Chirayu wrote:
There may be many different majority beliefs and
morals and with a large enough group, you'll likely always be a part
of the majority for a bunch of beliefs/opinions and in the minority
for a bunch of others. How important is it that the whole group should
genuflect to the majority opinion?
So you agree with Udhay's democracy statement.
I'd love for people to be open, tolerant and accepting so that we can
each have our views and ways of life. Hopefully the limits to what is
ok does not come from the same changing bucket as our "morals" do, and
that the constitution enough. It would be really nice if people (in
general, not this list) could stick to worrying more about their lives
than "telling" others how they should live.
I think that most people (not just the ones on this list) would agree
with this very idealistic statement. This is just a dream. If this were
true, there would be no war. As Freddie Mercury sings "_*If all God´s
people could be free to live in perfect harmony... It´s a miracle*_".
It's just not going to happen. We are going to have these arguments for
ever. If we do not, we lose that uniqueness and individuality that forms
the basis for intelligent (or not) life, IMO.
Shocking as it may be, the person who created the controversial art will
have his reasons. Funny how everyone in the world has a perfectly
reasonable (at least, in his mind) justification for their actions.
C'est la vie!
--Venkat
