Subject:
|
Re: More LP S P A M : (was Re: Scary Survey results about the US First Amendment)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 9 Jul 2001 16:25:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
749 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Duane Hess writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Duane Hess writes:
> > > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > > > When did the polling take place?
> > > > > What group was polled – age/sex/ethnic background?
> > > > > What order were the questioned asked in?
> > > > > Was any supplemental information given?
> > > > > How was the poll undertaken - telephone / face-to-face/via the web?
> > > > > Were any other questions asked?
> > > > > Who are the “polling experts at the University of Connecticut” – and was
> > > > > their comment related to the poll?
> > > > >
> > > > > It is reassuring that this is the level of debate in the LP. No doubt the
> > > > > freedom forum and the LP are working hard as we speak to ensure US kids can
> > > > > be exposed to porn and violence.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > What's wrong with that?
> > >
> > > Personally, I would think it is bad that any group is "working hard as we
> > > speak to ensure US kids can be exposed to porn and violence." - call me a
> > > prude if you wish.
> > >
> > > > Are you advocating limits on speech rights? If you
> > > > don't want your kids exposed to porn and violence - monitor what they are
> > > > watching.
> > >
> > > What if a kid has a parent that does not care - is that OK? What if the
> > > violence/porn is exploitative - is that OK?
> >
> > That's the parent's duty - not mine, or the governments for that matter
> > either.
>
> So you would rather that kid was corrupted, than some sort of age check
> system was used?
Are you sure that the child will be corrupted? I would rather that the child
be exposed to the realities of life so that it can form its own opinion on
what is right/wrong. IF the parents are doing their job, then the child
should be introduced to questionable subjects at an appropriate age.
Generally, a child is able to make the "right" decision on its own more
often than given credit for.
>
> > I would rather the government do something useful, not tell me what
> > I can/cannot say, or what my children can/cannot see or hear.
>
> Such as? Protecting children is what I expect government to do before almost
> anything. I expect government to supply children with free healthcare and
> education.
I've been through the public education system (several of them actually) and
I think the government is doing a lousy job at it. The quality of student is
degrading rather quickly. I would rather send my child to a religious school
where I know they will have a good education, healthy meal and a little
moral backbone - because I'm paying for it.
As to what the government could be doing? I think regulating itself would be
a good start. It's one of the few industries that I know of where a person
can be promoted for being incompetent. Since it's so hard to fire a
government employee that's the only way to get them out of your department.
>
> > If a parent
> > can't keep track of what their children are doing on a regular basis then
> > they shouldn't have been a parent in the first place.
>
> How do you propose they should be stopped? Who should stop them? Who should
> pay for it?
Themselves. My opinion is that they shouldn't have been a parent if they
weren't ready. It's their decision though. If they were going to do the
deed, they should be willing to pay the price.
>
> Scott A
>
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
189 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
|
|
|
|
