NationStates Jolt Archive

Before I get flamed from the pro-freedom people, I am a Libertarian, so i'm not talking about wanting more social controls. I'm interested at the social aspect.

Background: I am Male, 17 and Heterosexual. I ballroom dance and sing in a barbershop chorus and listen to Frank Sinatra.

Does having more freedom make everyone more base? Or does it just make it more public/acceptable?

AFAIK, Mozart used to be the pop music of his time. Now it's Britney Spears. Sluttiness used to be deplored, now it seems to be celebrated. Reality TV is known and loved by a large proportion of the populace. A lot of people my age can't enjoy themselves unless they are semi-conscious and unable to move from drinking. There are others with two topics of conversation; How stoned they got last weekend and how stoned they are going to get next weekend.

Maybe it only brings it out into the public more. For example, prositution has been around since the start of time.

Romance seems to have given way to getting laid (with little regard to who with).

No I don't think everyone should have the same interests, but have we in general gone from productive, beautiful and noble to ugly, slutty and base?

Whaddaya think?

No I don't think everyone should have the same interests, but have we in general gone from productive, beautiful and noble to ugly, slutty and base?
I think it is just cultural evolution. Interesting idea, one that had occured to me before, but I disagree.

You are comparing the wealthy class of the past to the poor class of the present.

Compare the middle class of the past to the middle class of today, and I feel there might be a shift to the better.

Well, the US has become a lot more secular over the years in regards to mainstream culture. Thanks to PC and "multiculturism" getting rid of Christianity and traditional American values with it from everywhere....

But the problem is if some country wants to become fully secular and PC and gets rid of its dominant religion and other traditions. The morals and values taught by that religion and etc. go out with them. Therefore it is equally important for that country to establish some sort of secular morality and that will never happen here. The USSR seemed to have tried to do that but since it was the USSR....it failed.

A lot of foreigners especially ones from Islamic countries tend to exploit our and your mainstream culture as negatively as they can to their benefit... Therefore, we(the West) must have large self-initiated internal social reforms. They can't be started by the government though for obvious reasons. So someone who has great influence over mainstream society needs to jumpstart it. But I'm betting that won't happen anytime soon either...

A recent poll by the National Survey of Family Growth showed that 47% of teenage girls were sexually active compared to 46% of teenage boys in 2002. However, it has dropped as 55% of American teens were sexually active in 1995. Hopefully, that can be said the same about New Zealand.

I've been to Wellington, New Zealand on a People to People Student Ambassadors and it seemed somewhat worse than the US in the drug department. When we had some free time in between two activities, a few of us went into a world bazaar, across from some famous museum you guys have, and found a whole store of drug paraphernalia and professionally made beer bongs...

Oh well, we better hope for even the slightest change.

I'm a 19 year old heterosexual male by the way.

A recent poll by the National Survey of Family Growth showed that 47% of teenage girls were sexually active compared to 46% of teenage boys in 2002. However, it has dropped as 55% of American teens were sexually active in 1995.Hmm, probably a red herring.

"Sexually active" isn't a measure of much. You can be with a monogamous partner for many years as a teen and be sexually active or you can be sleeping with three different strangers every weekend.

Well, the US has become a lot more secular over the years in regards to mainstream culture. Thanks to PC and "multiculturism" getting rid of Christianity and traditional American values with it from everywhere....

But the problem is if some country wants to become fully secular and PC and gets rid of its dominant religion and other traditions. The morals and values taught by that religion and etc. go out with them. Therefore it is equally important for that country to establish some sort of secular morality and that will never happen here. The USSR seemed to have tried to do that but since it was the USSR....it failed.

I was more approaching it from a psychology/behaviour direction.

The fantastic thing about it is that because of the social freedoms, you don't have to follow the cultural norm.

I don't have to jump in bed with someone who enjoys screwing strangers and they don't have to have a long-term monogamous relationship with me. Same with drugs, nihilistic music, etc.

But the problem is if some country wants to become fully secular and PC and gets rid of its dominant religion and other traditions. The morals and values taught by that religion and etc. go out with them.


WRONG WRONG WRONG. Social values and morals are inherent in us from birth. The only morals that will disappear will be the ones that are devisive and detrimental to society

WRONG WRONG WRONG. Social values and morals are inherent in us from birth. The only morals that will disappear will be the ones that are devisive and detrimental to society
Umm...first of all, social values and morals are not inherited, if you mean that genetically. But I don't think you did, and I think you're wrong. Explain hippies.

Times and social norms might change, but some people will always be "better" than others.

I mean, seriously, even if the entire world was "getting drunk and slutty", I would still take heart in the fact that I am smarter and "cooler" than them, and not taking advantage of a generous libertarian environment.

The most authoritarian ideal I harbor is forcing people to have no more than 2 children. I don't wish to argue or explain my opinion, so take it as you wish.

hippies.

Aren't you a liberal libertarian?

Aren't you a liberal libertarian?
I am indeed a liberal. Not libertarian, though. Why?

Umm...first of all, social values and morals are not inherited, if you mean that genetically. But I don't think you did, and I think you're wrong. Explain hippies.

I believe that behavior has evolved in the same way as physical characteristics. Behavior beneficial to society would have an obvious advantage over behavior that is not beneficial to society, and so behavioral evolution would lead to a people whose behavior is more fitting in society.

Do you believe that social values and norms were a result of religion? I would imagine that religion is a result of social values and norms.

I believe that behavior has evolved in the same way as physical characteristics. Behavior beneficial to society would have an obvious advantage over behavior that is not beneficial to society, and so behavioral evolution would lead to a people whose behavior is more fitting in society.
We haven't even figured out if ant colonial behaviour is inherited. It is a huge stretch to think that this happens in humans if we can't even figure it out in ants.

We haven't even figured out if ant colonial behaviour is inherited. It is a huge stretch to think that this happens in humans if we can't even figure it out in ants.

Why would behavior not evolve in much the same way as physical characteristics?

Do you believe that social values and norms were a result of religion? I would imagine that religion is a result of social values and norms.
I believe that they are interrelated. Neither is a result of the other, in my opinion.

I believe that they are interrelated. Neither is a result of the other, in my opinion.

Well, then you agree with my original point that the removal or religion does not lead to the removal of values and morals.

Why would behavior not evolve in much the same way as physical characteristics?
It is not a question of "why". I understand your reasoning entirely. The issue is whether it is or not. There is no proof to suggest that it is either inherited or not in ants. The last thing I read on that was Ants at Work: How an Insect Society is Organized by Deborah M. Gordon, who has studied the desert harvester ant, Pogonomyrmex barbatus, for 17 years. There is still no idea one way or the other after such a time period with a single species of ant. I'm not up-to-date on humans, but I assume that if we don't have colonial behaviour down with ants, we certainly don't have societal behaviour, the human equivalent, down in humans.

It is all about commercialization. It is because of corporations playing on and magnifying our base instincts for a profit. We are becoming less noble etc. and becoming more animalian, nothing terribly wrong with that.

As for drug problems, there it is a magnification of our feelings through the media. The more we see kids being oppressed, the more it will translate into real life. Thus kids are pressured to validate themselves, make themselves seem strong, by taking drugs etc. Alcohol, they used to get drunk since the beginning of time as well.

It is not a question of "why". I understand your reasoning entirely. The issue is whether it is or not. There is no proof to suggest that it is either inherited or not in ants. The last thing I read on that was Ants at Work: How an Insect Society is Organized by Deborah M. Gordon, who has studied the desert harvester ant, Pogonomyrmex barbatus, for 17 years. There is still no idea one way or the other after such a time period with a single species of ant. I'm not up-to-date on humans, but I assume that if we don't have colonial behaviour down with ants, we certainly don't have societal behaviour, the human equivalent, down in humans.

Alcoholism is said to be genetic and it is a behavioral trait.

I'm just saying that all the rules that apply for physical traits apply to behavioral traits, and so it would logically follow that process of evolution would apply as well. Poor socially adept animals would be weeded out by evolution and so the path would constantly be towards a more social animal.

I don't really buy into the idea that people get better or worse with time.

I don't really buy into the idea that people get better or worse with time.

Do you mean with evolution?

Alcoholism is said to be genetic and it is a behavioral trait.
Or is it the tendency to become addicted or dependent on something? Saying that alcoholism alone is inherited is just silly.

Poor socially adept animals would be weeded out by evolution and so the path would constantly be towards a more social animal.
A more social animal, perhaps, but that says nothing of social or moral values. Just, basically, how good at communicating the animal is. Or another social trait that would favour surivival and/or reproduction.

Or is it the tendency to become addicted or dependent on something? Saying that alcoholism alone is inherited is just silly.

Sure, but an addictive personality is also a behavioral trait.

A more social animal, perhaps, but that says nothing of social or moral values. Just, basically, how good at communicating the animal is. Or another social trait that would favour surivival and/or reproduction.

I am not saying that the specific moral values we have would be exactly the same, I am just saying that all of the mental faculties that are needed to develop social values are there regardless of religion, and that these faculties have been created and fine tuned through evolution.

Do you mean with evolution?

More or less. I don't think cultural evolution turns us into inherently better or worse people.

More or less. I don't think cultural evolution turns us into inherently better or worse people.

As for better or worse morally, no I don't think we become increasingly moral, but we do become more socially adept, and much of our morals come from social interaction.

Background: I am Male, 17 and Heterosexual. I ballroom dance and sing in a barbershop chorus and listen to Frank Sinatra.


A pint of whiskey will add color to your cheeks and might add a little personality.

[disclaimer: not a flame, just a playful jab]

A pint of whiskey will add color to your cheeks and might add a little personality.

[disclaimer: not a flame, just a playful jab]

:p

Actually that (admittedly very dry) introduction was mainly to cut off "Huh, you dance and sing who cares what you poofs think, i'll drink my beer and beat my woman" responses at the pass.

I'll assume then that you don't think a personality comes from a beer bottle
;) :D

EDIT: "Keruvalia is showing the importance of not being seen. *BOOOM*" Got it right?

I'll assume then that you don't think a personality comes from a beer bottle
;) :D

Oh heavens no! It comes from a bloated liver. :D

bump

Hmm, I thought there would be more interest.

I suppose there is no 4-letter word starting with B and ending with ush ;)

It is inevitable that this stage in culture will end just as that of Mozart did. Whether we will see a liberalisation or a restriction of personal freedom depends entirely on those who have power....

The foundation of morality should not be made dependent on myth nor tied to any authority lest doubt about the myth or about the legitimacy of the authority imperil the foundation of sound judgment and action.

-- Albert Einstein
.

Romance seems to have given way to getting laid (with little regard to who with).

oh please,human society has ALWAYS been about one thing alone.getting laid.that is the very basis of our society.love is not entwined with sex naturally in the least,they just complement eachother well.

I think it is just cultural evolution. Interesting idea, one that had occured to me before, but I disagree.


No, it's just a cultural devolution.

I was more approaching it from a psychology/behaviour direction.

The fantastic thing about it is that because of the social freedoms, you don't have to follow the cultural norm.

I don't have to jump in bed with someone who enjoys screwing strangers and they don't have to have a long-term monogamous relationship with me. Same with drugs, nihilistic music, etc.


It doesn't matter that I don't have to do what I find repulsive, I simply can't stand to see what I find repulsive, being done by others, and being portrayed as normal and healthy when it is so disgusting and against the will of God.


If people won't conform to the morality put forth in the Bible, because it is right and proper, then they will conform because it is law and if they don't, they will go to prison. Sadly, that is probably what it must come to if we are to save our lands from the wrath of God, for He will smite us all for our allowing sin to be rife in our lands.

I find this quite an interesting subject. I think that greater social freedeom has been a double edged sword. You've had an increase for freedom for women to work outside the home. There have been more rights for people who don't perfectly fit into mainstream society. But along with that you get rising STD rates. Far more teenage pregnancies. I'm not sure what can be done about it. I've talked with my dad about this sort of subject a lot. He's quite left wing economically but socially he's conservative to the point of authoritarianism. He thinks that nothing short of turning the clock back will save society. I'm not sure myself. I think it would be a mistake to get rid of some of the good progress society has made.

Times and social norms might change, but some people will always be "better" than others.

I mean, seriously, even if the entire world was "getting drunk and slutty", I would still take heart in the fact that I am smarter and "cooler" than them, and not taking advantage of a generous libertarian environment.

The most authoritarian ideal I harbor is forcing people to have no more than 2 children. I don't wish to argue or explain my opinion, so take it as you wish.

You represent everything I abbhor. The most authoritarian ideal I harbor is forcing people to have no children that turn out like you, if it was possible.
I too don't wish to argue or explain my opinion, so take it as you wish.

It doesn't matter that I don't have to do what I find repulsive, I simply can't stand to see what I find repulsive, being done by others, and being portrayed as normal and healthy when it is so disgusting and against the will of God.


If people won't conform to the morality put forth in the Bible, because it is right and proper, then they will conform because it is law and if they don't, they will go to prison. Sadly, that is probably what it must come to if we are to save our lands from the wrath of God, for He will smite us all for our allowing sin to be rife in our lands.
I'd like to know what you think about my quote at the top of this page.

Does anyone have any statistics pointing to how our culture is "devolving"?

Also, can anyone explain how they are linked to social freedoms?

in communism, there is no social class, all is the same..
with freedoms comes free thinking... very bad..
the government controls all... the people must be guided or they shall falter.. look at our beloved russia... very poor, in stalin's dayz,, this never would have been tolerated!!

No, it's just a cultural devolution.
Only to Bible thumpers.

in communism, there is no social class, all is the same..
with freedoms comes free thinking... very bad..
the government controls all... the people must be guided or they shall falter.. look at our beloved russia... very poor, in stalin's dayz,, this never would have been tolerated!!
And it is certain that the government never falters.

Only to Bible thumpers.

Not neccasarily.

I am an athiest, but believe that this mainstream society seems to be getting cruder and cheaper. Not based on writings in a book, but my own personal values.

I think it is just cultural evolution. Interesting idea, one that had occured to me before, but I disagree.
I second that

Before I get flamed from the pro-freedom people, I am a Libertarian, so i'm not talking about wanting more social controls. I'm interested at the social aspect.

Background: I am Male, 17 and Heterosexual. I ballroom dance and sing in a barbershop chorus and listen to Frank Sinatra.

Does having more freedom make everyone more base? Or does it just make it more public/acceptable?

AFAIK, Mozart used to be the pop music of his time. Now it's Britney Spears. Sluttiness used to be deplored, now it seems to be celebrated. Reality TV is known and loved by a large proportion of the populace. A lot of people my age can't enjoy themselves unless they are semi-conscious and unable to move from drinking. There are others with two topics of conversation; How stoned they got last weekend and how stoned they are going to get next weekend.

Maybe it only brings it out into the public more. For example, prositution has been around since the start of time.

Romance seems to have given way to getting laid (with little regard to who with).

No I don't think everyone should have the same interests, but have we in general gone from productive, beautiful and noble to ugly, slutty and base?

Whaddaya think?

Having more freedom is never the problem. Freedom only allows those who are already base at heart to demonstrate it freely. Yes, it means that it will happen more publically, but it is individual behavior/desire/intent that = baseness. Freedom can be utilizied for good just as well as evil. Forced "goodness" isn't really goodness anyway... it's slavery.

Having more freedom is never the problem. Freedom only allows those who are already base at heart to demonstrate it freely. Yes, it means that it will happen more publically, but it is individual behavior/desire/intent that = baseness. Freedom can be utilizied for good just as well as evil. Forced "goodness" isn't really goodness anyway... it's slavery.
True - one cannot force a person to be free either

Does having more freedom make everyone more base? Or does it just make it more public/acceptable?

Please explain for me a time when people werent attracted to the base. There have always been the "cultured" and intelectuals in every society, but surely you cant believe that there has been a truly intelectual and cultured civilization....

AFAIK, Mozart used to be the pop music of his time. Now it's Britney Spears.

lol, motzart didnt have to compete with major corporate interests. There is plenty of music of motzart's calibur being created today. Some that is much more experimental.

Sluttiness used to be deplored, now it seems to be celebrated.

1. Where and when was sluttiness deplored.

2. Are whichever groups that used to be against slutiness still against it?

Reality TV is known and loved by a large proportion of the populace.

The guilitine was a specticle during the reign of terror. People have always lined up to see executions. Look at the colleseum

A lot of people my age can't enjoy themselves unless they are semi-conscious and unable to move from drinking. There are others with two topics of conversation; How stoned they got last weekend and how stoned they are going to get next weekend.

The biggest problems that Eqyptian administrators faced, during the times of Pharroah, with students was tardiness and drunkeness.

Maybe it only brings it out into the public more. For example, prositution has been around since the start of time.

Romance seems to have given way to getting laid (with little regard to who with).

No I don't think everyone should have the same interests, but have we in general gone from productive, beautiful and noble to ugly, slutty and base?


wow... you need to study your social anthropology...

Before I get flamed from the pro-freedom people, I am a Libertarian, so i'm not talking about wanting more social controls. I'm interested at the social aspect.

Background: I am Male, 17 and Heterosexual. I ballroom dance and sing in a barbershop chorus and listen to Frank Sinatra.

Does having more freedom make everyone more base? Or does it just make it more public/acceptable?

AFAIK, Mozart used to be the pop music of his time. Now it's Britney Spears. Sluttiness used to be deplored, now it seems to be celebrated. Reality TV is known and loved by a large proportion of the populace. A lot of people my age can't enjoy themselves unless they are semi-conscious and unable to move from drinking. There are others with two topics of conversation; How stoned they got last weekend and how stoned they are going to get next weekend.

Maybe it only brings it out into the public more. For example, prositution has been around since the start of time.

Romance seems to have given way to getting laid (with little regard to who with).

No I don't think everyone should have the same interests, but have we in general gone from productive, beautiful and noble to ugly, slutty and base?

Whaddaya think?


Since Victorian times, this comparison is valid. However, going back further, one would see that it goes in waves, as there was a time when palaces were built with bedrooms connected for the explicit purpose of promiscuity. Decadence is not a new thing, not at all. Drugs have been around for a long time, indeed, you used to be able to buy heroin and cocaine legally. The character, Sherlock Homes, injected himself with an opiate in those stories (though usually that is glossed over, now). Certainly we are not so base as to think that the Pope having illegitimate children is acceptable, or that buying 'indulgences' will wipe away one's sins. We no longer castrate young boys with good singing voices so that they will be sopranos forever. Whenever we think back to "the old days" we only really go back to the Victorian era, which was, in comparison with some earlier eras, quite prudish.

So no, I don't think we've gone from productive, beautiful and noble to ugly, slutty and base. I would not want to live in Victorian times, ever. It's propriety seems oppressive to me, though I would not go back to the insane days before it.

Having more freedom is never the problem. Freedom only allows those who are already base at heart to demonstrate it freely. Yes, it means that it will happen more publically, but it is individual behavior/desire/intent that = baseness. Freedom can be utilizied for good just as well as evil.

Very good post!

Question: Does it seem to dominate mainstream culture because it is a more dominant culture or because there are more people who support it?

Forced "goodness" isn't really goodness anyway... it's slavery.Roger that, hence the libertarian disclaimer ;)
:)

Since Victorian times, this comparison is valid. However, going back further, one would see that it goes in waves, as there was a time when palaces were built with bedrooms connected for the explicit purpose of promiscuity. Decadence is not a new thing, not at all. Drugs have been around for a long time, indeed, you used to be able to buy heroin and cocaine legally. The character, Sherlock Homes, injected himself with an opiate in those stories (though usually that is glossed over, now). Certainly we are not so base as to think that the Pope having illegitimate children is acceptable, or that buying 'indulgences' will wipe away one's sins. We no longer castrate young boys with good singing voices so that they will be sopranos forever. Whenever we think back to "the old days" we only really go back to the Victorian era, which was, in comparison with some earlier eras, quite prudish.

So no, I don't think we've gone from productive, beautiful and noble to ugly, slutty and base. I would not want to live in Victorian times, ever. It's propriety seems oppressive to me, though I would not go back to the insane days before it.

Thank you! Some really interesting things to think about.

*snip*
wow... you need to study your social anthropology...

Why the flame?

Seriously, I put forward an idea that I had been toying with, to see what people would come up with. Several people have given me some great food for thought. Thats why I posted it! To get other opinions and facts I didn't know.

You haven't given me anything except a hostile post that seems to take offence at what I have said! Lose the confrontational attitude and then please put something constructive into the thread.

Very good post!

Question: Does it seem to dominate mainstream culture because it is a more dominant culture or because there are more people who support it?

Roger that, hence the libertarian disclaimer ;)
:)

Not sure what you are referring to as "it", but I'm assuming baseness. My answer for that is religious rather than political or scientific. I believe that since sin entered the world, human kind has been on a track of progressive physical, mental and moral degradation. Occasionally, something checks it like the Reformation, Christ's first coming, the flood and a few others. The only way for it to be checked on an individual basis is acceptance of Divine intervention (justification and sanctification) by Christ's sacrifice. So, the reason baseness is so prevalent in society at large is this process of degradation and fewer and fewer people genuinely accepting that Divine intervention.

Not sure what you are referring to as "it", but I'm assuming baseness. My answer for that is religious rather than political or scientific. I believe that since sin entered the world, human kind has been on a track of progressive physical, mental and moral degradation. Occasionally, something checks it like the Reformation, Christ's first coming, the flood and a few others. The only way for it to be checked on an individual basis is acceptance of Divine intervention (justification and sanctification) by Christ's sacrifice. So, the reason baseness is so prevalent in society at large is this process of degradation and fewer and fewer people genuinely accepting that Divine intervention.

Oh, ouch.

What about people like me, athiest, but who don't subscribe to the cheap side of society?

Some of the most religious times in history have had the most 'baseness'

bump

Why the flame?

Seriously, I put forward an idea that I had been toying with, to see what people would come up with. Several people have given me some great food for thought. Thats why I posted it! To get other opinions and facts I didn't know.

You haven't given me anything except a hostile post that seems to take offence at what I have said! Lose the confrontational attitude and then please put something constructive into the thread.

the flame is because your question is absurd

a simple study of society, and not just the intellects and artists to come from it, shows that people are generally the same

"hostile" or not, my point still stands, and playing the martyr doesnt make your point any more valid

the flame is because your question is absurd

a simple study of society, and not just the intellects and artists to come from it, shows that people are generally the same

"hostile" or not, my point still stands, and playing the martyr doesnt make your point any more valid

If you think it's a stupid thread, don't bother posting in it.

You never bothered to make a point!

If you think it's a stupid thread, don't bother posting in it.

You never bothered to make a point!

yup i did, here, allow me to recap:

Please explain for me a time when people werent attracted to the base. There have always been the "cultured" and intelectuals in every society, but surely you cant believe that there has been a truly intelectual and cultured civilization....


i think this question remains unanswered. If you are claiming that we are degenerating, what are we degenerating from

lol, motzart didnt have to compete with major corporate interests. There is plenty of music of motzart's calibur being created today. Some that is much more experimental.

you claim that Motzart being popular music is proof of a more cultured society. I contend that the reason people like brittney spears has more to do with media marketing than musical tastes. People are making great music today that is of the calibur of motzart, this proves that we are at least as cultured.

1. Where and when was sluttiness deplored.

2. Are whichever groups that used to be against slutiness still against it?

If the sluttiness that is so prevelent in our society is, again, a degredation from prior times, please explain from where it comes and if the SPECIFIC ORGANIZATIONS OR INSTITUTIONS that were against "sluttiness" are still. Again, I would contend that the only thing that has changed is society's idea of what is slutty. Women have always wanted to gain the attention of men, and sex has always been a way to do this

The guilitine was a specticle during the reign of terror. People have always lined up to see executions. Look at the colleseum

This shows that violence and real drama were, and have always been factors of humanity. We enjoy to watch other's misery. Im sure there is a psychological reason, but this is not something new to our society.

The biggest problems that Eqyptian administrators faced, during the times of Pharroah, with students was tardiness and drunkeness.

People getting drunk and stoned and high is not a modern phenominon. The fact that Pharroah had issues with it shows that we are not so differant from our egyptian anscentors

wow... you need to study your social anthropology...

this here, this would be the only flame. I still stand by it

i think this question remains unanswered. If you are claiming that we are degenerating, what are we degenerating from When I first began thinking, I was thinking early 20th century.

you claim that Motzart being popular music is proof of a more cultured society. I contend that the reason people like brittney spears has more to do with media marketing than musical tastes. People are making great music today that is of the calibur of motzart, this proves that we are at least as cultured.What I was wondering was more why the great music today is not mainstream taste. That's where I started; why it seems that the good things in society now seem to be on the border of it.
If the sluttiness that is so prevelent in our society is, again, a degredation from prior times, please explain from where it comes and if the SPECIFIC ORGANIZATIONS OR INSTITUTIONS that were against "sluttiness" are still. Again, I would contend that the only thing that has changed is society's idea of what is slutty. Women have always wanted to gain the attention of men, and sex has always been a way to do this That's exactly what I have been talking about! The idea of what is good or acceptable has changed. People used to go out to ballroom dances in tuxedos and dresses, now more likely to go out with a belt-width skirt and a see-through top.

This shows that violence and real drama were, and have always been factors of humanity. We enjoy to watch other's misery. Im sure there is a psychological reason, but this is not something new to our society. Good point
People getting drunk and stoned and high is not a modern phenominon. The fact that Pharroah had issues with it shows that we are not so differant from our egyptian anscentors But was it always championed/glorified or was it considered a problem?

this here, this would be the only flame. I still stand by it Lol, what has got your goat? I started the thread with an open question, all that was needed was an "I disagree, because of x y and z"
:p

When I first began thinking, I was thinking early 20th century.

how was the early 20th century less degenerate than our society as it currently stands

What I was wondering was more why the great music today is not mainstream taste. That's where I started; why it seems that the good things in society now seem to be on the border of it.

i wrote something on media on the bottom. If there had been a media for motzart to compete with that was offering the same things as the media today, i believe that he would not have had the mainstream popularity he had. He was fortunate that music as an industry wasnt even a thought.

That's exactly what I have been talking about! The idea of what is good or acceptable has changed. People used to go out to ballroom dances in tuxedos and dresses, now more likely to go out with a belt-width skirt and a see-through top.

its not what they are wearing, its what it symbolizes. The dresses that they were wearing would have been what was considered attractive for the time. We now just think that see through tops are attractive.

Our psychology is changing as we are fed with differant images of what we believe a successful, healthy and attractive person are. However, people are and have always been driven to seek out the most desirable people for sex.

the predominacy of sex in history shows that our culture is most certainly not the first to deal with is. Saffo of Lesbos? Marquis de Sade?

Good point But was it always championed/glorified or was it considered a problem?


its not glorified though. You are obviously against it, the church is still against it. There wasn't a drug culture before in history as there is today though because of legal prescedence.

This glorification is also majorly in part because of the media. They didnt have the media at the turn of the century, so this type of glorification you are talking about is basically impossible.

The media succeeds so well because human nature is what it is and what it always has been. Given the choice between base satisfaction and intellectual gratification, people are more likly to take the base. Work marketing psychology into the mix and it is much more understandable.

i wrote something on media on the bottom. If there had been a media for motzart to compete with that was offering the same things as the media today, i believe that he would not have had the mainstream popularity he had. He was fortunate that music as an industry wasnt even a thought. So do you think that human beings in general are geared towards the LCD, and because of the freedom today and the media pushing it, it has simply become more visible?
its not what they are wearing, its what it symbolizes. The dresses that they were wearing would have been what was considered attractive for the time. We now just think that see through tops are attractive.
Our psychology is changing as we are fed with differant images of what we believe a successful, healthy and attractive person are. However, people are and have always been driven to seek out the most desirable people for sex. So do you think the media has led or been led by this?

its not glorified though. You are obviously against it, the church is still against it. There wasn't a drug culture before in history as there is today though because of legal prescedence.

This glorification is also majorly in part because of the media. They didnt have the media at the turn of the century, so this type of glorification you are talking about is basically impossible.

The media succeeds so well because human nature is what it is and what it always has been. Given the choice between base satisfaction and intellectual gratification, people are more likly to take the base. Work marketing psychology into the mix and it is much more understandable. So basically: Humans are in general very base, and at this point in time the media and our freedom simply allows them to express it more publically than before?

So basically: Humans are in general very base, and at this point in time the media and our freedom simply allows them to express it more publically than before?

you seem to want a 2 cent version of it...

People have always been attracted to the base. It is no more prevelant in our society today than it was 100 years ago or 1000 years ago. The only thing that has changed is our perception of what these base attractions are. ie: what our psychological or social perception of what is appropriate or attractive.

I guess i also have to add: What we consider appropriate or attractive is normally dictated by the governing body or power of the time. During the Christian rule of Eurpoe, there would have obviously have been a differant standard by which things were validated as appropriate or not. But the attraction to the inappropriate transcends the system by which we come to determine appropriateness.

Before I get flamed from the pro-freedom people, I am a Libertarian, so i'm not talking about wanting more social controls. I'm interested at the social aspect.

Background: I am Male, 17 and Heterosexual. I ballroom dance and sing in a barbershop chorus and listen to Frank Sinatra.

Does having more freedom make everyone more base? Or does it just make it more public/acceptable?

Neither.

AFAIK, Mozart used to be the pop music of his time. Now it's Britney Spears.

Wrong - a historical mis-perception. In Mozart's time frame, the equivilant of pop music was what we now call folk.

Sluttiness used to be deplored, now it seems to be celebrated.

Comes and goes in cycles.

Reality TV is known and loved by a large proportion of the populace.

Passing fad.

A lot of people my age can't enjoy themselves unless they are semi-conscious and unable to move from drinking.

First, that's just an over-inflated gross generalization. Second, that's bot new. Alcohol (and other intoxicants) has been with humanity from pre-history.

There are others with two topics of conversation; How stoned they got last weekend and how stoned they are going to get next weekend.

See above.

Maybe it only brings it out into the public more. For example, prositution has been around since the start of time.

As have most of the things you are complaining about (the sole exception being reality TV).

Romance seems to have given way to getting laid (with little regard to who with).

Again, a historical mis-perception. "Romance" is largely a fiction. (Largely, not completely - but that's a whole other can of worms we'll save for another day.)

No I don't think everyone should have the same interests, but have we in general gone from productive, beautiful and noble to ugly, slutty and base?

Nope. You're just looking at history through the proverbial rose-colored glasses.

History has always been continual fear and danger of violent death; and ... life ... solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. for the vast majority of people.

Wrong - a historical mis-perception. In Mozart's time frame, the equivilant of pop music was what we now call folk. Thanks for clearing that upAgain, a historical mis-perception. "Romance" is largely a fiction. (Largely, not completely - but that's a whole other can of worms we'll save for another day.) How is it fiction? It certainly exists for me.Nope. You're just looking at history through the proverbial rose-colored glasses. Probably true. While some things seem to have been a lot better in the past, there were also a lot of things much worse.

How is it fiction? It certainly exists for me.

Note that I said romance is largely a fiction, not that it is fiction. Love is not fiction, but the modern ideas of romance are unrealistic, oversimplified and over idealized.
The modern ideas of romance are rooted in the ideas of courtly love, especially as found in the idealization of women and love in medieval literature. Courtly love was always an ideal, but rarely (if ever) realized.
The idealized version of romance is present in all the media, but not in real life. TV, movies, and popular fiction are just that.
(Romance can be detrimental by creating unreasonable conceptions of what love is.)

Note that I said romance is largely a fiction, not that it is fiction. Love is not fiction, but the modern ideas of romance are unrealistic, oversimplified and over idealized.
The modern ideas of romance are rooted in the ideas of courtly love, especially as found in the idealization of women and love in medieval literature. Courtly love was always an ideal, but rarely (if ever) realized.
The idealized version of romance is present in all the media, but not in real life. 'Tis for me :) TV, movies, and popular fiction are just that.
(Romance can be detrimental by creating unreasonable conceptions of what love is.)
I think every couple finds it's own understanding of what their love is. Some might be fantastical and romantic, another dependable and steady, another might be trivial and flippant fun.

Like anything, romance is a choice.

For some reason, why do I think this thread will turn anti-Bush within the next couple pages?

For some reason, why do I think this thread will turn anti-Bush within the next couple pages?

:D :D
Because...

Every thread does.

and

It has the word "Freedoms" in it.

:)

No, having more social freedoms does not lower anyone, if anything it raises everyone. By allowing those people who wish to, to commit what is commonly viewed as acts of deprevity you raise the rest of society by comparison since they are given the option to do such things but refrain. Drugs should be legal as long as people do not break other laws, such as stealing or killing as a result of their use of drugs. There should be exactly zero laws regarding the manner in which people have sex. If you don't like the fact that some people like to have sex with dogs, or other's of the same sex, that's fine, you can consider yourself above that, and are in no way required to participate in such acts simply because they are made legal for everyone, but it is unreasonable, unconstitutional (in the U.S.), and unconsciounable for a group of people, even the majority, to force their beliefs about the way in which a person should act onto the rest of society disregarding personal beliefs.

'Tis for me :)
I think every couple finds it's own understanding of what their love is. Some might be fantastical and romantic, another dependable and steady, another might be trivial and flippant fun.

Like anything, romance is a choice.

It seems to me that you are confusing love with romance here. Either that or you may just be inexperienced enough to actually believe in the popular conceptions of perfect romantic love. Either way, I could be wrong.
:)

No, having more social freedoms does not lower anyone, if anything it raises everyone. By allowing those people who wish to, to commit what is commonly viewed as acts of deprevity you raise the rest of society by comparison since they are given the option to do such things but refrain. Hmm, thanks, interesting.

If everyone were forced to act the same, it would be harder to find those who had the same values you did. The way things are, people tend to be able to find others who share their interests due to natural aversion/attraction.
Drugs should be legal as long as people do not break other laws, such as stealing or killing as a result of their use of drugs. There should be exactly zero laws regarding the manner in which people have sex. If you don't like the fact that some people like to have sex with dogs, or other's of the same sex, that's fine, you can consider yourself above that, and are in no way required to participate in such acts simply because they are made legal for everyone, but it is unreasonable, unconstitutional (in the U.S.), and unconsciounable for a group of people, even the majority, to force their beliefs about the way in which a person should act onto the rest of society disregarding personal beliefs. Yeah, I know, hence the disclaimer :D My thread wasn't meant to be about restricting freedoms

Hmm, thanks, interesting.

If everyone were forced to act the same, it would be harder to find those who had the same values you did. The way things are, people tend to be able to find others who share their interests due to natural aversion/attraction.

Yes, clothing, for instance, has become a major way of distinguishing groups of people. For the sake of being easily identifiable as a member of a certain social group people will wear clothing they wouldn't otherwise, and groups are often formed based on similar interests and social ideals.

Yeah, I know, hence the disclaimer :D My thread wasn't meant to be about restricting freedoms

I know, I was just saying that many of the restrictions that exist today are actually detrimental even to those who created them and who support them.

Before I get flamed from the pro-freedom people, I am a Libertarian, so i'm not talking about wanting more social controls. I'm interested at the social aspect.

Background: I am Male, 17 and Heterosexual. I ballroom dance and sing in a barbershop chorus and listen to Frank Sinatra.

Does having more freedom make everyone more base? Or does it just make it more public/acceptable?

AFAIK, Mozart used to be the pop music of his time. Now it's Britney Spears. Sluttiness used to be deplored, now it seems to be celebrated. Reality TV is known and loved by a large proportion of the populace. A lot of people my age can't enjoy themselves unless they are semi-conscious and unable to move from drinking. There are others with two topics of conversation; How stoned they got last weekend and how stoned they are going to get next weekend.

Maybe it only brings it out into the public more. For example, prositution has been around since the start of time.

Romance seems to have given way to getting laid (with little regard to who with).

No I don't think everyone should have the same interests, but have we in general gone from productive, beautiful and noble to ugly, slutty and base?

Whaddaya think?
i think that if people are forbidden to choose then their decisions mean nothing; if your society is more "noble" simply because the base is illegal then your people are just acting out of self-preservation, and they don't actually have a conscious, individual appreciation for the noble.

A different problem is the commercialization of everything. For some reason, people that are succesful in school are generally shallow morons who do everything by copying and buy friends. They look only at the profit they can get out of something- if you give them a fun tricky math problem, they will never do it. If you say it is extra credit, they will spend six hours doing it with their "friends" and then will let the rest of their "friends" copy it. Same for any other action.

Yes, clothing, for instance, has become a major way of distinguishing groups of people. For the sake of being easily identifiable as a member of a certain social group people will wear clothing they wouldn't otherwise, and groups are often formed based on similar interests and social ideals.

Yeah, which I think is a very useful feature in society!

Probably the natural discrimination that we use because of what we wear is what the nudists are trying to get away from :-) I'm sure there is a point about uniforms here somewhere too

Yeah, which I think is a very useful feature in society!

Probably the natural discrimination that we use because of what we wear is what the nudists are trying to get away from :-) I'm sure there is a point about uniforms here somewhere too

Yes, uniforms prevent the factioning of students (and workers, that's why companies require it, the only reason public schools count is because people argue that it's unconstitutional {in the U.S.}) but at the same time reduces the connection students make with each other people they cannot distinguish those people who they would like to associate with from those they wouldn't like to associate with.

Phenotypic uniformity is undesirable in terms of species developement, as well as social developement. Nudists in general (I think) seek an egalitarian society forced upon people rather than achieved by mutual understanding of equality.