Be careful about photographing your kids!

Francis A. Miniter writes:

For instance, most men say that children should not be
exposed to sex and violence [in movies, etc] until at
least their mid-teens. But it turns out that the
people saying this also state that they were exposed
to these things before the age of 12 and that there is
nothing wrong with them.

It's a double standard. In the former case, they try to conform to
artificial norms developed by society in exercises of doublethink. In
the latter case, they acknowledge reality.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

William Graham writes:

The question is, are any of them underage? - If not, then
no one was hurt, and no crime has been committed.

A person below a certain age is not necessarily hurt by an act that does
not hurt a person above that age. Sex and alcohol do not hurt people
under 18 or 21 simply because they are under 18 or 21 (nor does being
over these ages protect anyone from being hurt).

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Ron Hunter writes:

Funny, I don't recall any state having executed anyone under 18. In
Texas, which accounts for more than half of the executions in the US, no
one under 17 is even elegible for the death penalty, and it takes YEARS
for the trials, and retrials, and more years before execution.
So, how about a few examples of those executions....

The people executed had committed their crimes while still under the age
of 18:

Name Age at time Execution
of offense Date

Joseph John Cannon 17 22 April 1998
Robert Anthony Carter 17 18 May 1998
Dwayne Allen Wright 17 14 October 1998
Sean Sellers 16 4 February 1999
Steve Roach 17 10 January 2000
Chris Thomas 17 13 January 2000
Glen McGinnis 17 25 January 2000
Gary Graham 17 22 June 2000
Gerald Mitchell 17 22 October 2001
Napolean Beazley 17 28 May 2002
T.J. Jones 17 8 August 2002
Toronto Patterson 17 28 August 2002
Scott Allen Hain 17 3 April 2003

Personally, I don't see why persons under 18 or having committed capital
crimes under the age of 18 should be exempt from capital punishment, if
this punishment is applied to older offenders for the same crimes.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

William Graham writes:

Yes, but there are some who are against (would make laws prohibiting)
computer generated child pornagraphy....Where the images are totally
manufactured within the computer, and no models are used.....On the basis (I
presume) that the mere existence of this type of material is, "bad" for the
society....Or, IOW, it promotes pedophilia...

The real basis for this is that some people find it offense, and wish to
censor it.

Parsonally, I believe this is overstepping the bounds of
government regulation of a free society, since it presumes that
a crime will be committed before the fact.

The crime part is just an excuse; this is actually nothing more than
disguised censorship. Many types of censorship are disguised in this
way.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

snip

Personally, I don't see why persons under 18 or having committed
capital crimes under the age of 18 should be exempt from capital
punishment, if this punishment is applied to older offenders for the
same crimes.

No resaon, a point for me is the obvious sociatial hyporicsy

eg a 15 yr old having sex with an Adult, this situation is looked upon as
intrinsically bad and yet executing a 15 yr old isn't IMO if a person is
old enough to be executed they are old enough to make decisions about their
sexuality.

--
Trevor S


"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
-Albert Einstein

Trevor S writes:

eg a 15 yr old having sex with an Adult, this situation is looked upon as
intrinsically bad and yet executing a 15 yr old isn't IMO if a person is
old enough to be executed they are old enough to make decisions about their
sexuality.

In the United States, sex is scarier than anything, even death. That's
why it always gets special treatment.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

In article dX4jb.774182$Ho3.206542@sccrnsc03,
"William Graham" wrote:

Just as is the typically liberal concept that we shouldn't have a fourth
amendment guarantee against unreasonable search and seisure.....If you
haven't committed any crime, then why would you care? Yes....George Orwell
was a visionary allright........

So what advocate that people can do anything they want in the privacy
of thier own home ehh? Might reconsider that if you were living next to
Jeffrey Daumer.

--


website:
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank

In article OS4jb.771085$YN5.756456@sccrnsc01,
"William Graham" wrote:

Not from me, they don't....I commonly drive with garage-sale license plates
on my car.....These tickets, as well as parking tickets, go to never-never
land when I get them....You just have to learn how to fight, "Big
Brother".....

Uh huh, puts you into a whole new perspective. As in no sense
of owning up to social responsibility.

--


website:
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank

In article YN4jb.780972$uu5.136285@sccrnsc04,
"William Graham" wrote:

"Gregory W. Blank" wrote in message
...
In article ,
J C wrote:

In the 1990s the government changes the laws. Now you can be pulled
over for simply not wearing one.

Are you offering to pay the car insurance rate hikes for all those
accidents where people
were not wearing them ?

This is a typically liberal thing to say....It is the business of insurance
companies to insure us against accident. Not to change our lives so that
they can make more money. When the insurance companies lobby our
representatives to make laws (padded cell laws) that restrict our freedoms
so that the insurance companies can turn a larger profit, then they have
overstepped their bounds.



I disagree completely , I am not a liberal although I may
have some liberal views. Besides WTF cares. My commentary
is based upon current laws not what ifs. But I will add you have many oppurtunities
to voice your opinion to the same representitive the insurance companies do.

Lastly you always opt for not paying car insurance companies and I am sure being that
you don't pay your tickets thats a genuine option for you.....however I advise you not to get
caught.

--


website:
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank

Mxsmanic wrote:

William Graham writes:


... how do you guys feel about child pornagraphy where there
are no victoms....No children being photographed....All the images are
constructed digitally....Should it be illegal to manufacture it, posses it,
or both?


No. If no children have been harmed, there is no reason to restrict it,
and the First Amendment (in the United States) protects it with freedom
of speech. The fact that some people might not care for that type of
speech is irrelevant.

There has been some progress in this direction with decisions regarding
"virtual porn," but there is still much room for improvement.


The 'justification' for limiting porn has always been that it exploits
the desperate, or ignorant, or just immoral. Given that NO ONE is
represented by a totally digital image made from someone's mind,
restricting that format would be nothing less than thought control.
Unless the images are shown to minors, it is hard to see how any harm to
them can be shown.