homeGeek CultureWebstoreeCards!Forums!Joy of Tech!AY2K!webcam

The Geek Culture Forums


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Geek Culture Forums   » News, Reviews, Views!   » Rants, Raves, Rumors!   » Morality in Society (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!  
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4 
 
Author Topic: Morality in Society
ASM65816
SuperBlabberMouth!
Member # 712

Member Rated:
2
Icon 5 posted September 18, 2004 11:10      Profile for ASM65816   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Morality as It Relates to Law:

a. "Perfect" Morality: Individuals hold the interests of society in high regard.
Law: None required. Everyone "does the right thing" without the external influence.

b. Very Strong Morality: Individuals want to "do the right thing" but may disagree among one another.
Law: Laws apply some external influence on the individual. Solutions to conflicts are achieved in less time through established convention.

c. Selfish: Individuals have a sense of morality, but often seek to profit at the expense of society.
Law: Required to maintain order in society. Individuals will use excuses such as "Technically It's Not Stealing" while causing intentional harm to others; however, the laws are "obeyed."

d. Criminal: Individuals put self-interests before all interests of society.
Law: Required, but is insufficient to prevent antisocial behavior. Individuals live by the rule of "Don't Get Caught." Hypocrisy and corruption become the standard as those entrusted with maintaining law and order subvert it for their own gain.

e. Nihilism: Individuals consider themselves supreme and do not hesitate to cause destruction with little or no reason.
Law: Meaningless. Any laws that exist will be perverted from good intent, or used to rationalize destructive behavior.

It's disappointing to see how eager people are to pass laws to solve the ills of society, and yet ignore that an amoral society is a problem.

Laws do not magically change reality: Making heroin illegal does not cause it to disappear from the streets. Reducing the demand for it is a far more effective control measure.

If the members of society do not respect a law, and it conflicts with their personal values, only one kind of government can enforce such laws: a Totalitarian State.

Is it ironic?: Under Saddam Hussein there was no Death Penalty in the judicial system, but over 300,000 Iraqis were killed by Saddam's regime.

The message of the popular media seems to be that the absence of personal responsibility and the willingness to ignore brutality against one's fellow man are just aspects of freedom and respect for people with different values.

--------------------
Once a proud programmer of Apple II's, he now spends his days and nights in cheap dives fraternizing with exotic dancers....

Posts: 1035 | From: Third rock from sun. | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cap'n Vic

Member # 1477

Icon 1 posted September 18, 2004 11:39      Profile for Cap'n Vic     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
 -

--------------------
(!) (T) = 8-D

Posts: 5471 | From: One of the drones from sector 7G | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
littlefish
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 966

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted September 18, 2004 13:35      Profile for littlefish   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What is this- your own personal philosphy? A brief introduction like: "These are some thoughts I had" or "This is an interesting thing I read". Personally I would merge selfish and criminal together, and rename the nihilists as criminals.
Posts: 2421 | From: That London | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
ASM65816
SuperBlabberMouth!
Member # 712

Member Rated:
2
Icon 1 posted September 18, 2004 16:31      Profile for ASM65816   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My attempted points are:

* People have to care enough about others help the rest of society, even if only a small amount. The alternative is only looking out for one's self, which is no better than animals.

* In a thoroughly corrupt society, no amount of laws will change the society. Hypocrisy simply grows along with the laws.

* (In my opinion) Lack of ethics is becoming more acceptable in society.

I thought that the "War on Drugs" made it clear that just passing laws doesn't solve problems.

Is the common opinion that more laws and more government control over people's lives is the best solution?

--------------------
Once a proud programmer of Apple II's, he now spends his days and nights in cheap dives fraternizing with exotic dancers....

Posts: 1035 | From: Third rock from sun. | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
csk

Member # 1941

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted September 18, 2004 17:34      Profile for csk     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Legislating morality is a hard problem. It's not easy to codify moral standards, and sometimes one has to choose between "the lesser of two evils", so to speak.

The typical example of this is a German hiding Jews in their basement during WWII. The Gestapo rock up to the door, and ask "Are there any Jews here?". You say "Well, yes, actually", and those Jews will most likely end up dead. You say no, and you've lied, which most people consider morally wrong, too.

An even better example is Jesus vs the Pharisees. The Pharisees were a religious group that decided that the best way to live a moral life was to develop an incredibly complex moral code that dictated what to do in every situation. When Jesus came along, he verbally hammered them, because they had got so far away from the spirit of the law in their misguided attempts to simplify complex issues.

The other problem is "How do we agree on a moral standard across society?". Previously, society has been built on a Judeo-Christian moral foundation, but there seems to be a move away from that. How do we agree what that foundation should be? If it becomes "Do whatever you like as long as it doesn't hurt others", everyone has a different idea of what hurts others.

--------------------
6 weeks to go!

Posts: 4455 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
The Famous Druid

Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted September 18, 2004 18:48      Profile for The Famous Druid     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by csk:
Previously, society has been built on a Judeo-Christian moral foundation, but there seems to be a move away from that. How do we agree what that foundation should be? If it becomes "Do whatever you like as long as it doesn't hurt others", everyone has a different idea of what hurts others.

And Zorro might object .....

--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.

Posts: 10680 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Twinkle Toes
BlabberMouth, the Next Generation
Member # 1208

Member Rated:
4
Icon 3 posted September 19, 2004 02:06      Profile for Twinkle Toes   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ASM65816:
* People have to care enough about others help the rest of society, even if only a small amount. The alternative is only looking out for one's self, which is no better than animals.

This reminds me of something I read in Walden about philanthropy. Basically Thoreau says that philanthropists are only concerned with helping the homeless type, instead of 'regular people' who also need help (you guys know what I mean by this; people who already have the essentials). This is of great concern to me, because I believe that homeless people require little help compared to 'regular people'. I mean, obtaining essentials for them isn't as nearly as difficult as helping someone who had a house get out of debt or helping someone maintain a failing business or trying to get kids out of gangs. I also think 'regular people' have possibly created much more complex psychological disorders than the homeless, but that's my opinion.

Mm... I don't know how I lost myself so quickly.. Anyway, my point is that 'good-deed doers' are not, in fact, doing anyone any good but are crippling others abilities and are only doing so for their own personal benefit, not soceity's.

quote:
I thought that the "War on Drugs" made it clear that just passing laws doesn't solve problems.

'reducing the demand for it is a far more effective control measure' - So increasing the supply of drugs is a better way of keeping people in line? Isn't that what you're saying?

quote:
* In a thoroughly corrupt society, no amount of laws will change the society. Hypocrisy simply grows along with the laws.

Is the common opinion that more laws and more government control over people's lives is the best solution?

I don't think that's the common opinion, but if we didn't have people making up laws and politicians doing their governmental ...thingies, then there'd be a lot more annoying people out of work. I agree with what csk said about choosing the lesser of two evils. That's about all we can do now in this corrupt world.

--------------------
Mmmmrreow!

Posts: 1617 | From: a membrane near you! | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Number 2608
Mini Geek
Member # 2608

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted September 19, 2004 03:13      Profile for Number 2608     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ASM65816:
My attempted points are:

* People have to care enough about others help the rest of society, even if only a small amount. The alternative is only looking out for one's self, which is no better than animals.

Animals like, say, ants or bees? There must be hundreds of species that survive by living in well structured societies. If society is to be maintained 'only looking out for one's self' ultimately is not going to help the one because the one will eventually need assistance from someone else for whatever reason. If that one has always been selfish, that assistance may not happen. If someone is an arsehole toward me, they can expect me to be an arsehole back. If someone is nice, they can expect me to be nice back. Society works on give and take.

quote:
* In a thoroughly corrupt society, no amount of laws will change the society. Hypocrisy simply grows along with the laws.
Laws only work if they are being enforced and there are the resources to enforce them.

quote:
* (In my opinion) Lack of ethics is becoming more acceptable in society.
Depends on what you mean by ethics here. I have defined it elsewhere on these forums as 'what the individual deems to be right,' as opposed to morality - 'what society deems to be right.' So, by these definitions, lack of ethics may not actually be an acheiveable state; non-conformity to morality is being tolerated to more in society, or there is no backlash against the non-conformity (eg laws are not being enforced).

quote:
I thought that the "War on Drugs" made it clear that just passing laws doesn't solve problems.
As I said, laws only work if they are being enforced and there are the resources to enforce them.

quote:
Is the common opinion that more laws and more government control over people's lives is the best solution?
Rather than just penalising those that are breaking the law, the reasons for laws being broken needs to be addressed. Is it just that breaking the law and getting away with it is easy? Or is committing crime the only way that some people can survive (in 19th century England, the prision regeime was very harsh, but many people prefered to be in prision as it was the only they would get housed and fed)?
Posts: 82 | From: Leeds, UK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Groggle
Mini Geek
Member # 2360

Member Rated:
3
Icon 1 posted September 19, 2004 13:02      Profile for Groggle     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This is one of those topics that keeps rolling around in the political sphere in both Canada and the United States.

As CSK pointed out, legislated morality is at best difficult. At worst, it can result in the kind of totalitarian regime that has been explored in speculative literature many times - Orwell's 1984; Atwood's "The Handmaid's Tale", among others.

The question I like to ask whenever an issue of morality is being raised is that of harm. In other words, if we (as a society) fail to apply legislative sanction against action X, who is harmed?

For example, consider the notion of harm as it might apply in the Gay Marriage debate. On one side, we have two consenting adults that are expressing a wish to formalize their relationship both spiritually and legally. From their perspective, nobody else is fundamentally affected by their decision, therefore why the big fuss.

On the other side of that same conversation, there are those who argue that our legal conventions for marriage are derived from a strong foundation in Judeo-Christian theology, and therefore acknowledging a homosexual union is changing a fundamental presupposition of our society's construct of marriage. In their view, the harm is being done to an abstract entity called society.

Is either side right? Not in any absolute sense. This is one of the tough jobs that we should expect our politicians to grapple with as leaders. There is much to weigh. Is the assumption of a foundation in Judeo-Christian morality valid today? (Or, have we a large enough population from other traditions that render that assumption suspect?) Stepping aside from the theology for a moment, is there any "actual harm" to an identifiable party? (The definition of actual harm becomes quite important here) ... and so on.

Sadly, the current crop of politicians in both countries seem to be so driven by the winds of public opinion polls that they dare not take a clear stance without running off to consult the latest opinion poll. A process that significantly weakens the leadership cycle. (I'm not saying they shouldn't listen to the public, but they should be as much advocates to the public as for the public in many cases)

If a reasonable case can be made that harm is being done, (For example, the issue of harm becomes quite clear when dealing with child porn - children are clearly harmed by these actions.) legislated sanction seems appropriate. Then the issue of boundaries becomes one of discussion - too wide a definition can wind up encompassing a bunch of things that really shouldn't be; too narrow a definition and the undesirables can slip through the net.

I'm always a little worried when a legislator starts to speak of moral issues in absolute terms, for sooner or later, they start writing laws that won't stand up to scrutiny. It's a very difficult, and cautious balancing act. (Also, we do have to recognize that social 'norms' change over time, and in doing so often render old laws obsolete.)

Posts: 77 | From: Calgary | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
csk

Member # 1941

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted September 19, 2004 16:05      Profile for csk     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Groggle:
For example, the issue of harm becomes quite clear when dealing with child porn - children are clearly harmed by these actions.

This is where it gets tricky, IMHO. Child porn involving actual children is clearly harmful. What about textual descriptions of sexual activity with children? Or virtualised representations of it involving computer generated graphics? I'm betting most people would find this unsavoury, and objectionable. But then to be morally consistent, you'd have to be against being able to commit virtual violence, as well, which most people have no problem with.

--------------------
6 weeks to go!

Posts: 4455 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rhonwyyn

Solid Gold SuperFan!
Member # 2854

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted September 20, 2004 08:22      Profile for Rhonwyyn   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I just finished reading a great book dealing with these exact issues. It's the second book in The Veritas Project series by Frank Peretti: Nightmare Academy. Granted, it's a novel geared more toward older teens, but it's excellently written and not "preachy." I learn best when concepts are written in stories, so this book's perfect for me. Peretti sets up an experiment with runaways who live in a school without rules, where everyting is both/and instead of either/or. It gets very tricky logically. I'd encourage everyone to read it to at least see one clear view on morality.

--------------------
Change the way you SEE, not the way you LOOK!

Posts: 3849 | From: Lancaster, PA | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
csk

Member # 1941

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted September 20, 2004 12:57      Profile for csk     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah, Peretti writes some good stuff, although I haven't read that particular one. Another good one of his in the area of morality is "The Oath". Being Christian fiction, it has some obviously completely fictional elements, but presents a compelling argument about morality, IMHO.

--------------------
6 weeks to go!

Posts: 4455 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Groggle
Mini Geek
Member # 2360

Member Rated:
3
Icon 1 posted September 20, 2004 17:05      Profile for Groggle     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Writes CSK:
quote:
This is where it gets tricky, IMHO. Child porn involving actual children is clearly harmful. What about textual descriptions of sexual activity with children? Or virtualised representations of it involving computer generated graphics? I'm betting most people would find this unsavoury, and objectionable. But then to be morally consistent, you'd have to be against being able to commit virtual violence, as well, which most people have no problem with.
_EXACTLY_. The problem is that morals are not necessarily consistent. When does the written word become an expression of intent? When does a piece of painting, or a bunch of pixels cross the line from artwork and become "obscene"?

I know what I personally find immoral - but usually when I see it, not before. To define it in legal terms is likely somewhere between difficult and impossible.

Interestingly, it is this very recognition of the limits of codification that many "Conservatives" misconstrue as being "wishy-washy" or 'moral relativism'.

Posts: 77 | From: Calgary | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
The Famous Druid

Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted September 20, 2004 17:30      Profile for The Famous Druid     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Who was the US judge who's definition of pornography was "If it gives me a hard-on, it's porn" ?

Gee, if that definition holds, they'd have to edit every Liv Tyler scene out of Lord Of The Rings

--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.

Posts: 10680 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
csk

Member # 1941

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted September 20, 2004 17:51      Profile for csk     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
Who was the US judge who's definition of pornography was "If it gives me a hard-on, it's porn" ?

Gee, if that definition holds, they'd have to edit every Liv Tyler scene out of Lord Of The Rings

Hmm, wonder if they're going to add more of them in ROTKEE when it finally comes out. Mind you, I wouldn't mind seeing more of Miranda Otto (Eowyn), either. I was rather shocked to discover that Miranda Otto was playing a young schoolgirl in a quite old quirky Australian movie, she was almost unrecognisable compared to these days.

Edit: see pic for what I mean, the movie was Love Serenade, more info here
 -

Posts: 4455 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Serenak

Member # 2950

Member Rated:
4
Icon 11 posted September 21, 2004 17:20      Profile for Serenak     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Morality vs ethics, not exactly a new debate but not without merit. Like philosophy it is good to run over the ground every once in a while to check nothing's changed (no sarcasam intended)

As I understand it morals are usually socio/religous based e.g "thou shalt not kill" and ethics more situational e.g. "this person has a painful terminal cancer and has requested help in ending their life - should we help them?" (Correction/enlightenment by those with a better understanding/deeper knowedge welcomed...)

As is usual in any truly interesting problem/debate it's the "grey areas" that elicit both the most violently doctrinal and the most thoughtful/insightful comments.

Child Porn - actual pictures of children being abused = WRONG, talk of actually abusing children = WRONG, peadophiles looking at children on TV and having "bad thoughts" = ?, story/picture/art that concerns itself with the subject of said peadophiles = ?

"Normal" porn - pictures of consenting adults doing what consenting adults tend to do = OK by me as long as you don't shove it in my face or my children's faces, pictures of rather more "esoteric" sexual practices = as above, pictures of people forcing/harming others = wrong. Trouble is where does part two shade into part three?

Aleister Crowley was a big believer in so long as it hurts no one else "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law". OK on the surface but who determines "hurt" to someone else - physical? emotional? phsycological?

My (admittedley limited) reading and understanding of most major religious texts seems to boil down to one main thing

"DON'T BE S**TTY"

So nicely coined by Bill and Ted as "Be excellent to one another and party on dude!"

Or as an old associate of mine said "NEVER KICK PEOPLE ON THE WAY UP - BECAUSE YOU WILL SURELY MEET THEM AGAIN ON THE WAY DOWN!"

Serenak

--------------------
"So if you want my address - it's No. 1 at the end of the bar, where I sit with the broken angels, clutching at straws and nursing my scars..."

Posts: 1937 | From: Suffolk England | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Serenak

Member # 2950

Member Rated:
4
Icon 11 posted September 21, 2004 17:22      Profile for Serenak     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Morality vs ethics, not exactly a new debate but not without merit. Like philosophy it is good to run over the ground every once in a while to check nothing's changed (no sarcasam intended)

As I understand it morals are usually socio/religous based e.g "thou shalt not kill" and ethics more situational e.g. "this person has a painful terminal cancer and has requested help in ending their life - should we help them?" (Correction/enlightenment by those with a better understanding/deeper knowedge welcomed...)

As is usual in any truly interesting problem/debate it's the "grey areas" that elicit both the most violently doctrinal and the most thoughtful/insightful comments.

Child Porn - actual pictures of children being abused = WRONG, talk of actually abusing children = WRONG, peadophiles looking at children on TV and having "bad thoughts" = ?, story/picture/art that concerns itself with the subject of said peadophiles = ?

"Normal" porn - pictures of consenting adults doing what consenting adults tend to do = OK by me as long as you don't shove it in my face or my children's faces, pictures of rather more "esoteric" sexual practices = as above, pictures of people forcing/harming others = wrong. Trouble is where does part two shade into part three?

Aleister Crowley was a big believer in so long as it hurts no one else "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law". OK on the surface but who determines "hurt" to someone else - physical? emotional? phsycological?

My (admittedley limited) reading and understanding of most major religious texts seems to boil down to one main thing

"DON'T BE S**TTY"

So nicely coined by Bill and Ted as "Be excellent to one another and party on dude!"

Or as an old associate of mine said "NEVER KICK PEOPLE ON THE WAY UP - BECAUSE YOU WILL SURELY MEET THEM AGAIN ON THE WAY DOWN!"

Serenak

--------------------
"So if you want my address - it's No. 1 at the end of the bar, where I sit with the broken angels, clutching at straws and nursing my scars..."

Posts: 1937 | From: Suffolk England | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Serenak

Member # 2950

Member Rated:
4
Icon 9 posted September 21, 2004 17:23      Profile for Serenak     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sorry accidentally posted that twice - my newbie stoopid!

Serenak

--------------------
"So if you want my address - it's No. 1 at the end of the bar, where I sit with the broken angels, clutching at straws and nursing my scars..."

Posts: 1937 | From: Suffolk England | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
ASM65816
SuperBlabberMouth!
Member # 712

Member Rated:
2
Icon 1 posted September 23, 2004 17:29      Profile for ASM65816   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Right or wrong in esoteric matters does not cause me great concern. For example:

  How bad for society are virtual reality abortions of brain-damaged human clone fetuses?

The worst part about such arguments is that people ignore the question of what is best for 99% of society.

The popularity of thug "culture" bothers me. A saying goes: "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery." If people are dressing like "gangsta's", is this a show of admiration for the use of violence and murder so that one can continue other illegal activities such as theft or marketing sex slaves?

I like to believe that when I was in high school, people had the moral belief that murder was absolutely wrong.

There seems to be an effort to make it socially acceptable to be a criminal if:

a. You have a mental illness.
b. You didn't know any better because of your upbringing.
c. You were in the act of committing a lesser crime, and "didn't have a choice."

Are we taking steps to become a thoroughly corrupt society?

* Step 1: Apathy - "Somebody else will do something. I should mind my own business."
* Step 2: Rationalization - "Sometimes it can't be helped (avoided). It's more like an accident than a crime."
* Step 3: Corruption - "Everyone else gets away with it, I should too."

--------------------
Once a proud programmer of Apple II's, he now spends his days and nights in cheap dives fraternizing with exotic dancers....

Posts: 1035 | From: Third rock from sun. | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cap'n Vic

Member # 1477

Icon 1 posted September 23, 2004 17:55      Profile for Cap'n Vic     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The above post is another example of incoherent drivel brought to you by ASM65816.

I’d love to debate or argue with him but I cannot fathom what he is talking about.

--------------------
(!) (T) = 8-D

Posts: 5471 | From: One of the drones from sector 7G | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
csk

Member # 1941

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted September 23, 2004 18:36      Profile for csk     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ASM65816:
Right or wrong in esoteric matters does not cause me great concern. For example:

  How bad for society are virtual reality abortions of brain-damaged human clone fetuses?

Ahh, no, you're not getting away with it that easily. You seemed keen to explore the motivation behind the "gangsta" phenomenon, so lets explore your "esoteric" example.

What's the motivation for virtual reality abortions of brain-damaged human clone fetuses? Is it something people are just doing for the fun of it? Or are they doing it because they want to practise for the real thing ahead of time.

Sounds pretty sketchy, doesn't it. Much the same as arguing that the popularity of gangsta culture is "a show of admiration for the use of violence and murder so that one can continue other illegal activities such as theft or marketing sex slaves"

Now if you'd said something like "The popularity of gangsta culture started in order to give a disenfranchised and marginalised group in society a voice, and, ironically, has now become assimilated into the mainstream", then I would have given you credit.

--------------------
6 weeks to go!

Posts: 4455 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
MTB Babe
SuperBlabberMouth!
Member # 2297

Member Rated:
5
Icon 2 posted September 23, 2004 19:46      Profile for MTB Babe   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeesh.
Posts: 1003 | From: State College, PA, USA | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Spiderman

Solid Nitrozanium Superfan!
Member # 1609

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted September 23, 2004 19:49      Profile for Spiderman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MTB Babe:
Yeesh.

MTB Babe, Welcome Back!!! [thumbsup] [thumbsup] [Smile]
Posts: 846 | From: Chicago | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
csk

Member # 1941

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted September 23, 2004 19:52      Profile for csk     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hey, MTB's back! What caused you to fall behind in your posting here? [Wink]

--------------------
6 weeks to go!

Posts: 4455 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cap'n Vic

Member # 1477

Icon 1 posted September 23, 2004 19:55      Profile for Cap'n Vic     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Gettin' a wee bit cheeky aren't you csk?

--------------------
(!) (T) = 8-D

Posts: 5471 | From: One of the drones from sector 7G | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged


All times are Eastern Time
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4 
 
Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | Geek Culture Home Page

© 2015 Geek Culture

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.4.0



homeGeek CultureWebstoreeCards!Forums!Joy of Tech!AY2K!webcam