*Streetlights on Windows*
Ask me no questions and I'll tell you no lies...=) Don't ask why I'm still up at this time of the time...
*Stretch*...right...first off, some guy is building a web directory called insight.com and wants me to add my blog on it...under the heading, *get this*, Pyschic/Spirituality.
Well the fact that my blog actually receives notice (and not simply culled up from a search engine) would be a massive cause of jubiliation and delight....except for one thing... My website is about as spiritual as Saddam Hussein was an Islamist.... There's nothing on my blog that touches on the philosophical/religious (for reasons why, check out my disclaimer on my first blog) unless one includes my new found interest in Zen rock-gardening, anyone?
Oh...and here's my 2 cents worth on public morality and particularly the dangers of hyper-extrapolation of known facts (For more details, please check out my almight senior Paul's blog under Yes Prime Minister).
Anyway, the finals of the SIA-JC debates 2000 was on censorship and I think it was Guan Hua (you still across the road?) who raised the point that a slippery slope would be created whereby we would end up granting children access to bad stuff (forgot his exact words but pronography and weapons come to mind, and personally, I think proxy votes are dangerous). Well firstly, I don't see the innate harm in doing so (well, at least I'm sure the NRA doesn't mind) but here's another reply. Consider this analogy... At the rate my basketball skills are improving, I should be really to enter the NBA when I'm...oh...say...104 and run the the 100m sprint in negative time...=) The fact is, there are physical limits and in this case the physical body...and in the above situation with children, their mental capacity to understand and acknowledge crime/wrong-doing (okay on really fuzzy ground here, could my various law reading classmates/friends please help me out here...) and that's the basic premise behind why we have a separate category for juvenil delinquents and why we don't execute child murderers...except in Texas I think.
As to cannibals versus gay marriages/civil unions (very very confused still), I think two points can be made. Yes, despite the fact that assuming both sides are predicated on the fact that it is between 2 consenting adults, most would say that there are very different. 1. Society (Or as Maggie Tatcher would put it...the people who make up society) is not rational, we have a greater tendacy to accept someone stealing intellectual property but not property itself (Own up those of you who have pirated stuff...=P) 2. Secondly, life is life, and (un or)fortunately, we still don't own our deaths.
3. Moral revulsion...at this point in time, the act of cannibalism is passe...if it ever makes a comeback and society accepts it, so be it... Taboos are taboos I suppose. As one of the Justice's puts it (horribly hacked), :"I know porn when I see it." Right and wrong are obvious (to some people, some of the time)