The War on Opera

[ShadesPanther]

Probably the younger ones shouldn't have seen it. (Although I doubt they really watched it) Beyond that I don't see a problem.

Spetulhu
You missed out pop music which is mind controlling the children, and of course jazz. The name just reeks of satan worshipping.

[solypsist]

if this gets any more personal (you know who you are) then expect a locked thread.

[InsaneApache]

if this gets any more personal (you know who you are) then expect a locked thread.

Flippin' heck Dom Deluese has complained to a mod...

[BDC]

Let's just drink the money.

Truely the answer to all these silly problems.

[Duke Malcolm]

The poor man... He should have stuck to the Marriage of Figaro...

[Hurin_Rules]

Dr. Faustus is an extended sermon in favour of Christianity and against devil worship. Anyone who argues it glorifies Satan is just plain ignorant.

[Soulforged]

Dr. Faustus is an extended sermon in favour of Christianity and against devil worship. Anyone who argues it glorifies Satan is just plain ignorant.

That's usually the case. Bang Bang You're Death.
Ignorancy is the root of intolerance in most cases. Here it's bold faced. I wonder how an actual War on Opera will display, I mean, I can imagine the government putting cameras everywhere and then reaching for the original places in the world to stop their production, it will be frankly hilarious, not that's related to the topic of course.

[A.Saturnus]

Dr. Faustus is an extended sermon in favour of Christianity and against devil worship. Anyone who argues it glorifies Satan is just plain ignorant.

Which probably would have pissed off Goethe big deal.

[AntiochusIII]

if this gets any more personal (you know who you are) then expect a locked thread.

Aw, com'on. It's not like me and DA are serious and on each other's throat. After all, I am a liberal, a socialist, a cheese-lover, a descendant of monkeys, and hates freedom!

...

And why is Faust inappropriate for children? Because the Devil is in there? Since hE probably is not real or is having an abusive relationship with Saddam, I suggest whoever is a Satanist to sues the bloody parents for money because they offend your beliefs...and you get money!

[Azi Tohak]

One of the silliest threads I have seen in a while, I do find the thought of a kids watching Faust very funny. I bet the Devil was dressed in a big purple dinosaur suit, and Faust just happens to be a gigantic yellow bird.

Is it just me or is this whole article more proof that people will complain about anything? And if that is the case, why is this stuff reported? Surely there has to be something more worthy (like people dying, or tortured turtles).

Azi

[Lemur]

One of the silliest threads I have seen in a while.

We aim to please.

[Paul Peru]

Let's burn them all!!


I'd like to keep a few of the ouvertures, though. No German Screeching Women there

[Spetulhu]

On the other hand, why is anyone surprised? I hear SuperBowl censured the Rolling Stones! A couple of lines in their songs were "suggestive".

[Divinus Arma]

Aw, com'on. It's not like me and DA are serious and on each other's throat. After all, I am a liberal, a socialist, a cheese-lover, a descendant of monkeys, and hates freedom!

I agree with AntiochusIII. He IS a liberal, socialist, cheese-loving decendant of monkeys who hates freedom!

And both of us agree on the cheese-monkey thing. Right on!

*Tries to high-five AntiochusIII who withdraws hand at the last moment*

Son of a...!

[AntiochusIII]

I agree with AntiochusIII. He IS a liberal, socialist, cheese-loving decendant of monkeys who hates freedom!

And both of us agree on the cheese-monkey thing. Right on!

*Tries to high-five AntiochusIII who withdraws hand at the last moment*

Son of a...!

Pft! Such slow reaction! We monkeys are way better at that. Now, now, let's have cheese...

*realizes he's ruining the thread, fearing Soly will close it*

Aaaaanyway. Back to topic.

Although we can pretty much all agree the parents are God-fearing idiots (note: the two can be mutually exclusive) from small-town trailerpark America. But, seriously, what are your opinions of how far the parents should have their authority over the kids?

[Divinus Arma]

But, seriously, what are your opinions of how far the parents should have their authority over the kids?

Actually you raise a very important question here. Who has the right to raise our children, the gov or the parents?

Clearly in some instances parents are complete and utter morons. You mentioned trailer park trash. I would also offer illegal immigrant families and urban welfare mothers.

Really, the question is: Who's children are these? Are they humanity's children? Or the parents child?


An example of contradiction:

The government does not allow a parent to physically punish a child, but allows the murder of that child before its birth.

I bring this up because it is fundamental to your question. If it is "humanity's" child, then clearly we must not allow the child to be murdered just as we would not want it to be raised through violence.

If it is the parnet's child, then we are allowed to both slay it before birth and offer up violence as a form of corrective discipline.


Clearly, rational minds must find middle ground here. But where is that misddle ground? Should the government be responsible for telling us what values we should instill in our children? If so, then who ultimately decides the values of the government if the government chooses values for us?

[AntiochusIII]

Actually you raise a very important question here. Who has the right to raise our children, the gov or the parents?

Obviously not the government as-is. If one is to choose the former, it would more likely be society--and thus the government as society's agent, otherwise, if the government acts on its own merits, then it is, in my opinion, overstepping the boundaries of its authority.

We are not Lycurgus' Spartans anymore, in other words. We don't need superhuman robots.

However, I don't have time to ponder the question yet, so I cannot answer it. It...involves...personal matter, in fact, now that I think of it. And is an important question that might've been answered somewhere within all those social contract theories.

Really, the question is: Who's children are these? Are they humanity's children? Or the parents child?

All I can say is, if we are to agree on the latter, the parents' child will then be subject to the parents' whim, but if we are on the former, then individual rights on this matter are baseless and we would move towards a more conforming (in a Confucius sense) society.

An example of contradiction:

The government does not allow a parent to physically punish a child, but allows the murder of that child before its birth.

I bring this up because it is fundamental to your question. If it is "humanity's" child, then clearly we must not allow the child to be murdered just as we would not want it to be raised through violence.

If it is the parnet's child, then we are allowed to both slay it before birth and offer up violence as a form of corrective discipline.

Let's not go into Abortion here. It will only cloud up the perspective of possible participants.

Clearly, rational minds must find middle ground here. But where is that misddle ground? Should the government be responsible for telling us what values we should instill in our children? If so, then who ultimately decides the values of the government if the government chooses values for us?

The government has no right whatsoever in forcing values onto us, at least in the United States' form of social contract, presumably based on Locke's. However, applying to this case: is it right if those parents will instill racism, nazism, or whatever supremacy crap into a child because the children belongs in their authority? If not, who will replace them in choosing the values in which a child would grow up with?

Just to clarify my question.