Subject:
|
Re: PCisms (was :Re: Yet Another Episode 1 Question)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 15 Apr 2000 23:07:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
395 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
>
> > Knowing how kids (adolescents, really) are, isn't raising kids in an
> > environment where racisim is embraced really the same as advocating the
> > initiation of force? I think that parents who raise racist kids should • expect
> > them to potentially act foolishly and violently based on their beliefs. Even
> > if the parents would never dream of supporting such actions.
>
> Wow, that's an interesting angle. I'm not sure I have any pat answer there.
> What liability do parents have for their children's actions? After they are
> adults, most would say not much. But while they are kids? I dunno.
I want to point out that liability, in a legal sense, and responsibility in a
pseudo-philosophical sense are different things. I agree that for practical
reasons parents can't be held liable for actions of their adult children. On
the other hand, if parents beat or molest their kid(s) and that child grows up
and subsiquently has some of those problems and so on, there is a degree of
responsibility and fault that each person in the chain has for the future of
their chain.
As far as legal liability, I think that the crucial determinant is whether or
not the parents acted in ways that were intentionally designed to (or
negligently allowed to) make their children behave inappropriately. Such as
raising them to be biggots. If you haven't, rent and watch the movie American
History X. I believe the parents (the dead father in particular) were somewhat
culpable for their sons' behavior. I think there is a more clear link to the
mentor guy that lead the local kids of hate group.
> Mild, extremely mild. But yes, there are three quite mild epithets in Tom's
> post. Not too strong for here, but possibly too strong for elsewhere (I'd say
> LUGNET is big enough that it has different defacto standards in different
> places, would you agree?)
I would agree, but does Todd? I had posting restricted for use of a term with
the initials BS. That's fine, them's the rules, but they're enforced
sporadically - and I think maybe - selectively. I don't particularly like that
aspect of it.
> But first impressions do matter. It's taken me quite a while to
> unlearn some I've made, and in some cases, I haven't.
Sure, the same holds for me as well, but not for such trivial stuff. And Tom's
note which was excited and a little over-the-top, was not off the deep end.
Chris
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
52 Messages in This Thread:
  
  
- 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
|
|
|
|
