Subversive stuff, Emily.

I returned to live in Australia in 1994, and was shocked to find that my country had become obsessed with safety. Our tolerance for risk is now approaching zero, and our wowserism extends way beyond the issues you mention.

We’re turning ourselves into a nation of bland automatons, where acceptable risk-taking is corralled in business or sport. Adventurers who get into trouble are sent a bill for their rescue, and public spaces are a visual mess of warnings and disclaimer signs.

Is this better than how things were in the sixties, with drunks tearing up and down the streets and people blowing cigarette smoke in your face everywhere you went? Possibly. But as you observe Emily, the costs are very high.

Abednego
Quote "The “harm-no-one” edict is nonsense. We are all connected and one’s actions always impact others." Emily ISN'T talking about emotional harm but physical harm. Very few of our actions involve physical harm to others. Since the the life we are risking is our own then we are the ONLY ones who get a say. It's that simple.

The alternative you seem to be suggesting is a society where if anyone objects to what someone is doing then they shouldn't be allowed to do that activity. Let's apply that Abednego. Let's start with you. I object to your posts so according to your logic you shouldn't be allowed to post here anymore. I object to christian fundamentalist church so it shouldn't be allowed to operate & so on. After all I am emotionally affected by all that so I MUST get a say...at least according to your argument.

But according to Emily I only get a say if I am physically harmed. So which version do you prefer?

For W and Bosky

You observe the natural outcome of a depraved society engaging in 'damage control'. We have found new gods of sensuality and open sexual permisiveness, and we worship them with our Canaanite like actions. Unnnnnnfortunately, this impacts others increasingly and so.. knee jerk laws are beefed up to cope with the social damage caused by attributing to our gods, the behavior many seem to desire.

In short, we want to have our social/moral cake and to eat it too. We want to be permissive and liberated, but ooops..when that liberation goes just a tad too far..aah..better crunch a few people.

Sadly, the point at which we 'crunch' people legally is always being challenged. Some call the conservative mob 'wowsers' as u did.

-Lower the age of sexual consent.
-Don't censor 'non-violent' erotica
-Same sex marraiges.

Aaah yes..but as we travel down the path of the Canaanites, lets also add the other things they did.

-Throw our babies into fires to make Baal or Dagon happy.
-Indulge in cult prostitution of both males and females
-lets all have sex with animals
-Lets all have sex within our families, parents with offspring, brothers with sisters etc.
-lets all be bi-sexual.
-Lets all have Group sex, Orgies.

Interestingly, when these things were condemned by the founding document of Wowserism "Leviticus" it mentions "as the peoples in the land do" (referring to the Canaanites.)

All this occurred when MAN ascribes his own base desires to his gods.

I often hear "God is made in the image of man.. invented by man" but in such cases where this is true, such as with the Canaanites, the characteristics attributed tend to be the most vulgar kind. Give the 'progressives' like Emily time and we will all be able to 'choose' to hump our dogs and sisters and 'barely legal' chidren with a clear concience.

The standard from the Biblical God is 'CONTRARY' to vulgar human inclinations.
Hence, God is not 'invented' by man.

Choice without boundaries is moral anarchy and we can expect no less than the Canaanites got. "Destroy them utterly".

I agree with much of Emily's centiment, particularly her views regarding recreational drug use. The current laws/social controls over relatively safe (compared to alcohol and tobacco)drugs such as ecstacy and cocaine are totally hypocritical, oppressive, un-inforcable, puritanical and not based on factual evidence at all. Prohibition is the ultimate in 'Nanny State' censorship of free thinking adults.

I do however find it amazing how people can say that women have a supposed "right" to kill unborn children. HELLO PEOPLE! I think sucking an unborn human child through a bladed vacume cleaner constitutes harming another person. We're not living in the 60's anymore - there is so much scientific evidence now days proving the life of unborn children that only the truely ignorant can decide to ignor it.

I think that the state has become so controlling of personal freedom to the point of rediculousness, however the protecting of human life really should be the first and foremost of the states role

Hasbeen, I prefer evidence rather than anecdotes on road safety. So you might look here http://casr.adelaide.edu.au/speed/index.html or here http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2001/Rural_Speed_1.aspx . Risk of accidents in a 60kph zone doubles with each 5kph over the speed limit according to the first report and the second found that "small reductions in travelling speed in rural areas have the potential to greatly reduce casualty crashes in those areas".

I'm perfectly happy for other people to risk their lives, via recreational substance abuse, mountaineering or whatever. But excessive speed, drug taking or drinking, talking on mobiles etc etc are proven factors in road accidents. Driving's hazardous enough without idiots who believe they're invulnerable.

So, Boazo, should we slaughter the Canaanites (as the Bible urged) or their modern equivalents for breaching biblical morals? Is being immoral as the Canaanites supposedly were worthy of being 'destroyed'? In your moral outlook, are there worse things than murder? If we are just 'vulgar' creatures, who 'created' us with these imperfections? Especially in cases where people are born in poor circumstances in countries where christianity is not widespread, how can these unfortunate immoral people ever achieve salvation?

Abednego, you seem like follower of the Australian Family Association planted yesterday with others on OLO to stack the blog with support for Bill's views in the Big Brother article, and you have strayed to this, admittedly related, topic. I look forward to seeing your 'enlightened' views on a broad range of OLO topics in future.

You say 'I say let's Spring Clean ... get rid of the egocentric "intellectuals" who peddle illusions of relative-truth and the other flawed ideas so full of hope but empty.'. How do you propose that the 'spring cleaning' be undertaken? More destruction of the 'Canaanites' perhaps?