Where is the right to clean air listed? Is that listed above the right of an individual to earn money to feed his children? These issues are very delicate and are not as absolute as you would make them appear. Americans don't traditionally consider the environment to be an issue of morals. I certainly don't. ZRB- I'm sickened that you're delusional enough to believe that Republicans are backwards thinking people who love guns and use them whenever they can. I guess that would make you a draft dodging corrupt Democratic pot smoking pig who cheats on his wife and lies about it under oath. ------------------ There's not enough laughter in this world!
I'm all for parental responsibility but the reality is a lot of children grow up in single parent homes and they don't get a lot of supervision. Can we blame Progressives for that? The destrucion of the nuclear family. Anyways, to say that parents should be held completely responsible for what their children are exposed to is very unrealistic. Government should make it as hard as possible for entertainment to flood the market with violent shows, movies, music aimed at kids. I don't think government should completely censor it but I do believe we should make it extremely difficult for companies to target children with this garbage. Our current ratings system is crap, we all know that. If Eminem loses some of his freedom of vulgar speech in order to allow our children to grow up with a good foundation of morals then I'm all for it. If schools have to start teaching morals in class then I'm all for it. If we have to initiate some kind of mandatory spiritual guidance programs in school then I'm all for it too. The "it's a free country" excuse doesn't fly with me when it comes to our kids. ------------------ There's not enough laughter in this world!
Timing, The only reason I brought up climate trends was an attempt to point out that without supporting argument, attributing a decline in morals to liberalism is no different than attributing a decline in climate to conservatism. I would honestly enjoy a thread about how liberalism has contributed to America's moral decline. I'd love to hear some of your arguments.
{sorry for the double post} To all Parents, The lack of morality in America is appalling. It's the Democrats' fault. It's the liberal media's fault. It's all because we don't allow prayer in school. We have to stop the liberal media from influencing our children. We have to have prayer in school to instill religion in our children. We must not allow any opposing viewpoint to reach our children. We must instill Christianity during school hours, when our children are away from us, and subject to outside influences. If we can prevent the liberals media from influencing our children, and mandate Christianity in schools, we conservative parents will have complete control over our children's minds. By supressing all opposing viewpoints, we can ensure that our children will think exactly like we do. If we allow the liberal media to reach our children, if we allow them to drift into atheism at school, they may fall prey to these vulgar temptations, and we may lose them. As Parents, we cannot allow this to happen. We must take action to prevent all opposing viewpoints from reaching our children. -A Concerned Parent
You are spot on Smeg...it's crazy that they adhere to their constitution when it comes to something like guns. The society when the constitution was drafted was COMPLETELY different to today. I can't understnad all this crap about constitutions being sacred. It's the biggest crock of bull$hit. It's like saying "let's never change the law" . I currently have ZERO NBA games a week however...so I might think about it...joking You are in Adelaide, right? Even Sydney is becoming screwed up nowadays...with kids being killed after school arguements etc. Bloody crazy. ------------------ [This message has been edited by ScreamingRocketJet (edited March 05, 2001).]
Well as I'm sure you know (you being a liberal and all), the issue of morals is considered completely subjective. I would attempt my own argument but I'm sure without any hard data you'll pull a concerned parent routine so I'll try to find some hard data and get back to ya. I'm sure I'll be able to find stuff particularly on how violence on television affects children. ------------------ There's not enough laughter in this world!
In what way are liberals responsible for the destruction of the nuclear family? Do you believe gender equality is responsible for this? Do you believe that the lack of religion has caused this? Or do you believe that the stresses of capitalism and the increases of individualism and competitiveness are to blame. So are you a conservative or a liberal? Everything you've written insists that b/c of the destruction of the family village, the government needs to step in... not that the individuals can do it on their own. You've written that kids are irresponsible and that noone can appeal to the kids to be responsible... not even their parents. If a single parent can't keep their kids from watching "The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas", for example... if the kids have a tv and cable in their own bedrooms, for example... I seriously doubt that that parent could possibly be responsible enough to keep a weapon out of the kids' hands. Sounds to me like you'd advocate metal detectors and gun control. ------------------ I'd rather be boinking my wife.
It seems like everything non-basketball related turns into a repub.-demo. debate. Anyway, you can do all you want to to control guns, but if the kid wanted to get a gun, and had some cash, he could have. In cases such as this, it is often we hear that the killer had outside help, or someone furnished them with the weapons. I am not sure what the solution is, but it is a tragedy that kids are killing each other. My prayers go out to the families, and especially the parents of the dead. A parent should never have to go to their children's funeral. ------------------ There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness."
Smeg, have you ever seen Welcome to Woop Woop? I was rolling on the floor during the first gun scene (Aussies' impressions of Americans and their guns). ------------------ I'd rather be boinking my wife.
I usually HATE to jump in on threads like this, basically because 1) I have mixed feelings about a lot of the issues raised, and am not going to make a hypocritical argument that wouldn't make any sense; and 2) I am EXTREMELY uneducated about a lot of the issues being raised here--it's best for me to read what is said and not contribute to that which I don't understand as well. But a few things that were said in this post jumped out at me. FIRST -- It is UNBELIEVABLE to me how partisan this country has become. I used to think that the strong partisanship that existed was mostly just with politicians, but here on this board I have MANY times seen members ready to go to blows when they just both emphatically agreed how badly Kobe sucks just a few minutes ago. And often, someone will poke fun at the other political party in a lighthearted joke, and immediately the thread has 600 angry responses. Never did I know that people associate their particular political party of preference (say THAT three times fast) with themselves so personally. SECOND -- I have seen at least once in this thread that is is a "senseless tragedy" that "could have been prevented." I will NEVER argue that it isn't a "senseless tragedy." It ABSOLUTELY is. But my question is, and don't anybody get offended by this, but how DO we prevent it? If it is so easily prevented, LET'S PREVENT IT. Some of the posts on here ARE dedicated to that idea, but some people are just arguing principles. IMHO, principles aren't going to save lives, acting on them will. But that's just my opinion. Feel free to disagree with me. THIRD -- My favorite part of this thread...first said by Jeff, and echoed by others..."I'll just say it is sad and leave it at that." ------------------ Jazzkiller
LOL PS you like the sig ------------------ "Repression never did me any harm (I finally ceased to include "stop masturbating" as one of my guilt ridden New Year's resolutions, but that's a different topic)." Achebe - programmer by day, Mrs Palmers Husband by night
All I can say, and I have said it before, is the right to bare arms is in the constitution. However, when it was written, the guns were single shot, muzzle loaders, and not semi Automatic weapons. Also, the reason to have gun accessible to the public was to overthrow an oppressive government. I think the time has come for an amendment to the constitution, that puts some SERIOUS GUN CONTROL legislation in action. Kids should NEVER have access to guns PERIOD !!!! Some adults too...... DaDakota ------------------ Go Jazz * http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/Forum3/HTML/011403.html
"the right to bare arms is in the constitution." No more making fun of NBA players for shaving their arms! Its in the constitution, for God's sake.
Why do you insist on misquoting me? Anyways... I know it's fashionable to label things. I'm not registered as a Dem or Rep. I try to be on the side of righteousness, whoever is on that side is fine with me. Admittedly I would lean towards what you would call a conservative point of view though I disagree with what most would think that means. Some on here have a terrible perception of what a conservative philosophy entails. I believe the nuclear family is best for bringing up children. The reasons for it's demise are really irrelevant, but the bottom line is that it's far from the norm nowadays. Parenting is more difficult and complex than it's ever been. If government can play a role in giving children an opportunity to build a strong moral foundation then I believe they should actively regulate media, entertainment, and music that targets children. I don't see that as censorship. I don't believe in getting caught up in pricinples of liberalism or conservatism while forgetting what's right and wrong. If principals want metal detectors, great. If they want clear book bags, great. If they want to drug test kids, great. Whatever schools need to do to ensure a safe learning environment for kids is fine with me. I would not put the civil liberties of a 14 year old pothead above the safety of his classmates. We should draw a clear distinction between the rights of children and those of adults. You're trying to muddle those rights. It is illegal for minors to buy guns. Instead of creating more gun laws why don't we just enforce the ones we have? Sounds good to me anyway. ------------------ There's not enough laughter in this world! [This message has been edited by Timing (edited March 06, 2001).]
Why do you insist on ignoring Byrd's statement? Anyways... I know it's fashionable to label people. I'm not registered as a White or Black or White ****** or Black Cracker. I try to be on the side of righteousness, whoever is on that side is fine with me. Admittedly I would lean towards what you would call a tolerant point of view though I disagree with what most would think that means. Some on here have a terrible perception of what a non-racist philosophy entails. I believe the nuclear family is best for bringing up sterile cultures. The reasons for it's demise are really irrelevant, but the bottom line is that it's far from reality and has too much racial bias. Parenting is more difficult and complex than it's every been. If government can play a role in giving children an opportunity to build a strong racial foundation then I believe they should actively relax media, entertainment, and music that is targeted as racist. I don't see the need for censorship. If Enimas can help us expunge some of our constipation towards racial speech in order to secure that children are not subjected to holding in cultural garbage then so be it. I don't believe in getting caught up in pricinples of old-fashioned progressive or conservatism ideologies while proclaiming what's right and wrong. If principals want dress codes, great. If they want non-censored books, great. If they want to test kids for racial bias, great. Whatever schools need to do to ensure a learning environment for kids is fine with me. I would not put the civil liberties of a 14 year old righteous politically correct regurgitator above the freedom of his equally grounded, bigoted 14 yrs old classmates. We should draw a clear distinction between the rights of children and those of adults. You're trying to muddle those rights. It is illegal for minors to do hate crimes. Instead of creating more hate laws why don't we teach tolerance? Sounds good to me anyway.
We could apply that logic to many parts of the Constitution. I mean, the Freedom of Religion stuff was put in because England had a National Religion. We don't really need the Freedom of Religion and Separation of Church and State in there now, do we? And what about the Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination? Com'on, that was put in there because the British were putting people on trial on bogus charges before the Revolution. We don't need that protection now. All it does is let guilty people go free. Same with the restrictions against Double Jeopardy. That was in there because the British had been trying people for the same bogus offenses and harrassing them with multiple trials. These days, it's just a way for criminals to beat the system. We should get rid of that one. Freedom of Speech? Please. We now know that speech can be very damaging to people. Our forefathers didn't know that there was a need to protect people from other people's speech (Heck, Dr. Brandon Centerwall's study in the AMA Journal points to TV violence as responsible for about 50% of violent crime in the U.S. We have a clear case for putting the lid on free speech). I understand that Sydney has the lowest gun ownership rate in Australia. (Just thought I'd throw that in for no reason). ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
oops, wrong thread again. But I do go on record as the first person to be filtered trying to repeat Byrd's wyrds.
Where is the ignore "Heypee in fool mode" button on this thing? Anyways... Here is some information from the American Psychological Association regarding violence in media and it's effect on children. http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/violence.html ------------------ There's not enough laughter in this world!
Misquoting you? How did I misquote you? OK, OK... I did correct a spelling mistake that you had made. But that's it. Other than that... if a then b, if b then c (therefore if a then c). I figure if you advocate censorship b/c the media brings about violence, you'd also regulate guns... sounds consistent to me. We should draw a clear distinction between the rights of children and those of adults. You're trying to muddle those rights. It is illegal for minors to watch R rated movies w/o the supervision of an adult, or kids younger than 13 to watch PG-13 movies. Instead of creating more censorship laws why don't we just enforce the ones we have? Sounds good to me anyway. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. One thing that scares me about the zealousness of the 2nd amendment defenders is that they choose to put their ownership rights over the rights of other people's lives. Someone is immediately adversely affected by the 2nd amendment standing. Every single day. Meanwhile, it's merely arguable that the first amendment rights of filmmakers should be overridden (movies, not television which I've already discussed as being an inherently different medium). ------------------ I'd rather be boinking my wife.
