Subject:
|
Re: Something not right about Captain Ahnee and the Dipwads?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 5 Nov 2000 21:19:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
881 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mark Sandlin writes:
> At five, he'd likely have changed the station to cartoons or some such.
That is likely, unless he didn't know how. We don't watch TV, but do watch
movies, so he would have accidentally hit the TV/VCR button while trying to
load a VHS tape, a laser disc, or a DVD. He would then take time to figure out
how to get it back. Unless the topic piqued his curiosity and he tried to
figure out what the hell they were talking about.
> I know I would have at that age.
Me too. But when I was five, they didn't describe devient sexuality on daytime
TV.
> Unless your five-year-old displays an
> unusually precocious ability to follow TV debates.
Well, this show hardly counts as a debate. And I think his unfamiliarity with
the topic might be what could hook him into watching...at least for a while. I
remember being a kid and watching the farm reports and then Jerry Falwell on
Sunday AM because there was nothing better on. If I could sit throught that
crap, i'm sure I could have sat through adults yelling at one another while
discussing their bizzare sexuality.
But his is somewhat precocious.
> > And the stance that parents should control 100% of their childrens' lives is
> > horse pucky. There are degrees of reasonable care, and I'm sure that • children
> > have been exposed to such crap :-) without their parents' knowledge.
>
> Well that's just a bummer. Better keep 'em in the house if you don't want
> them to see anything.
What a helpful suggestion.
> Even though I'm on the other side of the fence from you, I think I turned
> out to be a pretty decent person. I've watched all sorts of stuff on TV, and
> even if I watched violent cartoons on TV as a kid, my parents were careful
> to educate me that it was make-believe and not acceptable behavior in real
> life. They understood that they couldn't shield me from everything, so they
> took the position of educating me when I saw things.
I see. So this is all about you? What if (and fasten your seatbelts for this
one) some other kids aren't as receptive to that kind of reasoned education?
Screw em? I don't think so. Instead, why not build a society that helps them
all grow to their potential safely?
> I dunno, maybe you think totally sheltering your kids is good. That's your
> prerogative.
Which part of "and the stance that parents should control 100% of their
childrens' lives is horse pucky" didn't you understand? Obviously I don't
think that.
You seem to be simultaneously advocating that as a parent I should be
completely protective of my kids (so that you (the general you) can publish
potentially damaging information with impunity) and allow them exposure to
whatever. I'm not sure how I can do both.
> > > I don't mind ratings systems or age limits on things that may be offensive
> > > or of a mature nature. What I dislike are Irate Parent Groups that want to
> > > ban something because they don't like it.
> >
> > In general, me too. See the exception above.
>
> Your exception is only the first step toward total censorship.
No, the first step toward "total censorship" was taken thousands of years ago.
Yet somehow, we have avoided crashing to the bottom of the slippery slope to
which you allude. Preventing coprophilic daytime TV shows is the thousandth
tiny step in the direction of total censorship. And a darn good one in my
mind. But there are other steps that are not good.
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
62 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
