Subject:
|
Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 22 Dec 2001 05:52:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1477 times
|
| |
|
|
"James Powell" <wx732@freenet.victoria.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:GoqCy3.F37@lugnet.com...
> > Anyways, I think parents have an awesome responsibility, and a moral
> > imperative to act upon that responsibility. A responsibility to their
> > child, and a responsibility to society. Its a terrible shame that so • many
> > parents don't act, and its a terrible shame that the family is so • attacked.
> >
>
> how is "the family" attacked by this film? If you are meaning that the • people
> are living in a alternate lifestyle, then be careful. I _have_ spent time
> living in a household of 2 lesbians- in fact, I think about 3 different
> households. I think they were _as good or better_ than some of the other
> foster care houses I spent time in- at least the people involved seemed to
> care. Personally, I think that "Family" is what YOU make of it, and not • an
> external defined relationship.
I'm sorry, I wasn't clear enough and because of that you misinterpreted my
intent.
I meant to say - I think its a shame that the traditional family unit is so
attacked in our society and that its acceptable to break it up (divorce,
lack of committment, absentee fathers, etc etc) - the effect being there's
less chance of someone truly responsible and committed raising their
children.
> > More questions: Do you have to biologically or otherwise have to have a
> > child of your own to excercise parental responsibility? Wouldn't it be • nice
> > if everyone acted responsibly towards children without anyone telling • them
> > to?
>
> I would say yes, I think it would be great. But...this is reality, not • some
> fantasy land.
That's why I phrased it 'wouldn't it be nice...'
> > I'm not
> > cleaning up someone else's mess.
>
> But yes, you are. You are by implication, trying to get Jason to clean up • what
> you consider to be a "mess". Jason has labeled the film as being intended • for
> "adults", and that is all I consider his obligation to do. He is NOT • saying
> that everything on his site is fit for kids (he is not decieving anyone).
> Jason has NOT got any obligation to "look out for" kids who he has no • control
> of the actions of (or any way to disipline them).
You misinterpreted me here. That sentence was directly related to the story
about my best friend's siblings. By me acting in a parent role at times,
I'm not cleaning up the kids' parents' mess by replacing them totally. They
are responsible parents, they just can't be in the same room as their kids
24/7.
I did not intend that phrase to mean 'I'm cleaning up Jason's mess by
expressing an opinion that....'
Sure, I'm trying to convince Jason to do more. Is it my responsibility to
do so? No. Do I think it will be beneficial? Yes. Can I freely express
an opinion on the mattter? Most definitely.
> Responsiblity without athority is pointless, because the person who is
> responsible has no meaningful way of controlling the actions of others.
I'm not getting it, could you explain?
-Tim
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
101 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
