What Kind Of Freedom?

Are we really a FREE society? If freedom must include “freedom of expression”, then what could be wrong with all the "filth" that Hollywood broadcasts? Is it not our choice as citizens to either watch or not watch this "filth"? What ultimately influences Hollywood anyway? Money, which stems from viewership. It seems we, as a society, have chosen to watch this "filth". Of course this leads to questioning whether we are really free.....from our own depravity. What kind of freedom do we seek? "Freedom of expression" or "freedom from our own depravity"?

What then is or perhaps more accurately SHOULD be the ultimate ideal concerning freedom? Do we create a society predicated on "freedom of expression" (so long as these acts do not hurt others, this itself seemingly dubious in many instances) or "freedom from our own depravity" (of course this itself dependent on a consensus as to what constitutes depravity)? One seems to preclude the other in many instances.

"Freedom of expression" should theoretically leave Hollywood unhindered to broadcast whatever it so desires. But what about the seeming fact that this "filth" easily permeates and corrupts the minds of the impressionable among us, especially children and adolescents? Will somebody please think of the children! This sentiment seems to suggest we must censor material as we are essentially too weak-minded to control ourselves from sinking into the depths of our own depravity. But I think it reasonable to say that nobody is forced to watch t.v.! It is a choice!

In this sense, if one is hurt by this "filth", it is "self-caused"! And if determining "allowable expressions of freedom" are to be based on whether these expressions might lead to "self-caused" hurt, then I am afraid just about everything any of us does can cause "self-caused" hurt and lead others into "self-caused" hurt as well! For all I know, my eating a jelly donut in a coffee shop may, apart from my own "self-caused" hurt, cause one who is stricken with obesity or severe gluten intolerance to imbibe in a batch of them and hence engage in "self-caused" hurt just the same! Is this my fault? I think not.

Then I think it no more credible to claim that Hollywood is anymore at fault for what we choose to view. We must take ownership of our own depravity and not blame others! In any case, where must we draw the line between what should be allowed and what should not given that anything allowed can potentially cause "self-caused" hurt?

How should we resolve this freedom "dilemma"? The ideal of freedom seems predicated on how one defines freedom. "Freedom to act as we wish" or "freedom to avoid our own depravity"? It seems to me that many societies "we" label oppressive are simply seeking freedom based on the notion of "avoiding their own depravity". For if many practices thought to be destructive to society are banned simply as a means to maintain a more moral society (of course banning immoral behavior does not make a society moral, it simply prohibits their immoral tendencies which would otherwise likely manifest), how can this be oppressive? It is simply "freeing" the society of its inherent depravity. This is seen as freedom to some, but oppression to others!

Of course few view this issue with a strict either/or perspective. Most arbitrarily determine what must be allowed for the sake of being "free to act as we may" versus what must not be allowed under any circumstances because of its ill-effects on the morality and well-being of society. This arbitrariness is apparent in our society as it pertains to how we view, for instance, illegal drugs and food.

Many believe controlled substances are prohibited for the sake of protecting society from its ill effects. This could be the case but my own suspicion is that the government is reluctant to legalize currently illegal substances unless or until it can figure a way to control and hence TAX them. If this is not the case, perhaps these substances are illegal for the aforementioned reason: they cause undue harm to society. If so, what about the food industry?

What with the health-care issue plaguing our society, can not a reasonable argument be made to control the way our society feeds itself? How much of our precious health care resources are utilized to mitigate the effects of poor health caused by poor diet? If we prohibit certain drugs because of their ill effects on society, why not use this same reasoning to ban all junk foods and perhaps even FORCE every citizen to eat a ration of raw spinach and kale at every meal? How much might health care expenditures decrease?

Once again, do we as a society seek "freedom of expression" (which commonly leads to enslavement to something else) or "freedom from our own depravity" (which keeps depravity at bay only through suppression or force)? It seems both options, as they pertain to freedom, leave something to be desired.

Is there even such a thing as freedom? Or is it one of the many seeming paradoxes we must cope with on this godforsaken mud-ball we call Earth?

On Sexuality

He's nice but he's gay. Contrast that to he's nice and he's gay. Do you see the difference? The former response is held by somebody indoctrinated with the idea that homosexuality is “wrong”. The latter response is held by somebody accepting of the person as he truly is. In this case, homosexuality is neither right nor wrong. It just is.

Many are critical of homosexuality, it is often more or less implied, because they tend to be promiscuous. Well, if this is the case, it is not homosexuality that is the problem, rather it is promiscuity. But one need not be homosexual to be promiscuous. Just observe all the “illegitimate” children of society. Furthermore, with promiscuous gays at least there are not “unwanted” children.

On the other hand, as everything is a trade-off, one might point out that AIDS is much more prevalent in gays and as such puts a bigger burden on our health care system. Well, here are the choices: 1)”unwanted” kids which more often than not place a terrible strain on society and themselves or 2) increased cases of AIDS which likewise place a terrible strain on society. Which is the least terrible of these seemingly terrible choices?

For those who consider homosexuality to be wrong not because it leads to promiscuity but because it is immoral in itself, what about heterosexuals who are promiscuous? Why is the “spotlight of shame” not on them as well? Far be it from me to say promiscuous heterosexuals are glorified, but they certainly are not vilified to the extent homosexuals seem to be. Heterosexuals' promiscuous behavior, according to this line of argument, is no less sexually immoral than homosexuality itself. Now, to my point.

For those who do believe homosexuality is wrong, consciously or unconsciously, because they believe it causes promiscuity, could it actually be that those predisposed to promiscuity tend to be homosexual? In other words, could homosexuality be caused by a tendency to be promiscuous? In this way, one could actually see homosexuals as heroes! HUH? How so? Well, imagine if they were promiscuous and heterosexual? There would be even more unintended (unwanted, to be politically incorrect) children straining society.

Might homosexuality be an ingenious way for evolution to govern populations? So in this case, maybe there is a promiscuity gene that is highly correlated to a homosexuality gene? One would have to make a good case for homosexuals being statistically more likely to be promiscuous than others for this argument to have any validity. Suffice it to say, I do not know whether something like this is true but am injecting a different perspective into the discussion for the sake of leaving “no stones unturned”.

Does homosexuality tend to lead to promiscuity or does promiscuity tend to lead to homosexuality? Or might there be little or no correlation? Do not in any way take this to mean it is even true that homosexuals are statistically more promiscuous. I am merely investigating causality as this should have a profound impact concerning peoples' convictions on such matters.

Concerning those who fear accepting and tolerating homosexuality will lead to further declines in society, a couple of things. First off, homosexuals can not spread their genetic predisposition through blood, so to speak, as they can not procreate. In this way, not being condescending in the least, natural selection seems to take care of the “problem” of homosexuality for those who fear its proliferating beyond control. As for homosexual couples adopting, it is very unlikely their children will have any more tendency to be homosexual than those from “straight” homes.

But the wild card might be supposing that in the future, male couples as well as female couples will have the ability to propagate via surrogates. This I have nothing to say about other than it is what it is or shall I say it will be what it will be.

For those that might think homosexuality to be on the rise, maybe this is evolution's brake, as it were, on population. Is this necessarily a bad thing?

The Paradox Of War

I've never understood the idea of following rules during war as if this was some “Godly” virtue to uphold. After all, the general goal of war is to annihilate the “bad” guys or force their surrender.

When the “good” guys criticize the “bad” guys for not adhering to said rules of war, I can't help but be puzzled. War does not seem inherently moral and therefore I am very suspicious of any claim or insinuation of right(eous)ness within the context of war.

So why would anybody attempt to find right(eous)ness within the context of war? To assert the ego's superiority in right(eous)ness thus providing moral justification for it. But obeying rules makes it very difficult to win when the “bad” guys do not, so it seems as if “dirty” tactics must be employed in order to remain at all competitive.

Many will protest this because it necessarily involves unfair and cruel strategies. This implies there exists some righteous manner in which to approach war. But I do not believe there is. Refer to the beginning of this discussion and notice the circularity of this argument.

And herein lies the dilemma. I am not saying “we” should never go to war. I simply reject the idea of proclaiming or at least implying right(eous)ness within the context of war and recommend doing whatever need be to win if winning is the ultimate goal. Suffice it to say, I don't think any entity would willingly engage in war if victory was not its ultimate goal.

Now I will ask this of myself. If I was in a situation where I had to fight in a war, would I use “dirty” tactics such as using a child as a shield to tip the scale in my favor? I believe strongly I would not. But why would I not as per my prior argument? Because it is not in my nature to do such a thing. My reason for refraining from such “dirty” tactics is not because I am consciously or unconsciously trying to figure out a “righteous” manner in which to partake in the war, rather it is just not in my nature to do such a thing.

Furthermore, if I had to fight in a war, my ultimate goal would not be to win. Rather, my ultimate goal in a war or in life generally is to just "be myself”. That is why I would not likely use “dirty” tactics. And that is also why I would not be a devoted soldier ready and willing to unquestionably follow orders. Albert Speer and other Nazi officers were strongly condemned for using this excuse!

Concerning war, the paradox is thus: wars are only ever fought over conflicting moral imperatives but the mere act of war is so immoral it becomes complete madness to try to “force” moral imperatives immorally!* War is an evolutionary mindset built upon a contradiction. It is the pinnacle of insanity!

*Perhaps it would elicit less disagreement and anger by suggesting that when uncalled for (this itself seemingly dubious in many instances), war is neither "moral" nor "immoral" as opposed to suggesting it as altogether "immoral". The point of restating war thusly is to make clear that those "forced" into an uncalled for war are NOT "immoral" (necessarily, at least), rather they are neither "moral" nor "immoral". Notice this still precludes any entity from ever claiming right(eous)ness within the context of war because it can only be right(eous) when it is moral. Since morality is precluded within the context of war, it can never be said that the action of war is right(eous). It can at best be neither "moral" nor "immoral", at worst, altogether "immoral"**.

**It seems so unfair to deny an otherwise "moral" entity from being so within the context of an uncalled for war. And of course, it is. Much like the entire class "suffering" for the adolescent antics of a few "immoral" classmates, so too do "innocent" bystanders "suffer" when dragged into conflicts they did not ask to partake in. Lest you forget, LIFE ISN'T FAIR!