Why do we, as a populace, try so hard to control the lives of others?

Because left to their own devices, people do a lot of dumb shit?

It validates the controllers. “If I can make those other people believe my religion, obey my laws, or like the stuff I like, my way must be the best way. I couldn’t take it if I felt like a loser, so…”

@nikipedia…Who decides what’s dumb? If I don’t get to, do I get to help choose those who do decide what’s dumb? I don’t think I’m dumb but what if a “dumb determiner” determines that I am?

They’re feeling threatened by various things I guess. Dunno, i can’t even reason about it. If you don’t like it, walk away from it. What greater freedom could there be?

I think it’s supposed to be for Christ’s sake….

I believe part of it stems from control = power. If you are forced to conform to a certain lifestyle and certain principles, you are easier to control in other aspects too. Your thoughts are also easier to control.

Freethinking people often eventually come to thinking about their government and speculating on its purpose, where it could be improved, why it exists in the first place. If I were a high powered government authority who wanted to keep my population obedient (living their lives, doing jobs, not killing each other, paying taxes), I may choose to not support such freethinking, as it may negatively affect me or my fellow employees.

People should be left to do their dumb shit. It’s only a problem if it intrudes on another person’s right to privacy, space, and well being. If it does, it should be “an eye for an eye” justice. Sometimes dumb people do dumb shit that should lead to them dying, but it doesn’t. In my mind, this should also stop.

“For Christ’s sake”, that’s just a delicious touch of irony, now isn’t it? :)

@Blondesjon: Well, right there, I decided that a lot of stuff was dumb. In general, the government in the form of our elected representatives decide what’s dumb. So in a roundabout way, ideally, the majority decides what’s dumb.

This does not always work. And sometimes the majority is dumb.

(According to me, again.)

(Sometimes I’m dumb, too.)

@trumi…I don’t ever recall Jesus preaching for the self-fufilling righteousness of others.

@laureth…True enough but is there a cure?

I’m gonna go with, because power is bitchin’.

Have you ever had full control over something? It’s badass. Some people pursue it their whole lives, and then we get superstructures that provide the means for them.

@Blondesjon Exactly :)

“Good” and “bad” are cultural decisions. One classic example is the use of the word “fuck”:

In medieval times, monks, who were the holiest of people, abstained from sex completely. No touching, no temptation, no nothing. Sex was forbidden in order to be blessed by god in heaven. The word fuck meant the same thing it does today: to have sex with. Because the sex was so unholy, people weren’t even allowed to say the word. People have taught the next generation not to say fuck for hundreds of years. Really, what we’re teaching is to control sexual urges.

This can be traced back even further (although, I’m just thinking off the top of my head at this point onwards, there’s no evidence to prove what I’m about to say, that I know of.)

Sex was considered bad because people believed that Jesus was born from a virgin mother. So, in order to replicate the miracle of Jesus’ birth, holy people (who were usually descendants of Jesus and the disciples had to replicate this and give birth in a virgin manner. Only the priests were responsible for this because the other people were not holy (because they weren’t descendants of Jesus or the disciples).

Anywhoo, what I’m trying to say is that what is acceptable and what is not goes back a very long time. One modern person doesn’t create these laws of “good” and “bad”, but as a community, these rules are developed.

In my opinion dymanicduo and shamroch hit the nail on the head, it’s all about power. I am convinced that every single law designed to legislate morality (a woman’s right to chose, gay marriage, lack of equality for all people) and designed to help the rich get richer (deregulation anyone?) is designed and implemented for the sole purpose of controlling people.

There are a lot of people who don’t feel whole themselves unless they are pushing other people around. In short, the world is full of bullies.

I think the underlying factor comes down to morality. Since morality in and of itself is inherently relative to all of us, not any one of us believe or even follow the same moral code. For those people who are not religious and in general don’t have faith in some higher deity, they in general define morality or rather immorality by some sort of negative impact on others, something not to be tolerated because it severly infringes upon the rights of this other human being (I realize I am making an overall generalization). So in general those that do follow a moral code that do not believe in a higher deity are being moral as long as they don’t negatively impact other people. Those that do have faith in a higher deity in general have a moral code similar to that of non-believers which is supplemented by their particular religious moral code. In general at least for Christianity it is this supplemental moral code in which other non-Christian citizens tend to feel improperly controlled by. Those of faith have a hard time dealing with sin (as described by their supplemental moral code ie. bible, koran, etc.) no matter who commits the sin. In general religious people tend to find it difficult not bypassing this very thin line of doing God’s work here on Earth and impeding on other non-believers personal rights to not believe. For those that are religious they are attempting to make the world more moral as defined by their moral code, and for those that are not religious it seems simply like a pathetic attempt to control. So IMO it all comes down to morality, what defines morality, who controls morality, and at what point does the faith based morality and their goal of making the world a better place (in their mind) of one impede on the rights of another.

Whatever it may be, it’s supposedly for the benefit of the people. I think the question to ask is: is that true?

@Mtl_zack – Regarding your comment,
Sex was considered bad because people believed that Jesus was born from a virgin mother. So, in order to replicate the miracle of Jesus’ birth, holy people (who were usually descendants of Jesus and the disciples had to replicate this and give birth in a virgin manner. Only the priests were responsible for this because the other people were not holy (because they weren’t descendants of Jesus or the disciples).

I am a Christian and I have never heard this argument. Not saying it doesn’t exist but I honestly don’t think it does. Sex at least according to the NT is acceptable in marriage. Your argument however regarding good and bad seems to make sense.

I also have not heard of that argument.

As far as I understand it, some churches often encourage sex solely for procreation involving a married couple, and discourage or make it forbidden for recreation and for use outside of marriage, or that was their position until the past few decades. I know of a few reasons for this. First off, before this century, sex was commonly associated with pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, so it makes sense for the church to encourage a healthy sexual lifestyle of monogamy. Second, some churches has clear desires to increase their followers, and encouraging sex for procreation (as well as discouraging contraceptives) helps to achieve this goal by producing children who would have likely been taught their parent’s religion. And then there is the ethical issue which varies from church to church which generally respects life in any form, where the use of contraceptives is perceived to deny such lives from existing and thus goes against their principles.

I made a disclaimer: “I’m just thinking off the top of my head at this point onwards, there’s no evidence to prove what I’m about to say, that I know of.”. I’m Jewish, so I’m not sure, but that seemed like a reasonable assumption, but I guess there’s another explanation.

I think that pain from ones past would motivate someone to go into politics to make sure it newer happens again to thd next generation?