The Conservative Cave
Current Events => General Discussion => Topic started by: Chris_ on October 30, 2009, 11:31:47 AM
-
Texas Law Challenged After Man Allegedly Forces Daughters to Watch 'Hardcore Porn'
AP story at LINK (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,570445,00.html?test=latestnews)
That's some seriously fouled up law there, and the :censored: "dad" needs to be smacked with bag of nickels....repeatedly....in the crotch.
-
Texas Law Challenged After Man Allegedly Forces Daughters to Watch 'Hardcore Porn'
AP story at LINK (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,570445,00.html?test=latestnews)
That's some seriously fouled up law there, and the :censored: "dad" needs to be smacked with bag of nickels....repeatedly....in the crotch.
I heard about that on the radio. Effed up for sure.
-
It may not be illegal, but the mom should try to get full custody or at least supervised visitation. I have to wonder what other sorts of porn he has on his computer.
-
WTH????
-
Texas Laws grant a LOT of power to the parents. I'm sorry, while this isn't quite right in my opinion, the law is there to protect parental rights. We have ONE man that might have abused the law. Are we going to change a good law just over what ONE person has done?? I hope not.
-
Texas Laws grant a LOT of power to the parents. I'm sorry, while this isn't quite right in my opinion, the law is there to protect parental rights. We have ONE man that might have abused the law. Are we going to change a good law just over what ONE person has done?? I hope not.
We don't have to. As thundley pointed out, while he may not be able to be convicted of a crime, surely this should affect his visitation rights, no?
I'd like to see him hung by his nuts, but barring that outcome, I'll settle with his not being able to further abuse his daughters.
-
Y'all need to tread this ground VERY carefully.
The law apparently was meant to protect the privacy of parents who wanted to teach children about sex education, but it states clearly that parents can't be prosecuted for showing "harmful material" to their children.
Who's to determine WHAT constitutes "harmful material"?? Do war movies, violent cartoons, and similar things constitute "harmful material"?? Exactly WHO makes that decision?? The man DIDN'T break the law and yet y'all are calling for his rights being stripped away or worse. Was he morally right to do this?? Probably not. Was he within the law?? Apparently.
Also, what seems to be missing out of the story is the question, "what did the daughters think of this?"
-
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I wouldn't be surprised if this isn't all he did to them.
EDIT: "isn't"
-
Y'all need to tread this ground VERY carefully.
Who's to determine WHAT constitutes "harmful material"?? Do war movies, violent cartoons, and similar things constitute "harmful material"?? Exactly WHO makes that decision?? The man DIDN'T break the law and yet y'all are calling for his rights being stripped away or worse. Was he morally right to do this?? Probably not. Was he within the law?? Apparently.
Also, what seems to be missing out of the story is the question, "what did the daughters think of this?"
There are plenty of things that affect parental visitation rights yet are completely legal.
-
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I wouldn't be surprised if this is all he did to them.
I am having a REALLY hard time putting this into a context that makes it okay regardless of what the damn law says. I cannot think of ANY circumstance where forcing young children to watch hardcore p0rn is educational or beneficial.
Now, I will say that if these accusations are false or a ploy by the ex-wife/mother, then she should suffer severe consequences.
Based on the facts presented so far, this situation does not look good for the father. I hope for the girls' sake that it really didn't happen though.
-
If it's true that the father did this, he should be dragged to a dark alley and have the s##t beaten out of him and his you know what cut off.
(Some people in this world are not human, and should not be treated as such.)
-
Y'all need to tread this ground VERY carefully.
Who's to determine WHAT constitutes "harmful material"?? Do war movies, violent cartoons, and similar things constitute "harmful material"?? Exactly WHO makes that decision?? The man DIDN'T break the law and yet y'all are calling for his rights being stripped away or worse. Was he morally right to do this?? Probably not. Was he within the law?? Apparently.
Also, what seems to be missing out of the story is the question, "what did the daughters think of this?"
Ok, Who's the doofus that made such a vague law? IMO, anything produced by Mikey Moore is harmful. Shouldn't be too hard to amend it for something like this.
-
This man needs to be buried under his local jail
-
This man needs to be buried under his local jail
...with his n*ts under a building a few blocks away.
-
There are plenty of things that affect parental visitation rights yet are completely legal.
Awesome point. ^5
-
Y'all need to tread this ground VERY carefully.
WTF??? When did this become DU?
Who's to determine WHAT constitutes "harmful material"?? Do war movies, violent cartoons, and similar things constitute "harmful material"?? Exactly WHO makes that decision?? The man DIDN'T break the law and yet y'all are calling for his rights being stripped away or worse. Was he morally right to do this?? Probably not. Was he within the law?? Apparently.
Oh, blow it out your exhaust pipe. This is about HARDCORE PORNOGRAPHY, which anyone with a frickin' brain knows YOU DON'T SHOW TO MINORS.
Also, what seems to be missing out of the story is the question, "what did the daughters think of this?"
Hey, let's give them drugs and alcohol, too, and see what they think of it. FFS!!! :censored:
-
...with his n*ts under a building a few blocks away.
Or fed to some hungry pit bulls
-
WTF??? When did this become DU?
Oh, blow it out your exhaust pipe. This is about HARDCORE PORNOGRAPHY, which anyone with a frickin' brain knows YOU DON'T SHOW TO MINORS.
Hey, let's give them drugs and alcohol, too, and see what they think of it. FFS!!! :censored:
Censorship is still censorship. YOU need to pull your head out of your ass and get away from being a Nanny Statist!!
Common sense suggests one doesn't show pornography to kids HOWEVER, who the **** are YOU to say what is lawful and what isn't?? Fact IS: Texas Law says it IS lawful.
Who's to say what's harmful and what's not?? That's all a matter of opinion. Again, I don't condone what this man has allegedly done, BUT..... if we're to allow our kids to watch MTV, VH1, Spike TV, War Movies, play violent video games, etc, then where do we draw the line?? Even some commercials are borderline and children shouldn't be watching them, IMO. I know of SEVERAL popular music videos that are rife with profanity, vulgarities and sexual innuendo. My morals shouldn't apply to YOUR house, nor should YOUR morals apply to someone else's house.
As far as those that would have this man jailed, buried, nuts cut off, or otherwise harmed, y'all really need to look at yourselves very closely. Your statements make you little different than the average criminal. You can't judge what's happened unless you know ALL of the facts and at this point, they're NOT divulged. Y'all are acting like a bunch of vigilantes. You've all convicted this man based on few facts. I'd like to see BOTH sides of this story. I'm certain that there's much that's not being told.
As far as his visitation/ custody rights, I think that if there's anything there, the mother should be able to gain full custody.
-
Y'all need to tread this ground VERY carefully.
Who's to determine WHAT constitutes "harmful material"?? Do war movies, violent cartoons, and similar things constitute "harmful material"?? Exactly WHO makes that decision?? The man DIDN'T break the law and yet y'all are calling for his rights being stripped away or worse. Was he morally right to do this?? Probably not. Was he within the law?? Apparently.
Also, what seems to be missing out of the story is the question, "what did the daughters think of this?"
Regarding the bolded part, it obviously bothered one of the daughters enough that she spoke to a school counselor about it, saying that "her father made them watch adults having group sex and various other acts". That indicates that she was probably pretty uncomfortable with it.
Somehow I thought that it was illegal to watch that of thing if you were under 18 anyways, which would suggest that some sort of wrongdoing was definitely committed.
-
Who's to determine WHAT constitutes "harmful material"??
Exactly. Such determinations are far too subjective to easily codify in a way that makes sence.
I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that. [Emphasis added.] â€
— Justice Potter Stewart, concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio 378 U.S. 184 (1964),
-
Censorship is still censorship. YOU need to pull your head out of your ass and get away from being a Nanny Statist!!
Common sense suggests one doesn't show pornography to kids HOWEVER, who the **** are YOU to say what is lawful and what isn't?? Fact IS: Texas Law says it IS lawful.
Who's to say what's harmful and what's not?? That's all a matter of opinion. Again, I don't condone what this man has allegedly done, BUT..... if we're to allow our kids to watch MTV, VH1, Spike TV, War Movies, play violent video games, etc, then where do we draw the line?? Even some commercials are borderline and children shouldn't be watching them, IMO. I know of SEVERAL popular music videos that are rife with profanity, vulgarities and sexual innuendo. My morals shouldn't apply to YOUR house, nor should YOUR morals apply to someone else's house.
As far as those that would have this man jailed, buried, nuts cut off, or otherwise harmed, y'all really need to look at yourselves very closely. Your statements make you little different than the average criminal. You can't judge what's happened unless you know ALL of the facts and at this point, they're NOT divulged. Y'all are acting like a bunch of vigilantes. You've all convicted this man based on few facts. I'd like to see BOTH sides of this story. I'm certain that there's much that's not being told.
As far as his visitation/ custody rights, I think that if there's anything there, the mother should be able to gain full custody.
Thor has a point here. I know parents that encourage their kids to watch slasher movies blood and guts with them.
I had bad nightmares from a 1960 movie about Dracula and every one kept their clothes on.
Few years a go I rented Little shop of horrors for the grand kids 5-6 who were visiting my Mom. She threw a fit and accused me of being demented to allow kids that age to watch that film.
Then she turned the news on that showed repeatedly a plane crash with real people aboard that died. Then scenes of people being shot in the street and riots. That was ok for the kids to watch real death and distruction but a man eating plant was off limits.
This case disturbs me, what father of young girls will make them watch group sex unless he is desensitising the girls to such conduct. Children should be protected and keep their innocence in tact as long as possible.
How could any father that is not a molester and grooming his girls for future sex with him do such a thing.?
It simply takes my breath away to think of my reaction had I come home early and found the father of my little girls making them watch a sex film. I do not think that any jury would have sent me to jail for shooting the creep.
No way around it that man was getting ready to molest his children, a good thing one of his daughters spoke out.
So when was he planning to teach them about Pot or hard licker, good old Jim Bean
Say Honey while you were at work I got the 5 year old drunk and she wanted to reenact this here movie I showed her. She has a lot to learn but her sister really likes the Pot and caught on to the sex part faster then the little one.
Say why do you have a gun, I am just exercising my parental right to teach my children about life.------- :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :mental: :hammer: :hammer:
-
Soft core on nighttime TV - deemed okay by the statists. Sex ed @ 5-years old w/ a focus on homosexual relationships deamed okay by the statists...
I'm just saying.
I think Thor is spot on with this one. Morals and laws are not always, nor should they be, the same.
-
Censorship is still censorship. YOU need to pull your head out of your ass and get away from being a Nanny Statist!!
That's bullshit, and you know it. There's NOTHING "nanny statist" about keeping HARD CORE PORN away from minors.
Common sense suggests one doesn't show pornography to kids HOWEVER, who the **** are YOU to say what is lawful and what isn't?? Fact IS: Texas Law says it IS lawful.
Then Texas screwed up. That's the whole point. Now we have unintended consequences because some idiot wasn't paying attention when the law was written.
Who's to say what's harmful and what's not?? That's all a matter of opinion. Again, I don't condone what this man has allegedly done, BUT..... if we're to allow our kids to watch MTV, VH1, Spike TV, War Movies, play violent video games, etc, then where do we draw the line?? Even some commercials are borderline and children shouldn't be watching them, IMO. I know of SEVERAL popular music videos that are rife with profanity, vulgarities and sexual innuendo. My morals shouldn't apply to YOUR house, nor should YOUR morals apply to someone else's house.
This isn't about determining different shades of gray here. Are you saying you'd be okay with someone else's morals that say it's okay to show children HARD CORE PORN??? Your morals don't apply outside your own household??? WTH??? My morals say it's not okay to steal. If someone else's say it's okay, then it's okay???
As far as those that would have this man jailed, buried, nuts cut off, or otherwise harmed, y'all really need to look at yourselves very closely. Your statements make you little different than the average criminal. You can't judge what's happened unless you know ALL of the facts and at this point, they're NOT divulged. Y'all are acting like a bunch of vigilantes. You've all convicted this man based on few facts. I'd like to see BOTH sides of this story. I'm certain that there's much that's not being told.
Opinions are based on the facts provided. When more facts are available, opinions may or may not changed depending on what those facts reveal.
As far as his visitation/ custody rights, I think that if there's anything there, the mother should be able to gain full custody.
-
I did say I'd like to see all of the facts.
And I think the take away here is not that this about endorsing nanny statism but rather correcting a HORRIBLY written law!!!
-
I think Thor is spot on with this one. Morals and laws are not always, nor should they be, the same.
I was going to type the same thing, but you just typed it. So I shall just say "Agreed."
-
Well, what the ****, guys. If I had kids, I guess I'd teach them to murder in cold blood.
After all, as bkg says, "Morals and laws are not always, nor should they be, the same."
Lemme just swing my ****in fist around and screw your nose if it gets in the way, right?
-
I did say I'd like to see all of the facts.
And I think the take away here is not that this about endorsing nanny statism but rather correcting a HORRIBLY written law!!!
What would the full text of the law read if you were the one writing it?
-
What would the full text of the law read if you were the one writing it?
Show hard core porn to children under 18 and you become Bubba's bitch in the state pen for 3-5 years.
Gee, that wasn't so hard, was it? Then again, that's what Bubba said.
-
Well, what the ****, guys. If I had kids, I guess I'd teach them to murder in cold blood.
After all, as bkg says, "Morals and laws are not always, nor should they be, the same."
Lemme just swing my ****** fist around and screw your nose if it gets in the way, right?
Please understand. I am not condoning the father's behavior. I firmly believe that this should be an impetus toward full custody for the mother, and any visitation with the father needs to be restricted and supervised, if best, at all. I do not think that the law requires changing, or more definition. I do not believe that reframing this law or making another is the solution. Not everything will or should be governed by law. Morals and Laws are two different animals, and should be treated as such. IMHO, of course.
-
Please understand. I am not condoning the father's behavior. I firmly believe that this should be an impetus toward full custody for the mother, and any visitation with the father needs to be restricted and supervised, if best, at all. I do not think that the law requires changing, or more definition. I do not believe that reframing this law or making another is the solution. Not everything will or should be governed by law. Morals and Laws are two different animals, and should be treated as such. IMHO, of course.
Well, therein lies the big problem. Just because something might be LEGAL doesn't make it RIGHT.
-
I don't get the impression that anyone here is questioning whether or not what this man did is technically legal. How could it be questioned? It's factually true that Texas specifically defines this action as legal. Whether that will remain the case is yet to be seen, but any new law couldn't be applied retroactively anyway, making it a moot point. No law was broken.
Common sense should prevail, however. Drinking alcohol as an adult is legal. Being an alcoholic is legal. Children are exposed to adults drinking alcohol quite frequently; there are commercials on TV, ads in magazines. And yet, faced with credible evidence that one parent is an alcoholic, no sane family court judge would allow unsupervised visitation by that parent. It is not in the children's best interest regarding their safety and development. Neither is being shown hardcore pornography.
Of course, I'm assuming a lot of things, mainly that this happened exactly as reported. Fat chance, right? Barring new information, my position remains the same, except for my hyperbole about cutting off his nuts. Give me a blade and it becomes a different story. Maybe it wouldn't for a few people here, which is why we leave decisions of this nature to a court system operating from an objective set of laws.
-
Well, therein lies the big problem. Just because something might be LEGAL doesn't make it RIGHT.
Yup. But I also don't believe that we need more laws to make everything we think is Not right, illegal. Because, what is right to me, might be not right to you, and so on and so forth and yada yada yada.
-
Yup. But I also don't believe that we need more laws to make everything we think is Not right, illegal. Because, what is right to me, might be not right to you, and so on and so forth and yada yada yada.
Who said anything about "more laws to make everything we think is Not right, illegal"? This is about one, specific, screwed up law that needs to be fixed so it cannot happen again.
-
Boy howdy. St. Augustine's City of God: Book 2 here we come.
-
Define "harmful material" from a legal perspective.
I've heard some psychologists claim that violent video games make kids have a tendancy to be violent. I've heard the same about music with violent lyrics.
Are these forms of media "harmful material"? I honestly don't know.
Should there be a law making them illegal? Some Christain groups say yes.
This isn't about determining different shades of gray here.
That is exactly what it is. Who decides what is harmful? Using what criteria?
After all, as bkg says, "Morals and laws are not always, nor should they be, the same."
She is quite correct. Or do you want Muslim morals to be codified into our law?
Different folks have different morals. A great deal of caution should be used when attempting to codify them into law.
I certainly do not approve of what this guy allegedly did.
-
.....
That is exactly what it is. Who decides what is harmful? Using what criteria?
.....
Once again, this is about one specific subject. There are no shades of gray here. Understand now?
-
Show hard core porn to children under 18 and you become Bubba's bitch in the state pen for 3-5 years.
Gee, that wasn't so hard, was it? Then again, that's what Bubba said.
what would the legal definition of "hard core porn" be in your law? See my previous post where even a supreme court justice couldn't define it beyond "he knows it when he sees it".
Why the age of 18? The legal age of consent is under 18 in most states IIRC. So it is legal for them to do the deed, but not see others do it under your law?
-
what would the legal definition of "hard core porn" be in your law? See my previous post where even a supreme court justice couldn't define it beyond "he knows it when he sees it".
Why the age of 18? The legal age of consent is under 18 in most states IIRC. So it is legal for them to do the deed, but not see others do it under your law?
Can you write a specific legal definition for good music, or do you just know it when you hear it?
-
what would the legal definition of "hard core porn" be in your law? See my previous post where even a supreme court justice couldn't define it beyond "he knows it when he sees it".
Why the age of 18? The legal age of consent is under 18 in most states IIRC. So it is legal for them to do the deed, but not see others do it under your law?
The only purpose of laws (ideally) is to protect basic rights. Were any rights infringed upon in this case?
-
Once again, this is about one specific subject. There are no shades of gray here. Understand now?
Make that one specific incident. There are always shades of gray. No one here is condoning this man's actions. This is mostly a debate/conversation about whether the Texas law on this issue needs to be changed. (at least from my perspective).
Understand now?
[I am just as capable at being condescending as you are, so let's not eh?]
-
Can you write a specific legal definition for good music, or do you just know it when you hear it?
I only know the type of music that I personally like to listen to, as I suspect it is with most folks. So I would never attempt to legally define good music. Calls for far too much subjective opinion to be written into law IMO.
-
Who said anything about "more laws to make everything we think is Not right, illegal"? This is about one, specific, screwed up law that needs to be fixed so it cannot happen again.
Ok, instead of "more laws" exchange that with "rewriting laws." Pardon, as my debate skills are not as honed as some of you that have been participating in this type forum for quite some time. What I am TRYING to say is that the law was written in a way so that parents retained their parental rights. Now granted, I sincerely doubt that the law was written in order to pardon parents showing their children hard core porn. I do not think that rewriting the law is the answer. I get very squirrely everytime a new law is proposed, or an old one is rewritten, because I am very hesitant to have another person or group of people define what they think is right or wrong for me. Interpretation, of what is offensive to one and not another seems to be a very slippery slope. I don't think I am a person qualified to judge, and probably most of us aren't.
The basic-ness of what I am saying is that I do not believe we need more laws or more defining of the ones we have. We have more than enough already. My most recent point would be the Hate Crime legislation. Why isn't killing someone bad enough? Don't you think there is some level of hate involved in every murder? But I digress...
It has been a long day, and I am probably blabbering and not making much sense. I will do my best to regroup, and gather my thoughts in a more intelligent manner, over some coffee, but the gist will be the same.
-
The only purpose of laws (ideally) is to protect basic rights. Were any rights infringed upon in this case?
Man, did you ever just open up a whole new can of worms.
Excellent point though. Should add an entirely different dimension to the discussion.
:popcorn:
-
Man, did you ever just open up a whole new can of worms.
:popcorn:
Now I know I am done with this for the night. :o
-
Man, did you ever just open up a whole new can of worms.
:popcorn:
Heh, well that's the crux of the matter, no? I can sense the outrage of the parents here, clearly. "How dare you show my daughter pornography! I'll ****ing kill you!" And I'm inclined to agree. We also have examples of divorced parents who get pissed at one another because a child is allowed to stay up later than normal, or drink soda. I don't mean to belittle the case by comparing it to drinking a beverage, but it does illustrate the point pretty clearly. IIRC, a child is not allowed to view pornographic material via state and federal statutes, but I have no idea if the law mentions being accompanied by a parent as a qualification.
This is a tough one for me. If what is alleged is true, this man is a scumbag and deserves no parental visitation rights. But, did he infringe on anyone's actual basic rights? In my opinion, no. There are a host of variables that could change my stance (did he actually force them to watch while they were wiggling to get away, did he touch them, was this a regular occurrence, and on and on). But, with the little information I have, I have to say no.
-
According to the Texas penal code passage, "harmful material" such as pornography is considered defensible from prosecution if "the sale, distribution, or exhibition to a minor who was accompanied by a consenting parent, adult, or spouse."
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/nation/prosecutor-says-he-cant-charge-father-because-texas-law-lets-parents-view-porn-with-children-67353502.html
-
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/nation/prosecutor-says-he-cant-charge-father-because-texas-law-lets-parents-view-porn-with-children-67353502.html
So, the rights of the father to subject his children to pornography supercede the rights of the mother from Texas Penal Code Sec. 151.001. Sub. Sec. A. Articles 1-2. ? :mental:
-
So, the rights of the father to subject his children to pornography supercede the rights of the mother from Texas Penal Code Sec. 151.001. a . 1-2. ? :mental:
I've said repeatedly that he should lose his visitation rights in some form or manner, barring new information. Do you think he should be imprisoned?
-
I've said repeatedly that he should lose his visitation rights in some form or manner, barring new information. Do you think he should be imprisoned?
I wasn't specifically calling you out, just, the piss-poor language of the statute. I do think that the mother should get a few free cracks at his noggin' with a rolling pin, though.
-
Bouncing Buddha on a stick! It's frickin' DU here. Sell porn to minors = bad, illegal. Show porn to minors = good, free speech. **** y'all. It's because of that damned "Short bus" forum, isn't it?
-
Bouncing Buddha on a stick! It's frickin' DU here. Sell porn to minors = bad, illegal. Show porn to minors = good, free speech. **** y'all. It's because of that damned "Short bus" forum, isn't it?
I haven't seen a single person here, myself included, claim that what this man did was anywhere within the realm of being "good." And, to be technical, selling porn to minors isn't illegal in Texas if they are accompanied by an adult. Texas seems to be making the case that because minors don't have a whole lot of rights in the eyes of the courts, parental rights are paramount. I agree. This case throws a wrench in the works for two reasons. 1.) The man could possibly have forced the girls to watch against their will, becoming something more than simple consent: sexual abuse. 2.) The mother clearly objected, throwing the question to the family courts. Family courts will invariably rule against the man in a case like this, and he will lose most, if not all, visitation rights. In the event of 1.), the man should be imprisoned.
-
Relevant Texas Penal Code:
TITLE 9. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER AND DECENCY
Sec. 43.24. SALE, DISTRIBUTION, OR DISPLAY OF HARMFUL MATERIAL TO MINOR. (a) For purposes of this section:
(1) "Minor" means an individual younger than 18 years.
(2) "Harmful material" means material whose dominant theme taken as a whole:
(A) appeals to the prurient interest of a minor, in sex, nudity, or excretion;
(B) is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable for minors; and
(C) is utterly without redeeming social value for minors.
(b) A person commits an offense if, knowing that the material is harmful:
(1) and knowing the person is a minor, he sells, distributes, exhibits, or possesses for sale, distribution, or exhibition to a minor harmful material;
(2) he displays harmful material and is reckless about whether a minor is present who will be offended or alarmed by the display; or
(3) he hires, employs, or uses a minor to do or accomplish or assist in doing or accomplishing any of the acts prohibited in Subsection (b)(1) or (b)(2).
(c) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) the sale, distribution, or exhibition was by a person having scientific, educational, governmental, or other similar justification; or
(2) the sale, distribution, or exhibition was to a minor who was accompanied by a consenting parent, guardian, or spouse.
-
So, the rights of the father to subject his children to pornography supercede the rights of the mother from Texas Penal Code Sec. 151.001. Sub. Sec. A. Articles 1-2. ? :mental:
I don't see anything in there where her rights superceed his either:
§ 151.001. RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF PARENT. (a) A parent of a
child has the following rights and duties:
(1) the right to have physical possession, to direct
the moral and religious training, and to designate the residence of
the child;
(2) the duty of care, control, protection, and
reasonable discipline of the child;
(3) the duty to support the child, including providing
the child with clothing, food, shelter, medical and dental care,
and education;
(4) the duty, except when a guardian of the child's
estate has been appointed, to manage the estate of the child,
including the right as an agent of the child to act in relation to
the child's estate if the child's action is required by a state, the
United States, or a foreign government;
(5) except as provided by Section 264.0111, the right
to the services and earnings of the child;
(6) the right to consent to the child's marriage,
enlistment in the armed forces of the United States, medical and
dental care, and psychiatric, psychological, and surgical
treatment;
(7) the right to represent the child in legal action
and to make other decisions of substantial legal significance
concerning the child;
(8) the right to receive and give receipt for payments
for the support of the child and to hold or disburse funds for the
benefit of the child;
(9) the right to inherit from and through the child;
(10) the right to make decisions concerning the
child's education; and
(11) any other right or duty existing between a parent
and child by virtue of law.
(b) The duty of a parent to support his or her child exists
while the child is an unemancipated minor and continues as long as
the child is fully enrolled in an accredited secondary school in a
program leading toward a high school diploma until the end of the
school year in which the child graduates.
(c) A parent who fails to discharge the duty of support is
liable to a person who provides necessaries to those to whom support
is owed.
(d) The rights and duties of a parent are subject to:
(1) a court order affecting the rights and duties;
(2) an affidavit of relinquishment of parental rights;
and
(3) an affidavit by the parent designating another
person or agency to act as managing conservator.
(e) Only the following persons may use corporal punishment
for the reasonable discipline of a child:
(1) a parent or grandparent of the child;
(2) a stepparent of the child who has the duty of
control and reasonable discipline of the child; and
(3) an individual who is a guardian of the child and
who has the duty of control and reasonable discipline of the child.
-
I don't know how many of y'all are old enough to remember or paid attention to the various child molestation charges being brought on individuals and couples that ran daycares during the early 90s. It caught my attention because I had a daughter in pre-school at the time. Most of those charged were exonerated because the children fabricated lies with the facilitation of certain psychologists. Some were even pardoned afterwards because it was proved that the children were manipulated. That said, how do we know that something similar isn't going on here??
And again, some of y'all have convicted this man and are ready to "string him up" based on an article that's missing a LOT of info.
Ohh, and Jinx, GFY...... you can stick your DU references up you ass and rotate on them. There are people here that stand by the laws and the Constitution. Perhaps you ARE in the right state, Minnesota, a Nanny State that likes to run people's lives. Where do YOU draw the ****ing line at the First Amendment, Parental rights, etc?? Seems to me that you'd prefer the Government do that for you. Perhaps you need to change your associated Party to "Obama-ite"??
All in all, I'd like to see the Mother take it to court and have her attempt to gain full custody, perhaps supervised custody of the dad IF there is ANY merit to the allegations.
-
I don't see anything in there where her rights superceed his either:
Nor should they, but, should the social contract not account for her judgement in his willfull exhibition of the pornography display?
-
Bouncing Buddha on a stick! It's frickin' DU here. Sell porn to minors = bad, illegal. Show porn to minors = good, free speech. **** y'all. It's because of that damned "Short bus" forum, isn't it?
**** y'all?
Grow up and realize that not everybody, even conservatives, always agree on everything.
This is an issue that obviously is rather emotional to some.
-
Nor should they, but, should the social contract not account for her judgement in his willfull exhibition of the pornography display?
That is something that "family courts" deal with everyday when it comes to divorced parents.
Sadly, far too many parents lose the ability to act like adults and the courts have to intercede.
Do I think this guy was wrong? Hell yes I do.
But that has nothing to do with the basis of my previous posts on the topic.
-
Ohh, and Jinx, GFY...... you can stick your DU references up you ass and rotate on them.
I'd tell you to do something similar, but it appears your head is already in the way.
There are people here that stand by the laws and the Constitution.
And showing porn to minors, too, apparently. Whatever floats your boat, pervert. Laws can be wrong (e.g. slavery) and can be changed. You idiots who are crying "Constitution!!!!" should keep in mind that liberals used the same "reasoning" to justify slaughtering unborn babies.
Perhaps you ARE in the right state, Minnesota, a Nanny State that likes to run people's lives.
Apparently you're thinking of another Minnesota.
Where do YOU draw the ****ing line at the First Amendment, Parental rights, etc?? Seems to me that you'd prefer the Government do that for you.
Oh, **** you and your ****ing "line." DO NOT try to blur the issue by introducing unrelated, meaningless tripe. This issue is about one thing and ONE THING ONLY. Trying to bring up other nonsense and talking about "lines" is slippery slope bullshit.
Perhaps you need to change your associated Party to "Obama-ite"??
Take your own advice. Liberals are the ones who don't have a problem with minors viewing pornography, jackass.
All in all, I'd like to see the Mother take it to court and have her attempt to gain full custody, perhaps supervised custody of the dad IF there is ANY merit to the allegations.
Where do you draw the line? Where do you draw the line? Maybe moms should attempt to gain full custody over dads buying their kids the wrong clothes. Where do you draw the line? Where, huh? Where?
-
I don't know how many of y'all are old enough to remember or paid attention to the various child molestation charges being brought on individuals and couples that ran daycares during the early 90s. It caught my attention because I had a daughter in pre-school at the time. Most of those charged were exonerated because the children fabricated lies with the facilitation of certain psychologists. Some were even pardoned afterwards because it was proved that the children were manipulated. That said, how do we know that something similar isn't going on here??
And again, some of y'all have convicted this man and are ready to "string him up" based on an article that's missing a LOT of info.
Ohh, and Jinx, GFY...... you can stick your DU references up you ass and rotate on them. There are people here that stand by the laws and the Constitution. Perhaps you ARE in the right state, Minnesota, a Nanny State that likes to run people's lives. Where do YOU draw the ****ing line at the First Amendment, Parental rights, etc?? Seems to me that you'd prefer the Government do that for you. Perhaps you need to change your associated Party to "Obama-ite"??
All in all, I'd like to see the Mother take it to court and have her attempt to gain full custody, perhaps supervised custody of the dad IF there is ANY merit to the allegations.
I recall them well Thor. I recall responding like some here have on this thread. "Hang them" was my opinion at the time. I learned to be less judgemental about things that I didn't have the full facts on.
-
I'd tell you to do something similar, but it appears your head is already in the way.
And showing porn to minors, too, apparently. Whatever floats your boat, pervert. Laws can be wrong (e.g. slavery) and can be changed. You idiots who are crying "Constitution!!!!" should keep in mind that liberals used the same "reasoning" to justify slaughtering unborn babies.
Apparently you're thinking of another Minnesota.
Oh, **** you and your ****ing "line." DO NOT try to blur the issue by introducing unrelated, meaningless tripe. This issue is about one thing and ONE THING ONLY. Trying to bring up other nonsense and talking about "lines" is slippery slope bullshit.
Take your own advice. Liberals are the ones who don't have a problem with minors viewing pornography, jackass.
Where do you draw the line? Where do you draw the line? Maybe moms should attempt to gain full custody over dads buying their kids the wrong clothes. Where do you draw the line? Where, huh? Where?
Getting a tad emotional aren't you? Just like a DUer.
-
I'd tell you to do something similar, but it appears your head is already in the way.
And showing porn to minors, too, apparently. Whatever floats your boat, pervert. Laws can be wrong (e.g. slavery) and can be changed. You idiots who are crying "Constitution!!!!" should keep in mind that liberals used the same "reasoning" to justify slaughtering unborn babies.
Apparently you're thinking of another Minnesota.
Oh, **** you and your ****ing "line." DO NOT try to blur the issue by introducing unrelated, meaningless tripe. This issue is about one thing and ONE THING ONLY. Trying to bring up other nonsense and talking about "lines" is slippery slope bullshit.
Take your own advice. Liberals are the ones who don't have a problem with minors viewing pornography, jackass.
Where do you draw the line? Where do you draw the line? Maybe moms should attempt to gain full custody over dads buying their kids the wrong clothes. Where do you draw the line? Where, huh? Where?
I lived in that ****ing Nanny state for a total of 18 years, four years while on active duty and 14 years post retirement. I saw that state for what it is. Except for their gun laws, it's a ****ing nanny state. You can't convince me otherwise.
Show me one place where I said I thought the guy was RIGHT for showing his children pornography, **** nuts!!! I've stated a few times where I didn't condone his actions. You seem to be putting words in my mouth like the DUmbass Liberals would do. It's Constitution usurping ****tards like YOU that have driven this country into Governmental Control and Nanny Statism. I view the Constitution as sacrosanct. I doubt that YOU do.
As far as the Mom gaining custody, that's a battle she's going to have to be willing to fight. I'm non-judgmental about that. If the guy is guilty of this and it's not some ploy by his children or by a pissed off divorcee, then I'd be willing to support her actions. However, the news article is mute on that part of the report. AGAIN, you need to pull your head out of your ass and then, perhaps, you can see the BIG picture instead of the microcosm you're obviously seeing.
Funny how you're the one acting like the typical DUmmy, shouting, and bolding crap in red.
And, for the record, this isn't about just one subject, but that appears to be lost on many. The subjects are: a state law that's been in effect for some FOUR+ DECADES, Parental Rights AND the non-interference of the Government in a parent's rights. Go ahead and let the state raise your children for you, like any liberal would. I've raised my child and I didn't need any help from the state.
-
Whatever, shit for brains. Why have any laws, then? Any and every law could be considered "nanny state" material. Pull your head out of your ass for once and let go of your beloved porn. It does wonders. I know.
We unfortunately live in a world where common sense is not common, as you yourself have proved so well.
"Oh, we don't need laws against showing porn to minors! Just let the dad lose his parental rights in some retarded, lengthy, torturous court proceeding and make sure the girls get dragged through all the shit of it, too. Next time someone else does something so obviously and stupidly wrong, well, again, why bother with a law to punish them? After all, such a law would only be promoting a 'nanny state.' Dur-hur!"
-
Oh, **** you and your ****ing "line." DO NOT try to blur the issue by introducing unrelated, meaningless tripe. This issue is about one thing and ONE THING ONLY. Trying to bring up other nonsense and talking about "lines" is slippery slope bullshit.
You have to consider the slippery slope. What constitutes hardcore pornography? We all have the common sense to define it for ourselves, but is that good enough? Can we just say, "any material which is both sexually explicit and obscene?" Consider the Bible: Solomon's descriptions of his lover's breasts and Lot's incestual relations with both of his daughters. Do you want to leave the door open for someone to claim that you reading the Bible to your children amounts to an infringement of the law? If you don't consider all possible logical outcomes of legislation, you end up with bad legislation.
No one here is arguing that people should show their children porn, so stop making that the basis of your attacks.
-
When I was a kid, I saw my way older brother's--he is 11 years older than I am--porn mag stash. I was 10 or 11. Should my brother have gone to jail for corrupting a minor? Should my parents have? It was pretty well hidden, btw. I went looking where I shouldn't.
Jinx, I don't think anybody's saying what the guy did, if he did it like the story said, is morally repugnant and reprehensible.
Should a law be changed because one guy is an asshole? Someone will always be stupid enough to do something to get around whatever the law is. Until we outlaw stupid, or until "asshole" becomes an offense punishable by law, we're stuck with an imperfect--but still pretty good--system.
-
Well, what the ****, guys. If I had kids, I guess I'd teach them to murder in cold blood.
After all, as bkg says, "Morals and laws are not always, nor should they be, the same."
Lemme just swing my ****in fist around and screw your nose if it gets in the way, right?
Using moral relativism isn't going to help your position. Last I checked, MURDER is illegal, so your argument is horrible.
You're confusing acknoweledgement of the law with endorsement of the behavior.
-
She is quite correct. Or do you want Muslim morals to be codified into our law?
HEY! WHOA! HEY!!!! SHE?????? :wtf3: :huh?:
-
Apparently you're thinking of another Minnesota.
You're not really trying to say that MN is NOT a Nanny state, are you? Seriously? :rotf: :rotf:
Oh, **** you and your ****ing "line." DO NOT try to blur the issue by introducing unrelated, meaningless tripe. This issue is about one thing and ONE THING ONLY. Trying to bring up other nonsense and talking about "lines" is slippery slope bullshit.
You're WAY off here. First amendment is the issue.
Take your own advice. Liberals are the ones who don't have a problem with minors viewing pornography, jackass.
Not true.
Where do you draw the line? Where do you draw the line? Maybe moms should attempt to gain full custody over dads buying their kids the wrong clothes. Where do you draw the line? Where, huh? Where?
Where do you draw the line at determining what is harmful? McDonalds? Coke? XBox?
[/quote]
-
Using moral relativism isn't going to help your position. Last I checked, MURDER is illegal, so your argument is horrible.
You're confusing acknoweledgement of the law with endorsement of the behavior.
So is showing porn to minors. Difference in severity, yes, but illegal neverthless.
-
The full responsibility for defending children falls on the shoulders of my wife and I, because there is no one else capable of making these judgments for us."
Dee Snyder, 1985.
I see this strictly as a parental rights issue. I consider myself fortunate that my parents had the right to parent me as they saw fit. I do not want to see more restrictive laws instituted as they revolve around parental rights. With all of the crap going on right now, I think it is an imperative to insure that parents retain their rights to be parents.
-
So is showing porn to minors. Difference in severity, yes, but illegal neverthless.
It's not illegal, though. Isn't that the crux of the entire issue here?
BTW - whatever happened until "innocent until proven guilty" in this country?
-
It's not illegal, though. Isn't that the crux of the entire issue here?
BTW - whatever happened until "innocent until proven guilty" in this country?
The crux of matter is that ALL parents with custody rights to the children weren't in consensus with the actions of the father. Somehow, this code condones him making a solitary judgement on the display of pornography to their children without her consent. A provision that is not codified in the current statute and infringes upon her parental rights within the Texas Penal Code that I addressed earlier.
-
The crux of matter is that ALL parents with custody rights to the children weren't in consensus with the actions of the father. Somehow, this code condones him making a solitary judgement on the display of pornography to their children without her consent. A provision that is not codified in the current statute and infringes upon her parental rights within the Texas Penal Code that I addressed earlier.
So he broke the law when he didn't get the mother's permission... not when he showed them the porn?
How many parents would be in jail over a diagreement about their kids? My dad took me to a movie once after my mother grounded me. She was pissed. Did he break the law (under the TX statute)??
Slope isn't slippery - it's got a the worlds largest slip-n-slide firmly attached to it...
-
So he broke the law when he didn't get the mother's permission... not when he showed them the porn?
How many parents would be in jail over a diagreement about their kids? My dad took me to a movie once after my mother grounded me. She was pissed. Did he break the law (under the TX statute)??
Slope isn't slippery - it's got a the worlds largest slip-n-slide firmly attached to it...
According to how it is written, he didn't break the law. The law in itself is contrary to the others' language written before it. Which begs the matter, which portion of the law supersedes the other? The right for the mother to "protect" her children from these displays, as spelled out in the penal code, or the right of the father to display pornography to his children without her approval? I know which camp I am in.
-
It's not illegal, though. Isn't that the crux of the entire issue here?
BTW - whatever happened until "innocent until proven guilty" in this country?
Are you arguing that it SHOULD be legal? And yeah, there should be fairly clear guidelines on what qualifies as "hard core" and what does not.
Nekkid bewbs? Not hardcore. Showing actual penetration? Hardcore. Junior finding daddy's PENTHOUSE stash? Not hardcore. Forcing (forcing!) kids to watch sexual acts? Hardcore.
See how simple it is?
Again, legal and moral don't always coincide.
-
We changed the laws because one idiot drank and drove. (Actually, after several idiots did that.) I guess that was just "nanny state" stuff, too.
-
The crux of matter is that ALL parents with custody rights to the children weren't in consensus with the actions of the father. Somehow, this code condones him making a solitary judgement on the display of pornography to their children without her consent. A provision that is not codified in the current statute and infringes upon her parental rights within the Texas Penal Code that I addressed earlier.
And that's WHY she should have his ass in court. And, yes, the girls MAY have to be dragged through there.The other option, while somewhat more distasteful, IMO, is for HER to get Child Protective Services involved, investigate the situation and go from there.
So is showing porn to minors. Difference in severity, yes, but illegal neverthless.
It is NOT illegal in the State of Texas IF the parent is the one that shows them the porn. That's the whole POINT!!
Ohh, Sparky, if your fist meets my nose for some reason, that's called assault. That's illegal. I'm ashamed of a fellow Sailor, ESPECIALLY a Nuke, using a statement like that, far out of context and completely wrong. (For the rest out there, Navy Nuke school is one of the academically toughest schools in the US out of ALL schools in the US)
You're not really trying to say that MN is NOT a Nanny state, are you? Seriously? :rotf: :rotf:
You're WAY off here. First amendment is the issue.
Not true. Where do you draw the line at determining what is harmful? McDonalds? Coke? XBox?
A real quick example of MN's Nanny Statism is the FACT that children are being taught to call 9-1-1 if they get spanked by their parents. My daughter threatened me with that when she was in 3rd grade. She learned that from public school in Hastings, MN.
bkg, and yes, where do we draw the line at?? It's as if some of these people would invoke Sharia law or the moral equivalent. The bigger problem in this country is that morals have hit the gutter. Mild porn is apparently acceptable on TV now, along with extreme violence. I remember quite well when the news wouldn't show some pictures of the Viet Nam war because they might be disturbing. That changed sometime around 1970. Now, if something's disturbing, all a broadcaster needs to do is throw up some caveat stating that the article "MIGHT be disturbing to some people". Want examples?? Just watch VH-1, MTV, or one of the many sit coms.
...
Should a law be changed because one guy is an asshole? Someone will always be stupid enough to do something to get around whatever the law is. Until we outlaw stupid, or until "asshole" becomes an offense punishable by law, we're stuck with an imperfect--but still pretty good--system.
Part of the point I was attempting to make. Are you arguing that it SHOULD be legal? And yeah, there should be fairly clear guidelines on what qualifies as "hard core" and what does not.
Nekkid bewbs? Not hardcore. Showing actual penetration? Hardcore. Junior finding daddy's PENTHOUSE stash? Not hardcore. Forcing (forcing!) kids to watch sexual acts? Hardcore.
See how simple it is?
Again, legal and moral don't always coincide.
Actually, nekkid bewbs ARE pornographic, maybe not hardcore, but still fall into the pornography category. Penthouse is STILL "pornography"
I still have a problem with this allegation that the father "forced" those girls to watch hardcore porn. I just don't understand how a person could "Force" another (of ANY age) to sit and watch something that they didn't want to watch short of taping their eyes open and tying them to a chair in front of the TV. Something in the story stinks.
We changed the laws because one idiot drank and drove. (Actually, after several idiots did that.) I guess that was just "nanny state" stuff, too.
Yeah, it is. I know of many people that CAN drink and drive and NOT hurt or kill anybody else. We can thank MADD for that law. They lobbied the various states to get the laws passed. It used to be legal in Texas to have an open container in one's vehicle, literally drinking and driving. It wasn't a problem in the laws eyes until someone became too intoxicated.
What about seat belts?? I don't believe that there should be a law regarding seat belts, but there is. Again, the Nanny State in action, attempting to legislate what should be common sense. Honestly, I like the military's sentiments and rules regarding seat belts; if one gets hurt because they weren't wearing a seat belts (or helmets), they will probably have to pay for their own medical expenses.(it's NOT a "law", but a regulation imposed on those who choose to serve) In addition, I see any state, that includes MN AND Texas, that have seat belt laws and NOT helmet laws as hypocrites, too.
-
I have a request - please keep this discussion civil and if you can't, go to the Fight Club.
Like someone said upthread, like many issues, we will disagree even if we all call ourselves Conservatives. I'm seeing a lot of people digging in their heels and that's fine. But keep in mind that a lot of the arguments being made are based on theoretical situations and not just the case at hand. I believe that a cornerstone of Conservatisim is the recognition of the law of Unintended Consequences. That is the undercurrent in the arguments I'm seeing in this thread. Focus on that. This is also a case we know precious little about. I hope everyone can keep an open mind as we discover more details.
Heated debate is a wonderful thing. You cannot hone your viewpoint unless you sharpen it against many others. That being said, let's not lose our heads and remember that impassioned arguments are just that; spoken in the heat of the moment and not indicative of our overall shared values.
Now, carry on and keep the debate going.
-
Maybe so, Thor. We all know reporters are notoriously bad for screwing up even a story about a wet dream, and this is likely no exception.
That being said, if the law doesn't protect the innocent, then it's pretty friggin useless. The father showed incredibly poor judgement even allowing his daughters to VIEW porn, forcibly or not. Should the law allow discretion as to what is age-appropriate? Yes.
If in fact that's the case, then mom has a right to haul his ass in front of a judge and get his visitation cut. Jail, no--but even you can't defend this guy's scumbag actions.
This is probably the main issue I've had with the libertarian "do as you please" types. Actions DO have consequences, sometimes far beyond that which the act intends, and far beyond what an individual may have allowed for prior to taking that action. So while the "swinging fist" analogy might be overly simplistic, one DOES have to show a modicum of self-restraint insofar as they do not understand the impact their actions would have on others.
There, is that a little more "Nuke School" in line for ya? It's not that he broke the law--we all know he didn't. It's the fact that 1--he should have known better, 2--he did it anyway, 3--what's to stop him from doing it again, or worse?
-
Maybe so, Thor. We all know reporters are notoriously bad for screwing up even a story about a wet dream, and this is likely no exception.
That being said, if the law doesn't protect the innocent, then it's pretty friggin useless. The father showed incredibly poor judgement even allowing his daughters to VIEW porn, forcibly or not. Should the law allow discretion as to what is age-appropriate? Yes.
Incorrect. Laws are not to protect the "innocent," despit how much we each (emotionally/spiritually) want them to. Laws protect RIGHTS. Rather, they are supposed to protect rights. We've gon well beyond that, as we all know, in the last few decades.
There, is that a little more "Nuke School" in line for ya? It's not that he broke the law--we all know he didn't. It's the fact that 1--he should have known better, 2--he did it anyway, 3--what's to stop him from doing it again, or worse?
When do laws ever stop intelligent people from doing stupid things? Never have, never will. Laws are not supposed to dictate intelligence. And in fact, have no abilitity to do so.
-
Maybe so, Thor. We all know reporters are notoriously bad for screwing up even a story about a wet dream, and this is likely no exception.
That being said, if the law doesn't protect the innocent, then it's pretty friggin useless. The father showed incredibly poor judgement even allowing his daughters to VIEW porn, forcibly or not. Should the law allow discretion as to what is age-appropriate? Yes.
If in fact that's the case, then mom has a right to haul his ass in front of a judge and get his visitation cut. Jail, no--but even you can't defend this guy's scumbag actions.
This is probably the main issue I've had with the libertarian "do as you please" types. Actions DO have consequences, sometimes far beyond that which the act intends, and far beyond what an individual may have allowed for prior to taking that action. So while the "swinging fist" analogy might be overly simplistic, one DOES have to show a modicum of self-restraint insofar as they do not understand the impact their actions would have on others.
There, is that a little more "Nuke School" in line for ya? It's not that he broke the law--we all know he didn't. It's the fact that 1--he should have known better, 2--he did it anyway, 3--what's to stop him from doing it again, or worse?
I don't believe that I've actually defended this guy's actions. I find the thought of it reprehensible, at best. I WILL defend the law. Like Splashdown stated, are we to change the law, all because of ONE idiot?? I'm pretty sure that you're well aware of the 10% rule.
It's also permissible in Texas for parent(s) to serve their children alcohol. I'm all for parental rights, even if they do get abused once in a while.
It's too bad that this story will probably never be followed up on. I, for one, would like to see what the outcome was, if the guy actually did this and what the consequences of his actions might be. Unfortunately, since there will be no more sensationalism, I doubt there will be any follow-up.
-
It is NOT illegal in the State of Texas IF the parent is the one that shows them the porn. That's the whole POINT!!
I concur. Still think it's disgusting... IF IT'S TRUE. SAdly, many people are already convicting this person w/o knowing the truth. Hasn't been PROVEN guilty yet.
A real quick example of MN's Nanny Statism is the FACT that children are being taught to call 9-1-1 if they get spanked by their parents. My daughter threatened me with that when she was in 3rd grade. She learned that from public school in Hastings, MN.
The fact that one of my moronic Senators wants to change laws for laptops in cocpits is evidence of the fact that we build laws around the minority, not the majority. One stupid decision and we have a new law. Completely, utterly stupid, and the fastest way to lose our rights.
bkg, and yes, where do we draw the line at?? It's as if some of these people would invoke Sharia law or the moral equivalent.
That's the problem - who decides? Pelosi? Reid? Obama? You? Me? The Church? The school administrators? OR PARENTS? You have people everywhere, including here, who want to apply their morals to the law... unfortunately, when someone else does the same, people get PO'd because someone is infringing on their rights. That's why "morals" should have no part of laws.
-
It's also permissible in Texas for parent(s) to serve their children alcohol. I'm all for parental rights, even if they do get abused once in a while.
What's that quote again? "He who gives up liberty for security gets neither?" or something like that?
-
What's that quote again? "He who gives up liberty for security gets neither?" or something like that?
Try this one on for size:
"Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.†-Ronald Reagan
I can't argue with that statement, and yes, sometimes parents do go beyond what would be considered reasonable limits. That's why we have child abuse laws, etc. Where the government has gone too far is to make parents afraid to discipline their children precisely because they're teaching them to call 911.
It's a fine line, and one which lies in different places for different people.
-
It's a fine line, and one which lies in different places for different people.
Which I would argue is the core of this discussion.
-
What's that quote again? "He who gives up liberty for security gets neither?" or something like that?
If you're including being able to show underaged children hardcore porn under the header of "liberty," then I weep for you.
-
If you're including being able to show underaged children hardcore porn under the header of "liberty," then I weep for you.
Yeah.. .that's EXACTLY what I meant. :bitchslap: :whatever:
-
And yet again, Jinx misses the entire concept of this discussion. It appears to me that Jinx would impose Sharia law on us all.
-
And yet again, Jinx misses the entire concept of this discussion. It appears to me that Jinx would impose "Jinx's version of" Sharia law on us all.
I think this is likely more accurate. Not pinking on Jinx, but this is exactly what people really want: laws to reflect only their personal wants.
-
I think this is likely more accurate. Not pinking on Jinx, but this is exactly what people really want: laws to reflect only their personal wants.
this entire conversation makes me wonder what laws that people would choose to ignore and what laws they would impose on us all?? Since Jinx seems to want to have it only his way, I would ask of him which laws has he broken/ ignored in the past?? I'm no angel, so I won't throw stones, but ask this in a more rhetorical sense.
-
HEY! WHOA! HEY!!!! SHE?????? :wtf3: :huh?:
Ooops.... Sorry for the typo.
-
Not all laws are written in stone, some are unspoken laws, most laws vary from State to State and the penalty for breaking the law can be different from town to town with in each state.
There are 3 bridges that connect Maine and New Hampshire. One foot over the line into either State could mean the difference between life or death. If one were to decide to kill someone by throwing them off any of those 3 bridges one had best do so on the Maine side as Maine has no death Penalty. New Hampshire does in fact still have the death penalty but has not been used since 1930 something. " Just one foot over the line sweet Jesus, one foot over the line."
The very reason we have LAWYERS is to find a way to get around laws and protect ourselves from them.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse we are told but what about ignorance from a non existing law that can cause us to be fined or jailed.?
Example, Newington NH, For years people had been hauled into court for violating the open container for a passenger in an auto or truck.
In the 1990 era some up and coming kid taking Criminal Justice at the Community College was asked by a family member to research the law as they had been a passenger in a car drinking a beer in the back seat when the driver was pulled and they were facing a heavy fine also for allowing the passenger to drink.
The Lawyers of both men told them to just pay the fine and don't do that again.
SO, the student spent weeks trying to find the law that in the town of Newington this was illegal. When he/she could not find the law his/her instructor made that a class project for about 25 students.
The upshot was that there was no law in that town against open container by a passenger and had never been one. Even the Governor got involved as the Judges had been fining people for years for a non existent law.
The law can be tricky, some times laws are repealed and Judges and police are not aware of the fact and fine people using outdated laws that are no longer valid.
This may be off topic but just for a moment.
My EX-father-in law is an insurance adjuster. He told me that if in an accident one of the most important people you will be talking to in the insurance field is the very first person who comes out to view the damage to you and your car. This person can make or break you. They can give you a break or set the stage so you get little.
The police are just like that, when one is advised by the police that they MAY have broken local laws, it is at their description to haul you in or advise you of the law and go on their way.
In Texas it may be lawfull for a man to show his 13 year old stepdaughter Hard core sex movies, in the Bible belt I am sure that is a NO-NO.
In some areas of Nevada prostitution is legal but not in Los Vegas.
This debate is not about Morals it is about LAW.
What about yourself personally, do you not have rules and regulations in your home, have you never had to lay down the law to outsiders or family.?
In my home all males must remove their hats when they enter my house and that goes for any male over the age of 2.
No male eats at my table wearing no shirt or shoes and no sleeveless T. shirts.
No one sleeps on my sofa unless spending the night, if one is tired then go to bed.
Everyone must scuff their feet outside, no tracking in Mud ice or snow.
Few people visit unannounced-- just by phone call or mail, it is at MY convenience I receive them and I don't want to get caught Naked making coffee in the kitchen.
These are my personal laws, never hurt my kids growing up, they all do otherwise with their family but that is their choice.
Laws change as do morals to reflect the times, and the comunity. Because Morals that are self imposed are flying out the window, the Law is for good or bad the only thing that can be challenged and satisfy the needs of a diverse comunity.
-
If you ponder briefly, you gotta wonder what takes place in that house during it, and when the hardcore porn movie stops. :puke:
-
Are you arguing that it SHOULD be legal? And yeah, there should be fairly clear guidelines on what qualifies as "hard core" and what does not.
Nekkid bewbs? Not hardcore. Showing actual penetration? Hardcore. Junior finding daddy's PENTHOUSE stash? Not hardcore. Forcing (forcing!) kids to watch sexual acts? Hardcore.
See how simple it is?
Again, legal and moral don't always coincide.
I noticed Thor never answered this question.
-
If you ponder briefly, you gotta wonder what takes place in that house during it, and when the hardcore porn movie stops. :puke:
I am sure after the movie father and daughters sat down to a fun game Of Scrabble. called out for Pizza and then watched the Disney Chanel.
-
I noticed Thor never answered this question.
You know what, I cannot think of any innocent explanation for a father forcing daughters that young to watch hardcore pornography. To me, it could very well be a form of sexual abuse, and I think it is definitely something to be seriously concerned about if the impression we are getting from this article is accurate. If this article is accurate, I hope that the mother manages to either get full custody, or supervised visitation only for the father.
-
You know what, I cannot think of any innocent explanation for a father forcing daughters that young to watch hardcore pornography. To me, it could very well be a form of sexual abuse, and I think it is definitely something to be seriously concerned about if the impression we are getting from this article is accurate. If this article is accurate, I hope that the mother manages to either get full custody, or supervised visitation only for the father.
I can't even think of any excuse for a parent to allow them to watch, much less force them to do so.
-
Are you arguing that it SHOULD be legal? And yeah, there should be fairly clear guidelines on what qualifies as "hard core" and what does not.
Nekkid bewbs? Not hardcore. Showing actual penetration? Hardcore. Junior finding daddy's PENTHOUSE stash? Not hardcore. Forcing (forcing!) kids to watch sexual acts? Hardcore.
See how simple it is?
Again, legal and moral don't always coincide.
Looks liike he's not going to answer. :whatever:
-
Knock it off, lug-nut. If you could read, you would have noticed that I have already answered this question several times. Fact is, the LAW says it is. Whether you or I agree with it is irrelevant. :beathorse:
-
Knock it off, lug-nut. If you could read, you would have noticed that I have already answered this question several times. Fact is, the LAW says it is. Whether you or I agree with it is irrelevant. :beathorse:
Nope. Not answered yet. I didn't ask what the law says it is, so once again, do YOU think it should be legal to show hard core porn to minors?
A simple yes or no is all it needs.
-
Nope. Not answered yet. I didn't ask what the law says it is, so once again, do YOU think it should be legal to show hard core porn to minors?
A simple yes or no is all it needs.
I've stated my opinion several times. You're apparently too dense to be able to grasp my ideology. I know........ let's ban the reading of the bible by minors because it contains pornographic writing. Or perhaps, we should ban computers, video games, TV shows, movies, music, concerts, books and the like because they contain pornographic images/ concepts/ ideas. Or perhaps, we could write the law where it allows the minor's parent(s) to decide?? People make bad decisions from time to time. Do we need a "LAW" to prevent that?? Hardly.
Hell, look at what's happening because of the two NWA pilots that overflew their destination. (An obvious "bad decision" to be on their laptops while piloting a commercial aircraft.) Not ONLY were they fired, lost their licenses to pilot aircraft, but NOW we have people trying to construct a law to prevent future incidents. Two pilots screw up out of how many ?? 10,000, 20,000 ?? I think that the airlines & FAA are perfectly capable of handling the screw up. Look at the 20,000 some odd gun laws. Do they work?? Mostly, but still there are criminals with guns, aren't there??
-
I don't know how many of y'all are old enough to remember or paid attention to the various child molestation charges being brought on individuals and couples that ran daycares during the early 90s. It caught my attention because I had a daughter in pre-school at the time. Most of those charged were exonerated because the children fabricated lies with the facilitation of certain psychologists. Some were even pardoned afterwards because it was proved that the children were manipulated. That said, how do we know that something similar isn't going on here??
I have heard of the child molestation cases against day cares in the 1980s to 1990s. I think this what caused the fear of sex predators. Some of them involved allegation of Satanism. These children were never molested. I suspect this was because the prosecutor needed votes and wanted to be seen as tough on crime. Also, the detectives in the case are just as bad. The prosecutors and detectives should be prosecuted and for the prosecutor should be disbarred.
I don't know the content of the porn in question. If it was child pornography, that is really illegal.
-
I've stated my opinion several times. You're apparently too dense to be able to grasp my ideology. I know........ let's ban the reading of the bible by minors because it contains pornographic writing. Or perhaps, we should ban computers, video games, TV shows, movies, music, concerts, books and the like because they contain pornographic images/ concepts/ ideas. Or perhaps, we could write the law where it allows the minor's parent(s) to decide?? People make bad decisions from time to time. Do we need a "LAW" to prevent that?? Hardly.
This dovetails with the overuse of "zero tolerance" laws at schools wherein Cub Scouts are expelled for dining implements and young soldiers stricken from yearbooks for militant displays.
The letter of the law becomes a shield for those too scared to judge the spirit of the law.
If we are too feeble minded a people to judge matters on their merit and context maybe we do not deserve freedom. Anyone who cannot tell the difference between a man trying to titillate minor children vs. a child reading Song of Songs vs. a child accidently stumbling upon the video mommy and daddy made on their wedding night should not be entrusted with matters of law or a voice in society as a whole.
I cannot imagine under what context the OP can be explained/justified in a society that has for centuries abhorred the sexualization of minor children.
-
If the law is an ass, change the law...
-
If the law is an ass, change the law...
Bingo. There have been numerous bad laws throughout history, and once society realizes that the law is bad they either clarify it or change it. Showing a kid a scientific sex education video is vastly different to exposing them to hardcore pornography. A child accidentally stumbling on daddy's movies is not the same as daddy purposely showing them to the kid.
-
If the law is an ass, change the law...
I would argue this is the essence of the Constitution, peace be upon it.
-
I cannot imagine under what context the OP can be explained/justified in a society that has for centuries abhorred the sexualization of minor children.
I have no clue as to why a person would want to subject their children to such garbage. That is why there are other venues for pursuing some sort of legal and/or disciplinary actions against the father. Was what the father did "normal"?? Hardly. Was it acceptable?? Definitely not. I, too, even question as to WHY he would do a thing like that. I would have never even given consideration to showing my 8 or 9 year old daughter porn.
As far as the sexualization of minors, that's been going on for a few decades. I think it started with the movie, "The Exorcist". Brooke Shields was another young lady that was sexualized at an early age.(Her Calvin Klein commercial and the movie,"The Blue Lagoon") It's been downhill ever since, which MAY be a cause for the increased pedophilia we have been seeing over the last couple of decades. I'm no psychologist or psychiatrist, but it makes sense to me. I think we can parallel that to the "in your face" homosexuality as of late. It's only becoming worse. HGTV seems to be promoting the homosexual lifestyle with their House Hunters and shows of the same genre. It seems that almost every show as of late has been showing gay partners either buying, renovating or selling a house. I don't like it one bit,. It seems the more we're exposed to something, the more people tend to accept it as "normal".
-
It goes back farther than that. What about the Nabokov book Lolita? Probably even farther back than that.
-
Thor, Thundley:
I agree. We do seem to be in danger of becoming a society of Roman Polanskis.
-
It goes back farther than that. What about the Nabokov book Lolita? Probably even farther back than that.
Well, hell........ it used to be that even in THIS country, 13 and 14 year old girls were getting married and having babies. I always thought it was weird that a teenaged girl would marry someone 20 years or more older than themselves. In the Middle East, what was the youngest age?? Eight?? :clueless:
-
It goes back farther than that. What about the Nabokov book Lolita? Probably even farther back than that.
I immediately thought of Taxi Driver. I remember all the hubbub about that, and Tess of the D'Ibervilles, with Nastassia Kinksi (sp?) I remember vividly my parents sending me to my room when they watched both. I also remember I wasn't allowed to watch Love, American Style either.
-
Well, hell........ it used to be that even in THIS country, 13 and 14 year old girls were getting married and having babies. I always thought it was weird that a teenaged girl would marry someone 20 years or more older than themselves. In the Middle East, what was the youngest age?? Eight?? :clueless:
Earlier in this country and in others, it was accepted that a girl became a woman when she had a period, or was near that age. It had more to do with how long people lived more than being pedophiles. IMO
-
Well, hell........ it used to be that even in THIS country, 13 and 14 year old girls were getting married and having babies. I always thought it was weird that a teenaged girl would marry someone 20 years or more older than themselves. In the Middle East, what was the youngest age?? Eight?? :clueless:
Also, life expectancies were much lower back than because of infectious diseases. Also, many babies died at birth, including the mother. In Asia, if a baby lives to 100 days, it is celebrated because of babies often dying. They still do to this very day. The youngest to ever be pregnant was 5 years old. Yes, 5 years old.
-
It goes back farther than that. What about the Nabokov book Lolita? Probably even farther back than that.
Some cultures the sexual mores are far loser than in America, like Japan and Sweden.
-
Some cultures the sexual mores are far loser than in America, like Japan and Sweden.
Yup Ptar, Give me the BBC Chanel, Some how the Britt's manage with their comedy shows, Benny Hill for one, to place outrageous sexual innuendos that can be taken 3 different ways in their skits---They let the viewer decide how they wish to take the joke.
The Japanese today have very high morals, at least the men are enough of a gentleman to keep his mistress hidden.
Ah those Swede, interesting life they have. All men and woman feel they must live up to their repudiation around the world.
ER. a thought---duck-- When I think Swed, I envision of both sexes being over 6' tall, blond, blue eyed and a tanned body. Reality says that this is in no way true.
So what are their morals and how are they any different then ours ?
Even Amsterdam is trying to slow down the sex trade.
You know, up the coast of Maine Canadian tourists flocked to every summer. The money came pouring in from our Northern visitors. -----Problem, the French Canadian women were use to being on beaches top less.
The year round residents complained about not being able to take the kids to the beach as they may see a boob here or there GASP---
Finally the town council passed on to another generation and laws about female top less actions were enacted.
Result was for the French to go else where to spend their money. The town was hurting for money when the Gay population found it and this beach is now the place to go, Fire Island is so crowded.
The residents now cannot take their kids to the beach, for fear what they may hear or see that could lead to more questions for the parents.
Just can't seem to win when it comes to sexual morals.
-
The Japanese today have very high morals, at least the men are enough of a gentleman to keep his mistress hidden.
Um, yeah, about that. Have you ever heard of tentacle porn? How about selling panties in vending machines? How about most of their anime that has well developed girls in short skirted school uniforms?
-
Um, yeah, about that. Have you ever heard of tentacle porn? How about selling panties in vending machines? How about most of their anime that has well developed girls in short skirted school uniforms?
Amen to that. Some of the freakiest shit I ever saw, out in public in Japan.
-
Um, yeah, about that. Have you ever heard of tentacle porn? How about selling panties in vending machines? How about most of their anime that has well developed girls in short skirted school uniforms?
In Japan, they have omarashi, a fetish that involves wetting yourself on purpose. They do it for sexual pleasure. It is commonly depicted in anime and manga and they even have a game show for that in which people hold their full bladder until they wet themselves on TV.
-
In Japan, they have omarashi, a fetish that involves wetting yourself on purpose. They do it for sexual pleasure. It is commonly depicted in anime and manga and they even have a game show for that in which people hold their full bladder until they wet themselves on TV.
:rotf: :rotf:
If you dudes had left the dock area and gone inland you would have seen a totally different world.
Yes some family's to this day sell their daughters but half the world does that to this day in one way or another.
Lots of knowledge to be gained from other cultures, some we laugh at, some we yell out in dispair at. I wonder what they think of us ???