Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Should we appoint a National Morality Council that censors everything that might send children the wrong message?
All entertainment should be along the lines of Lawrence Welk and Leave It To Beaver, anything racier than that - CENSORED!
And no more violence! Football, wrestling/boxing - BANNED!
While we're at it......alcohol, tobacco, junk food - BANNED!
Out of wedlock children? Parents to jail, children put up for adoption. YEP....don't want to send the message that having sex outside of marriage is acceptable.
Divorce? Well, that's gotta go too. If you make a bad choice and marry the wrong person, you have to TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for your bad decision and make the best of it.....FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE.
Have I forgotten anything?
Yeah, you've forgotten your complete exaggerations.
We could start by rejecting sex, violence, and drug use as forms of entertainment. Not through laws, but by personal decisions.
Quote:
Should we appoint a National Morality Council that censors everything that might send children the wrong message?
All entertainment should be along the lines of Lawrence Welk and Leave It To Beaver, anything racier than that - CENSORED!
I believe I've already addressed the issue of forced morality through government mandate. It doesn't work and I wouldn't support it even if it did. Do we really need a government body to tell us that gory violence as entertainment is unhealthy? That the promotion of promiscuity is unhealthy? No, I don't think we do, and we can make the decision ourselves that such entertainment is unacceptable for viewing.
Quote:
And no more violence! Football, wrestling/boxing - BANNED!
Sports aren't violence.... they're physical but they don't outwardly promote violence. Movies titled "Bullet To The Head" or "Three Days To KILL" on the otherhand do.
Quote:
While we're at it......alcohol, tobacco, junk food - BANNED!
Again, "banning" something, anything, doesn't work. If we accept something as normal or "ok" in society, banning it isn't going to change that perception. We have to make the change in our own attitudes and in what we are willing to accept. Just look at the anti-tobacco crusade that has been going on for the last four decades. It's been very effective in making tobacco a non-accpetable thing to use socially. That's not to say I agree with every aspect of that movement, because it relies on laws and government mandates that inhibit personal choice, but regardless, it's been effective.
Quote:
Out of wedlock children? Parents to jail, children put up for adoption. YEP....don't want to send the message that having sex outside of marriage is acceptable.
Why would you want to send the message that sex outside of a committed relationship is accpetable?
Quote:
Divorce? Well, that's gotta go too. If you make a bad choice and marry the wrong person, you have to TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for your bad decision and make the best of it.....FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE.
Banning divorce? Nah, I don't think I'd go that far, but our divorce rates are embarassingly high at 50%. You don't see a problem with that? What would be the problem with sending the message that someone should wait until they're emotionally mature and stable enough to make that committment before doing so?
Yeah, you've forgotten your complete exaggerations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88
We could start by rejecting sex, violence, and drug use as forms of entertainment. Not through laws, but by personal decisions.
I believe I've already addressed the issue of forced morality through government mandate. It doesn't work and I wouldn't support it even if it did. Do we really need a government body to tell us that gory violence as entertainment is unhealthy? That the promotion of promiscuity is unhealthy? No, I don't think we do, and we can make the decision ourselves that such entertainment is unacceptable for viewing.
Sports aren't violence.... they're physical but they don't outwardly promote violence. Movies titled "Bullet To The Head" or "Three Days To KILL" on the otherhand do.
Again, "banning" something, anything, doesn't work. If we accept something as normal or "ok" in society, banning it isn't going to change that perception. We have to make the change in our own attitudes and in what we are willing to accept. Just look at the anti-tobacco crusade that has been going on for the last four decades. It's been very effective in making tobacco a non-accpetable thing to use socially. That's not to say I agree with every aspect of that movement, because it relies on laws and government mandates that inhibit personal choice, but regardless, it's been effective.
Why would you want to send the message that sex outside of a committed relationship is accpetable?
Banning divorce? Nah, I don't think I'd go that far, but our divorce rates are embarassingly high at 50%. You don't see a problem with that? What would be the problem with sending the message that someone should wait until they're emotionally mature and stable enough to make that committment before doing so?
Yes, I exaggerated.....but it was actually no more ridiculous than expecting "shoulda, woulda, coulda" to solve the problem.
Sitting around pining about how nice everything could be if society would just yadda, yadda, yadda....isn't going to work.
The only viable solution is for each and every parent to educate their child on how to successfully navigate the real world and stop expecting society to do it for them.
If your kid isn't doing well in school.........it's the teacher's fault.
If your kid does drugs.....it's their friend's fault.
I am so tired of parents passing the buck instead of, you know, TAKING RESPOSIBILITY for how they raise their children.
If it was society's fault.....every single kid would end up drug addicted or on welfare because of an unplanned pregnancy........and that is hardly the case. Obviously, some parents do know how to parent and those who don't play the blame game.
Yes, I exaggerated.....but it was actually no more ridiculous than expecting "shoulda, woulda, coulda" to solve the problem.
Sitting around pining about how nice everything could be if society would just yadda, yadda, yadda....isn't going to work.
The only viable solution is for each and every parent to educate their child on how to successfully navigate the real world and stop expecting society to do it for them.
If your kid isn't doing well in school.........it's the teacher's fault.
If your kid does drugs.....it's their friend's fault.
I am so tired of parents passing the buck instead of, you know, TAKING RESPOSIBILITY for how they raise their children.
If it was society's fault.....every single kid would end up drug addicted or on welfare because of an unplanned pregnancy........and that is hardly the case. Obviously, some parents do know how to parent and those who don't play the blame game.
What you're not understanding is that even when parents do teach their children morality and right from wrong outside influences are very strong these days. That's what is being tried to be put across to you here. It wasn't true a few decades ago before the influence of movies, television, video games and plain old society's treatment of sex as if it is just a recreational activity. Decades ago teens rarely got pregnant or engaged in sex. Those who did were shunned by society not just laughed off as if it was normal, acceptable behavior. Our society has changed and not for the better in regards to sex, violence, drugs, abortion, gay marriage, etc. It's the new liberal mindset that is a cancer on our society.
We could start by rejecting sex, violence, and drug use as forms of entertainment. Not through laws, but by personal decisions.
I would much rather see sex in movies than violence and drug usage. there is nothing wrong with sex as entertainment in movies and such. love and sex are part of life, full of emotion that make for great storytelling.
I believe I've already addressed the issue of forced morality through government mandate. It doesn't work and I wouldn't support it even if it did. Do we really need a government body to tell us that gory violence as entertainment is unhealthy? That the promotion of promiscuity is unhealthy? No, I don't think we do, and we can make the decision ourselves that such entertainment is unacceptable for viewing.
sexual entertainment unacceptable for viewing? I have no problem with it. finding a sex scene in a movie unacceptable to view from PG13 to X rated is subjective. who gets to be the judge? hopefully not you or I will be watching disney flicks. no thanks
Sports aren't violence.... they're physical but they don't outwardly promote violence. Movies titled "Bullet To The Head" or "Three Days To KILL" on the otherhand do.
sports are violent and do promote that, some not so subtly. hockey comes to mind.
Again, "banning" something, anything, doesn't work. If we accept something as normal or "ok" in society, banning it isn't going to change that perception. We have to make the change in our own attitudes and in what we are willing to accept. Just look at the anti-tobacco crusade that has been going on for the last four decades. It's been very effective in making tobacco a non-accpetable thing to use socially. That's not to say I agree with every aspect of that movement, because it relies on laws and government mandates that inhibit personal choice, but regardless, it's been effective.
Why would you want to send the message that sex outside of a committed relationship is accpetable?
there is absolutely nothing wrong with sex outside of a committed relationship for consenting adults, nothing.
Banning divorce? Nah, I don't think I'd go that far, but our divorce rates are embarassingly high at 50%. You don't see a problem with that? What would be the problem with sending the message that someone should wait until they're emotionally mature and stable enough to make that committment before doing so?
I agree, emotionally mature is a great start to enter into a sexual relationship, however a good deal of the population doesn't need or want a committed relationship to have sex. that will never change. why should you have to be in a committed relationship with all that entails just to have sex?
What you're not understanding is that even when parents do teach their children morality and right from wrong outside influences are very strong these days. That's what is being tried to be put across to you here. It wasn't true a few decades ago before the influence of movies, television, video games and plain old society's treatment of sex as if it is just a recreational activity. Decades ago teens rarely got pregnant or engaged in sex. Those who did were shunned by society not just laughed off as if it was normal, acceptable behavior. Our society has changed and not for the better in regards to sex, violence, drugs, abortion, gay marriage, etc. It's the new liberal mindset that is a cancer on our society.
yes, lets shun all the teenagers and people who have sex, a natural part of life because they are not married. how healthy.
sexual entertainment unacceptable for viewing? I have no problem with it.
Exactly. You have no problem with it. That's the problem. And the more we see it, the more socially conditioned we are to accept even more of it. The next generation will be even more accepting of it than this one is, and so on. How long do you figure before we start rating porno's "PG13"???
There are several points in your post I'd like to comment on, but I refuse to do so until you learn how to properly edit and construct a reply in to several different parts. It's almost as if you went out of your way to make a reply difficult. If so, you accomplished that.
I don't get what you're conveying at all. Are you somehow implying that the condoms available for free are of inferior quality or efficiency? Because that would be kinda dumb.
Not really. Free is always cheap. If women think free BC will be great, they need to look at what they are getting. I bet it's not the type they would pick out for themselves. It's the government, it's always dumb.
Not really. Free is always cheap. If women think free BC will be great, they need to look at what they are getting. I bet it's not the type they would pick out for themselves. It's the government, it's always dumb.
Condoms are unaffordable for many teenagers and young adults without any jobs. Should condoms be given out for free to those people to prevent diseases and unexpected pregnancies? Teenagers having babies often means living under poverty which will cost us tax payers money in other ways such as food stamp, health care, etc.
What do you think?
If certain agencies want to provide free condoms then fine. But I do not support schools K thru high school doing this, It's not their place.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
how healthy.
