logo Sign In

Random Thoughts — Page 336

Author
Time

TV's Frink said:

That's it, we should all have sex with each other right now.  Let's get it out of the way and be done with it.

Speaking as a mere moron who has no idea how to properly comprehend anything, I believe this to be a fantastic idea.

OT.com BDSM partay FTW!!1!!!   :D

Author
Time

I really like the last The Birthday Massacre Album.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

DrCrowTStarwars said:


Okay then before this whole debate blew up I was looking for some decent third party DVR software to use with my computer's TV tuner card, does anyone know where I can find some?

I would be very grateful for any help you could give me.


http://www.dvbviewer.com

The last time I used it (a couple of years ago) I really liked it.

Author
Time

I don't think I even knew what BDSM was until I saw High Anxiety.

And after that, every episode of Star Trek where someone got shirtless and whipped took on a whole new dimension. ;)

Thank you Mel Brooks, for furthering my education!

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

darth_ender said:

Frank your Majesty said:

darth_ender said:

Sexual frivolity, infidelity, teen pregnancy, abortions, and the like are certainly much more prevalent than before.  To what can we attribute this rise?  Largely the media portrayal and acceptance of such behavior.

 Or does the media portray this behavior because it is already accepted? I don't think the influence of books, movies and TV is that great, simply because most people wouldn't watch a movie or read a book if they are strongly opposed to its topic. The media mainly reflects the behaviour of the society, which is much more formed by social factors.

 You are right.  The media has no effect on public opinion.

 No need to be sarcastic. Of course there is some effect, that's why I said mainly, but if something is massively overhyped it's because these people just waited for it to happen. There are erotic fan fictions on the internet for years, 50 Shades Of Grey is just the first one to be published as a book and therefore more easily accessible to these frustrated 50 year old housewifes that are now running to the cinemas.

Anyways, I understand that you have no interset in continuing this discussion since you have been personally attacked. I just wanted to let you know that I didn't mean to belittle or mock you or your beliefs and I hope you don't think I wanted to do such a thing.

Ceci n’est pas une signature.

Author
Time

darth_ender said:

But to say religion is just nonsense is, in fact, nonsense.  Religion is built into humanity.  Even most who do not believe in deity in any form still engage in religious-like behaviors and rituals, whether they realize it or not.  It too is a part of humanity.

The only useful thing about religion are some (emphasis on some) of the moral standards it teaches. Pretty much everything else is a nonsense, such as time-wasting rituals and stupid stories like creationism and life after death.

And in the end you don't really need a religion to abide the high moral standards.

真実

Author
Time

TK-949 said:

DrCrowTStarwars said:


Okay then before this whole debate blew up I was looking for some decent third party DVR software to use with my computer's TV tuner card, does anyone know where I can find some?

I would be very grateful for any help you could give me.



http://www.dvbviewer.com

The last time I used it (a couple of years ago) I really liked it.

 Thanks a bunch, I will give that a try.

That is a big help.

We can't afford to rent things or go out any more for fun so one of the things my family does for fun that doesn't really cost us anything is watch our favorite TV shows together as a family.  This may seem silly or childish but it really does help us to have that escape.  The only problem is most of the shows we like either come on when my mom is at work or too late on a school night for my little brother and sister to watch them.  We have been keep up with them and putting up with lip sync problems but it was getting on our nerves.

I know there are a lot of people worse off then us, but thank you for helping any way.

This is something that helps to lift my families spirits in these trying times.

Author
Time
 (Edited)


hairy_hen said:
TV's Frink said:

That's it, we should all have sex with each other right now.  Let's get it out of the way and be done with it.
Speaking as a mere moron who has no idea how to properly comprehend anything, I believe this to be a fantastic idea.

OT.com BDSM partay FTW!!1!!!   :D
Somehow I pictured the loss of my virginity happening quite differently..... Just saying a group OT.com meet up wasn't exactly what I had in mind.

http://i.imgur.com/MXA8TmO.gif

http://twister111.tumblr.com
Previous Signature preservation link

Author
Time

TV's Frink said:

Who knew ender was Tipper Gore?

 I kind of did.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

imperialscum said:

darth_ender said:

But to say religion is just nonsense is, in fact, nonsense.  Religion is built into humanity.  Even most who do not believe in deity in any form still engage in religious-like behaviors and rituals, whether they realize it or not.  It too is a part of humanity.

The only useful thing about religion are some (emphasis on some) of the moral standards it teaches. Pretty much everything else is a nonsense, such as time-wasting rituals and stupid stories like creationism and life after death.

And in the end you don't really need a religion to abide the high moral standards.

In other words: "I don't like/understand it, so it's nonsense. Nah! Nah!"

You should go back to defending "Alert my star destroyer to prepare for my arrival". It's dumb, but at least it isn't conceited and condescending.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I agree.  Not personally subscribing to something doesn't make it rubbish.  And the odds are not very slim, the odds are exactly 50/50.  Even if you do believe everything about evolution and all that, you still cannot prove that there was not an intelligent design put in place to begin the process, on earth anyway.  You cannot.  Therefor, the odds are 50/50.  

I don't think it's nonsense to suggest that God might not exist.  God might not exist.  But it IS nonsense to suggest that the notion that god exists is nonsense.  nonsense!

Author
Time

Possessed said:

Even if you do believe everything about evolution and all that, you still cannot prove that there was not an intelligent design put in place to begin the process, on earth anyway.

Exactly. You don't have to subscribe to special creationism to believe in a personal God or gods.

Author
Time

imperialscum said:

darth_ender said:

But to say religion is just nonsense is, in fact, nonsense.  Religion is built into humanity.  Even most who do not believe in deity in any form still engage in religious-like behaviors and rituals, whether they realize it or not.  It too is a part of humanity.

The only useful thing about religion are some (emphasis on some) of the moral standards it teaches. Pretty much everything else is a nonsense, such as time-wasting rituals and stupid stories like creationism and life after death.

And in the end you don't really need a religion to abide the high moral standards.

 Let's see...religion gave us, and continues to give many of us, a standard of morals we could all live by together instead of all coming up with our own; meaning in people's lives; hospitals and charities, which you'll note didn't exist before some saintly people started taking in the sick and the poor and helping them out--because of their religious beliefs; and not least, it allowed society and civilization to flourish through the way it unified people so that they had one common goal; one common belief that brought them together and allowed them to be a nation rather than simply a large group of individuals.

Even if those things were the only benefits religion had provided humanity, and it was all nonsense, it would be worth it.

Author
Time

Frank your Majesty said:

darth_ender said:

Frank your Majesty said:

darth_ender said:

Sexual frivolity, infidelity, teen pregnancy, abortions, and the like are certainly much more prevalent than before.  To what can we attribute this rise?  Largely the media portrayal and acceptance of such behavior.

 Or does the media portray this behavior because it is already accepted? I don't think the influence of books, movies and TV is that great, simply because most people wouldn't watch a movie or read a book if they are strongly opposed to its topic. The media mainly reflects the behaviour of the society, which is much more formed by social factors.

 You are right.  The media has no effect on public opinion.

 No need to be sarcastic. Of course there is some effect, that's why I said mainly, but if something is massively overhyped it's because these people just waited for it to happen. There are erotic fan fictions on the internet for years, 50 Shades Of Grey is just the first one to be published as a book and therefore more easily accessible to these frustrated 50 year old housewifes that are now running to the cinemas.

Anyways, I understand that you have no interset in continuing this discussion since you have been personally attacked. I just wanted to let you know that I didn't mean to belittle or mock you or your beliefs and I hope you don't think I wanted to do such a thing.

 I can get quite sarcastic, and I admit I've been a bit grumpier than usual lately, so I apologize for my tone, but not for the ultimate message.  Let's examine your first quote where you say, "...the behavior of the society...is much more formed by social factors."  Now let's consider a number of facts: the media is a social factor.  In fact, one could say it is the dominant social factor.  While we commonly refer to media as singular, it is actual plural for medium.  A medium is a means of communication.  And all social interaction is based on communication.

Now let's consider obvious facts connected with the media.  There's social media, a form of media where socializing influences people.  Then there are commercials, a format wherein companies influence people to purchase their products.  There are political campaigns, wherein politicians influence voters to see things their way and vote for them.  There is the news, where a persona watching Fox News and reading the Drudge Report will come away with a different view of the state of current affairs from a person watching MSNBC and reading the Huffington Post, and both will definitely see things differently from the Al-Jazeera viewer.  Women viewing ads of skinny females develop conditions like anorexia nervosa or bulimia nervosa.  

There is a user here named Nanner Split who helped devise the Slender Man character.  There are those who have used Slender Man as an inspiration for crimes they have committed.  People have cited death metal as motivations for suicidal attempts.  The clothes you wore today were probably at least somewhat fashionable.  Those fashion trends are not just naturally ebbing and flowing, but are in fact based on conscious decisions by clothing designers and the models who show them off.  Why don't you dress like you're in the 80's?  Because such is not fashionable anymore, because the media has influenced our sense of fashion.

While people are ultimately responsible for their own decisions, to say the media has no effect is wrong, utterly wrong.  It is through the media that society changes most.  And with the rise of the Internet, those changes have only increased in pace.  Marilyn Manson and Rob Zombie do actually influence people to make bad decisions, even if they didn't make those decisions for them.  Movies like 50 Shades of Grey do in fact make sex cheaper than I personally feel it should be treated.  It's not just because everyone's buddies started having premarital sex that it became commonplace.  It's because it was actually portrayed more often in media than in reality, until it became a reality.  Again, I don't wish to sound judgmental.  One hundred years ago, such behavior was utterly disgraceful.  Today it's expected.

There are articles upon articles about this.  I have a BA in psychology and have taken classes on this material.  I'm not making this up.

http://influence.bafree.net/negative-influences-of-media-on-the-society.php

Author
Time

imperialscum said:

darth_ender said:

But to say religion is just nonsense is, in fact, nonsense.  Religion is built into humanity.  Even most who do not believe in deity in any form still engage in religious-like behaviors and rituals, whether they realize it or not.  It too is a part of humanity.

The only useful thing about religion are some (emphasis on some) of the moral standards it teaches. Pretty much everything else is a nonsense, such as time-wasting rituals and stupid stories like creationism and life after death.

And in the end you don't really need a religion to abide the high moral standards.

 I am afraid that this is all a bunch of ignorance.  I don't disagree that people who are without religion can still hold high moral standards.  But bear in mind where those standards came from.  Right now you are from the UK if I recall correctly.  Your nation has been tremendously influenced by Judeo-Christian values.  Let's say that the world was taken over by the Islamic State.  Over time, societal norms conform to those accepted by what we now see as an evil group.  In 100 years, a guy very much like you wishes to live a life with morals much like yours.  Do you know what would happen?  This man would be branded a heretic and executed for apostasy.  You know why, because he would be living a life if immorality according to a different society, though his standards may be exactly like yours today.  Lest you use this as an argument against religion due to the extremism of such Muslims, I do wish to point out that even atheistic societies like North Korea and the Soviet Union have adopted truly evil norms.

In other words, morals are not universal.  There is no supreme law that says that murder is wrong, that human equality is right.  Not unless there is a Supreme Being.  Otherwise, those values are actually just accepted by the majority of society.  Being moral in one society may be immoral in another.

Note that this is not proof of any Supreme Being, but rather that in a sense, if there is no God, no one can be truly called moral.

I intend to actually address the value of religion in a different thread in the near future.

Author
Time

darth_ender said:

imperialscum said:

darth_ender said:

But to say religion is just nonsense is, in fact, nonsense.  Religion is built into humanity.  Even most who do not believe in deity in any form still engage in religious-like behaviors and rituals, whether they realize it or not.  It too is a part of humanity.

The only useful thing about religion are some (emphasis on some) of the moral standards it teaches. Pretty much everything else is a nonsense, such as time-wasting rituals and stupid stories like creationism and life after death.

And in the end you don't really need a religion to abide the high moral standards.

 I am afraid that this is all a bunch of ignorance.  I don't disagree that people who are without religion can still hold high moral standards.  But bear in mind where those standards came from.  Right now you are from the UK if I recall correctly.  Your nation has been tremendously influenced by Judeo-Christian values.  Let's say that the world was taken over by the Islamic State.  Over time, societal norms conform to those accepted by what we now see as an evil group.  In 100 years, a guy very much like you wishes to live a life with morals much like yours.  Do you know what would happen?  This man would be branded a heretic and executed for apostasy.  You know why, because he would be living a life if immorality according to a different society, though his standards may be exactly like yours today.  Lest you use this as an argument against religion due to the extremism of such Muslims, I do wish to point out that even atheistic societies like North Korea and the Soviet Union have adopted truly evil norms.

In other words, morals are not universal.  There is no supreme law that says that murder is wrong, that human equality is right.  Not unless there is a Supreme Being.  Otherwise, those values are actually just accepted by the majority of society.  Being moral in one society may be immoral in another.

Note that this is not proof of any Supreme Being, but rather that in a sense, if there is no God, no one can be truly called moral.

Is this necessarily the case? Given that some elements of morality seemingly differs from one society to another, is it not yet understood that such normative mores may yet be recognized by the society itself? If refraining from watching television might be considered a high standard in one household while watching the late night show as a group might be upheld as a time for bonding in another, is it true to claim that neither family may have any standards without an outside source capable of affirming the one and rejecting the other? Or is it not more likely the case that the moral exists solely within the familial sphere, where it might be applied, ruled upon, extolled, and promoted by those in authority therein, but that its absolute moral certitude must necessarily wane the further it might depart from any immediate parental reach?

Further, if no moral certitude might yet exist even upon this earth, how might this be construed as evidence that one all-powerful being whose interest must clearly be human-centered might yet be in any position of control? Would one not instead expect a degree of moral uniformity to extend from a singular creator of great power and virtuous intent?

Finally, is morality truly as complicated that it might require an all powerful singularity as its source of origin? For would not such self-evident truths as "if you take mine I'll take yours so don't take mine" be as clear to men of fair intellect as to an omnipotent being of infinite intelligence?

I was once…but now I’m not… Further: zyzzogeton

“It wasn’t the flood that destroyed the pantry…”

Author
Time

        I'm shocked by the dismissive manner of the cultural liberals.

        They will wave their hands and say sweeping things like "Oh, people can be good without a deity" as though that is the end of the matter.

        I agree that SOME people can maintain high moral standards under any prevailing cultural regime.

       Trouble is, these individuals are isolated and scattered.

       Everything about the few decades I have spent observing humanity teaches me that the powerful offices in society will be targeted for co-option by the depraved and cruel in order to better satisfy their lusts for endlessly increasing control and revenge against any who dare uphold a standard of decency based upon responsibility to a Creator.

       It's frightening that so few even begin to appreciate just how RARE and FRAGILE this space of relative pleasantness and decency is and how utterly DEPENDENT it is upon the people who make some good faith effort to uphold the Protestant conception of Judeo-Christian values.

       EVERYTHING has a tipping point. There is ALWAYS a certain point at which 'something' tips over into a state of being 'not that thing'. This is most especially true of constitutional republics having a particular concern for the protection of individual rights.

       I don't have the option of being an atheist any more than I am capable of believing that the sun will rise is the West tomorrow. But if I was an atheist, I would grasp onto the slightest doubt of my position to behave as though a Creator with a special care for It's creation is an ABSOLUTE NECESSITY. IT IS!!! Anything else is catastrophic insanity.

       

Author
Time

Post Praetorian said:

darth_ender said:

imperialscum said:

darth_ender said:

But to say religion is just nonsense is, in fact, nonsense.  Religion is built into humanity.  Even most who do not believe in deity in any form still engage in religious-like behaviors and rituals, whether they realize it or not.  It too is a part of humanity.

The only useful thing about religion are some (emphasis on some) of the moral standards it teaches. Pretty much everything else is a nonsense, such as time-wasting rituals and stupid stories like creationism and life after death.

And in the end you don't really need a religion to abide the high moral standards.

 I am afraid that this is all a bunch of ignorance.  I don't disagree that people who are without religion can still hold high moral standards.  But bear in mind where those standards came from.  Right now you are from the UK if I recall correctly.  Your nation has been tremendously influenced by Judeo-Christian values.  Let's say that the world was taken over by the Islamic State.  Over time, societal norms conform to those accepted by what we now see as an evil group.  In 100 years, a guy very much like you wishes to live a life with morals much like yours.  Do you know what would happen?  This man would be branded a heretic and executed for apostasy.  You know why, because he would be living a life if immorality according to a different society, though his standards may be exactly like yours today.  Lest you use this as an argument against religion due to the extremism of such Muslims, I do wish to point out that even atheistic societies like North Korea and the Soviet Union have adopted truly evil norms.

In other words, morals are not universal.  There is no supreme law that says that murder is wrong, that human equality is right.  Not unless there is a Supreme Being.  Otherwise, those values are actually just accepted by the majority of society.  Being moral in one society may be immoral in another.

Note that this is not proof of any Supreme Being, but rather that in a sense, if there is no God, no one can be truly called moral.

Is this necessarily the case? Given that some elements of morality seemingly differs from one society to another, is it not yet understood that such normative mores may yet be recognized by the society itself? If refraining from watching television might be considered a high standard in one household while watching the late night show as a group might be upheld as a time for bonding in another, is it true to claim that neither family may have any standards without an outside source capable of affirming the one and rejecting the other? Or is it not more likely the case that the moral exists solely within the familial sphere, where it might be applied, ruled upon, extolled, and promoted by those in authority therein, but that its absolute moral certitude must necessarily wane the further it might depart from any immediate parental reach?

Further, if no moral certitude might yet exist even upon this earth, how might this be construed as evidence that one all-powerful being whose interest must clearly be human-centered might yet be in any position of control? Would one not instead expect a degree of moral uniformity to extend from a singular creator of great power and virtuous intent?

Finally, is morality truly as complicated that it might require an all powerful singularity as its source of origin? For would not such self-evident truths as "if you take mine I'll take yours so don't take mine" be as clear to men of fair intellect as to an omnipotent being of infinite intelligence?

 If I understand you correctly, the latter two paragraphs are answered in my last sentence from my previous reply, which I have underlined above. All I am saying is that there is no definitive sense of morals without a Divine lawmaker. Otherwise it's all simply what we agree upon. In answer  to your first paragraph, I would agree, pointing out that a family is itself a society on a small scale. There  are even those who would say that the individual can create his own moral code, a law unto himself, as it were. Who is to say he's wrong, except a larger society in disagreement? 

Author
Time

twister111 said:

Somehow I pictured the loss of my virginity happening quite differently..... Just saying a group OT.com meet up wasn't exactly what I had in mind.

http://i.imgur.com/MXA8TmO.gif

 You'll never know unless you try it.  ;)

Now we just have to decide who is dominant and who is submissive in this group . . . I vote for Fink's mom to show us how each part is played.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

darth_ender said:

I am afraid that this is all a bunch of ignorance.  I don't disagree that people who are without religion can still hold high moral standards.  But bear in mind where those standards came from.  Right now you are from the UK if I recall correctly.  Your nation has been tremendously influenced by Judeo-Christian values.  Let's say that the world was taken over by the Islamic State.  Over time, societal norms conform to those accepted by what we now see as an evil group.

First, you are saying that one religion will protect us from the other, which is kind of a paradox in this discussion. So if it is the religion that may harm us in the first place, why don't we just get rid of all religions if they are the problem?

darth_ender said:

In 100 years, a guy very much like you wishes to live a life with morals much like yours.  Do you know what would happen?  This man would be branded a heretic and executed for apostasy.  You know why, because he would be living a life if immorality according to a different society, though his standards may be exactly like yours today.  Lest you use this as an argument against religion due to the extremism of such Muslims, I do wish to point out that even atheistic societies like North Korea and the Soviet Union have adopted truly evil norms.

I hope that this was some kind of joke. You speak like Christianity gave us freedom and stuff. You better learn the history of Europe. The Church (in the name of Christianity) was exploiting people for centuries (it still does to a lesser degree). Funny how you mentioned "branding one a heretic" and executions in the name of religion. In medieval Europe, that was a very common practice of Church ... burning people alive, invention of unimaginably sick torture devices to extract the "confessions" out of "heretics", etc. The Church actively suppressed the freedom and sabotaged the secular progress in Europe for many centuries (Copernicus, Galileo, etc.).

It was only when secular sphere (such as science), led by intellectuals, forced the Church to change and accept new norms that were demanded by the people. So I hope we are now clear on the fact that it is the secular sphere to be credited for the modern western society and NOT the religion.

It is fair to mention that in northern countries the Church wasn't forced but rather reformed itself. But still, the reformation was a result of influence and progress in the secular sphere.

darth_ender said:

Lest you use this as an argument against religion due to the extremism of such Muslims

Some Muslim countries have their "middle age" as we had ours in Europe. A common denominator in both cases is/was a religion.

darth_ender said:

I do wish to point out that even atheistic societies like North Korea and the Soviet Union have adopted truly evil norms.

Of course there are some exceptions. But a vast majority of atheistic societies (EU countries) are doing very well in terms of moral norms.

Btw this sounded like you consider USA a theocracy? It is kinda funny that it actually have some elements of theocracy, such as the use of bible in court. As an atheist, can you refuse to participate in that ritual?

真実

Author
Time

imperialscum said:

Btw this sounded like you consider USA a theocracy? It is kinda funny that it actually have some elements of theocracy, such as the use of bible in court. As an atheist, can you refuse to participate in that ritual?

 Apparently, you very well could.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsGuApf86Gs

Author
Time

darth_ender said:

Frank your Majesty said:

darth_ender said:

Frank your Majesty said:

darth_ender said:

Sexual frivolity, infidelity, teen pregnancy, abortions, and the like are certainly much more prevalent than before.  To what can we attribute this rise?  Largely the media portrayal and acceptance of such behavior.

 Or does the media portray this behavior because it is already accepted? I don't think the influence of books, movies and TV is that great, simply because most people wouldn't watch a movie or read a book if they are strongly opposed to its topic. The media mainly reflects the behaviour of the society, which is much more formed by social factors.

 You are right.  The media has no effect on public opinion.

 No need to be sarcastic. Of course there is some effect, that's why I said mainly, but if something is massively overhyped it's because these people just waited for it to happen. There are erotic fan fictions on the internet for years, 50 Shades Of Grey is just the first one to be published as a book and therefore more easily accessible to these frustrated 50 year old housewifes that are now running to the cinemas.

Anyways, I understand that you have no interset in continuing this discussion since you have been personally attacked. I just wanted to let you know that I didn't mean to belittle or mock you or your beliefs and I hope you don't think I wanted to do such a thing.

 I can get quite sarcastic, and I admit I've been a bit grumpier than usual lately, so I apologize for my tone, but not for the ultimate message.  Let's examine your first quote where you say, "...the behavior of the society...is much more formed by social factors."  Now let's consider a number of facts: the media is a social factor.  In fact, one could say it is the dominant social factor.  While we commonly refer to media as singular, it is actual plural for medium.  A medium is a means of communication.  And all social interaction is based on communication.

Now let's consider obvious facts connected with the media.  There's social media, a form of media where socializing influences people.  Then there are commercials, a format wherein companies influence people to purchase their products.  There are political campaigns, wherein politicians influence voters to see things their way and vote for them.  There is the news, where a persona watching Fox News and reading the Drudge Report will come away with a different view of the state of current affairs from a person watching MSNBC and reading the Huffington Post, and both will definitely see things differently from the Al-Jazeera viewer.  Women viewing ads of skinny females develop conditions like anorexia nervosa or bulimia nervosa.  

There is a user here named Nanner Split who helped devise the Slender Man character.  There are those who have used Slender Man as an inspiration for crimes they have committed.  People have cited death metal as motivations for suicidal attempts.  The clothes you wore today were probably at least somewhat fashionable.  Those fashion trends are not just naturally ebbing and flowing, but are in fact based on conscious decisions by clothing designers and the models who show them off.  Why don't you dress like you're in the 80's?  Because such is not fashionable anymore, because the media has influenced our sense of fashion.

While people are ultimately responsible for their own decisions, to say the media has no effect is wrong, utterly wrong.  It is through the media that society changes most.  And with the rise of the Internet, those changes have only increased in pace.  Marilyn Manson and Rob Zombie do actually influence people to make bad decisions, even if they didn't make those decisions for them.  Movies like 50 Shades of Grey do in fact make sex cheaper than I personally feel it should be treated.  It's not just because everyone's buddies started having premarital sex that it became commonplace.  It's because it was actually portrayed more often in media than in reality, until it became a reality.  Again, I don't wish to sound judgmental.  One hundred years ago, such behavior was utterly disgraceful.  Today it's expected.

There are articles upon articles about this.  I have a BA in psychology and have taken classes on this material.  I'm not making this up.

http://influence.bafree.net/negative-influences-of-media-on-the-society.php

Thank you for your lenghty reply, I'm glad you're still around here. Of course there's no need to apologize for your message and you didn't sound judgmental to me.

As you said, "the media" is all forms of communication, so ultimately, it's people communicating with each other and exchanging their opinions that changes society. Strictly speaking, there is no influence of the media itself, there's an influence of what people say through various media. I have to admit, that I didn't think of it this way when I made my first comment and you have opened my eyes to it. Nevertheless, these influences are small and only change one's mindset a bit. It's not one book, one movie or one song that's responsible for the whole "depravation" of society. Thus, changing society is a very slow process involving all existing media and I don't think you can fully seperate cause and effect of showing acceptance for something in the media and the society accepting it.

Especially movies, books and music only made for entertainment are aimed to appeal to many people, so they are likely to follow existing trends, 50 Shades Of Grey is no exception. No publisher would release such a poorly written book if he wasn't sure he could sell it. And he can sell it because a certain acceptance for sex in general and BDSM in particular was already prevalent.

(When I talked about social factors I was more talking about "people getting poorer leads to them commiting crimes which is followed by violence that's then shown by the media..." I should have made this clearer but I was short on time and couldn't think it through.)

Ceci n’est pas une signature.

Author
Time

thejediknighthusezni said:

        I'm shocked by the dismissive manner of the cultural liberals.

        They will wave their hands and say sweeping things like "Oh, people can be good without a deity" as though that is the end of the matter.

        I agree that SOME people can maintain high moral standards under any prevailing cultural regime.

       Trouble is, these individuals are isolated and scattered.

       Everything about the few decades I have spent observing humanity teaches me that the powerful offices in society will be targeted for co-option by the depraved and cruel in order to better satisfy their lusts for endlessly increasing control and revenge against any who dare uphold a standard of decency based upon responsibility to a Creator.

       It's frightening that so few even begin to appreciate just how RARE and FRAGILE this space of relative pleasantness and decency is and how utterly DEPENDENT it is upon the people who make some good faith effort to uphold the Protestant conception of Judeo-Christian values.

       EVERYTHING has a tipping point. There is ALWAYS a certain point at which 'something' tips over into a state of being 'not that thing'. This is most especially true of constitutional republics having a particular concern for the protection of individual rights.

       I don't have the option of being an atheist any more than I am capable of believing that the sun will rise is the West tomorrow. But if I was an atheist, I would grasp onto the slightest doubt of my position to behave as though a Creator with a special care for It's creation is an ABSOLUTE NECESSITY. IT IS!!! Anything else is catastrophic insanity.

       

 LOUD NOISES

Author
Time

for some reason, seeing it written is almost funnier, because it mentally evokes his voice.

Author
Time

hairy_hen said:

twister111 said:

Somehow I pictured the loss of my virginity happening quite differently..... Just saying a group OT.com meet up wasn't exactly what I had in mind.

http://i.imgur.com/MXA8TmO.gif
 You'll never know unless you try it.  ;)

Now we just have to decide who is dominant and who is submissive in this group . . . I vote for Fink's mom to show us how each part is played.
LOL. Curious tho, if I would loose my virginity in a group does that mean I lost it to the entire group or just the first person in that group I was with. Technically speaking it's all part of the same act so in a way I would be loosing it to the entire group but would it really count as a loss with the entire group or no?

http://i.imgur.com/MXA8TmO.gif

http://twister111.tumblr.com
Previous Signature preservation link