Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (49320)	6/6/2002 6:01:19 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

"I think we'd get better value from keeping kids away from drugs, guns, and irresponsible parents. So what...Rapists rape, murderers murder, drugs destroy, irresponsible parents neglect. Lovers have sex, military forces provide security, medicines heal, parents guide and raise children. The "feds" are not going to protect children from abuses in these areas by a federal policy that establishes responsibility and liability. We, however, give protective services, and responsible organizations some teeth to act on behalf of children who are in harms way by establishing policy and regulations. "If the feds were to go into the business of protecting kids, I think we'd get better value from keeping kids away from drugs, guns, and irresponsible parents." When you get defensive enough to exaggerate, excuse, and distract attention from the problem; I start to wonder if there is an agenda behind it. If you see risks that involve harm to children with unregulated participation, then say so. If you see these risks then why are you so dismissive about them? Every body in our society is "in the business" of protecting kids. The need to deal with one potentially devastating entity (guns) does not erase the need to deal with others.