| |
In lugnet.admin.nntp, David Laswell wrote:
| |
In lugnet.admin.nntp, John Neal wrote:
| |
Actually, it is my whole argument:-) I know that 18 is rather an
arbitrary number, but here in the US it is considered to be THE age at which
adulthood begins legally (except to drink alcohol, but that is another topic
altogether)
|
Or to get married. Or for consent. Or, often, to be tried and punished as
an adult. And lets not forget that most kids are officially taught sex-ed as
early as jr. high, so that puts them in their early teens. Of course, “gay”
gets thrown around as an insult in early grade school, so clearly kids are
learning that same-sex relationships exist much earlier than when they turn
18 and suddenly become able to comprehend the world.
|
That’s not the point. What are you saying? That because someone can legally
get married at age 16, adult content on LUGNET should be made viewable by a 7
year old? Because a 17 year old knows about same-sex relationships, a 10 year
old should be allowed to view graphic conservations about it?
| |
Let’s also not forget that as long as the TOS are followed,
nothing graphic
will ever be posted in .LGBT, or anywhere on LUGNET, for that matter.
|
Not true. Consider this
recent exchange (notice LudiChris’s assertion that virtually nothing is too
graphic).
| |
It is
not Todd’s job to regulate this site based on what your imagination conjures
up, however vivid it may be.
|
I never said that, and this is not about me and my LUGNET experience. I am an
adult, and I can handle anything that get served up here. This is about
children’s LUGNET experience and how it can be the most positive for them.
| |
An artist named Boris Vallejo once received a
lot of flak from people like you for releasing a painting showing a winged
centaur holding a lithe, scantily clad young woman pressed up against the
front of his body, on the basis that it was portraying a “graphic and violent
sexual act”. Noone bothered to think of the fact that a centaur has a horse’s
body, and therefore a horse’s “equipment”, so everything bad and
objectionable about the painting was only what they were bringing to the
table. This is the same situation. If you’re objecting to the fact that
someone openly admits to being gay on the basis of what you “know” is taking
place in his bedroom...that’s your fault, not his.
|
Now I’m starting to get annoyed. This is not about my LUGNET experience! I
can handle it, thankyouverymuch. Try to look at this topic from the eyes of a
10 year old KABOB and the eyes of a parent with a 10 YO KABOB. They come to
LUGNET looking for LEGO related information (because, in addition to having
created a place for adults to form an online community, LUGNET is a resource for
LEGO things for the GP who never participate in that online community)
This whole discussion is about what is appropriate for kids to view on a
“kid-friendly” site. If Todd said tomorrow, “LUGNET is not intended for kids”,
then the discussion is over. And that is fine with me. But I certainly won’t
be recommending to anyone (at a train show, for instance) that their kids should
check out LUGNET. And I for one will no longer participate in any public OT
LUGNET groups, either-- only LEGO related ones.
| |
If you keep walking
around viewing the world through evil-colored glasses, you’ll never be able
to get beyond seeing everyone and everything as evil, so you’ll never get a
chance to experience these people as people, and get to know them on a
personal basis (though, I dunno, maybe you want to keep it that way).
|
What are you talking about? What does creating a kid-safe environment have to
do with that??
| |
Ask
yourself: WWJD? If the answer you come up with reinforces what you’re doing,
you seriously need to reexamine your faith, since he was famous for hanging
out with the “unclean” dredges of Israelite society, not the haughtily
self-righteous Testament-thumpers.
|
I can see that you have no idea what I’m talking about. I hope the above
clarified it for you.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
| (...) Your whole argument seems to revolve around the idea that LUGNET will now have, or already has, inappropriate "adult content" in the NG. If that is the case, that's a violation of the TOS: (do not) Post or transmit any unlawful, threatening, (...) (20 years ago, 24-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
| | | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
| (...) WHAT GRAPHIC CONVERSATIONS?!?!?!? LUGNET is not a sexetorium. The LGBT group (and again, it's pretty clear that your vocal objection to All Things Off-Topic stems from the addition of that group) is not a place for LGBTs to announce and (...) (20 years ago, 24-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
| (...) Or to get married. Or for consent. Or, often, to be tried and punished as an adult. And lets not forget that most kids are officially taught sex-ed as early as jr. high, so that puts them in their early teens. Of course, "gay" gets thrown (...) (20 years ago, 23-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)
|
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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
