rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
| reply to N3OGH
Re: I can understand this one...
Parents cannot filter everything their children experience. If you have children and can, please write a parenting book. I need help. If you don't have children, then please consider you have a potential knowledge gap. (You were serious and not just trolling, right?)
I believe adults have the responsibility to restrain their behavior. An ordered society requires certain behavior in public areas both toward other adults and especially toward children. There are even laws against such disruptive behavior so we cannot use the "free speech" excuse.
To maintain order, even atheists and agnostics must agree that their rights end when they impact the rights of someone else. If not, we have anarchy. We have clearly advanced beyond this whether you believe it's with or without God.
I would rather have the privilege of unfiltered access but if adults cannot consider others for the few hours they are on a flight, then we will lose that privilege. |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10
| I fully agree there. I didn't want to bring up the "Children" but it is one aspect to be considered. Parents CANNOT shelter them from stuff. I am very realistic and understand this point. I'm sure 12 yr old Timmy is hopping on his pc at night looking at porn, whether or not mom and dad want to admit to it. Most kids are WAY more tech savvy than their parents and bypass whatever filters that are put in place. Still, an adult has the PERSONAL responsibility to not subject others in close proximity to certain material. I know it's all about personal preference on what this material might be. However, common sense needs to rule on the side of caution when others are around. Once again, the person is an adult and has a responsibility to act as such. Therefore, what you do in your OWN home or a private setting is your problem. I could care less if you want to have an orgy with 6 women and 2 guys. However, when it comes to the public, some civility is needed. If others cannot respect this fine line, then "policing is needed" to ensure it isn't crossed. |
|
N3OGH
Bear patrol must be working like a charm
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to rradina
I was more looking to head the discussion off at the pass. People always seem to end up saying "what if my kids, blah blah blah".
I agree adults have a responsibility to behave as adults in public, and exercise due judgement. But, it seems like everyone lays issue after issue at the feet of "protecting the children". News flash to parents. Not everyone has kids. And if I hear one more 2 bit politician pander for votes by coming out against "violent video games" or "Gangsta rap music" I think I'm going to vomit.
Thus the reason I stated from the beginning I was avoiding it.
No where in my post did I make some free speech argument in favor of disruptive behavior. I have a bit more Constitutional knowledge than that.
Neither did I make the argument that someones rights should be permitted to impact the rights of someone else.
So I don't know how those arguments apply to my comments, as I clearly sated in my post I was in favor of filtering on flights.
--
Petty people are disproportionably corrupted by petty power… |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| reply to rradina
said by rradina  :To maintain order, even atheists and agnostics must agree that their rights end when they impact the rights of someone else. The problem is that non-atheists and non-agnostics often think their views are allowed to impact the rights of non-believers such as in the abortion area. The Abortion debate usually has the Religious Types thinking that their Religious beliefs gives them the right to impact those of other beliefs. This atatude was what lead to the Crusades and the Inquisition/etc. |
|
