Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I guess if that is what you wanted to do it might have been a good place to start. It looks like you instead
- assumed what constitutes bad / immorality like sex (GASP!) and even that others in this group would share that assumption of what constitutes immorality.
- assumed that pop culture has a causal relationship to this morality.
In those assumptions, I think you might have lost many people's interest. At least you have lost mine.
Well, I think in the United States one ought to be able to make certain assumptions. Those who don't agree that casual non-marital sex is wrong should at least know where I'm coming from and be able to challenge that premise intelligently. Those who don't agree that popular culture influences popular morality and the values of young people, quite honestly, take a position that requires more explanation than my own. The idea that music has the power to influence behavior and even character is ancient wisdom and, for most, plain common sense. We listen to music preciselybecause it changes us. And when the influence of music combines with the dirty sit-coms, talk shows, films, magazines, video games, and the whole panorama of popular culture to convey the same sorts of messages, I don't know how anyone can doubt its power to influence children. Hence, my dismay that so many parents do nothing but shrug.
Au contraire . . . several posters on this thread have claimed that despite the fact that they were subjected to such "music," they were not negatively impacted.
Well, none of us is posting from the penitentiary.
You tell us to read stuff, but you refuse to read anything we provide that counters your assertion.
Well, I think in the United States one ought to be able to make certain assumptions.
There is absolutely no evidence in our public discourse that ought to give you that notion.
Quote:
Those who don't agree that casual non-marital sex is wrong should at least know where I'm coming from
I have seen nothing about where your coming from than religion. So if there is more, please share.
Quote:
and be able to challenge that premise intelligently. Those who don't agree that popular culture influences popular morality and the values of young people, quite honestly, take a position that requires more explanation than my own. The idea that music has the power to influence behavior and even character is ancient wisdom and, for most, plain common sense. We listen to music preciselybecause it changes us. And when the influence of music combines with the dirty sit-coms, talk shows, films, magazines, video games, and the whole panorama of popular culture to convey the same sorts of messages, I don't know how anyone can doubt its power to influence children.
So I wish I could remember the name of the logical fallacy that is the claim to lots of people believing the same thing for a long time. Alas I can't. When YOU can discuss this RATIONALLY, perhaps it would be interesting if you came back.
Quote:
Hence, my dismay that so many parents do nothing but shrug.
Since that is not what is being done, rest assured.
A quote from someone in pop culture about the music he wrote:
"I'm not claiming divinity. I've never claimed purity of soul. I've never claimed the answers to life. I can only put out songs and answer questions as honestly as I can. But I still believe in peace, love and understanding."
John Lennon
Now a little something from the New Testament:
"The greatest of these is love."
1 Corinthians 13-13
Uh, oh. There you go again, John. Preaching love....
I think at the base of this argument are world views - the people who don't think pop culture has any effect on children, must believe children are like Tephlon and don't absorb anything from the environment.
My personal belief is that we live in a world guided by quantum physics - and at it's base, quantum physics posits that everything is connected in a system and one thing affects another - it would be impossible, from this scientific perspective, to dismiss the affects of anything on anything else . . .it is just a given . . .look to "The Butterfly Affect" for more information on how one thing affects another.
If you listened to vulgar, drug-promoting, woman-debasing "music" as a youth, it's hard to imagine that the messages did not get into your psyche and shape your beliefs . . . how do you reconcile the promotion of drug usage, cop killing, female debasing, drug selling, base materialism, violence, the glorification of prison, et al with "kinder, gentler" beliefs and values of your parents? Please explain how you sorted this all out, if you did . . . how did you make sense of the images you saw of angry black men defiling women, etc.? What did you make of that?
I think it is extremely simplistic to say that you listened to (and watched) these extremely negative images and that they had no affect on you, what-so-ever.
Please read "Power vs. Force," and get back to me with your views on how this could have been possible.
Have you ever watched or listened to those things you deem to be extremely negative? If you have not then how can you pass judgement upon them or pretend to know their effect upon people? If you have, have you been entranced by their supposed message to the point that it made you do things? Did you listen to Straight Outta Compton by NWA and then immediately start screaming "**** da police"?
Your argument is essentially derailed by the realization that the type of music and pop culture influences you are citing as having such a negative impact primarily existed between 1980 - 2000. That is the primary time period for "gangsta rap" becoming mainstream and the time period where we find most of the objectionable content you are citing.
If it was such an influence as you claim it to be then one could posit that we would have seen increases in; crime, drug use, domestic violence, cop killing, etc. However, we have the exact OPPOSITE statistical phenomenon. Crime, homicide, drug use, cop killing, etc. are all down versus their highs in the early 1980's and there has been no appreciable change in the instances of domestic violence which remains at near constant historical levels.
The early 1980's time period is important, because this is when the type of media you claim to cause such issues hit the mainstream. If this type of media had a causal relationship with the acts that it portrays, then one would assume that we would have seen massive growth in these crimes and issues...but we haven't. Indeed the only thing one could prove is a correlation between this type of media and a DECLINE in these issues.
For that reason, it doesn't matter what any individuals experience has been in terms of exposure to this media, we have national statistics that disprove any relationship. This type of music hits the mainstream, crime rates go down. How do you explain that?
As for me personally, I simply liked the music and that led me to UNDERSTAND the message that was trying to be conveyed. As with most art it is not what it appears to be on the surface, to understand the message and what is being conveyed, one must look deeper. "Gangsta rap" was not about glorifying drugs, crime, gangs or domestic violence. It was about projecting the reality of life in our decaying urban centers and what the youth in these places are exposed to. The pioneers of this style wanted to use it as a political medium and tool to bring attention to the realities of life in the ghetto. Many of these artists have gone on to become quite vocal activists to better their communities and fight for change.
For someone intent on looking so deeply as to posit a qunatum physical relationship in terms of understanding human interaction, thought and connectivity, you merely brushed the surface of this particular art form and dismissed it as offensive when in reality it was a powerful socio-political message.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim
Quite right. But that wasn't my point. I meant that we don't need to share a specific religion (e.g. Christianity, Judaism, classical paganism) in order to have a moral and philosophical foundation for further discussion. If two people don't at least agree that truth and morality are objective - and relevant to how we live our lives - conversation on this subject is futile.
Except that objective morality has largely been rejected by secular western culture and replaced with a firm belief in relative morality, hence we can only find objective morality in religion and conservative movements. I believe this fact is one often lamented by the Catholic Church who blames moral relativity for societies issues. I'm sure you are intimately familiar with the encyclical Veritatis Splendor.
Ultimately moral objectivity requires the existence of a defined "good" vs. a defined "evil". The problem with that is the realization that the concept of "good" and "evil" changes from person to person and society to society. America paints Iran as "evil", Iran paints America as "evil", who is right? From each nations perspective, they are right, hence the proof for relativism.
Quote:
In that sense, it should be crystal clear to you that most people do have a religion. Even sophisticated moderns who pretend they don't have a religion have a religion.
If we want to define "religion" as being each individuals unique set of beliefs and values based on their own perspective and experience, then yes, everyone has a "religion".
Quote:
On the contrary, it is impossible to think critically without religion of some kind. To critically evaluate anything at all requires an objective standard - a belief that truth exists, that truth is knowable, and that truth matters. Those are religious claims. Remove one of these pillars and critical thought evaporates.
Religion, critical thought and seeking of truth are not codependent concepts as you would like us to believe. Religion provides an absolute truth that governs all things. It predisposes that "truth" is an omnipresent force ordained by God(s) that is never changing. God tells you the truth, provides all the answers and merely requires obedience to that "truth".
Critical thought follows the scientific method where we reveal "truth" through the perception and study of the world around us. Hypothesis becomes theory and hence "truth" when enough people share the same perception and experience. Nothing ever advances beyond theory, because our ability to study and experience our environment is constantly changing our perception and leading to new "truth".
This is why religion stifles critical thought. There is no need to seek a truth, because truth is universal and pre-ordained. Critical thought via the scientific method shows that truth is relative only to our current shared understanding, knowledge and experience. It is understandable why people find solace in religion, there is no unknown, no concpet that todays truth may be tomorrows false belief.
From Vatican Council I:
Quote:
Hence all faithful Christians are forbidden to defend as the legitimate conclusions of science those opinions which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of faith, particularly if they have been condemned by the Church; and furthermore they are absolutely bound to hold them to be errors which wear the deceptive appearance of truth.
Translation: Any "truth" that conflicts with our "truth" is wrong.
Is that not the opposite of the concept of critical thought embodied in the scientific method?
You're a little too long-winded for my taste, so I will just say that yes, I did happen to hear the music because my teenagers were playing it - and then later on, my grandson played the old rap - so it didn't just stay in the time frame you referenced. My premise is quite simple . . . that everything vibrates at a certain frequency - things that vibrate at a lower frequency resonate with people also vibrating at a lower frequency. If a person wishes to increase their vibration to a higher frequency, they should subject themselves to influences that vibrate on a higher frequency (in this case, classical music or uplifting music, as opposed to angry music, complete with violent images).
I understand the politics and rage behind some of the violent, negative music . . . but that does not negate it's negative influence. For comparison, think of Nelson Mandela, then think of common angry rappers . . . which do you think vibrates at a higher frequency? Many of those violent rappers did sell drugs, shoot people, go to prison, etc. And they GLORIFIED those experiences, which is not only negative, but dumb.
What is not uplifting is downtrodding (I know that's not a word, but you get the general gist of what I am getting at).
Well, I think in the United States one ought to be able to make certain assumptions.
Of course you are free to do so as long as you understand that those assumptions are based solely on your personal beliefs and perspective and may not be shared by most.
Quote:
Those who don't agree that casual non-marital sex is wrong should at least know where I'm coming from and be able to challenge that premise intelligently.
Those who think casual non-marital sex is wrong should at least be able to provide an intelligent basis for that premise.
The reason why the burden is yours is because you are the one who wants to force your values upon others. No one who thinks it's OK to engage in pre-marital casual sex is forcing you to do it or considering you "wrong" for not doing it. Yet, you see people whose values are different from yours and immediately paint them as "wrong" and immoral. If you cannot logically and intelligently state why it is "wrong" then you have no point to make other then it is different from your own personal values.
Quote:
Those who don't agree that popular culture influences popular morality and the values of young people, quite honestly, take a position that requires more explanation than my own. The idea that music has the power to influence behavior and even character is ancient wisdom and, for most, plain common sense. We listen to music preciselybecause it changes us. And when the influence of music combines with the dirty sit-coms, talk shows, films, magazines, video games, and the whole panorama of popular culture to convey the same sorts of messages, I don't know how anyone can doubt its power to influence children. Hence, my dismay that so many parents do nothing but shrug.
Prove to me that the rise of these various "influences" has casued society wide issues and problems to propagate to epidemic levels.
I don't think anybody has posted from the position that music lyrics are not always positive messages, or exactly what we would like our children to listen to. What I have read, over and over, is that music cannot corrupt a child raised by a loving, involved family. The impact of parental influence is far stronger than the message in a song.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
