Comment Re:Ayn Rand: Philosophy for the Self Centered (Score 0) 163
I think I refute this. SImply put, I am saying that people aren't allowed to talk about what's decent. At least not in this context. This is not a 'community at large fears harm' issue, this is an issue that hinges on the moral and unprovable version of "hurting others" that one large religious body holds in a country that pointedly disallows the influence of faith in establishing laws.
There is a good reason that "...people who say they should have the right to do whatever they want with their lives without hurting others always seem to reserve the right to define for themselves what "hurting others" means." (sic) It's because the strictest and least permissive groups would always win out if they were allowed the decision. Imagine for a moment your reaction to a statement that "The christian church across from my home erected a cross that I feel hurts me. It reminds me of the trials of my pagan ancestors and the church itself poses a threat to the well being of my developing children. Tear it down, I as member of the community, have a right to demand this." Would you say that was ridiculous?
Here you support the right of a subset of the national community to discuss the outright censorship of arts and expressions provided to us in the 1st amendment of our constitution. In the same sentence you denounce a community that sees the folly inherent in pushing for censorship of arts and media. Should the games media, serious journalists or not, legitimize these functions? Or hsould they vote with their collective absence and shun these radical censors as the rest of the free community should?
Here in America we should hold precious our freedom of speech, our freedom of the press (which honestly should include games and video, whther it does or not, media is media) and our freedom to not only choose our own religion, be it what it may be, but to be free of persecution from other religions.
So don't legislate my F'ing morals, OK? And bully to the games media for not showing up, these people should be ignored at the very least, if not run out of the community like these defenses of censorship and mob rule suggest.
There is a good reason that "...people who say they should have the right to do whatever they want with their lives without hurting others always seem to reserve the right to define for themselves what "hurting others" means." (sic) It's because the strictest and least permissive groups would always win out if they were allowed the decision. Imagine for a moment your reaction to a statement that "The christian church across from my home erected a cross that I feel hurts me. It reminds me of the trials of my pagan ancestors and the church itself poses a threat to the well being of my developing children. Tear it down, I as member of the community, have a right to demand this." Would you say that was ridiculous?
Here you support the right of a subset of the national community to discuss the outright censorship of arts and expressions provided to us in the 1st amendment of our constitution. In the same sentence you denounce a community that sees the folly inherent in pushing for censorship of arts and media. Should the games media, serious journalists or not, legitimize these functions? Or hsould they vote with their collective absence and shun these radical censors as the rest of the free community should?
Here in America we should hold precious our freedom of speech, our freedom of the press (which honestly should include games and video, whther it does or not, media is media) and our freedom to not only choose our own religion, be it what it may be, but to be free of persecution from other religions.
So don't legislate my F'ing morals, OK? And bully to the games media for not showing up, these people should be ignored at the very least, if not run out of the community like these defenses of censorship and mob rule suggest.
