The Nanny State

[Grailhunter]

Did you see NESSY while you were there ????

Talk of the town but not the right body of water...LOL

 

[Rita]

I stand corrected.
I thought in an interview Samantha Fox said she was 15. I was in Holy Loch, Scotland when she appeared as a page 3 girl.

Yes, she was quite young when she started, I guess some may have got round the age thing, but officially it was 16. She was quite rebellious in her time and the Sun newspaper would have taken advantage of someone with her potential to sell papers. It worked. I just checked, she was the youngest page three girl, but it states she was 16, so if she ever said differently she was either lying, or lied to them about her age and forgot in the interview!!
Rita

 

[JohnDB]

You say you don’t align yourself with the “Left “, but I recall how thrilled you were when Biden was allowed to steal the “election “ from President Trump. As a Born Again Christian, I supported Trump due to his concern and protection of the unborn. Biden is ALL about abortion on demand. It sickens me, that in the USA, the Government can take a portion of my taxes to fund such an abhorrent procedure!!!
It appears that you select various issues to support a conservative or liberal view. We are all certainly free to have our own values, but supporting anyone that allows abortion on demand is evil....in my opinion. Follow Christ in ALL issues.
You can’t sing “Oh How I Love Jesus” on Sunday, and think it’s okay to slaughter unborn babies on Monday.

I am neither liberal or conservative. I'm what is referred to as "A-Political". Both political parties have good ideas and bad ones. So I support "None of the Above". Also it was politics that was a means used to kill Jesus...so I really don't like it.

And I'm pointing out the reason why I don't like politics.

 

[Grailhunter]

And y'all brought up a good point...

With a slightly convoluted twist.

A parent gives their daughter a smartphone to use...and she begins to take racy pictures of herself and post them online. Way too young to be posing in such a fashion.
Now who is to blame for allowing this to happen?
The parent entertained the risk of giving the juvenile something she wasn't ready to handle appropriately. The child is harmed for the foreseeable future.

Using similar logic, shouldn't the parent be held legally liable for putting child pornography on the internet? Why aren't there laws protecting children in the same fashion as adults? You don't let a child have a firearm without supervision...a cellphone is just as dangerous as a cellphone. Except in this case it's the child's future reputation at stake. And companies do look at online presence in hiring determinations.
Especially when it comes time for jobs paying for high profile personell.
(Pictures of my culinary accomplishments are all over the internet)

But I know of a fairly high profile doctor that once upon a time had pictures of her on holiday at a beach in a bikini drinking beer from a funnel. Now obviously she isn't a lush or a party girl...but it is a very different picture than the one on the billboards and city busses. And a picture like that could most definitely ruin her career.
(She got some help in removing those pictures)

Pictures like that are the sort of thing that most definitely can hurt a young person more than the public consumption of an alcoholic beverage ever could.

But we regularly give cell phones to children on a regular basis and then don't think anything more about it.

Just saying...on this note maybe some laws should be made...but maybe not. These days I have the luxury of having my juvenile behavior not photographed and recorded for all of time to be used against me in the future.
My curfew was street lights or earlier in the summertime. School nights didn't need one as I wasn't allowed out to play. (And that's why I was rather wild during college)

So...
My question remains...
Shouldn't there be some sort of guiding principles for legislation written?

I don't like the legalization of marijuana... because people will harm themselves and others with the drug...and studies have shown that teenagers are more susceptible to detrimental effects from the drug than adults. It's very different than alcoholic beverages in long term effects. The risks are exponentially more harmful. But they have legalized it.

Nanny state or religious recluse....
Strange as it sounds human sexual behavior was changed by the advent of the automobile. LOL How many of us were conceived in the back seat of a car. Female sex drives being more attached to the culture than male drives....the car made an impact on what females found desirable in a date or boyfriend.

Now you have smart phones and computer / tablet internet....this topic gets deep because there are historical precedences.
Holding parents liable for this could be a legal nightmare.
Surely one of the reasons that some Christians become separatists.
Home schooled, no TV, internet, or phones.
Several years back a mom and dad were arrested for handcuffing their daughter to her bed at night.

 

[JohnDB]

Federal Seat Belt laws enacted through the states is a Democratic party issue and SEC rules regarding stock purchases was a Republican party issue. Both sides have been equally guilty in limiting freedom.

The USA's constitution has a preamble.

It states that some laws are for "domestic tranquility" and for the "common good" of the people. But I'm thinking that it has gone too far.

 

[JohnDB]

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

That's it right there...the "why" the laws are established.

 

[Addy]

How many of us were conceived in the back seat of a car.

Ha... I just saw this... OH my goodness... Do you really think there are statistics regarding this question??? HAHA

 

[BobVance]

I am neither liberal or conservative. I'm what is referred to as "A-Political". Both political parties have good ideas and bad ones. So I support "None of the Above". Also it was politics that was a means used to kill Jesus...so I really don't like it.

And I'm pointing out the reason why I don't like politics.

I don’t like politics either, my point is that sometimes you can’t help but conflate moral issues with federal laws. I vote biblical moral values. Trump was/is not a pillar of virtue, but he was pro life. I am not a Republican and certainly not a Democrat. I am a Christian first beyond anything. Frankly I find politics reprehensible.

 

[BobVance]

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

That's it right there...the "why" the laws are established.

Abortion and Homosexual marriage not withstanding? I shrug

 

[Grailhunter]

Ha... I just saw this... OH my goodness... Do you really think there are statistics regarding this question??? HAHA

It was a question...statistics?...who is going to own up to it. Its kinda like masturbation. There have been articles on the cultural significance of cars and sexual behavior ....but what does that mean? As far as the obvious cultural sex appeal of cars......you can comment on this.

 

[Addy]

you can comment on this.

I think I'm good thanks....

 

[JohnDB]

Abortion and Homosexual marriage not withstanding? I shrug

"Promote the general welfare" is the troublesome phrase in the preamble because it directly is in conflict with "ensure domestic tranquility" .

Are both equal?
Is one more important than the other?
What happens when one is deemed more important than the other?

And now we have chaos as a result.

 

[BobVance]

"Promote the general welfare" is the troublesome phrase in the preamble because it directly is in conflict with "ensure domestic tranquility" .

Are both equal?
Is one more important than the other?
What happens when one is deemed more important than the other?

And now we have chaos as a result.

We certainly have chaos!

 

[JohnDB]

We certainly have chaos!

Any suggestions on what to do?

 

[Cristo Rei]

I'm going to rant for a bit...

Seat Belt laws are what I'm talking about.

Now I don't wear one...I drive a pickup truck and ignore the ding while going down the road...it eventually gives up.

I've gotten tickets for not wearing one...but did I learn? Nope. Not going to either.

But I believe that the risks associated with not wearing one are mine and mine alone to take. Not the Government's.

That's what we call freedom. When I can do something that won't harm others except possibly myself.

I should have the right to the pursuit of happiness so long as it doesn't infringe upon others. I should not have to purchase health insurance...but I also am not entitled to health care either.

I shouldn't have to buy a cell phone and pay for service...but I'm not entitled to it either.

Now driver's license and fishing licenses are a bit different...those are privileges. Those I can have as long as I follow the rules. (Which in America brings up the heated debate over the 2nd Amendment)
Which in Kennesaw Georgia everyone must own one and in other places even touching one is a criminal offense. But I do know that people need to be more responsible when owning a firearm...they tend to be so very irresponsible with them.

Then there's the "junk food" laws... about restricting the burgers and sodas people consume.

Next thing you know the government will be telling me whether I can have a bidet or not.

Just ranting...

Ahahaha i love it... Seat belts... Geez... My body my choice... Shouldn't concern anyone else. True...

Junk food laws... Really... I'm impressed...

 

[April_Rose]

Not true, under sixteens were never allowed to pose. It was 16 ( still too young as far as I am concerned ) it was raised to 18years old.
Rita

What do you mean pose? And what's all this talk about a page three girl? I'm confused. :

 

[BobVance]

You might as well throw me in the same camp... because I too was thrilled that Mr. Trump did not win.
I live in Canada... and I do not vote... I never have... so my opinion does not matter...
however... to state that those who could not stomach the man of Trump... are NOT Christian... is what I have noticed the Trump
administration has managed to do... Separate the body of Christ even more... All these Christian evangelicals who totally politicized
Christianity... it is insanity... IN MY OPINION.

It "appears" that you enjoy shaming people.

It appears you don’t care about the unborn dear lady!

 

[April_Rose]

It appears you don’t care about the unborn dear lady!

Have you read the second to last line of my signature by any chance? (Scroll down.)

 

[BobVance]

You have obviously misunderstood my posts or miss interpreted them. When have I ever said I am in favour of abortions.!????
I had views on Trump and the election, but I am not aware that I was ever ‘ thrilled ‘ about anything to do with it and I am not aware I ever showed support for Biden. Just because I had issues with Trump , i believe I have always conveyed that I had the view that God was using him.
You have obviously decided certain things about me that simply are not true.
Rita

I read many of the posts you’ve put out about your distain for Trump.

 

[Rita]

I read many of the posts you’ve put out about your distain for Trump.

I didn’t Trust Trump in much of what he said. It does not mean he could not be used by God while he was in office. It also does not place me automatically in favour of Biden and it certainly does not place me in the pro choice group, which is what you were implying.
You obviously have a dislike to me and feel you have a right to assume beyond what I convey.
I will not be interacting with you again x
Rita