It is the job of the government to protect children from unsafe labor conditions; it is the job of the government to find a child who has been abducted from his or her lawful guardian; it is not the job of the government to do everything in its power to prevent such unfortunate events from happening. Or so I say. We are having fundamental disagreements as to the scope of power of government (which I shall address later).Originally posted by: Injury
Originally posted by: goku
Originally posted by: Injury
It seems most of you didn't even read the article. You don't even have to read past the FIRST FREAKING PARAGRAPH to know that the topic title is beyond misleading. It doesn't ban the f'ing sites...
it bans MINORS and MINORS ONLY from using the sites.
So if you guys what to cry about rights and stuff go ahead, but personally I think it will help take care of some of the neffing around here and some of the trolling in FS/FT
</end your self>
That's really great, make everything in this world for people over the age of 18.. I think it's a stupid idea, an it's even more stupid that you can't see the perspective of other people.. I wish darwinian theory was applied to everybody in practically every age group, but no, our society caters to the ignorant masses, creating an even more ignorant and clueless society.. The parents blame everybody but them selves and with this attitude our society is going to crumble.. 'injury' you're only helping in perpetuate this degredation of our society. Thats all we need, MORE government involvement in our everyday lives, we tried to fight off socialism but it looks like we're succuming to it anyways..
:roll:
Children have NO rights. Literally. It's already the job of the government to protect them, so it sounds like that is what they are doing. Yes, parents should teach their kids not to give out their address or talk about personal stuff online... but do you ALWAYS do EVERYTHING your parents tell you? No, you don't.
You know who's actually going to make the list? The sites who have enough influence, that's who.
Congratulations for identifying child abduction as a notable problem, and not a common problem. I argue that the problem is so uncommon that it would be more effective to work to prevent child abuse and/or abduction by parents, relatives, neighbors, teachers, and the like, who are by far (IIRC, of course) more likely to be the culprits of any misdeed.
Ha, that's a good one! :laugh:
Our "representatives" do what they think will get them the most votes in their next campaign. For most issues, representatives get responses coming from all directions. In the absence of any clear consensus or any strong personal beliefs, they will fall back on the above.
Speaking of which, I don't appreciate our "two sides of the same coin", authoritarian primary political parties.
I really think you should consider these words:
I have this book on my night table, called The Road to Serfdom by F. A. Hayek. I suggest you (all of you, even) read it. In a world where the word "liberal" has become a poison onto the language while so much of what actually represents "socialism" has found its way into modern democracy, it has much to teach about the nature of authority.
Speaking of which, I find your rather blind trust of authority disturbing.
One more thing: children are adults-in-training. Try to keep that in mind while you have your next "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!" session.
Facebook
Twitter