Tag: ethics

The Hypocrisy of the FCC has NO JURISDICTION Here.

Disclaimer Statement: I once again must raise the issue of America’s 1st Amendment giving Americans the god given right to say whatever they want however they want, BUT America also has the FCC. The FCC totally undermines the 1st Amendment as the FCC’s sole job is the CENSORSHIP of any and all forms of media. The FCC devised the rating systems for television, the movies and music. They also have the power to out right ban or completely shut down anyone that violates their “Codes of Ethics” essentially. This is one of the worlds LARGEST OXYMORONS in the entire History of Man.

NOW FOR THE BUSINESS AT HAND:

I do not endorse censorship in any way, shape or form and as such I fully exercise the 1st Amendment here at f-yourblog.com, and will allow ANYTHING when it comes to content of articles posted.

Now I am also painfully aware that the American public is NOT as accepting, tolerant or open minded as they claim or think they are. There are also whole organizations outside of the aforementioned FCC that crusade against whatever they find “offensive”.

SO what am I going to do?!

I don’t want to deal with any insulted, angry, offended or self righteous people or groups because I have far better things to do with my time rather than to hear constant bitching. I ADVISE ANY READER IN QUESTION refer to an earlier post made pertaining to the “Mission Statement” of f-yourblog.com. to help avoid initial issues/problems.

f-yourblog.com  IS NOT FOR ANYONE UNDER 18 AND HONESTLY WITH NEW UPCOMING CONTENT SHOULD BE ANYONE OVER 21, BUT I DIGRESS.

f-yourblog.com IS NOT FOR EVERYONE or a MAINSTREAM AUDIENCE or GENERAL PUBLIC.

f-yourblog.com is a niche for unconventional and unorthodox writers who have trouble getting their writing out to their audience due to restrictions either by the government (FCC) or restrictions of publishers based on their view of the reading public (i.e. Moral/Ethical issues)

THUSLY this is how I will handle the subject of subject matter here at f-yourblog.com.

I will issue WARNINGS to potential readers if and only if the posted article has 1 or more of the following:

  1. GRAPHIC VIOLENCE, not mild nor moderate violence ONLY GRAPHIC VIOLENCE. To help clarify my point here is the article reads like a modern horror movie that falls under the newly named “Torture Porn” I will give you the curtesy of mentioning it at THE TOP of the article. This is to help insure readers who aren’t fans of such writing won’t be subjected to it.
  2. SEX OR NUDITY, Only if the the article has pornographic content at the level of an actual porno movie I will give the readers a heads up as well since America is Sexually Repressed to say the least.
  3. DISTURBING SUBJECT MATTER, this includes things such as Suicide, Death, Self Harm, Hardcore Drug Use, Cannibalism, Incest, Murder, Satan/Occult, Necrophilia etc. Basically any social Taboo with have a Reader’s Warning.

THERE ARE 1 TOPIC THAT WILL NOT BE TOLERATED HERE AT f-yourblog.com and that topic is Pedophilia. Even I Less Sober have at least one line I will NEVER CROSS and thats publishing posts pertaining to, including or endorsing pedophilia. I believe pedophiles should be castrated  in public and allowed to bleed out ( bleed to death). In my mind the only good pedophile is A DEAD ONE (Remember guns kill pedophiles dead for only 50 cents or the current price of a bullet.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assisted Suicide a Political & Moral Dilemma

An American dilemma facing the nation once again has come to the forefront of the medical community in Maryland’s petition to allow doctor assisted suicide, will Maryland become the 6th state of the union to allow such a practice?
In the article “Maryland house committee to hear testimony for End of Life Options” by Ovetta Wiggins in the Washington post on February 9th we can see an excellent example of the Value-conflict’s moral typology. Maryland tried to pass the bill last year under the name The Death with Dignity Act which failed to pass. This year the Death with Dignity Act was renamed The End of Life Options bill as well as the addition of some new conditions to the bill to alleviate some concerns of the states law makers. The newly added conditions are as follows,
1. There would be a private consultation between the patient and their doctor to insure that doctor assisted suicide option is truly what the patients wants of their own free will (i.e. outside influences that could have affected the patients medical choices)
2. The state of Maryland would have to set up a statewide database to record and track the number of patient doctor assisted suicide’s preformed in Maryland.
3. The patient must have 6 or less months to live and be physically capable of taking the doctor prescribed medication.
At the forefront of Maryland’s doctor assisted suicide is the concern pertaining to the intellectually/developmental disabled citizens living in Maryland. If Maryland effectively passes then the mentally disabled citizens of Maryland would have access as well to doctor assisted suicide but the troubling question is could/can a mentally disabled patient able to make such a serious medical decision? As of now the mentally disabled community of Maryland along with the Catholic Church stand in stern opposition to the End of Life Options Bill. The mentally disabled community sites a previous history of mentally disabled people having access to proper medical care due to their perceived lesser value in society as its chief reason for its objection.
A great deal of controversy arises from the simple wording, instead of calling it assisted suicide it should be referred to as doctor assisted Euthanasia.The reason for this is to combat the negative stigma surrounding the word suicide. The religious would tell you suicide is a damnable sin, law enforcement will tell you suicide is illegal and the public as a whole tells you growing up as well as an adult that suicide is just plain wrong and should be looked down upon. The crux of the doctor assisted suicide debate lies in the use and definition of the word suicide. That is to say for the average person suicide is a permanent solution for a temporary problem like drug addiction or bi polar depression which can be treated with rehab, medications and therapy.
But when one talks about doctor assisted suicide its an entirely different affair. A patient who is diagnosed with a terminal disease (example being Aids,MS or Cancer Etc.) its effectively a death sentence, the afflicted patient has absolutely no chance of recovering from said disease. Not only that but with 6 or less months to live its safe to say the patient has already suffered immensely physically,emotionally and mentally already.
The question at hand that we must ask ourselves is if the personal values/judgements of the majority should deny individuals the right to end their pain and suffering by choosing doctor assisted suicide.