Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: damniseedemons who wrote (150467)	12/3/2002 9:04:06 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164684

more power to Eminem and other rappers. those guys are some of the best philosophers and poets of our time, and their messages carry a lot of truth; but that i just my opinion and of course i am not imposing it on others. Do you have kids? If you do, would you like your kids to be exposed to Eminem? How about the songs where he talks about beating his wife - is that something a 12-yr-old girl should be exposed to would you say? Or where he calls his mother a whore? Of course some will say... just turn off the radio... ok but what about MTV and other media, is it reasonable to somehow block kids from anything with Eminem influence... I don't think so- it would mean banning all music videos and radio, the MTV video awards, the Grammy's... etc. Personally I think Eminem and most of gangsta rap is the music equivalent of bad comedy... when a comedian isn't funny he resorts to sex and drugs to make the audience uncomfortable. Same with rap... the more "controversial" it is the more it sells... but is it really good? Lizzie

To: damniseedemons who wrote (150467)	12/3/2002 9:37:10 PM
From: craig crawford	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

hi salim, >> but i imagine it argues that porn with consenting adults should not be curbed. i agree, and i can't stand people trying to impose their morality or their religion or whatever on other people. that's one of the root problems with this world -- everybody is always getting into other people's business, trying to be a missionary, etc. if you don't like porn, don't watch it. << i believe in the principle that a community has the right to place restraints on the individual for the benefit of the whole. rather than go into all the reasons, i would simply point you to the arguments made by robert bork, such as those detailed in his book slouching towards gomorrah. he argues the point of externalities, which is to say that even if you choose not to look at porn, you will be affected by those who do. society has a right to protect the community at large from these externalities. it is done all the time in numerous instances. i can provide several examples if you're interested. furthermore, i disagree with the view "...i can't stand people trying to impose their morality or their religion or whatever on other people." the simple fact is, as soon as you take any action on an issue, you are effectively imposing your will on others. i don't believe it is possible to be politically active without imposition of values. if you are against the imposition of religion or morality, then you are essentially imposing irreligion or immorality. i don't care what political party you offer me--left, right, liberal, conservative, libertarian, authoritarian, they all seek to impose something on the community at large. so in my mind it simply becomes a matter of the best set of laws and standards to impose on the community. i believe society would be much better off if public traffic of pornography was restricted. i also do not believe that pornography is protected under the first amendment. i believe the first amendment covers speech, yet dictatorial usurpists in black robes have broadened the definition to include expression. i believe this is wrong.