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: E who wrote (49603)	6/8/2002 12:07:38 AM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

We differ. You would think the adult was not a good member of the community. I would think she was minding her own business and not interfering in a situation she knew nothing about, when there was no immediate danger to the child. Not like drowning, or having been hit by a car, or such where there is a need to intervene to save life or health. Just a child doing something some parents might find acceptable and others might not. I certainly wouldn't impose my moral judgement on the child or parent. You would. And I think that defines a major difference between us. I know a woman here who, every time she sees children play-shooting, at a playground or at school or anywhere else, whether they're playing cowboys and indians, or jews and arabs, or whatever kids play these days, goes over and gives them a lecture on how bad guns are and how good people don't have them around and takes their guns, or sticks, or whatever they're using (but not fingers, at least so far) away from them. She tried it once with our son while she was visiting our house. She got an earful and never tried it again. She assiduously tried to raise her son to have nothing to do with guns. Guess what. He plays guns even more ferociously than most kids whenever she's not around.

To: E who wrote (49603)	6/8/2002 8:07:26 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I don't think "it's play acting," said about the sorts of sadistic, sick stuff your hypothetical child will be exposed to unless you do something to see he or she is not, is an adequate response to the situation. Perhaps we have different ideas about what's available. A couple of years ago when we were all discussing this subject, I looked around the net to see what was available to kids. I didn't find that "sick stuff" you're talking about. I just looked at what was available for free--I wasn't sufficiently curious to pay to see what else was available--and what was available for free was fairly tame. I'm assuming that a kid in a library is not in a position to whip out his credit card and go for the sick stuff. Right now, magazines kids shouldn't see are kept out of sight and out of reach. Doesn't the requirement to provide a credit card number to get at the heavy-duty porn provide a similar barrier?