749 replies to this topic

[Cloud9]

So are you saying I am not allowed to have and express any opinion if it is not the same as yours?  I thought I read in earlier posts of yours that you supported people in their expression of their opinions, including opposition, relating to this store.  If I don't want a store with an 18 and older back room in my community, I certainly have the right to say so, and express opposition.  The First Amendment applies to Quakers like me as well.  You have the same right to stand up for your opinions, even if that does suggest that you think that your opinions are more enlightened than mine.

Absolutely you have the right to express your opinion and I value that. Not opposed to expressing a dislike for the store and even protesting, or not frequenting the establishment, but there are those that feel the store should not exist because they don't believe it should - that's more than just an expression of opinion.

If we follow that thinking maybe churches shouldn't exist because some people don't go to church. I don't like Starbucks either, maybe we should stop them from opening up as well. After all, coffee is bad for you too see here ---> http://www.tomatopag...indpost&p=35856

Would you also argue that, if a person has never tried drugs, he or she shouldn't be able to have a valid opinion on whether they are a good thing?  And if they have tried drugs, then clearly their minds are ruined by the effects and they shouldn't be allowed to encourage others to stay away from drugs?  It doesn't make any sense.  You seem to be saying that nobody is allowed to have an opinion on pornography, whether they have seen it or not.

Not at all, you're an attorney; when a jury is asked to form an opinion on a case aren't they shown all the evidence including pornographic imagery if that's what the case is about? In murders, aren't they shown images of the bodies, bloody weapons, etc? Is the judge just trying to mess up their minds? Hey, maybe they should sue the courts afterwards for being exposed to such detrimental imagery.
Oh wait, even if the jury isn't shown some of the imagery, doesn't the judge see it to determine if they should see it or not?

Who do you think has a more accurate representation of being pregnant - a woman who has experienced it or a man who never has?

So yes, the opinion of someone who has drank alcohol/drugs and felt its effects firsthand is a more legitimate one in my opinion, than someone who has never had a drink. And I don't believe their brain is 'ruined' by a drink or sexual imagery for that matter.

Trust me on this ... for every study you can find that says that pornography has no negative effect on the viewer, there is another study that says the opposite.  Simply citing studies is useless. 

I agree. Since there are contradicting studies, lets just say the evidence is inconclusive and leave it at that. Lets not demonize human sexuality.

In addition, the studies you cite don't even go to the point of the discussion.  My view is not that highly sexualized images of women cause men to inappropriately desire women to be beautiful.  My view is that highly sexualized images of women, and our culture's constant peddling of the same, causes men to view women as objects whose primary purpose it is to gratify men's sexual fantasies.  Why do you think there has been so much discussion over the years about the problem with date rape, and how so many male defendants reply with "well, even though she said stop, I knew she really wanted it."  Where do we get such ideas?  Don't you think that a constant barrage of imagery that portrays women as sexual objects contributes to this kind of mentality?  I do.

Do I believe that Ms. Teaz would contribute to this? No. I don't. You'd have to sit outside Ms. Teaz all day to get the exposure that you get in the media.

Interestingly, I was just watching the news about a small poverty ridden town in Afghanistan were there have been ~800 rapes. No TV, magazines, women covered head to toe. Maybe if they had another outlet there wouldn't be so many rapes. Having lived in Germany were prostitution is legal, it was interesting to note that the incidence of rape was very low.

I do have children ... four of them.  They are not sheltered by any means, and I have been very open with them in terms of discussions of sexuality, including the issues we are discussing here.  Of course they will reach an age where they will have to make their own decisions on these issues. 

No argument here. Completely agree. At least you're discussing it with them unlike many parents that feel if they stick their head in the sand everything will take care of itself.

But if you are suggesting that I, as a parent, should not share with them my values, then you are suggesting that I be an irresponsible parent.  What is the role of a parent, then?  Give birth and back off?  Or is it just that you think that I should not share my values with them because they are not the same as your values ... ?

I agree. You should share your values with your children.

How can I put this final point? It'll probably be a poor analogy, but I'll give it a shot. Lets say we're locked in a room and on a table there are 2 cups - one white, one black. You like the white, but not the black, I like the black, but not the white.

My values are such that I have no problem with the white cup being there even though I may not like it. The values of many that I've seen on this discussion indicate that they don't just not like the black cup, they want it gone.

Since we're all in this boat we call a planet together, shouldn't we all be advocating tolerance for alternative viewpoints, expressions? Live and Let Live (or Die as the case may be).

[bordercolliefan]

Since we're all in this boat we call a planet together, shouldn't we all be advocating tolerance for alternative viewpoints, expressions?  Live and Let Live (or Die as the case may be).

Actually... no.

This sounds an awful lot like moral relativism to me (a position that a few philosophers flirted with in the 60's but has now been abandoned by virtually all of them as untenable). The fact is, some value systems are better than others, and people need to have the guts to say so.

For example, a value system where fathers are morally required to stick around and parent their children is better than one where fathers just take off. Similarly, a value system where women have rights to self-determination and economic independence (if they desire it) is better than one where women are viewed as inferior and are oppressed.

Of course, there are some issues as to which alternative viewpoints are morally equal and we should be tolerant of differences. For example, many of us probably believe that it doesn't matter whether the mother or the father is the "chief" breadwinner in the family... etc. etc.

Obviously, you don't feel that the Ms.Teaz issue poses a potential moral issue, whereas several posters to this thread do.

I'm not going to re-state my views on that topic. I just wanted to make the point that it is untenable and dangerous (as well as simplistic) to take the morally relativistic view "Live and let live..." The whole purpose of a moral system is that we DO make judgments about what is right and what is wrong. Without such judgments, we could not have a civilized society.

[Cloud9]

Border,

What's truly untenable is a homogenized value system in a heterogenous society.

Given how the world is globalizing due to ever increasing advances in communications and transportation, we should learn to deal with alternative value systems. Otherwise, we're no wiser than the Bin Ladens of the world.

Right & wrong are not universal absolutes. They are relative parameters - to law, religion, morality, etc.

Lets use an example, smoking marijuana (not medical, but for enjoyment).

You may believe that it is 'wrong' because it is against the law. End of discussion right? Well, what happens if you find yourself in a country where it's legal? Or if it were to be legalized or decriminalized in the near future.

If the law is your only moral compass, then you're at a loss as to how to opine on the matter. Laws are written by mere mortals and as our society evolves we should continue to question existing laws. If we did not, women would not have the right to vote, slavery would still exist, and so on.

Society is not fixed in time nor existing values, it continues to evolve pushing new boundaries, and we must continue to adapt. That's what homo sapiens are known for, unlike any other species, we have the ability to continually adapt to our ever changing environment.

I'm sure there were many who were adamant about the evils of drinking alcohol during the days of prohibition. As a society, we've moved beyond those days, just as we've moved towards a more open, widespread acceptance of human sexuality, and more and more states are questioning the decriminalization of marijuana.

I have no doubt that by the time my children are in their 40s and 50s, marijuana will be decriminalized in numerous states, and everyone will look back and wonder what all the fuss was about, just as we look back on prohibition.

We can also see the same trend as it pertains to sex. With 57% of Americans being viewers of pornography. I'm sure that 30, 40 and 50yrs ago it was much less, and I'm equally sure that 30, 40, 50yrs from now it'll be more.

[tessieca]

BC, you're quite bright! Good posts by nomoser and forumreader too. Stevethedad, you are a good advocate, even if I disagree with you. Thanks for the contributions.

[bishmasterb]

Well said cloud.

border,

If we are not all free to find our own morality, then who gets to choose for us? The majority, the government...?

Majorities and governments have allowed truly wonderful things like slavery, apartheid, abortion and the oppression of women and minorities, just to name a few. Perhaps ours is allowing something now that people in the future will find just as dispicable as we find those things that I mentioned today.

What if we live by the simple rules of not hurting anyone else or their property and keeping our promises. Just those two rules. Wouldn't the world be a better place? Or as cloud put it "live and let live".

[bordercolliefan]

What if we live by the simple rules of not hurting anyone else or their property and keeping our promises. Just those two rules. Wouldn't the world be a better place? Or as cloud put it "live and let live".

Ah, but see, that's the point. Once you adopt the rules "don't allow anyone to hurt anyone else or their property" and "keep your promises," then you are NOT just "living and let living!" Instead, you have made the moral judgment that you will not tolerate actions that hurt others or other people's property. Thus, if my personal moral system tells me that it's okay to beat my kids and key my neighbor's car, you (meaning society) will say, "Sorry, we don't allow that" (and will probably punish me).

A civilized society requires that we (collectively) make moral judgments and act on them. We may sometimes disagree on what moral judgments we ought to make (as in the Ms. Teaz debate). But we do (and must) make such judgments. To say we should just "Live and let live" -- though it certainly sounds nice -- is just nonsensical.

[bishmasterb]

border,

You are absolutely correct that adopting the rules I mentioned represents a moral code, because someone might very well have a code that morally allows them to hurt others.

BUT (and this is a big but) those rules are consistent across culture, religion, geography and time; and they represent a commonly accepted natural law that allows for humans to thrive collectively.



"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him." - Thomas Jefferson

[cybertrano]

very nicely done bcfan. now let's apply that to Ms. Teaz

Ah, but see, that's the point.  Once you adopt the rules "don't allow anyone to hurt anyone else or their property" and "keep your promises," then you are NOT just  "living and let living!"  Instead, you have made the moral judgment that you will not tolerate actions that hurt others or other people's property.  Thus, if my personal moral system tells me that it's okay to beat my kids and key my neighbor's car, you (meaning society) will say, "Sorry, we don't allow that" (and will probably punish me). 

A civilized society requires that we (collectively) make moral judgments and act on them.  We may sometimes disagree on what moral judgments we ought to make (as in the Ms. Teaz debate).  But we do (and must) make such judgments.  To say we should just "Live and let live" -- though it certainly sounds nice -- is just nonsensical.

[nomoser]

What this seems to come down to is a difference in the drawing of lines. For example, assume that instead of Ms. Teaz, the proposed new establishment on Sutter Street was a neo-Nazi, white-supremecist recruiting agency. The "business plan" the group submits makes it clear that their purpose is to "educate" the community of Folsom on various "issues" relating to non-white, non-Christian peoples. I would guess that Cloud and Bish and others would stand shoulder to shoulder with me in opposition to this establishment before it ever opened its doors. Why? Because we have certain values that tell us that the work that organization would do would not be good for our community (or any community, for that matter). It crosses a mental line that we have drawn.

On the other side of that line, there are lots of businesses that open every day that, although I don't particularly care for what they sell, I would never openly oppose. For instance, I don't particularly care for Precious Moments figurines (no offense to those who do like them ... they are cute and all, just not my thing), but you won't see me attempting to influence a prospective Precious Moments business owner to locate his or her business somewhere else. Why? Because I am certain (at least, fairly certain ... j/k) that the sale of Precious Moments figurines would not be harmful to our community.

In the case of Ms. Teaz, although it may not fall as far over my line as would a neo-Nazi recruiting center, it does fall on the side of my line where I believe that it does have a potential to harm our community. That being the case, I feel that I have a right, if not an obligation, to state my concers and oppositions, even if it means suggesting the business locate elsewhere.

And to the repeted argument that someone who hasn't viewed pornography cannot really speak to its effect, let me say this. I was an early user of the Internet (although I didn't invent it ... that was Al Gore ...), using it back in the early 90s when it was still text-based. I can remember the first time I downloaded Netscape and was amazed at the functionality. To assume that someone who is so familiar with the Internet and has used it for more than 10 years does not know what pornography is, is a pretty wild assumption with little basis in reality. I don't, however, believe that it is necessary to go and buy a Penthouse magazine to know what pornography is or to have an opinion as to its effects. Nor do I believe that pornography, like art, needs to be really studied and absorbed in order for it to be understood. Forget that!

[YabYum]

Attention: NIMBY's

Slowly, cautiously, carefully --- Remove Your Blinders.

Thank you, and proceed with caution.

[Adamal]

Man has this thread lasted a long time.

This will be my last post in this topic since I believe everything that can be said has been.

I have seen nothing that has been posted that shows me that this shop will be bad for our community, so my final verdict is I have no problem with it being there. Show me proof of it being bad and I may change my mind. So far people have just said that it will be.

For those of you who do not want it there. You have every right not to want the shop there but I believe the way you are going about trying to make sure they never setup shop is wrong. We have a free market economy for a reason. Don't like it? don't go there. If you really are the majority then they will more than likley go out of business.

Everyone has a right their opinion but when they force it upon others is where there is a problem. There are situations where the community needs to keep things that are known to be bad out of their community but no one has made a case so far that shows beyond a doubt that this shop will hurt our community. So then why are you trying to force your moral views down on us who do not share them?

I've said all that I feel needs to be said.

Thanks god we live in America where we can talk about issues such as this.

[YabYum]

Thanks god we live in America where we can talk about issues such as this. 

you say that today....but hopefully we can still say that after tomorrow.

[Orangetj]

you say that today....but hopefully we can still say that after tomorrow.

What, exactly, is that supposed to mean? Are you implying that the outcome of tomorrow's election will determine our freedom of speech? If so, which candidate do you believe represents this threat?

[YabYum]

What, exactly, is that supposed to mean?  Are you implying that the outcome of tomorrow's election will determine our freedom of speech?  If so, which candidate do you believe represents this threat?

you tell me.

[waterbaby149]

Please open that place soon .... and then maybe this will all stop.... and if it doesn't succeed ......
by the way John I disagree - this has a competition with the Save the Park posts which created the most stir for quite sometime
and still brings a buzzzzzz...