> I do believe you've gotten right back to the root of this argument (at least, as I see it) - who is to say what is a "good" value? Who decides that it's wrong to show certain types of things on TV (or, at least, that there are better things to show)?
>
> Unless I'm mistaken, this is really the point we've been arguing all along (again, it's the point *I've* been arguing about) - who makes the rules? When it comes to law, or even parent-child relationships, that's an easy answer - the government (or the parents) make the rules; it (q.v.) is there to do that.
>
> But when it comes to thought, to discovery, and to knowledge, then who makes the rules? Most civilizations have a god who makes these decrees - witness God's demand upon Adam in the garden of Eden; Adam is not to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for, as God himself says, "In the day that you eat of it, you shall die" (Gen 2:17). But we learn this to be false - for Adam and Eve do eat of the tree, and the LORD does not destroy them. To quote again, "Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil" (Gen 3:22).
>
> To take this a bit out of context, we see God putting restrictions on man's advancement, but man ignores them and eats of the tree. Then man suffers the corresponding setback that always comes with advancement - but he does not die [spiritually], as was feared.
>
> This is a fair model of scientific advancement; if anyone does not understand, I'll explain in more detail later [...]
>
> dkd1

All right, I'll bite. I can't see what scenario you're modelling here -- God putting restrictions
on man's scientific advancement is a "fair model" of the frustration and hubris of our past activities, the collective experiences of which should lead us to...to the absolute wisdom of knowing what we *ought* to do, in his eyes? To actually know what is right and wrong in each situation? Somehow, I don't think so. Or else I'm drastically misunderstanding.