Do people think about the rules they impose? Do they consider how they would react to such rules?
Banning, Censoring, Ostracizing, and calling things taboo. Declaring War on Drugs, setting legal drinking age, setting legal smoking age. Declaring something pornographic. Banning violent games and shows from children.
Giving everyone a participation trophy?
Do people stop to look at reality?
When people decide something needs to be stopped and hidden from view do you really think they think things through? I have begun to seriously ponder this.
I like to look back over history and what actually happens.
Pornography
There was a period in time where women wore big dresses and made sure everything below their waist was concealed. During this time if a woman were to reveal her bare ankle it was considered very arousing and sexual. Do you feel this way today? Seeing a woman's ankle, does it cause your mind to start circling back to that? Are you hypnotized by it?
Now let's jump to some other locales in the world, and different cultures. If you've ever read National Geographic you likely will encounter some of these places.
Places where the women walk around topless all the time and bare breasted. They are not walking around in a state of permanent sexual arousal due to the bare breasted women in their midst.
Places where the men walk around with penis sheathes and not much else. A simple wooden sheathe held on by a string. They don't seem to walk around in a permanent state of arousal there either.
So why were people aroused by ankles? Why are people aroused by breasts? Is the African or South American tribe a state of constant pornography? Are our beaches where people run around with very little clothes today LIVE PORNOGRAPHY?
I use pornography as an example. I mainly want you to consider this in terms of what is banned, censored, restricted, etc.
Interest, Arousal, and Excitement
My observations seem to indicate that the things that excite us, arouse us, and interest us the most are things we do not normally see. If you want to make certain body parts inspire arousal then simply raise people in a culture where you conceal those body parts.
If you want a child to be interested, aroused, and excited by violence then try to shield them from seeing anything like that.
If you want a child to be interested in something, tell them it is not allowed. As a parent I believe we have all witnessed how children will test their boundaries.
"Don't touch that it is hot" has usually lead to some curious experimentation by a child. They learn what hot means.
Why would you think the rules work?
Why then would you think telling a person they cannot drink until they are 21, or smoke until they are 18, or view pornography until they are 18 would have any difference?
Do all the motivation and psychological observations that are plain to see suddenly stop? Is it not clear that restricting and hiding a thing tends to make those things more interesting?
I don't know about you, but some of the most out of control drinking of my friends was all before they were 21. They would find a way to get alcohol and because, it might be a bit before they could manage to do so again they would drink as much as possible and brag about how bad they felt the next day, or the fact they couldn't remember that night. This was true of smoking. This is true of pornography. This is true of drugs.
What can you do?
Well we can try to treat things as normal, rather than taboo. We can educate as appropriate and not treat a subject as something that should never be mentioned. It is not easy, and it is not comfortable, but the TRUTH OF REALITY does not really care whether we are comfortable or not.
Lack of self control
Ultimately these things we ban are often about our own perceptions. If I am in a position of power and some beautiful woman walks by and her neck arouses me and I cannot stop thinking about it, rather than learning some self control and dealing with my own mind, why don't I simply pass a law demanding all women must wear turtle necks.
After my law has been in place for awhile anytime a woman exposes her neck many people would be aroused to the exposure of that which is concealed.
So when you propose censoring something or banning something please stop and consider if you will make ACCESS to that thing more exciting, arousing, and tantalizing? Will you make the problem worse?
Ask yourself if it is truly a problem, or simply you looking for a scapegoat for the images going on in your own mind. Would you rather create a law forcing people to act a way so you don't have to think about it, or will you take responsibility and deal with training and conditioning yourself for things that happen inside of your own head?
Violence
As to violence... some of the most violent kids I encountered were those who were completely sheltered from violence by their parents. On the playground the violence would excite them. It is about seeking a balance. Violence happens in reality. Educate children as to the difference between violence in imagination, games, videos, etc and real violence. Pretending violence does not happen, does not make it go away. It just makes it taboo and thus increases the interest in violence.
Steem On!
One problem is the concept of the moral majority. Rules are determined and exist based on general opinion or dictatorial rule. Someone must be disenfranchised by the simple existence of rules and guidelines. The only reason for rules to exist is to stop a certain behavior or practice from happening at the threat of personal welfare or freedom.
For every opinion and school of thought there is a contradiction and someone must be the target of the rule. A country saying you must be 18+ years old to have sex with a person 18+ is to protect children and stop abuse. Other countries may say 16 is adulthood, while others say you can sell your daughter into marriage at 13. The issue is that each thinks they are right and morals are perspective based. A rule does not have exceptions, human interpretation gives them exceptions.
Yes, I am aware of this though perhaps others hadn't thought of it this way so I thank you for a good response.
I'm one of those crazy anarchists. I don't believe people should be able to impose RULES on other people. You can make all of the rules for yourself that you like. :) The exception of course is if HARM is being done to another. There can be a long debate over what is HARM.
This was not so much about LAWS, but showing how easy they can be interpreted to anything they want. Often they are done NOT for reasons like having SEX, but just to keep the person that would SEE it from having to deal with their own mental issues. If I am an easily aroused male and I have power then if I can pass a law making sure every woman wears a Burqa then I'm in good shape. That is far easier than me dealing with my own mind issues that are actually WHERE the arousal occurs. It is easier to force others to change, than to both changing myself or perhaps even admitting I need to change.
I have considered the sex issue and many others. A difficult thing for people is to be told YOU CANNOT DO THIS BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT OLD ENOUGH. That works in some cases. Yet often it is taught as a "just because" reason. I believe educating and being open about good reasons they should not want to do that yet might be a better approach. It still may not work.
It is really difficult to convince someone they should not be able to do something if it is something they know that you do.
My response isn't so much about my opinion or even your stance in the post. My response is about the fact that no matter what, when you introduce ANY rule, someone is losing or on the "controlled" end of the rule. It will be broken at some point by someone and at the end of the day right and wrong, good and evil, and even truth and deception can all be completely objectively oriented based on one person's own experience and beliefs. Religions are usually the most controversial in radical beliefs, because people defend their religions and politics above most anything else. My only goal in life is to better myself and hopefully have a positive impact on those around me. Who is to say if my definition of better or positive is the correct definition? Ultimately we are all our own keeper and all subject to mob mentality. The fundamental concept of "rules" are flawed as we don't all have the same understanding of the basis of the rules.
Economic incentives and desincentives usually work better.
And actually these types of incentives only stop Legal methods... they tend to create lucrative criminal markets. When you prohibit a thing you increase interest, which increases demand, and if you then make it difficult to provide those things legally it opens the market for a lucrative criminal venture.
That doesn't stop the interest. Just makes it harder to acquire. The only real way is if it is so expensive that most people cannot get it. The Rich people that are willing to share suddenly become VERY popular. :)
I don't know a true solution other than being open and educating. We would prefer you don't drink until you are older for this reason? Drinking a glass of wine with dinner is okay but excess is stupid.
Another thing kids learn is that if you tell them something is WRONG but for YOU it is okay then it doesn't seem to fly well. The entire lead by example thing. If you drink responsibly with your meal, and don't binge and act like an idiot then talking to your children about responsible drinking would have more impact than say talking to them about responsible drinking while you often get smashed in their presence.
The mind is a complex thing. I don't have all of the answers, but the methods that society uses don't seem to actually have the desired impact. They seem to do the opposite in many cases.
Would you say, society tries to find a one size fits all. As you pointed out in your example, there are nuances.
Yes, I do think society tries to do that. Someone does something bad, rather than focus on the negative actor they attempt to generalize and pass some law to stop such events from happening again. This generally seems to be ineffective. Generalization is a logical fallacy, so the fact that we produce laws often based upon generalizations would indicate we are kind of already building the law upon a generalization fallacy.