Which Laws Should be Abolished?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Guns: I propose that to own/use a firearm, you have to pass a written test to prove your knowledge of the laws in your state and how they pertain to gun use, and prove your proficiency with your firearm with a loading/shooting test. Is this not a good idea? I think that instilling an idea of responsibility to go along with gun ownership might cut down on the number of parents who leave firearms accessible to kids, etc. I’m all for gun ownership, but let’s get serious about making sure complete morons aren’t out buying them.[/quote]

Great Idea…

122

[quote]deanosumo wrote:

Drugs only damage the user, but guns damage those in the cross-hairs.
[/quote]

two words for you- “Crack” “Babies”

Laws- Search and Seizure laws in the state of WA as rewritten by our stupid Supreme Court Justices. Oh and all the murder convictions turned over to manslaughter since the murderer didn’t really intend to kill the baby when he played basketball with it’s head.

123

[quote]wufwugy wrote:
zeb,

being as i haven’t a definate opinion about public profanity, i was hoping you would expound as to why you do. im curious why you believe profanity is a step in the wrong direction, im curious why you believe your child seeing a man naked or masturbating or swearing is a problem.

not looking for an argument, just an idea.[/quote]

wufwugy:

Well pal, if someone has to explain to you why it’s wrong to have a 9 year old girl witness a man masturbating then I’m afraid I can’t help you.
Oh, and I’m not trying to argue with either…

124

lothario:

I guess one major difference between cars and guns is that cars were not a guaranteed right in the US constitution.

Don’t get me wrong the idea of testing etc. is good in theory, however in practice I think it presents one more hurdle in cost, time and of course government abuse.

If you look at all of the moronic 16 (and older) year olds who drive a motor vehicle, the testing idea has apparently failed miserably. Seems that almost anyone who wants a drivers license gets one. If they fail the test the first time, they just come back and take it a second, or third time. Everyone eventually gets a drivers license who wants one. And look at the great big state government that all of the testing helped create. More tax dollars, and for what? More people are killed by cars than any other thing in the country! Let’s not create another system like that one.

Naturally, you want to keep the guns out of the hands of morons. If you take a close look at our current system, with only slight modifications I think we can do that without raising costs, or creating an ieffectual system like the one for drivers licenses.

125

[quote]chinadoll wrote:

Don’t remember the exact statistic, but every few (minutes?) in this country a child is accidentally killed by a gun, much more so than guns used in self defense. …[/quote]

As I mentioned earlier the statistic that you are trying to site (a child is killed every few minutes" was proven to be bogus.

The statistics were compiled using the definition of a child as up to the age 25, and included suicides, drug/gang activity deaths, and even deaths because the gang banger was shot by a cop.

If you take the age population for accidental firearm death as age 10 or younger then the stats you are siting are wrong. Why use age 10? Because after age 10 every kid knows not to fuck with a gun and that they are dangerous. They know what will happen or should know that by pulling the trigger bad things can happen.

More children, according to the CDC’s compilations, die from falling down the stairs, drowning in buckets, or from being improperly restrained in a motor vehicle than by guns.

It is estimated that guns are used over 2 million times each year to stop a crime or assault from occurring. The reasons you don’t hear about the 85 year old grandma that kills a multiple convicted rapist with her old handgun is because the media will not show the proper use of firearms. If a nut job goes out and shoots a person in a post-office we hear about it on the national news. If grandma saves her life and removes a piece of street scum you don’t read about it even in your local paper. If you do hear about a crime, the media will tell you all about the bad guy and his gun, but they will omit the armed citizen who stopped and captured him before the police arrived.

Hollyweird of old taught gun safety on TV and in the movies. Spend some time watching “The Rifleman” and gun safety was a strong part of it as was in many westerns.

Today Hollyweird doesn’t have a clue and will even show cops, and military using firearms improperly. Even on a good show like “24” the last 2 episodes showed a guy holding a flashlight and pistol with the crossed wrist technique, but he was holding the flashlight in his over hand which when he fires the gun will cause the slide to slam back into his wrist causing a definite laceration, maybe a fracture or at least he will drop the flashlight. The flashlight is always carried with that arm under acting as the supporting arm, the firearm is always on top.

Why doesn’t Hollyweird show the correct use and teach the youths proper safety?

What I find appalling is that there is no TRUE education pertaining safety going on in this country. We are teaching our elementary kids about AIDS and safe sex but we do not teach them firearm safety, knife safety and proper use, first aid, basic medical care, or even how to swim.

How many lives would be saved if we actually taught safety other than sticking our heads in the sand because it’s not politically correct.

126

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
My thoughts on drug legalization:
Making dangerous substances legal is a bad idea. Come to my hospital and spend some time with the hundred or so addicts that run through my ER every other week, and you might agree with me. I define a dangerous drug as one which has no use for anything besides self-gratification, and is semi-easy to OD on. [/quote]

I’m not being nit-picky here, but do you consider alcohol a dangerous drug? It’s really only used for self-gratification and is pretty easy to OD on. LSD and mushrooms are hard to OD on, being that their level of effect is far from their level of toxicity (assuming you got the right mushrooms!) what do you think about these? As someone who works in an ER, what drugs do you see cause the most problems? For example, what single drug do you see come in in the most often? What drug do you see that causes the most severe cases?

Of course, there are some drugs that are used for gratification that do have medical uses (cannabis, opiates, cocaine) and others are being studied again to determine their uses (LSD, MDMA - Ecstacy, and psilosybin) This could make things more difficult to determine what is “dangerous”, but then you could just regulate them to prescription. Oh, out of curiosty, how many cases of drug OD/problems do you encounter with prescription drugs? Whether intentionally abused or not.

Hey, let’s be optimistic here! The tide is starting to change. So much of the world is starting to alter their policies on cannabis, it will be more difficult for the US to maintain the ban. UK, Canada, Switzerland, even Alaska have diminshed or eliminated criminal penalties for weed. I believe we’ll see it legalized within my lifetime.

127

[quote]ToShinDo wrote:
I’m not being nit-picky here, but do you consider alcohol a dangerous drug? It’s really only used for self-gratification and is pretty easy to OD on.[/quote]
Actually, you have to try pretty hard to OD on alcohol. I don’t consider alcohol dangerous in and of itself, but combined with other behaviors, creates dangerous situations. Maybe I’m being nit-picky here myself, but we tried to get rid of alcohol earlier to no avail. It’s too much a part of our culture.

LSD is very dangerous. We’re talking about a drug that makes you temporarily psychotic. Ever had a bad trip? I have. Not a good thing. Also, it is very poisonous in small amounts. Also bad. Mushrooms are quite a bit safer, assuming you don’t pick deathcaps. We had a kid come through a few months ago who just about destroyed his kidneys because he ate a few wrong mushrooms, didn’t feel high, ate a few more, still nothing, ate a few more… before he knew it, he was very nearly dead. Good thing he was with friends, or else he would be.

I would have to say that cocaine in all of its forms, especially crack, is the most severe problem in my ER. For example, we lost a very lovely 28 year old girl last week from a cocaine snorting overdose. In terms of frequency, I would say that alcohol is responsible for the majority of the addicts who clog up my rehab unit, simply due to the ease of obtaining it, and its low price. If we made other drugs legal, they would be cheaper, and well… do the math. I have enough problems without having to deal with double the number (or more) of these assholes coming in and pitching pyschotic fits and puking all over the damn place, thank you very much.

There are quite a few problems with prescription drugs in my town. I would bet that most people have no idea how widespread the problem is in this country. The scenario is oftentimes an older person (not college kid) who injures themselves, and then gets hooked on their pain meds. Happens all the time, my friend. When they start mixing their pain meds with alcohol… that’s when they come and see me. Usually by ambulance.

[quote]Hey, let’s be optimistic here! The tide is starting to change. So much of the world is starting to alter their policies on cannabis, it will be more difficult for the US to maintain the ban. UK, Canada, Switzerland, even Alaska have diminshed or eliminated criminal penalties for weed. I believe we’ll see it legalized within my lifetime.
[/quote]
We’re going to have to have a democrat-controlled government in order for it to happen. Think about it. It’s going to be a while, trust me.

Uhhh… drugs are bad, m’kay?

128

[quote]ZEB wrote:
wufwugy:

Well pal, if someone has to explain to you why it’s wrong to have a 9 year old girl witness a man masturbating then I’m afraid I can’t help you.
Oh, and I’m not trying to argue with either…

[/quote]

wow zeb, what do you expect me to do with a response like this?

here’s a story i hope to analogize…

my three year old niece talks a lot, even if nobody’s listening. one day, she’s busy talking to me and nobody while im making yakisoba and my sister is in the other room on the computer. well, in the ramblings of my niece she says “shut up.” immediately my sister yells, “Hailey!” and my niece shuts up. i chuckle. my sister yells, “Hailey, we do not use that kind of language!” i chuckle some more and tell my sister “if you keep treating her like this, she’ll just hate you when she’s old enough to.” my sister then goes to my silent and frightened niece and begins quietly scolding her. i don’t like the scene so i take my yakisoba upstairs and watch an episode of southpark. twenty-two minutes later i come downstairs with an empty plate and my niece is crying and my sister is craddling her and speaking softly to her.

so much anguish because my three year old niece imitated what she learned from the other people close to her.

zeb, do you think your daughter will get repulsed by a man masturbating in the street because her daddy does or because it is a naturally repulsive thing?

in my pursuits of understanding human nature ive learned that we (especially as children) are copycats. more specifically, as children we copy those we look up to (daddy, mommy, spongebob). this copying becomes a large part of our adult personality and beliefs. ive also learned that there are certain morals that are beneficial as institutions in a society despite any philosophizing to the contrary. this leads me to believe that a man masturbating in public IS a repulsive thing, yet i can’t help but think that perhaps the people who think public profanity is wrong (like you) think so because they have been and are copying others with this belief (like your parents, your respected friends, or your cultural customs). im interested in both learning from others and figuring things out for myself.

i was hoping for your opinions about WHY public profanity is a no-no, not your opinions THAT public profanity is a no-no.

129

[quote]ZEB wrote:
lothario:

I guess one major difference between cars and guns is that cars were not a guaranteed right in the US constitution.

Don’t get me wrong the idea of testing etc. is good in theory, however in practice I think it presents one more hurdle in cost, time and of course government abuse.[/quote]

I fail to see how government could abuse this. Pass the test, get the license. Pretty cut and dry, if you ask me.

This is not going to be the firearm DMV, man! Come on, do you honestly think that this is too complicated? Pretty much every adult in the country drives a car, and very nearly every day. That is why cars are so dangerous. Are you telling me that you fire your gun as often as you drive?

[quote]Naturally, you want to keep the guns out of the hands of morons. If you take a close look at our current system, with only slight modifications I think we can do that without raising costs, or creating an ieffectual system like the one for drivers licenses.
[/quote]
The driver’s license system is not an ineffectual system. Neither would the “Department of Firearm Safety” or whatever it would be called. This is a simple thing, and would eliminate waiting periods while raising firearm awareness. How is this a bad thing? This is not “infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms”, is it? I would imagine that this would be encouraging us to have firearms.

130

[quote]wufwugy wrote:
ZEB wrote:
wufwugy:

Well pal, if someone has to explain to you why it’s wrong to have a 9 year old girl witness a man masturbating then I’m afraid I can’t help you.
Oh, and I’m not trying to argue with either…

wow zeb, what do you expect me to do with a response like this?

here’s a story i hope to analogize…

my three year old niece talks a lot, even if nobody’s listening. one day, she’s busy talking to me and nobody while im making yakisoba and my sister is in the other room on the computer. well, in the ramblings of my niece she says “shut up.” immediately my sister yells, “Hailey!” and my niece shuts up. i chuckle. my sister yells, “Hailey, we do not use that kind of language!” i chuckle some more and tell my sister “if you keep treating her like this, she’ll just hate you when she’s old enough to.” my sister then goes to my silent and frightened niece and begins quietly scolding her. i don’t like the scene so i take my yakisoba upstairs and watch an episode of southpark. twenty-two minutes later i come downstairs with an empty plate and my niece is crying and my sister is craddling her and speaking softly to her.

so much anguish because my three year old niece imitated what she learned from the other people close to her.

zeb, do you think your daughter will get repulsed by a man masturbating in the street because her daddy does or because it is a naturally repulsive thing?

in my pursuits of understanding human nature ive learned that we (especially as children) are copycats. more specifically, as children we copy those we look up to (daddy, mommy, spongebob). this copying becomes a large part of our adult personality and beliefs. ive also learned that there are certain morals that are beneficial as institutions in a society despite any philosophizing to the contrary. this leads me to believe that a man masturbating in public IS a repulsive thing, yet i can’t help but think that perhaps the people who think public profanity is wrong (like you) think so because they have been and are copying others with this belief (like your parents, your respected friends, or your cultural customs). im interested in both learning from others and figuring things out for myself.

i was hoping for your opinions about WHY public profanity is a no-no, not your opinions THAT public profanity is a no-no.[/quote]

I think you have some very good points my friend! Kids do learn by imitation. Your niece no doubt heard someone say “Shut up” so she said it.

That is the very reason that I don’t want children exposed to some seedy bum playing with himself in public. That just might put an idea or two into an impressionable young mind. Ideas that are not appropriate for, say a 9 year old girl. Would you play a pornographic tape in front of a child? No, of course not!(Did Michael Jackson? Oh never mind that’s a different topic)Call me crazy but I think that sort of scene is not a healthy and productive picture to put in a childs mind.

Remember, that just because some things are learned by tradition, that does not make them wrong. In fact, I think if we held more closely to our traditions there would be more respect for one another, such as my parents and grandparents had for their peers (and each other).

I also think you may have a different viewpoint when you have children of your own. I have seen plenty of reformed “free spirits” after they have children. Sometimes they even revert to more traditonal “core beliefs” when they are responsible for what goes into the brains of their little loved ones.

Don’t be to quick to question traditional behaviors. They are tradition for a reason. When something works it should be repeated.

131

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
lothario:

I guess one major difference between cars and guns is that cars were not a guaranteed right in the US constitution.

Don’t get me wrong the idea of testing etc. is good in theory, however in practice I think it presents one more hurdle in cost, time and of course government abuse.

I fail to see how government could abuse this. Pass the test, get the license. Pretty cut and dry, if you ask me.

If you look at all of the moronic 16 (and older) year olds who drive a motor vehicle, the testing idea has apparently failed miserably. Seems that almost anyone who wants a drivers license gets one. If they fail the test the first time, they just come back and take it a second, or third time. Everyone eventually gets a drivers license who wants one. And look at the great big state government that all of the testing helped create. More tax dollars, and for what? More people are killed by cars than any other thing in the country! Let’s not create another system like that one.

This is not going to be the firearm DMV, man! Come on, do you honestly think that this is too complicated? Pretty much every adult in the country drives a car, and very nearly every day. That is why cars are so dangerous. Are you telling me that you fire your gun as often as you drive?

Naturally, you want to keep the guns out of the hands of morons. If you take a close look at our current system, with only slight modifications I think we can do that without raising costs, or creating an ieffectual system like the one for drivers licenses.

The driver’s license system is not an ineffectual system. Neither would the “Department of Firearm Safety” or whatever it would be called. This is a simple thing, and would eliminate waiting periods while raising firearm awareness. How is this a bad thing? This is not “infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms”, is it? I would imagine that this would be encouraging us to have firearms.[/quote]

“cut and dry?” You are kidding right? You must have a better understanding of government and how it likes to grow within itself. The DMV in most states is a huge mess. Furthermore, they charge excess fees and cause people time and aggravation. “The Department of Firearm Safety?” Yes, doggone it, let’s duplicate the government system for automobiles! The number one killer of human beings in America!

The very reason that you should not like it is because under that system everyone will have a handgun, including morons! Again, how many people end up never driving a car? The system will be built (in your scenario) to push people through, that’s the only reason that they will have a job.

You solved our problem lothario…YIKES!

132

A licensing and/or test system could be abused if the government wanted to curtail ownership. They could do a variety of things: 1) Make the fee ridiculously high; 2) Make the waiting period and processing time ridiculously long; 3) Make the test ridiculously trivial and score it ridiculously hard; etc. with ridiculous qualifications.

In general, I wouldn’t have a problem with a safety-class requirement and impostion of a small fee to cover costs – however, it would seem that some safeguard would be necessary to make sure certain stringently anti-firearm jurisdictions kept the requirements reasonable.

133

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I think you have some very good points my friend! Kids do learn by imitation. Your niece no doubt heard someone say “Shut up” so she said it.

That is the very reason that I don’t want children exposed to some seedy bum playing with himself in public. That just might put an idea or two into an impressionable young mind. Ideas that are not appropriate for, say a 9 year old girl. Would you play a pornographic tape in front of a child? No, of course not!(Did Michael Jackson? Oh never mind that’s a different topic)Call me crazy but I think that sort of scene is not a healthy and productive picture to put in a childs mind.

Remember, that just because some things are learned by tradition, that does not make them wrong. In fact, I think if we held more closely to our traditions there would be more respect for one another, such as my parents and grandparents had for their peers (and each other).

I also think you may have a different viewpoint when you have children of your own. I have seen plenty of reformed “free spirits” after they have children. Sometimes they even revert to more traditonal “core beliefs” when they are responsible for what goes into the brains of their little loved ones.

Don’t be to quick to question traditional behaviors. They are tradition for a reason. When something works it should be repeated.
[/quote]

zeb, fantastic post!

your comments about tradition and reformed free spirits are spot on. i look forward to having children one day and i know i’ll be a changed man when that day comes, even with knowing this and preparing for this im sure i’ll get blindsided anyway.

i have tremendous respect for tradition. i think a perfect tradition is one that allows for its own questioning. this is very much how the US of A is. maintaining tradition is important, yet evolving (yes, i know, VERY ambiguous word) is also important.

i believe evolution as a practical tool not as history. this makes me understand that our existence (biologically, astronomically, culturally) is always changing, and we must change as well. yet if we don’t maintain traditions then all is lost.

so im for upholding tradition even if it’s for the sake of upholding tradition, yet i hope we can learn from the mistakes of the tradition we were raised in [like how my father learned some things to not do with me because his father did them to him, and like how i’ll learn from my father’s mistakes when raising me (and hopefully not forget the successes he made)].

in trying to optimize the practicality of any philosphy i espouse, i have discovered the necessity for mistakes, hardships, blood and sweat and tears, confusion, etc. and i want my children to witness and experience these things when they’re old enough to learn from them yet still want to know daddy’s beliefs more than anyone elses.

i don’t want to forget the initial topic (a child witnessing public profanity) so i’ll revert to that. granted, i’ve never been responsible for young ones so if i was speaking from experience it’d actually be from out of my ass. what i can speak from is, though, a sincere desire to optimize my future childrens’ upbringings to enhance their lives, make them better than me, and give me a legacy (much like how my father hopes for me to be better than him and be his legacy).

i just imagine that if i had a nine year old daughter witnessing a man masturbating in the street it would be a prime opportunity for me to teach her something because she would be thoroughly intrigued by it, and i think humans learn best when they are intrigued and focused and listening.

yet, a society that doesn’t have a man masturbating in the street is a society that has a achieved a beneficial tradition through their (and ancestors) understanding of the negativities of said masturbating man. i just fear that if we shelter our children so much we will hinder their progress into adulthood and they’ll have to come up with their own ideas.

this, i believe, is why people like you uphold tradition dearly, because you know better, but if our children don’t learn why our tradition is important then they may just rebel and come up with their own crackpot ideas (i did).

example: if i were a monarchial world leader i would teach my sons the great benefit of peace, love, and understanding. but i wouldn’t neglect to teach them how to war and hate and repel other ideologies. because after i die and pass the crown they WILL meet with adversaries and find it necessary to war or hate or at least understand war and hate so they can combat it successfully.

has any of this correlated to the original topic? i guess im just trying to say that the immorality of public profanity creates a conundrum for me because i view it as a prime opportunity to teach the children i will one day have about public profanity, yet a strong and successful society has strong and successful traditions, and strong and successful traditions reciprocate a strong and successful society…and the goal is a strong and successful society.

zeb, what are your beliefs concerning the evolution (if you don’t like that word choose “adaptation, progress, change”) of traditions to better society.

P.S. i hope my post isn’t gibberish and sorry for some of its repetitiveness.

134

[quote]wufwugy wrote:
i guess im just trying to say that the immorality of public profanity creates a conundrum for me because i view it as a prime opportunity to teach the children i will one day have about public profanity, yet a strong and successful society has strong and successful traditions, and strong and successful traditions reciprocate a strong and successful society…and the goal is a strong and successful society.[/quote]

Your post wasn’t gibberish and is why there should not have been such a public outcry at the showing of Janet Jackson’s titty at a Superbowl game. “Oh the kids were watching”…for the .0005 seconds that it occurred. Therefore, we will show the .0005 seconds over and over and over, pause and freeze frame and gasp in horror. What a lesson these actions taught the children. Any kid that has been to a museum has seen a titty. It may have been in marble or painted in oil, but how hidden away a kid must be for his first exposure to a titty to be associations with the word “horror”, “disgusting”, “nasty”? We just taught the kids, not that being nude on tv is wrong, but that the nude human body is wrong. I am sure there are little pre-pubescant girls who may have actually been scarred, not by Janet’s titty, but by the ridiculous public reaction to a titty.

Therefore, it is retarded to expect all public ludeness (by your definition alone) to halt simply because you had a kid. Exactly why would you hide your kid from all negative acts instead of using them as a proper teaching tool? Your reaction alone is their lesson…just like screaming out some remark while driving at another motorist based on their race and poor driving skills could later lead to racism…even if you didn’t mean it.

135

profx, i find true understanding is through analogy. you used two great analogies with the janet’s titty and vehicular rascism.

136

You guys can sit and wax philosophical all you want about how you whould or wouldn’t react as a parent. You might as well be pissing in the wind.

Until you have kids of your own, you are like college grads looking for a job. You have no idea how much you don’t know.

Don’t take this as a flame. I’m just trying to relate a little reality to you. Having your flesh and blood looking up at you with their innocent eyes will pretty much negate most of your pre-parental ‘knowledge’.

137

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Don’t take this as a flame. I’m just trying to relate a little reality to you. Having your flesh and blood looking up at you with their innocent eyes will pretty much negate most of your pre-parental ‘knowledge’.[/quote]

I would like to ask, if you have kids, how did you respond to Janet’s flopping tits and was this even an issue in your house at all?

I do contemplate these issues because I think every kid wants to be a better parent than his own were. I don’t understand how this means those without kids yet don’t have a clue. Considering the millions of obese 8 year olds in this country, one could argue that most parents don’t know what the fuck they are doing and are potentially more clueless.

138

“i just imagine that if i had a nine year old daughter witnessing a man masturbating in the street it would be a prime opportunity for me to teach her something because she would be thoroughly intrigued by it, and i think humans learn best when they are intrigued and focused and listening.”

wufwugy:

You have a great mind and I enjoyed your post immensely! I don’t say that ofter on these political threads.

Using every opportunity to “teach” your child is exactly what you must do. One thing that I think those without children don’t quite understand (and how are they supposed to?) is that your child will not be receptive to certain things at certain times. And in fact he/she might just be scared, by the profane action described earlier. For example every father should have “the sex talk” with his son. That should be a given.

Now let’s see…do you want to have that sex talk with your 8 year old son on the way to a little league baseball game at 11:00am? No, it’s the wrong time, place and perhaps the wrong age. Just like most things that you want to do right, timing is everything. Unfortunately, you are forced to address things of a sexual content if you see that man masturbating on the street corner, or for that matter, if you are flipping the radio station and Howard Stearn (don’t care how many of you like him he’s bad for family values!) happens to be describing his latest sexual escapade.

Both things have a negative impact on children because they have been given information that is alien to them, it may frighten them, and you are not especially in the proper time or place in order to deal with it appropriately. However, deal with it you must.

Is there anything wrong with sex? No, of course not. There is also nothing wrong with breaking wind, but you wouldn’t nesseccarily do it in front of a woman you are trying to impress on the first date (wait that depends on the woman…lol). It has to do with timing. Where and when is very much a part of what is appropriate.

139

[quote]Professor X wrote:
wufwugy wrote:
i guess im just trying to say that the immorality of public profanity creates a conundrum for me because i view it as a prime opportunity to teach the children i will one day have about public profanity, yet a strong and successful society has strong and successful traditions, and strong and successful traditions reciprocate a strong and successful society…and the goal is a strong and successful society.

Your post wasn’t gibberish and is why there should not have been such a public outcry at the showing of Janet Jackson’s titty at a Superbowl game. “Oh the kids were watching”…for the .0005 seconds that it occurred. Therefore, we will show the .0005 seconds over and over and over, pause and freeze frame and gasp in horror. What a lesson these actions taught the children. Any kid that has been to a museum has seen a titty. It may have been in marble or painted in oil, but how hidden away a kid must be for his first exposure to a titty to be associations with the word “horror”, “disgusting”, “nasty”? We just taught the kids, not that being nude on tv is wrong, but that the nude human body is wrong. I am sure there are little pre-pubescant girls who may have actually been scarred, not by Janet’s titty, but by the ridiculous public reaction to a titty.

Therefore, it is retarded to expect all public ludeness (by your definition alone) to halt simply because you had a kid. Exactly why would you hide your kid from all negative acts instead of using them as a proper teaching tool? Your reaction alone is their lesson…just like screaming out some remark while driving at another motorist based on their race and poor driving skills could later lead to racism…even if you didn’t mean it.[/quote]

It’s not the boob, it’s the time and place. Just because they have seen a statue in an art museum doesn’t mean that during half time at the super bowl they should be treated to some pop star (has been) flipping her boob around.

If you had kids you would realize that that is not the time and place to discuss such things. It was a time and place to enjoy a tradition (back to traditions again). The Superbowl tradition should not be laced with sexuality (have you noticed that most things are these days-does that help the children? No.). Especially the sort that Janet (the pig) Jackson brought!

It used to be that parents had the right to discuss sex with their children when they thought that the timing was right. Now the media has changed all of that and I resent it. It’s not good for families. rainjack hit it spot on when he stated, “Until you have kids of your own, you are like college grads looking for a job. You have no idea how much you don’t know.”

I knew everything regarding how I was going to raise my child. I have no problem admitting that I was wrong on about 90% of everything I thought to be true.

I know you think you have it all figured out, I did too. Then something odd happened: My wife and I had children and most things I thought I knew about raising kids, was wrong!

140

[quote]ZEB wrote:
It’s not the boob, it’s the time and place. Just because they have seen a statue in an art museum doesn’t mean that during half time at the super bowl they should be treated to some pop star (has been) flipping her boob around.

If you had kids you would realize that that is not the time and place to discuss such things. It was a time and place to enjoy a tradition (back to traditions again). The Superbowl tradition should not be laced with sexuality (have you noticed that most things are these days-does that help the children? No.). Especially the sort that Janet (the pig) Jackson brought!

It used to be that parents had the right to discuss sex with their children when they thought that the timing was right. Now the media has changed all of that and I resent it. It’s not good for families. rainjack hit it spot on when he stated, “Until you have kids of your own, you are like college grads looking for a job. You have no idea how much you don’t know.”

I knew everything regarding how I was going to raise my child. I have no problem admitting that I was wrong on about 90% of everything I thought to be true.

I know you think you have it all figured out, I did too. Then something odd happened: My wife and I had children and most things I thought I knew about raising kids, was wrong!

[/quote]

I think your position on that is ancient and useless. Honestly. If a kid is old enough to follow the complexity of football, they are old enough to see a nipple ring without world wide crackdowns on censorship. Could the issue have been discussed openly? Yes. Should it have resulted in the overhyped restrictions now in place? No, it shouldn’t have. I didn’t even see any cheerleaders at the last Superbowl coverage and I think this is the reason why. I’m a grown man and football isn’t a game of hopscotch. Big strong guys are slamming into each other aggressively for hours. Perhaps your kids are more developed than you think they are. Perhaps parents today use every opportunity to rant about how the world should raise their kids when the truth is, all you have to do is turn the tv off. Football was never that damn innocent.