Subject:
|
Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 28 Dec 2001 10:14:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1227 times
|
| |
|
|
John wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> >
> > > > > Violence much be eshewed as well, but there is a fine
> > > > > line WRT teaching children about good and evil. There is no such line when • it
> > > > > comes to the topic of sex and children.
> >
> > That's because sex is neither good nor evil.
>
> It can be. S & M, which combines sex and violence is evil
What a load of crap. If the S is happy, and the M is happy, who the HELL are you to
call it evil?
Self-righteous bigot. Hide behind your righteousness if you want, but it won't
disguise that you're a bigot.
> ; rape is evil.
Rape is not sex. It's not about sex. It's about power.
> > > > > The very definition of a child is one who hasn't knowledge of
> > > > > such things, and presenting it to them forces their
> > > > > childhood from them, which is, in my mind, evil.
> > > >
> > > > Interesting definition of childhood-- I think I agree with the definition...
> > > > However, I'm not sure I see it as evil if one attempted to 'force' adult
> > > > information on them.
> > >
> > > Innocence, once lost, is gone forever. Experience comes with age. When
> > > experience comes before age (childhood), healthy development is almost
> > > certainly impossible.
> >
> > What you think of as normal and healthy is not. It is a stunted
> > charicature of humanity. People seek out experiences when they are ready for
> > them. This information isn't being forced on the inocent babes, it is merely
> > available. That's not evil!
>
> What I am talking about is presenting adult material *before* a child is mature
> enough to handle it. In this example, a child wouldn't be seeking out this
> information; it would be encountered accidentally.
And if they're not mature enough to handle it, they won't really understand it, so
what harm is there in it? If they DO understand it, I would say that they must be
mature enough to "handle it".
> > Evil is keeping humans in the bondage borne of ignorance to satisfy your own
> > sense of worth and justification. Evil is preventing others from accessing the
> > information and ideas that their minds and bodies crave.
>
> But I'm talking about them accessing that kind of information and ideas that
> their minds are *too* immature to understand.
See above.
> Evil is filling the
> > minds of the unexperienced juvenile with mythology told as truth in order to
> > compell adherence to ridiculous and destructive standards.
>
> I don't know exactly to what you are referring here, but I'm guessing religion.
>
> 1. Don't underestimate the positive influences of mythology, and/or
Don't deny the negative influences of religion either.
> :-) We can agree to disagree on your above views, Chris. Personally, I would
> choose to err on the side of caution.
Hm, caution, yet in an earlier post, you said you'd prefer that the machine do the
parenting? How lazy and irresponsible.
> Better in my mind for someone to learn
> about adults things a little late rather than too soon.
OOOOOOOKKKK. Remind me not to move near you. People like you tend to have kids
that have kids, because they kept their kids as stupid as they possibly could as
long as possible.
> Kids grow up too fast
> these days-- I would rather them enjoy the fullest childhood that they could,
> which to me means being oblivious to adult concerns or matters.
They don't need to be exclusive.
> Eventually, as
> they mature, they will outgrow childhood and mature *at their own pace*.
Yet you want to deny them THEIR OWN PACE??
Make up your mind! Are you going to let children decide when they are ready for
something, or are you going to closet them? You've been arguing the latter all
along.
> And
> this brings me back to my original point-- if a child encounters such mature
> content in a LEGO movie (of all places) by mistake, it could disrupt that normal
> development.
Who are YOU to say what is a child's normal development? I'd say that is up to the
individual child, NOT you.
--
Tom Stangl
***http://www.vfaq.com/
***DSM Visual FAQ home
***http://ba.dsm.org/
***SF Bay Area DSMs
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
