| |
"James Powell" <wx732@freenet.victoria.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:Goq2K4.Irv@lugnet.com...
> > I agree with John - it is not being handled responsibly when it is freely
> > accessible to children.
>
>
> Why? Just because the US _tries_ to restrict the showing of "R" rated • material
> -that doesn't mean that the material should be restricted. Go to your • local
> public libary. Ask for a copy of Lolita. I'm fairly sure you can get it • on
> most libary cards-excepting the "under 12" cards. If, as a parent, you • are
> afraid of the content which your childern are seeing, you _need_ to • monitor
> with them what their choices of sites are on the internet. (read
> www.peacefire.org, or www.2600.com or www.spectical.org for examples of • how
> blocking software doesn't work)
I never said it wasn't the parent's responsibility to monitor what material
a child can view or access. I strongly believe in parental responsibility
for children who are too immature to be responsible for themselves.
However, I believe that far too many parents are irresponsible, therefore
having safeguards which limit children when they try to access material on
their own is prudent.
Perhaps if we had stronger families, this would be less of an issue.
> Don't blame the medium for the message. In this case, Brickfilms is • linking
> another site. IIRC, the content of the other site is not the • responsiblity of
> the linking site, nor is providing restrictions to what content is on • other
> sites a responsibility of the linking site. In this case, brickfilms has
> followed good, sound practice, and indicates that the film contains • "adult"
> themes.
Brickfilms has taken one step which is a good practice. But, taking a look
at it, I don't think its promient enough. I realize I can't impose my
standard over Jason or anyone else, but I can most definitely express my
opinion.
> If you don't like it, don't watch the film. But, then don't be critical • of
> those of us who have watched it, and found it funny -and are upset at Lego • for
> trying to get it removed. It _is_ artwork - no matter if it is in "bad" • taste
> or not. It is not strict porn - at least, I didn't find it arousing, and • since
> that is what 'porn' is supposed to do, it wouldn't fit into what I • consider
> porn.n Mature content, yes. Artwork, yes. Porn, no.
What is art?
I did a dictionary.com search for the word, and here's what it pulled up:
2.
a. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms,
movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty,
specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
b. The study of these activities.
c. The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a
group.
URL: http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?db=*&term=art
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
Edition
I trimmed it to the definition which relates to the context.
I don't find the Rick and Steve movies tasteful or beautiful. Nor do I
criticize the people who do.
If according to the American Heritage Dictionary, art is directly related to
a 'sense of beauty,' does art need to be redefined? Sure, 'its not
beautiful' is *my* opinion, but how many people find the films 'beautiful'
according to the dictionary definition of 'beauty?'
(snipped of course, the definition for Beauty, also from the American
Heritage Dict.)
The quality that gives pleasure to the mind or senses and is associated with
such properties as harmony of form or color, excellence of artistry,
truthfulness, and originality.
Or....do people have such an open definition of art that there really can be
no definition of art? A logical extension - are people so open minded they
really are empty minded?
(disclaimer - I may or may not participate in the debate which will almost
surely follow. I'm raising questions, that's all.)
> (and yes, I do think that registering the page with the various sites that • _do_
> block sites is a good thing to do- but, at the same time, don't think that • a
> machine can do your job as a parent)
You're assuming I have kids here, which I do not. Er...if you weren't
assuming I have kids, your rhetoric did.
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.
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 act as a friend figure and as a parent figure to my best friend's young
siblings - ages 4 and 9. I'm not responsible for them, but I do act (in a
limited sense) an extension of a parent when the parents aren't in the room.
By telling them not to do something that could either damage an item, damage
themselves, or be a house rule. Sure, I don't punish them, but I relay
appropriate information to the parents when needed, and keep them out of
trouble without overstepping my bounds. I don't have to, but I do. The
trust exists in the situation I'm in, both with the parents and with the
children. Keeps the kids out of as much trouble as they otherwise would be
in. That isn't so bad, is it? For the record, we're talking about parents
who are very responsible and take responsibility very seriously - I'm not
cleaning up someone else's mess.
-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
|
|
|
|
