| |
In lugnet.admin.nntp, Christopher L. Weeks wrote:
| |
In lugnet.admin.nntp, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.admin.nntp, Frank Filz wrote:
|
| |
| |
And what about someone under 18 who is just coming to grips with their LGBT
sexuality who happens to feel like he’s finally found a community here at
Lugnet that he can trust to talk about it?
|
And what about a parent who wishes that their children not be exposed to
these types of discussions that occur in public groups on LUGNET?
|
For .admin.nntp: LUGNET has to abide by certain societal restrictions for the
sake of liability. In that sense, John’s perfectly right.
For .o-t.debate: Screw them! Parents withholding what it means to be human
by shielding their kids from reality don’t deserve the title of “parent.”
|
Fine. Now we know your position on the subject. Some, however, may want to
take a different position WRT to parents who are deciding whether to allow their
kids to use LUGNET.
| |
Parents should not have the right to abuse their kids in that way. The
hindering of the natural maturing process should be a crime.
|
As I have said before: clarity. You have stated your view. I, however,
couldn’t disagree more.
| |
| |
| |
Do we deny that individual the
opportunity to grow because sexuality is somehow an over 18 topic (never
mind that sexuality is very very important to teens who are just realizing
they are sexual creatures)?
|
Yes, for the same reason that we accommodate people who’d rather those types
of topics not be included on a “kid-friendly” site like LUGNET.
|
Exactly! Because we live in an confused and overly-litigious society. It
might very well be dangerous to LUGNET to be such a safe haven for those poor
kids.
|
Clarity. I happen to find that statement to be about the craziest thing I’ve
ever heard.
JOHN
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
151 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
|
|
|
|
