Irresponsible!

matsie · Post by **matsie** » Fri Jul 06, 2007 8:34 pm

silverblue wrote:Matsie, do you believe that currently illegal drugs should be legal then?

Yes. I do. I feel similarly about prostitution as well.

Consuming illicit drugs may be harmful to your health, but it should be your choice whether you consume those drugs. That isn't to say you should steal in order to procure such drugs, nor should you murder for them. Theft and murder infringe on another person's property rights.

What you do with your body is your business. Regardless of how morally presumptuous it is to prohibit drug use, from a mere economic standpoint legalizing drugs is a good idea.

I'm in a rush and I can't completely flesh out my ideology on the matter (nor do I think the LG15 moderators want me posting about these kinds of things) so if you actually want to discuss this kind of thing, feel free to PM me.

Or you could check out the book "Defending the Undefendable" by Dr. Walter Block.

Killthesmiley · Post by **Killthesmiley** » Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:07 pm

i'm oging to repeat everything, i think the majority has said here:

DOES IT REALLY MATTER?

I mean, a lot of WORSE stuff has happened on this series and not ths much belly acheing happened.

Pick your battles wisely

silverblue · Post by **silverblue** » Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:47 pm

Though you obviously don't think so, Kelly, I think that this does matter. Obviously this is just one gal's opinion, but I feel very strongly about road safety... and in setting an example -- especially to such a vast, young(ish) audience.

Luminous · Post by **Luminous** » Fri Jul 06, 2007 10:16 pm

silverblue wrote:Though you obviously don't think so, Kelly, I think that this does matter. Obviously this is just one gal's opinion, but I feel very strongly about road safety... and in setting an example -- especially to such a vast, young(ish) audience.

Especially if they're going to be drinking underage

longlostposter · Post by **longlostposter** » Fri Jul 06, 2007 10:23 pm

I used to hate seatbelts, but since I was in a bad accident I always wear one.

OT

Love you, Samara.

Samara · Post by **Samara** » Fri Jul 06, 2007 10:35 pm

I understand creative process...but I honestly think there's a line where they should be a bit more responsible as a matter of of principle. Granted, there are plenty of other issues in the series I've felt are irresponsible, too...but this one kind the "last straw" type of thing.

I know it seems crazy...and probably a "little" thing, but is took away from my enjoyment of the video.

oh, and love you too!!

Esteed · Post by **Esteed** » Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:35 am

They aren't the parents of the young(ish) audience. The parents have a responsibility to teach the child the right way to live. The family also has that responsibility. No one else does. When I was younger, if my little sister was hanging around me, I curbed my use of profanity. I'll admit right here that my rather frequent use of profanity IRL was a defense mechanism I used when I was younger to try and seem big and bad. By the time I got to high school I'd gotten over that, but profanity had become such a big part of my vocabulary and speech that it's very hard for me to not pepper my speech with them.

If I'm within hearing distance of someone else's child, I'll try to curb my language because I want to based on my own morals. I am not, however, under any obligation to do so, so if one slips out I won't feel a single iota of guilt. If I don't know a child is nearby and I say a few swear words, I do feel a little guilty then.

But if I write a story (and I love to write and want to be a writer, so this has happened before) and put it on the internet to be read, and a child reads it, and it has swear words in it...where exactly am I responsible for the child using them? The parents need to teach the child that there is a time and a place for such words. It's not my job to be a parent to anyone else's child, and it's not the Creator's jobs to be a parent to it's audience.

Taig · Post by **Taig** » Sat Jul 07, 2007 6:08 am

oh for God's sake pleeeeeease

Thiis DDNOT a political forum. It is not sponsored by MADD, the DEA nor [u]any other [/u]EXTREMIST group.

Please keep that stuff out of here. At least could we have some sort of disclaimer, warning/informing the members here that this is a purely POLITICAL thread and that this forum does not intended to do do.

A political aside or "jab" here and there is ok I guess but this has gone far enough! This thing is beginning to show clear symptoms of an acute case of "partisan-sounding-board-atosis" which as we all knowcan become extremely irritating to otherwise healthy forum behavior and has proven fatal in many untreated cases.

Vacatiion has mellowed me a little. Does it show? Maybe it's time for me to come home.

milowent · Post by **milowent** » Sat Jul 07, 2007 7:54 am

Esteed wrote:They aren't the parents of the young(ish) audience. The parents have a responsibility to teach the child the right way to live. The family also has that responsibility. No one else does. When I was younger, if my little sister was hanging around me, I curbed my use of profanity. I'll admit right here that my rather frequent use of profanity IRL was a defense mechanism I used when I was younger to try and seem big and bad. By the time I got to high school I'd gotten over that, but profanity had become such a big part of my vocabulary and speech that it's very hard for me to not pepper my speech with them.

If I'm within hearing distance of someone else's child, I'll try to curb my language because I want to based on my own morals. I am not, however, under any obligation to do so, so if one slips out I won't feel a single iota of guilt. If I don't know a child is nearby and I say a few swear words, I do feel a little guilty then.

IT Takes a Village, Esteed

Far be it for me to go a bit off topic, but i remember when Bree first used the "F" word in a video last summer. (it was I Probably Shouldn't Post This). A lot people were upset. And on Mixed Media one time, the Creators discussed what a big deal they felt the decision was to have Bree curse. They AGONIZED over it.

Since then everyone's morals on the show have gone to pot (Ok, they haven't smoked pot yet, but i'm sure that's coming in a video to be entitled I Have The Munchies), so not wearing a seatbelt is not something the Creators worry about now, even if they might have a year ago.

Luminous · Post by **Luminous** » Sat Jul 07, 2007 3:00 pm

Just for a little perspective - while we're arguing the importance of seatbelts, and whether or not the creators have a moral obligation to set a good example by making sure their characters buckle up, the running of the bulls is happening over in Pamplona Spain.

Just think this is an interesting juxtaposition of perspectives on the safety issue.

Esteed · Post by **Esteed** » Sat Jul 07, 2007 3:33 pm

It takes the parents, Milo. No one else is obligated to set an example for the children. If the village wants to help the parents out with that, that's great, I think that's a good thing. But there is no obligation or responsibility there for the rest of the village.

longlostposter · Post by **longlostposter** » Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:47 pm

Esteed wrote: there is no obligation or responsibility there for the rest of the village.

I don't know why, but this made me giggle, Esteed.

Taig · Post by **Taig** » Sat Jul 07, 2007 7:44 pm

Esteed wrote:It takes the parents, Milo. No one else is obligated to set an example for the children. If the village wants to help the parents out with that, that's great, I think that's a good thing. But there is no obligation or responsibility there for the rest of the village.

WOW !!!! Right on Esteed (did that give away my age? heeheee I'm okay with that!)

I was just about to tell Milo the same thing!

Consider this my occasional political jab..

Milo that "takes a village crap" belongs those who think nobody is directly responsible for anything. It burns me up. If you need a whole village to raise your child than you probably should think REAL HARD before you get into the "baby-making" process.

It is my anecdotal observation that the "whole village" rarely gets involved beyond anything beyond that which the TV is providing in the first place.

Actually, what I see most often is NOT the village raising a child but it is the "Grandmother" that baby's turn to when they start having babies themselves.

and yes I DO know what it's like..I am a single parent and I raised my child alone; without the help of his mother let alone the whole fricking VIllage. In fact, I don't think I would have takent their help if they did offer.

Phew...ok! Sorry...hot topic for me. GO figure:)

BTW I love you all

milowent · Post by **milowent** » Sat Jul 07, 2007 11:16 pm

there is a difference between parental responsibility (where i wholly agree with esteed and taig) and statistics.

There is a reason parents try to raise their kids in "good neighborhoods." Its not about legal responsibility of the neighbors. A good parent in the South Bronx can be the best parent ever, but the negative societal influences on their kid are going to be far more pervasive than in some tony suburb.

And that great parent in the South Bronx doesn't only tell his kid what's right, he sics the cops on the crack dealers because he knows that while the village has no responsibility to his child, the village affects the child.

I'm not going to starting digging up census statistics and the like, though, because i've gotten waaaay past seatbelts. And I'm not sure I know where we're going anymore either.

anniid · Post by **anniid** » Sat Jul 07, 2007 11:26 pm

matsie wrote:
Ziola wrote:
silverblue wrote:It's illegal not to wear a seatbelt in the US? Haha, I stand corrected! Yay!

...and thus, illegal and irresponsible footage then!

("Click it or ticket?" wtf? Nice non-rhyme they've got there.)
Except for the state of New Hampshire, it isn't illegal here yet. Of course, we don't require helmets on motorcycles either
Which is a good thing! State laws requiring you to wear a seatbelt have little to do with keeping your safety in mind and more to do with effective lobbying by insurance companies. It gives them yet another reason to reject your insurance claims. (Same goes for the legal drinking age of 21 in the United States.)

Truth be told, there is a correlation between auto injuries and deaths and lack of wearing a seat belt, but this is only true because most people who do not wear seat belts also engage in riskier driving behaviors.

This is just another example of U.S. legislation being dictated by money, power and greed without respecting the individual's rights.

It should be a choice whether you wish to keep your body safe or not, the government should not control your body. Your body is your biggest asset and your most important piece of property. What you choose to do with that property is up to you as long as it does not infringe on the property rights of others (e.g. harm another person's body).

I respect the law. I am sure that many people also see it the way I do.
In my city there are fatal accident specific cops. Knowing that they see accidents with children that have flown through front windshields and onto roads because they weren't wearing a seat belt to hold them back, I do not question the motives of our lawmakers in this situation.
I think that it is wrong to suggest that they are infringing on our rights with THIS safety precaution.
If they made us wear full-body suits, then I would be upset. They aren't making us wear full-body suits, and there is nothing wrong with wearing a seat-belt.