Posted on 09/10/2006 7:11:11 PM PDT by plan2succeed.org
The fact that "CHILDREN" are used as pawns in so many arguments calls into suspicion every such use. If the cause is legitimate it should be easy to argue the cause without making CHILDREN the pawns.
Don't be coy. Exactly what is it that you are publicly accusing me of? Have the guts to speak clearly.
How about making a case against kiddie porn without making "CHILDREN the pawns"? ...or the issue of leaving children locked in a closed-up car in the heat of summer.
The fact is, there really are some issues in which CHILDREN really are of central, unique importance.
Is the use of this rallying cry suspect? Of course it is. But that still doesn't mean it's a red herring in every case.
I think there are very good, objective reasons behind the objection to children viewing hardcore pornography. This is entirely aside from the moral side of the issue.
Children simply cannot react with the same level of judgment as an adult. It's the emotional equivalent of expecting an 8-year-old to lift a 200 lb. weight. They just aren't prepared to handle it yet.
I think keeping children away from pornography, and vice-versa, is just like keeping them away from driving a car. Until they're more prepared for the experience, it's irresponsible to expect them to just handle it.
And on the other side of the issue, I fail to see any significant erosion of liberty from blocking porn on computers at the public library. It's not like the PC at the library represents the sole source of information for anyone. Adults can get their porn from plenty of other sources. In the rare cases of non-pornographic content being inadvertently blocked, it can be obtained in other ways.
How about starting with Tim Uzzanti?
Yes, there are are legitimate uses of "CHILDREN" when and only when the "CHILDREN" are clearly the legitmate object of the issue. Kiddy porn directly harms children because children are directly hurt in the manufactor of that filth. Being left in a car directly kills kids. etc
The issue of porn in librarys is different. They are using CHILDREN to advance a different cause. Look at the cartoon posted here that is supposed to be relevant to librarys, porn and children. The carton does not show kids. It shows a dirty old man.
The legal definition of porn is "I know it when I see it." The same is true for using CHILDREN as pawns. I know it when I see it.
"I know it when I see it."
You think you do, but you don't.
I have 6 kids, aged 1 to 19, and my concern is that they not be exposed to porn, or exposed to anyone who thinks exposing them to porn is a good thing.
It *is* about the children. There is *no* hidden agenda.
Next thread like this you'll want to start arguing that bogus "hidden agenda" nonsense earlier; it will have more faux credibility that way.
Fact: You profit from Internet filters in librarys.
If you rely on others to protect your kids, you have lost the battle.
Why not teach them your values such that they do not view porn in librarys, their friends homes, tv shows, book stores or movies? And if they do happen to get exposed to it, they know how to properly respond? Is it really that diffcult? Are your values so unsuportable that they require a Nanny State to protect them?
If "one of our children" from kindergarten (roughly age 6) brought home porn from school yesterday (since when do kindergartners play on a computer, or even leave the teacher's sight for one second?), then Daniel's supposed children popped out right around his 18th birthday. Meaning he made them at age 17.
Considering "plan2succeed.org" signed up Dec 31, 2003, this person - concerned over kids being sexualized - really began making his family at ages 15 or 16.
I just answered your question in the post above to "Jeff Gordon."
You said it. Clear as day. No ifs ands or buts. I have to take your word for it. You do not profit from Internet Filters in librarys. I was mistaken. I apologize.
I still want to know what your hidden agenda is.
Is it so impossible to believe that someone might want to stop young children from seeing hardcore pornography on libray computers that believe they have to have some other agenda motivating them?
"If you rely on others to protect your kids, you have lost the battle."
I can't figure out if that is wrongheadedness or ignorance.
A parent cannot remain by the side of each of his children 24 hours a day. You have to let them go to school, go swimming, go to the mall, go to the library...and all the while you have other children, a wife, and a living to make.
Parents desire to create a community in which children can live a normal life without running a constant risk of being debauched by pornographers, liberals, or other evil scumbags. To mischaracterize that as "relying on others to protect your kids" is so transparently wrong that it's difficult to believe that anyone with a three-digit IQ could utter it with a straight face.
One way a parent protects his children is by removing harmful influences from the community. Removing harmful influences in no way constitutes "relying on others to protect your kids." You, on the other hand, seem to be arguing that removing harmful influences is in some way wrongful.
It looks to me like you're saying that, if the price of your own unrestricted access to pornography is that my kids are exposed to it in public places, so be it.
Well, I say that price is too high to pay.
"Why not teach them your values such that they do not view porn in librarys, their friends homes, tv shows, book stores or movies?"
Why not get in some marginal contact with reality, Dr. Spock?
"Is it really that diffcult?"
Of course not. It's easy as pie. That's why our prisons are empty and our crime rate is zero. It's so easy to bring children up to be moral that we have no unwed teen pregnancy or teen drug use. As a matter of fact, we don't even have any pornography, because everyone was brought up to be the kind of person who would never appear in it.
And it's even easier to bring children up right when all the adults around them are showing them pornography and passing out condoms. The only thing that could make it easier would be mandatory anal sex and free drugs in school.
"Are your values so unsuportable that they require a Nanny State to protect them?"
That assertion is not just bogus, it's downright unintelligent. Pornography is one of the things that was banned before the nanny state ever emerged, like child molesting, sodomy, murder, adultery, and theft.
A glance at reality shows that it is easy to be a scumbag, but difficult to walk the straight and narrow. The glamor of evil and peer pressure are powerful, as is the propaganda onslaught of the popular "culture." Children are more easily corrupted by the glamor of evil than adults, even if brought up right.
In short, your position is completely out of touch with reality, an obvious and transparent attempt to demonize the regulation of pornography.
It's not an assumption. It was a question. Notice the question mark at the end. Please answer it.
Pornography, it's values and evils are not a big part of life. If you like pornography fine. Don't force it on me. If you hate pornography, fine. Don't impose your views on me. I put this issue right next to gun control, the war on drugs, tort reform, taxation, welfair, equal opportunity, and a host of other issues where people need to impose their will upon me.
I raised my kids to know right from wrong. You can too.
When did you stop beating your wife?
If that is not clear enough for you, then just understand that I am not going justify your loaded question with a response.
If you are viewing pornography in a public place, unless you can confine the view of it to your own personal space, you are forcing it on others. Unless, that is, you want to assume that everyone should pass through public spaces with their eyes on the floor because it's their responsibility to avert their eyes from what other people are looking at in the open rather than the responsibility of the other person not to view it in public.
And if you cannot justify the prohibition of pornography in public spaces, do you support the prohibition of nudity and sex in public spaces, or is that fine with you, too. I mean, who are we to impose our morality on people with an urge to have sex and force them behind closed doors, right?
Don't impose your views on me. I put this issue right next to gun control, the war on drugs, tort reform, taxation, welfair, equal opportunity, and a host of other issues where people need to impose their will upon me.
Do you believe in property rights? That's imposing your view on others because not everyone does. Oh, you might think you've got good reasons to protect property rights but, really, should you be imposing your views on others?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.