Subject:
|
Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 22 Dec 2001 16:40:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1469 times
|
| |
|
|
> 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.
-its just that "family values" are too often used as a codeword to bash gays
and lesbians. Having lived in a womans housing coop for 8 years, I was fairly
well exposed to most possible combinations of alternate relationships- and I
won't stand for people saying that one group of people are a "family" and
another group are not. It is the commitment and responsiblity that is
important, not from who it comes.
> 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.
yes you can freely express this opinion. As Jason should be freely able to
link to the films in question, without LEGO coming down on his head. He is a
link, just like LUGNET is, to those films. As such, I think that he should be
supported to the same extent LUGNET is. I would _like_ to see more of a
disclamer before the films, but that is Jason's choice, not mine. (I'd like to
see a "Mature" section, with a warning before entering (a yes/no box type
page).
> > 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?
Jason _cannot_ control who views the films. All the technological devices he
uses/could use _can_ be defeated. He doesn't have the athority to restrict
access enough for us to make him responsible for what someone at the other end
does with the content. It's like someone elses gun example- just because there
is a loaded gun at the side of the road, doesn't mean that you have to point it
at yourself and pull the trigger. (In this case, I think more like a baseball
bat than a gun- something that can be innouqous, but can also be harmful)
James P
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
