In science class when I was half asleep I discovered that...

1984 is on the rise. Not nessicarly by a police state or external assault, a assault that is making the US/UK/Canada into Oceania, an assault on our morals. Today in the US for example one in two weddings end up in divorce, which in 1984 there was no marrages. By distroying the family structure, the loyatly between is non-existant, making the loyalty to the state the only loyalty. Next is the morals itself. I find more and more discussion about sex, drugs and other non-acceptable (moraly) discussion in the halls. Which in 1984, as we know there was prositution in the Prole areas, lack of or no morality anywhere. Another problem is the current vocabulary of the social "cool". It is increadibly simple. Where as in 1984, the principle of newspeak distroys thought. Whomever, lets call them the 'party' and has been clandestinly distroying morals since the 1950s and vocabulary from as early as the early 1800s.

perhaps they realised that the standard version of morality was a crock of shyt.

Originally posted by JuanBond
perhaps they realised that the standard version of morality was a crock of shyt.

I couldn't agree more.

Though sometimes morals are wanted.....but damn we dont want lots of morals.

People want to do what they want to do, talk about what they want to talk about. And we dont want anyone looking at us in a bad way thinking we are crazy or scum of the Earth for being who we are and doing waht we want and talking about what we want to talk about or expressing ourselves how we do.

As far as im concerned. Morals can be evil and I sure as hell know that other peoples morals have lead to the death of many a suicider.

People with morals and expressing those morals on others to make them feel like # by abusing the # out of them sure as hell make me mad.

[Edited on 27-1-2004 by DaRAGE]

Originally posted by JuanBond
perhaps they realised that the standard version of morality was a crock of shyt.

I agree, in the sense that everyone should have to follow the morality of Christianity. That is a crock of shït, because most of the world is not of the Christian faith.

Morals are abstract thoughs, not anything set in stone. They change from generation to generation. Someone from the early 19th century would be apalled at what is considered moral today. In 1984, marriages weren't allowed due to State control. In modern-day Amerika, most marriages end in divorce due to the stupidity of people jumping into the marriage for the wrong reasons, then later finding they aren't compatible, or because they are too impatient to try to work out their problems and would rather take an easier way out. Marriage is a religious issue anyway, not a morality issue.

As for the "newspeak" you describe, the social elite have always done things like that. In England, it was the royalty that spawned the words, then quit using them when the commoners started to. In Amerika, it is the ultra-trendy fashion crazed bastards with very little else to do. There is still plenty of room for thought in the current version of English, although most people won't know what you mean when you say surmise, ascertain, facetious, or any other word containing seven or more letters. Then again, I can get the same point across by figuring it out, finding it out, or lying through my teeth.

Loyalty to another person also has very little to do with anything, as in the end, a person must remain loyal to themselves and loyal to their beliefs, not loyal to societies accepted morality or another single person. In the grand scheme of things, each person on this planet has only one thing they can absolutely count on: themselves.

I'd be more concerned about a police state than I would be about a lack of morality.

this party is aligned with the side of evil greed materialism, satanic type stuff really. they choose to control all that is around them rather than accepting as much of your reality as u can.

funny that two of the definitions for moral are: Based on liklehood rather than evidence....Being or acting in accordance with established standards of good and evil.

Originally posted by Taxman
Today in the US for example one in two weddings end up in divorce, which in 1984 there was no marrages.

There were no "marrages" in 1984? Are you sure? My mom and stepfather married in 1984... hmmm... So, are you saying they are not actually married?

Originally posted by Milk

Originally posted by Taxman
Today in the US for example one in two weddings end up in divorce, which in 1984 there was no marrages.

There were no "marrages" in 1984? Are you sure? My mom and stepfather married in 1984... hmmm... So, are you saying they are not actually married?

1984 as in the fictional novel by George Orwell, not as in 1984 20 years ago.

Originally posted by Milk

Originally posted by Taxman
Today in the US for example one in two weddings end up in divorce, which in 1984 there was no marrages.

There were no "marrages" in 1984? Are you sure? My mom and stepfather married in 1984... hmmm... So, are you saying they are not actually married?

1984 the book dude. Not 1984 the year.

Originally posted by DaRAGE

People want to do what they want to do, talk about what they want to talk about. And we dont want anyone looking at us in a bad way thinking we are crazy or scum of the Earth for being who we are and doing waht we want and talking about what we want to talk about or expressing ourselves how we do.

Send a copy of your post to :

KKK,
Black Panthers,
Nazis Party,
Communist Party,
NAMBLA,
etc...etc...

I'm sure they'll LOVE what you wrote.

Originally posted by Milk

Originally posted by Taxman
Today in the US for example one in two weddings end up in divorce, which in 1984 there was no marrages.

There were no "marrages" in 1984? Are you sure? My mom and stepfather married in 1984... hmmm... So, are you saying they are not actually married?

You should pick up a copy of the book "1984". It's a great read, especially for members of ATS!

who wrote 1984? i have heard of it but never seen it.

Originally posted by kaoszero
1984 as in the fictional novel by George Orwell, not as in 1984 20 years ago.

razorbackhater, please refer to kaoszero's post above.

Why do people jump into marriage? The media is just as involved promoting marriage as the decay of morals. Like some of the bigger network TV out there, The Batchelor, Joe Millionare, vs Paradise Island?

Of course having people hastily rush into it while at the same time spreading morals that make it hard to live by would cause its downfall.

Possible implications of marriage-less society vs marriage? Both have people not focused on the state.

still more divorce causes more court fees, moving money up the chain i guess.

also lots of fast response against being against the decay of morals.

also brave new world is on the rise!!

But we've not yet reached the world as described in "Anthem".. hopefully never....

anthem was the worst book i have ever read.

Originally posted by Taxman

Which in 1984, as we know there was prositution in the Prole areas, lack of or no morality anywhere.

After reading 1984 (had to read it a few times to let it soak in), I found the Proles to be the most free of the citizens of Oceania. As I recall, there was an 'Anti Sex League' movement. Seemed they were trying to erase even the most basic of human emotions for the populous, not to mention sex would be a union between two persons, thus causing some kind of relationship that might end up in marriage. But, like taxman stated, they were also trying to discourage marriage as well. The only emotion they wanted you to have was 'fear'.

(remember poor winston smith with the cage of rats on his head, oooooooh, nasty)

Originally posted by clearmind
funny that two of the definitions for moral are: Based on liklehood rather than evidence....Being or acting in accordance with established standards of good and evil.

The question is who's good and who's evil?