IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.
|
Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: top right hand corner?
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
The Fat Controller |
Well said pumpkinhead. I have every faith in our young people. I don't speak as a decrepid old man either...I speak as a decrepid forty something. I know quite a few youngsters (many youngsters now in the extended family) and they are bright, beautiful, highly intelligent, outgoing, non-prejudice, very amusing, and know a damned sight more than even I do. |
|
Pumpkinhead |
Blackit wrote:
We're still to see what kind of adults we're going to be producing, adults who have become the first generation in history to be raised since birth to fear every single grown-up as an evil monster.
I'm not very optimistic.
I think kids have been able to see how stupid some adults can be and we can try to avoid repeating their mistakes. Too many people have been speaking for us without listening to us. Hopefully the next generation can handle things much better than the present. So you can be a bit optimistic. |
|
Locked Out |
Terrific posts from both Jim And Blackit. Really good, thoughtful stuff
and just the sort of material which makes me realise that, despite my usual cynicism regarding my fellow countrymen, there ARE still people out there who actually think about things before opening their traps. Thank you both. |
|
Blackit |
It just seems incredible that we can still have these paedohysteria discussions in the media without anyone being responsible or mature enough to point out the flipside - the possible danger of overprotecting children.
We saw a few months back, with the government's vetting plans, a backlash and an often intelligent debate as to the wider social implications of badly thought out knee jerk child protection schemes.
But it seems that was just a section of middle-england realising that their lives might involve a lot more hassle. Screaming death to paedos is fine, so long as you personally don't have to fill in forms every time you give your daughter's friend a lift to school.
It's clear that nobody still is actually thinking about the effect of these things on the children themselves.
As Veritas said, this panic button thing is going to cause mayhem, especially if it becomes standard on all social networking platforms. Basically, it will mean you have to ensure, if you're over 18, that you NEVER come close to interacting with a person under 18 online. That means staying well away from ANY chatroom or forum that even MIGHT allow under 18s to participate. Otherwise you could be the target of a malicious 'panic attack' and find the police at your door the next day.
As children spend more and more of their social time online, this means that they're going to have even less healthy interaction with adults. Surely it's at least a valid point of debate as to what the final effects on young people are going to be?
And people forget that paedohysteria has still only been around in its present form for little more than a decade. We're still to see what kind of adults we're going to be producing, adults who have become the first generation in history to be raised since birth to fear every single grown-up as an evil monster.
I'm not very optimistic. |
|
Jim |
Thanks Angel, you write:
"..I fail to see the significance of the stat you provided."
Apologies. I have a habit of assuming things are obvious when they aren't. I provided three stats, and I'll explain each in turn. Together I suggest they show that paedohysteria is not motivated primarily by a genuine concern for children. This supports Blackit's view that it is all a "sick pretence".
The first stats concerned an overall and more or less steady decline in child mortality over several decades up to 2007. This shows that a rational person would be less concerned about child deaths now than in the past. For all that, though I have provided no evidence, I just have a general impression that we were more carefree about paedophilia and the danger to children in the past, compared to the fever pitch of hysteria we have now reached.
I would say the first stats also offer a sense of perspective. I guess they help to suggest that child mortality, though regrettable, is just a part of life. We should do what we can to reduce it, but it will never realistically be reduced to zero, so we have to maintain a balance of considerations rather than hang everything on a single tragic case. This balance seems rather lost.
The second stats are from the NSPCC. They show that 50% of all child deaths are at the hands of their parents. The point is simply that if we were concerned about child killings we would be hearing just as many stories about parents as we do about paedophiles. Instead all we seem to hear about are paedophiles.
The third stats concern a causitive correlation between social inequality and child mortality. Again, if we were genuinely concerned about harm to children we would take seriously the rather unsensational issue of social inequality. Instead, all parties are preoccupied with spending cuts likely to further increase inequality, and ours is both one of the leaders in paedophysteria and in social inequality. Though the link between the two is uncontroversial, I'm not aware that it has ilicited much comment. You can check for yourself. This casts into doubt how much we really care as a society about preventing child deaths.
In conclusion, all these stats seem to point to a lack of genuine concern for children as the primary motive behind the obsession of the media with paedophilia.
Best Wishes,
Jim |
|
|
|
|
