Re: "To Sail beyond the Sunset" by Robert A. Heinlein

On Fri, 17 May 2024 10:39:40 +0100, Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:

On 03/05/2024 17:04, Paul S Person wrote:

On Thu, 2 May 2024 21:17:10 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
 

On 5/2/2024 8:50 AM, Paul S Person wrote:

On 1 May 2024 17:50:19 GMT, Jaimie Vandenbergh
<jaimie@usually.sessile.org> wrote:
>

On 1 May 2024 at 16:40:59 BST, "Paul S Person"
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>

On Wed, 01 May 2024 14:13:23 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
>

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:

On 4/30/2024 8:54 AM, Christian Weisgerber wrote:

On 2024-04-29, Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>

The book is also an in depth examination on how society in the USA
changed from 1880 to 1980.  Technology changed radically in that time
and so did societal morals about sex and drugs, not for the better.

>
So you are in favor of criminalizing sex and liberalizing drugs?

>
I did not comment on laws, I commented on societal morals.

>
That would be societal mores.
>
Which are arbitrary.  Yours are informed by your religion.
Others are informed by their religion.   Some are informed
by no religion.

>
No acknowledged or no recognized religion, that is.
>
Indeed, it could be argued that societal mores /are/ the true religion
of the society holding to them.

>
It could, but it would be a terrible argument that misuses and confuses
the term religion.

>
Don't see why.
>
Well, unless you are restricting "religion" to "organized religion",
of course.

>
Religion: Thou shalt not kill because someone you can't see or hear said so!
>
Social Mores: Don't kill because it takes away the benefits to our
society of the one killed, harms others emotionally and causes a
degradation of the social network that benefits all of us.

 
Social mores aren't thought out, never mind intellectuallized. There
is no "because". Other than "because that is how we behave".
 
Folk religion -- what people actually believe, which may or may not
correspond any organized religion they may adhere to.
 
Intellectualization -- a truly pointless exercise in futility.
 
I see a woman telling her young daughter not to run -- because it's
not ladylike. Do you really think that not being ladylike is a
/reason/? I think it's simply something to say to control the child's
behavior -- a social more.

>
Isn't that what "ladylike" is?
>
Society works better if people behave with
consideration for each other.  Going about
at a run is often inconsiderate.

It works better if boys don't run around either.

But that doesn't make them "ladylike".

And its still a social more.

You probably should run if you're in a race,
of course.

Indeed.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"