From: dart@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Dartanyan the Witchling)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp
Subject: Re: Bill Clinton and gaming
Date: 14 Aug 92 06:55:32 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

In article <1992Aug9.141130.16205@access.digex.com> dzik@access.digex.com (Joseph Dzikiewicz) writes:
>In article <1992Aug7.192130.31516@m.cs.uiuc.edu> silber@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Ami A. Silberman) writes:
>>
>>No. Because you and others like you don't want to go to the trouble of
>>dealing directly with what your kids may listen too, it means that you are,
>>via a chilling effect, denying me my right to listen to CDs that use the
>>"f" word, or talk about killing cops, or talk about being gay, or poke
>>mean-spirited fun at televangilists.
>>-- 
>>ami silberman - janitor of lunacy
>>	silber@cs.uiuc.edu
>
>Out of curiosity, do those of you who agree with the previous posting
>feel that there should be no controls on pornography and obscenity?
>Should we allow the networks to show _Deep_Throat_ at will?  Should
>radio stations play some of the music that has been quoted in this
>thread?

	Yes.  Yes.  Yes.
>
>If you say "yes" to these questions, at least I will salute you as
>having a consistent viewpoint.  If you say "no" to this, than we agree
>that some sort of censorship is necessary to limit access to unacceptable
>media for children.  And at that point, we are arguing questions of
>degree, not kind.
	
	Media is not unacceptable to children.  Of any sort.  Censorship is
completely and utterly wrong.  Coercion is also completely and utterly
wrong.  I also think that, as i am more comfortable without clothing on, I
should not be forced to wear it.
	Why do we have to live on a planet with stupid people?  What would
it take for everyone to say: I don't want to feel pain.  You don't want to 
feel pain.  Let's not cause pain.  Lets be careful about accidentally causing
pain.
	I have a feeling that if there was a weapon out there that could make
the sun expand to three times its size while retaining its heat, someone out
there would be playing with one.  Imbeciles.  
	Sex is not a weapon, nor is speech.  One is a recreation and the other
is a tool.  If sex is sen to be dangerous, consider the following: A beat up
car that has been repeatedly run into the ground with a rod knock has a dec-
ent chance of throwing a rod.  Therefore, when you hear a rod knock, you get
it fixed.  You maintain you car, better yet.  You chill when you drive and 
keep your head regardless of what the moron in front of you on the ike just
said.
	Nowadays, it seems that sex might be seemingly dangerous.  There's the
Plague and numerous other VDs, not the least of which is one that causes the
female involved to swell over a period of nine months and then squeeze out a 
red lizard.
	Contraceptives cure this.  Condoms are wonderful things.  
	Pornography is another wonderful thing, in a way.  I would rather 
have a teenage son who snuck off into his room after prime time for fifteen
minutes and then tried to hide the towel he cleaned up with than have a kid
with a severe case of AIDS.  
	As far as younger than tenage goes, why try to hide the world that they
are fast becoming a part of from them?  Maybe if they get a head start, they 
will have a chance to do something to better the world, and learn to embrace
those parts that do it good.  If they can avoid getting religious dogma (
NOT religious viewpoints -- dogma) they perhaps can look at what is going on
around them with an open mind.  It will be their world someday.  Please do not
hide it from them or try to tell them what they can and can't have in it when
it is and you are dead anyway.  For all we know, even more maybe theirs to in-
herit.  If NASA gets its butt in gear, that is.  The youngest baby shold be
allowed to see the truth.  If this makes some people wary of its concept, 
consider that it has the virtue of never having been tried.
>
>BTW, are there any parents out there who believe that their pre-teen
>children should be allowed unrestricted access to porn?  Or are the
>primary complainers college students who are primarily concerned that
>they not be restricted in listening to their favorite dirty CD?
	
	The primary complainants are people.  Please do not attempt to
group them or discount opinions due to age or experience with children.
I may be wrong, but this last bit reeks of "if the latter, then they do
not matter anyway, as they lack experience with children."
	Maybe these are the people who SHOULD have children.  Don't lie to 
your kids, if you want healthy, intelligent kids.  If you have a future in
mind for the Earth and wherever else we roam with healthy, intelligent
adults, you should wan't healthy, intelligent kids.
	Think of it this way: little kids are genuinely creative, have a 
marvelous waying of seeing the best in things, and can figure out simple
things that would stump adults.  Not to mention they have a startling habit of
being cheerful.  Maybe they have the answers.  Maybe we should give them a
try at the question.

							D