Subject:
|
Re: Canceled Lego Theme...?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 19 Apr 2002 21:08:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1497 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Dave Schuler writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> > >
> > > While in college I met a 20-year-old woman with Turner's syndrome;
> > > > she had only a single chromosome,
> > >
> > > Wow. Even amoebas have more than that, IIRC.....
> >
> > Well, I did mention that she was short.
> >
> > Should have read "only a single X chromosome."
>
> Sorry-- couldn't resist:-)
> >
> > In any case, you didn't address the salient point that under the too-broad
> > law you seem to support, the woman's rights to expression would be curtailed
> > simply because she appears younger than she really is.
>
> It is an interesting scenario. I am not for the government restricting the
> rights of adults so much as I am concerned about protecting minors from
> disgusting things adults like to do. Although she *is* free to express herself
> in such a way, I would hope that she would be intelligent enough to do it in
> another more productive manner (for society).
>
> There is a cycle here. 1) Children get abused, which 2) screws them up mentally
> and then 3) they become tomorrow's social deviants. If our society can shield
> our youth from such filth and violence, it is my hope that the cycle can be
> broken.
>
> But when our *society* starts accepting deviant behavior *as normal*, then I see
> no hope for the future-- each generation becomes more polluted than the
> previous.
>
> We are the greatest country in the world because we are free, and that will be
> our own undoing, because we are not *taking the responsibility* that comes with
> that freedom.
>
> Freedom and Responsibility go hand in hand.
Nicely said! The second someone's actions negatively impact on someone
else, is where the line is drawn. If a person gets his kicks by reading
dirty magazines, he has the freedom to do so. If he leaves the magazine
laying around for kids to view, then he should be punished. The
responsibility happens when someone hurts someone else. Since our society
believes that children cannot be responsible for themselves, then we have to
protect them. Therefore we, as each individual in society, as well as
government, must take responsibility to protect our kids. I completely
believe that.
In this fashion, if someone's 'depraved' enuf to draw, from his imagination,
child smut, that depravity dies with him and will never be exposed to the
kids for we, as a society, say so. We're not curtailing his freedom to have
said smut, we are curtailing his freedom to expose smut to kids, thus
stopping him from harming the kids.
I won't ever own smut like that. It makes me ill just to think that it does
exist. if i find out that any acquaintance of mine has smut, they will
receive a staunch lecture from yours truly about how disgusting it is. I
will not, however, say he *must* throw the stuff away, but i will be very
wary of the individual, and my kids will never go over there, for the chance
of being exposed to the stuff.
I don't accept the axiom 'accepting deviant behaviour as normal' either.
Years ago, mentally challenged and physically handicapped people were not
welcome into 'polite society'. I believe that this decision was a great
loss to society in general and i further feel that the way things are
shaping up today, the future is far brighter now that we have at least come
to the point where the handicapped are welcome into most places. As soon as
we completely do away with the bias that they can't contribute, then *I'll*
be a much happier person, and I think society will be much better off.
Deviant behaviour is a euphemism for wall building--putting people in a cage
where they can't be helped. My dad thinks I have slight deviant behaviour
'cause I 'play with LEGO at age 34'. Where do you draw the line at deviant?
Everyone has a different definition. If the line never changes, subsequent
generations cannot become 'more polluted' for the line doesn't change from
one generation to the next. My line comes back to harming others--be
responsible--don't do it.
I also disagree with the USofA being the 'best' country--everyone knows that
Canada is the best country in the world! :)
Dave
>
> -John
> >
> > Dave!
> >
> > FUT back to ot.debate, in hope of getting some kind of answer.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Canceled Lego Theme...?
|
| (...) Sorry-- couldn't resist:-) (...) It is an interesting scenario. I am not for the government restricting the rights of adults so much as I am concerned about protecting minors from disgusting things adults like to do. Although she *is* free to (...) (22 years ago, 19-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
88 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
