Banning songs that glorify misogynism

[Dre89]

Lord Chair- Let me get this straight. I pointed out an inconsistency in the reasoning, and that was bad debating on my behalf?

If that is bad debating, then what would you do if defending my side of the argument?

And what my debating style does is uncover the fundamental issues where the conflicts of opinions lie. You may feel it dettracts from the debate, but frankly a debate is pointless if you don;t address the fundamental issues.

Classic example is the "do you kill one person to save six?" question. X argues no, it is never right to kill anyone, ever. Y argues is ok to kill in this scenario to maximise the number of lives. This is a classic deotonology vs utilitarian clash.

X and Y have different moral systems, so they'll never get anywhere unless one proves their moral system is superior to the other. My point is that I bring up more fundamental issues because that's where the debaters reasoning/arguments originate.

Cheap Peach- Sex before marriage/ casual sex is a good example of music/the media influencing what kids (including adolescents here obviously)do.

You're missing my point about pedo songs. Firstly, I don't consider it immoral to simply be sexually attracted to children if it is not acted upon, but that is irrelevant. Furthermore, it is irrelevant what my view of the morality of paedophilia is, the reason why I brought it up was because society has deemed it immoral and unacceptable.

Ok you think the production of pedo songs should be allowed. Fair enough. How much exposure should these songs be allowed to have? Should they be booming in shopping malls, advertised on giant billboards for everyone to see? Basically, I want to know if you would treat pedo songs differently.

 

[_Keno_]

Cheap Peach- Sex before marriage/ casual sex is a good example of music/the media influencing what kids (including adolescents here obviously)do.

The decline of religion and conservatism is what has influenced our generation in that respect. Less people are religious nowadays and those that are religious are less and less controlled by the doctrines. Does this have to do with music? I dont think so. Music has been written about it, sure, but only as one of many effects, not the cause.

You're missing my point about pedo songs. Firstly, I don't consider it immoral to simply be sexually attracted to children if it is not acted upon, but that is irrelevant. Furthermore, it is irrelevant what my view of the morality of paedophilia is, the reason why I brought it up was because society has deemed it immoral and unacceptable.

I dont see how the moral opinions of society on such matters should have any effect on free speech and the such.

Ok you think the production of pedo songs should be allowed. Fair enough. How much exposure should these songs be allowed to have? Should they be booming in shopping malls, advertised on giant billboards for everyone to see? Basically, I want to know if you would treat pedo songs differently.

We should treat them like any other song, which is base purely on popularity. If its a good song and people generally like it, then I suspect stores would play it and billboards would advertise it. If it is a terrible song and people hate both it and what it implies, a store would have no incentive to play it. Should the store be allowed to play it? Yes. Would it likely kill the store because of that? Probably so.

 

[Dre89]

That's interesting. So you don't feel that there's a duty to protect children from vile songs when they're still so impressionable.

 

[_Keno_]

Well, even assuming every aspect of paedophilia is "vile" and requires children to be protected from, that would be the parents job.
I doubt any store playing such a song would attract parents or children. As such, parents should keep their children from going to stores where they play that music.

However, there is one assumption I don't like that you are making. A few stores currently play music about straight couples sex or desires. I dont see people moving to ban that. Think of the children, right?
Apparently not.

 

[Dre89]

You're right about the music about straight couples. If one was to ban pedophilia songs, then to be consistent that have to ban any music deemed inapporpriate for children, including any music endorsing, violence, drug use, and containing sexual content.

 

[_Keno_]

While I agree ( though not all people might agree) that IF we were do ban one type of those, we would have to ban them all, I don't necessarily agree that we SHOULD ban them all, which brings us back to the main topic, albeit a little bit altered and more child focused.
Would you agree that adults are not likely to be effected by songs in such a way that it would actively alter their lifestyle? If so, we can focus only on how songs may or may not leave an impression on children. And even if the songs are found to actually effect children (not that we if know they do or don't), would it be the responsibility of the person/store/artist playing the music or the parents to keep children away from certain music? If it's the store/artist, then we might conclude the banning on music (unless someone objects to these).

 

[Dre89]

If a shopping mall blasting child-inappropriate music is ok, then is it ok to walk naked on the streets? Can you just say "well if someone has a problem with it, it's their problem and they don't have to be on their street, and they can just keep their children away from him"?

I don't see what the difference is. In both cases, something supposedly innappropriate is exhibited in a public, that is not restricted to an adults-only environment.

Unless you don't have a problem with people walking around naked on the streets, then you'd be completely consistent.

 

[_Keno_]

In reality, a shopping mall would not blast child inappropriate music unless the shopping mall itself held nothing but adult-only stores. And if it didn't, children (and even some adults who find it distasteful) wouldn't go there and the mall would lose ALL of its children-based money and a lot of its adult-based audience.

And to the dismay of you and your example, I actually support nudism/naturism to its fullest. I really do think it's the problem of the viewer if they believe nudity to be inappropriate in and of itself. Nobody is really being forced to look at anything.

I dont doubt that if you moved to a society where everyone was forced to wear gloves because the showing of hands was considered inappropriate, you would support the cause paralleling mine. (And I would gladly discuss this one issue in detail in another thread if you like, since you seemed to presume some much of simple nudity).

Anyways, the territory you are leading me into requires me to define an entire morality system, which would be as arbitrary as any other system, and you would probably call me on that. I believe the general purpose of this thread is only to debate/discuss the effects of "unsavory" music on people, and deciding who is responsible for censorship (parents, gov't, stores, etc).

 

[Dre89]

But the topic is whether we should ban misogony songs. That in a sense is a morality, as it is a "what ought we do" scenario.

As tedious as it sounds, the problem is moral debates are pointless without establishing grand moral theories. People of two different moral theories may give different responses to this topic, and nothing will be accomplished unless they criticise each other's grand moral theories because that's the starting block of their arguments.

In saying that though, I really can't be bothered getting into a full-scale morality debate.

 

[_Keno_]

While I agree with everything you say, it is not necessarily the only way to debate this. It could also be construed as a freedom of speech topic rather than a completely moral topic. But even that may lead into morality.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

It isn't a matter of whose responsibility does it fall under, falling into such strange arbitrary traps that force one to bicker off imaginary lines of ethics drawn on whims generally tells you that you are looking in the wrong place. It seems, to me, that banning people from expressing or producing certain topics, regardless of how "hard it is to avoid" or "hard to not influence me", is extremely wrong and a breach of rights. It is almost like banning people from talking poorly about our government or a war we are in, regardless if your statements are wrong, you should and cannot be penalized for anything you say unless it is suggestive in the sense that people have good reason to believe you are going to harm someone or damage property.

We should be able to say or express ourselves however we want, and I am confident that nothing wrong will come of us making things a lot less taboo and less likely to obsess over. Banning material like this will also affect similarly to how making alcohol illegal affected us, people are just going to get pissed and find some way to do it.

Not to mention, and this is sort of approaching more of opinion than fact, I don't think our music has done much to anyone. I no absolutely no one that has any signs of being affected this way, the basis of all degrading and unsightly people I have ever encountered, and any problems that I face, all seem to be coming from social derivatives and how we evolved as interactive beings. That is why a lot of the younger generations are seemingly pejorative because they are being raised by such people, and since they are exposed to that at a young age, and do not get things pointed out to be as wrong, or right, or what matters in life or what doesn't, in those innocent salad days where we see things much more naively, with which we soak up in our spongy brains.

In terms of media like movies and shows that show innapropriate content, which is a parallel topic, parents online who discuss the topic, and parents I see around me all seem to be better off letting each child watch things that have some violence or suggestive themes even at these naive stages of life and simply guiding them and helping them understand what they are seeing. If you leave these things hidden and let your child inevitably find them through the internet, interacting with other kids, etc. they will prove to be far worse off than if you had not conversed with him/her. You bet your misogynistic songs that is true.

 

[Orboknown]

First off, i Don't believe in censorship of music whatsoever. I see no reason why it is necessary.
Secondly, mysogynistic songs are protected by freedom of speech, noted above.
Third, i believe music is the ultimate expression of life. That includes the positive and negatives. For every Here Comes The Sun we will have a **** Me.