be able to kill if they want, and yes, by the way YOU were talking I would have the right to shoot because it would be within my beliefs to kill those that have wrongfully killed, or even raped another being.

OK. So why not respond the post about junior and the drink bottle?

I assure you, it will clarify the situation for *YOU* most of all.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Dock6 - And I suppose if there were 6 children and they all voted to drink from the bottle, the whole family should comply? Majority rules, right?

Nobody is saying there should be no rules, I'm not sure where you get that. A functioning society needs rules. We have tons of rules.

The rights we're talking about are those that don't hurt anyone else. Why shouldn't I have the option of watching a raunchy movie if I want? It's not hurting anyone else. That's the key. Gay marriage (for example) doesn't hurt anyone, yet the very people who know nothing about it and will never be involved in it in any way are the ones keeping gay people from getting married.

Murder, molestation, etc. hurt other people. We're talking about "victimless" situations.

I don't want this to turn into a gay marriage debate, but it's a perfect example of the OP idea.

And I suppose if there were 6 children and they all voted to drink from the bottle, the whole family should comply? Majority rules, right?

YES. Exactly. If they all choose to drink from the bottle, then that's what that family has chosen to do. Further, if one family member objects to such a habit, then that one family member is required to find a way which suits him/her. This may require that family member to eliminate juice altogether from their diet. Or it may require them to have their own juice bottle, with their name on it, secreted under their bed if needs be. Because they are 'odd man out' and in choosing to be so, must bend their lives to suit the rest of the family.

With regard to the rest of your post -- precisely where would YOU draw the line?

Whilst YOU might choose to watch soft-core porn and believe it your right to do so ---- your ROOMATE may prefer 'snuff movies' complete with child-rape ending in sodomy and strangling. That's what HE/SHE enjoys, you see. And your roomate enjoys watching these movies LOUD.

So, no matter where you go in that house you're sharing, you CANNOT avoid the sound of the child's screams and pleas for help.

Ten, twenty times an hour, your roomate plays these movies and masturbates as he/she watches them.

If you go to your room, you can still hear them. If you go to the basement, you can still here them. When you have friends over, you can ALL hear them, no matter how loudly you turn up 'masking music' and no matter how loudly you hold conversation.

Eventually ---- EVEN though you support the right of your roomate to watch these movies --- you ask him/her to please lower the volume.

Your roomate tells you he/she resents your interference and reminds you that he/she does not attempt to limit your watching the home-shopping channel or Disney movies.

What CAN you do? It's is your roomate's choice and business, is it not? It is his/her 'right' to watch whatever he/she chooses. And YOU gave him/her that choice.

Maybe you didn't expect it to result in your living with someone who enjoys snuff movies?

If not, maybe you should amend whatever it is you believe people should be free to do.

Maybe you should draw that line here and now, so that everyone can get a clear grasp of what you mean when you say 'victimless' situations?

After all, the child in the snuff movie is already dead. So those who choose to watch such crimes can be said to be participating in a technically 'victimless' situation, right? They can claim they're watching such things from a 'research' point of view. They can claim whatever they choose. But as the demand for snuff movies increases, there will BE victims, sure enough.

[edit on 10-4-2007 by Dock6]

Gay marriage is a great example of it doesn't hurt anyone. Who someone loves and how they express it is their own business, none of mine.

Enjoies. Too bad they aren't as smart as you or I .

Certain religions require any woman or girl who claims that she has been molested/raped to substantiate such claims by producing four males who will support her claims.

If the girl/woman is unable to do so, then SHE is charged and jailed on a variety of pretexts, most of which claim she is promiscuous and a liar.

The penalty for such promiscuity and 'making false claims' is often pronounced as 'death by stoning' and or beheading and ABC recently aired a programme in which this took place. The girl was slightly mentally challenged and had been subject to sexual abuse by a much old man for considerable time.

NO male agreed to support the girl's claims, despite stating to ABC that they had long been aware of the molestation and rape of this girl.

In a trumped up 'court' she was sentenced and publicly hanged, as her abuser and her father and relatives watched. Ah well, so sad, too bad.

The gods should be screaming in their heaven as these atrocities take place. Nevertheless, it goes on as it always has and these excuses for men continue to subjugate females and treat them as animals.

However ---- now compassionate and fair minded people in the Western world are beginning to learn about this situation.

It will take time, unfortunately, before anything is done to prevent this wholesale murder of dissenting rape-victims and during that time, many hundreds, thousands of females will be murdered --- only this particularly religion terms it 'justice' and the 'will of god'.

In time though, this slaughter will stop.

Why will it stop?

It will stop because people will protest against it. And they will tell others about it. Then MORE will protest.

Eventually, the protesters will come to comprise the MAJORITY.

And when the MAJORITY throws its accumulated weight against these religious-fanatics/murderers, the latter will back off. They will have to. Or the MAJORITY will issue sanctions and other penalities against the religious murders.

In the same way the MAJORITY, commencing in the UK, voiced their protests about slavery and were prepared to go to war for the cause. THEN, it became self-defeating to fight FOR slavery.

And freedom was won for slaves.

That's the power of the majority. It's the voice of the MOST people in any particular situation.

What is happening now is an agenda by the slime to CORRUPT the majority and spoon-feed them filth posing as 'the right to watch and read and listen to anything YOU want'. The slime are promoting individual selfishness. Because they know this will result in DIVISIONS. And they HOPE it will result in the hated 'sheepies/goyim' becoming utterly corrupted and groin-centred to the point they are insensible to decency and oblivious to their own destruction.

So, if YOU want to watch OTHER people taking off their clothes or having sexual intercourse, by all means DO so (although if that's what rocks your boat, why not film YOURSELF getting undressed and having sex? Or why not just install mirrors in your ceiling?) but please do NOT attempt to inflict such sexual immaturity and deviancy upon me or my community. Keep it to yourself. The majority has higher standards and that's nice.

Dock6, what a sheltered life you want to live. What happens in your world when there is no majority and everything is split 50/50? Does everyone still have to follow your censorship because YOU think it's perfect?

I believe this is actually a quite skillful application of a couple of logical argument fallacies:

The slippery slope argument

This argument states that should one event occur, so will other harmful events. There is no proof made that the harmful events are caused by the first event. For example:

"If we legalize marijuana, then more people would start to take crack and heroin, and we'd have to legalize those too. Before long we'd have a nation full of drug-addicts on welfare. Therefore we cannot legalize marijuana."

Or, "if we remove censorship on movies, Western civilization will lose all morality".

Straw man

The straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent someone else's position so that it can be attacked more easily, knock down that misrepresented position, then conclude that the original position has been demolished. It's a fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments that have been made.

"To be an atheist, you have to believe with absolute certainty that there is no God. In order to convince yourself with absolute certainty, you must examine all the Universe and all the places where God could possibly be. Since you obviously haven't, your position is indefensible."

Or perhaps: "If you don't want censorship, that means you want to live in a society with no law."

Source

If you don't like that source