Log In
Register
6.08pm
15 November 2018
Offline
Dark Overlord said
1. Maybe not 100% but certainly enough that it’s a good idea.
idk about that…
2. That’s why there’s the safety lock and if that’s not enough, you don’t keep the gun loaded but instead keep bullets in your pocket so when it comes time to defend yourself, you quickly insert the bullets.
There are plenty of gun-possessing people who don’t know how to safely handle a gun. And you can’t pretend like accidents don’t happen, thousands of people die each year in the US as a result of unintentional shootings.
3. I said that to prove that even the most ridiculous sentences don’t turn people away from committing crimes, all they do is ruin people’s lives.
Yes, and I was agreeing that that would be a ridiculous sentence.
Love one another.
- - -
(I'm Fiddy, not Walrian)
- - -
2018:
2019: 
2020:
8.52pm
Moderators
27 November 2016
Offline
I’ll just leave this here…
The following people thank The Hole Got Fixed for this post:
Getbackintheussr#AppleHoley2024: Make America Great For The First Time
2016 awards: 
2017 awards: 
2018 awards:
2019 awards: 
2020 awards:
2021 awards:
8.54pm
15 November 2018
Offline 
Love one another.
- - -
(I'm Fiddy, not Walrian)
- - -
2018: 2019: 2020:
9.27pm
9 March 2017
Offline You all have good points but is banning guns entirely the right answer, why not instead just have stricter background checks and regulations on gun sales so these weapons don’t land in the wrong hands. Why do innocent people who want to protect themselves have to suffer?
I think Ted Nugent says it best:
“I would rather that [a victim of violent crime] in Massachusetts last month who was taking her daughter to soccer when they were carjacked by a recidivist maggot, who had been in the prison system all his life but was let out again because we feel sorry for him, maybe he had a bad childhood. Instead of her being hijacked and murdered, I’d rather she just shot the b*****d dead… But in Massachusetts, somebody decided she can’t do that. So she’s dead. I would rather she was alive and the carjacker was dead.”
The following people thank Dark Overlord for this post:
BeatlebugIf you're reading this, you are looking for something to do.
9.28pm
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline Here’s an interesting one, I think, especially given the gathering of young people here…
Should parents be able to take their children out of classes that they disagree with on faith grounds, or should children be exposed to the broad view of society and opinions that may differ from their parents, allowing them to make up their minds?
"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
9.32pm
15 November 2018
Offline I think the kids should be able to choose.
The following people thank 50yearslate for this post:
Ron NastyLove one another.
- - -
(I'm Fiddy, not Walrian)
- - -
2018: 2019: 2020:
9.34pm
19 December 2018
Offline The Hole Got Fixed said
I’ll just leave this here…
Oh…….
I’m always in favour of gun control, but I’ve never loathed guns so much until I become a Beatles fan. (This probably belongs to the “hardcore fan” thread?)
I wonder how many more lives it will take to form the consensus of gun control among American people. Sure there’s the need for legitimate defense, but it turns out that guns take more lives than protect ones.
There must be a proper way to choose, not to let guns overflow, nor to make them all taken back to the authorities.
————editing line————
I think kids should get to know all kinds of faith and ideologies, then make the decisions by themselves.
The following people thank ScarlettFieldsForever for this post:
Getbackintheussr, Ron Nasty, Ron Nasty, 50yearslateA girl with kaleidoscope eyes...
9.37pm
15 November 2018
Offline Let’s face it, guns are never going to be completely banned in the US, it just isn’t going to happen. But we definitely need more regulations. Mere regulations are probably not enough, but they’re better than nothing.
The following people thank 50yearslate for this post:
Dark Overlord, GetbackintheussrLove one another.
- - -
(I'm Fiddy, not Walrian)
- - -
2018: 2019: 2020:
9.43pm
Moderators
27 November 2016
Offline Ron Nasty said
Here’s an interesting one, I think, especially given the gathering of young people here…Should parents be able to take their children out of classes that they disagree with on faith grounds, or should children be exposed to the broad view of society and opinions that may differ from their parents, allowing them to make up their minds?
Oooo that’s a good one.
Personally, the parent should be allowed to choose until the child is about 5 or 6, when the child has to be shown the full view of ideas. (the child can’t choose – parents with a strong view would force them to abstain).
The following people thank The Hole Got Fixed for this post:
Ron Nasty#AppleHoley2024: Make America Great For The First Time
2016 awards: 2017 awards: 2018 awards: 2019 awards: 2020 awards: 2021 awards:
9.51pm
15 November 2018
Offline The Hole Got Fixed said
Ron Nasty said
Here’s an interesting one, I think, especially given the gathering of young people here…
Should parents be able to take their children out of classes that they disagree with on faith grounds, or should children be exposed to the broad view of society and opinions that may differ from their parents, allowing them to make up their minds?
Oooo that’s a good one.
Personally, the parent should be allowed to choose until the child is about 5 or 6, when the child has to be shown the full view of ideas. (the child can’t choose – parents with a strong view would force them to abstain).
Then how is that different than letting the parent choose?
The following people thank 50yearslate for this post:
Ron NastyLove one another.
- - -
(I'm Fiddy, not Walrian)
- - -
2018: 2019: 2020:
9.54pm
9 March 2017
Offline It should be up to the child.
But @Ron Nasty why so fast to change the topic?
The following people thank Dark Overlord for this post:
Ron NastyIf you're reading this, you are looking for something to do.
9.56pm
Moderators
27 November 2016
Offline 50yearslate said
The Hole Got Fixed said
Ron Nasty said
Here’s an interesting one, I think, especially given the gathering of young people here…
Should parents be able to take their children out of classes that they disagree with on faith grounds, or should children be exposed to the broad view of society and opinions that may differ from their parents, allowing them to make up their minds?
Oooo that’s a good one.
Personally, the parent should be allowed to choose until the child is about 5 or 6, when the child has to be shown the full view of ideas. (the child can’t choose – parents with a strong view would force them to abstain).
Then how is that different than letting the parent choose?
That’s my point – letting a child choose will invariably contain the parents forcing the child to choose something. So neither should be allowed to choose and after the age of about 5, children should be exposed to as many views as possible regardless of whether they or their parents agree.
The following people thank The Hole Got Fixed for this post:
Ron Nasty#AppleHoley2024: Make America Great For The First Time
2016 awards: 2017 awards: 2018 awards: 2019 awards: 2020 awards: 2021 awards:
10.16pm
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline My question isn’t about whether the child should, but about whether parents should have [the right*] to take their children out of certain classes or whether the state should just say that there are things a child needs to know about the society they’re a part of, and that that’s the right of every child, regardless of the parents views on those subjects.
There’s been the first update over here where the “social/relationship/sex” education in 20 years in light of the internet and changing attitudes. A group of parents, who have already managed to get it removed from their children’s primary school, want it banned in every primary school because it acknowledges same sex couples exist, and that some of their friends might have same sex parents, and that there is nothing wrong with that. Fifty years ago the conversation would have been around mixed-race couples.
I understand parents have values and beliefs they hope their children will agree with and followed, I just don’t think they should be able to prevent their children having access to the full range of opinion, and that the state has the responsibility to ensure that those it educates hear a different viewpoint.
* edit
The following people thank Ron Nasty for this post:
Getbackintheussr"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
10.23pm
Moderators
27 November 2016
Offline Ron Nasty said
My question isn’t about whether the child should, but about whether parents should have to take their children out of certain classes or whether the state should just say that there are things a child needs to know about the society they’re a part of, and that that’s the right of every child, regardless of the parents views on those subjects.
Sorry I may have answered a slightly different question… I definitely think that’s what the state should say.
There’s been the first update over here where the “social/relationship/sex” education in 20 years in light of the internet and changing attitudes. A group of parents, who have already managed to get it removed from their children’s primary school, want it banned in every primary school because it acknowledges same sex couples exist, and that some of their friends might have same sex parents, and that there is nothing wrong with that. Fifty years ago the conversation would have been around mixed-race couples.
I can’t believe those sort of people exist… not only for their bigotry, but also that they want everyone else to conform to their ideas. Same-sex couples have existed for eons. No use trying to re-write history!
I understand parents have values and beliefs they hope their children will agree with and followed, I just don’t think they should be able to prevent their children having access to the full range of opinion, and that the state has the responsibility to ensure that those it educates hear a different viewpoint.
1000% agree with that. We live in a society where there are so many resources for so many things – everyone needs to branch out!!
The following people thank The Hole Got Fixed for this post:
Ron Nasty#AppleHoley2024: Make America Great For The First Time
2016 awards: 2017 awards: 2018 awards: 2019 awards: 2020 awards: 2021 awards:
10.29pm
13 January 2019
Offline I think everyone should have access to as many views as possible, so they can choose for themselves. Many people are racist or homophobic not because they are bad people, but because that was the way they were raised and they don’t know any better. Of course, some people are just terrible people.
The following people thank Getbackintheussr for this post:
Ron Nasty, QuarryManP E A C E & L O V E
Without going out of my door, I can know all things on Earth...
~
~
10.34pm
Moderators
27 November 2016
Offline Honestly, they’d better think for themselves because their parents won’t be there for them…
The following people thank The Hole Got Fixed for this post:
50yearslate, Ron Nasty#AppleHoley2024: Make America Great For The First Time
2016 awards: 2017 awards: 2018 awards: 2019 awards: 2020 awards: 2021 awards:
3.30am
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline It’s the logic of some people that blows your mind, @The Hole Got Fixed, that they can effectively argue that it’s state corrupting their children by teaching them to be tolerant, understanding and accepting of the different ways people live, not seeing what they’re arguing for is their right to instead corrupt with intolerance, hate and rejection without being contradicted.
Apologies if you thought I closed down your discussion on anarchy a little early, @Dark Overlord, but I thought it had run its course when anarchy stopped being mentioned.
"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
3.38am
Moderators
27 November 2016
Offline Ron Nasty said
It’s the logic of some people that blows your mind, @The Hole Got Fixed, that they can effectively argue that it’s state corrupting their children by teaching them to be tolerant, understanding and accepting of the different ways people live, not seeing what they’re arguing for is their right to instead corrupt with intolerance, hate and rejection without being contradicted.
Thankfully that culture is slowly starting to change, and I’m incredibly thankful I live in an area where that attitude is almost non-existent, however I do wonder if they release how hypocritical and close-minded they are being, or if they are just being lemmings and saying ‘yeah but society survived 50 years ago when everyone frowned upon being accepting…’
#AppleHoley2024: Make America Great For The First Time
2016 awards: 2017 awards: 2018 awards: 2019 awards: 2020 awards: 2021 awards:
6.34am
26 January 2017
Offline Parents shouldn’t be able to restrict their child’s education. That’s a form of child abuse in my opinion – overly sheltering your child, whether well intentioned or not, is only going to cause problems in the long run once the child leaves home, is confronted by whatever they’d been sheltered from and subsequently has no idea how to deal with it at all.
I’ve seen this a lot actually. In my sixth form (for non-UK people, that’s aged 16-18), there are a few students who were home educated and then came to school for sixth form, and their lack of knowledge on basic subjects or ability to read a situation is often astounding. It’s not that they’re not smart kids, it’s that their parents have tailored their upbringing to their own tastes and opinions which results in the child having a very incomplete upbringing.
For example, a really nice boy I’m quite good friends with shocked us all one day by repeating the horribly homophobic stuff he’d been taught by his parents, and was totally surprised when we were horrified – he really thought that those views were normal and accepted, and quickly came around when we explained it to him. He also had a bunch of almost superstitious pseudo prejudices towards LGBTQ+ people that, again, he realised were completely false when explained to him.
EDIT: I realised I didn’t really reach a point with this, so my point is that parents dictating the terms of their child’s education in terms of content so as to be aligned with their own beliefs can be really harmful, and although some people, like my friend, have been able to think for themselves outside their parents’ influence, I fear that not everyone will be so lucky and will persist with the prejudices their parents taught them into adult life.
The following people thank QuarryMan for this post:
Getbackintheussr, ScarlettFieldsForever, The Hole Got FixedI've been up on the mountain, and I've seen his wondrous grace,
I've sat there on the barstool and I've looked him in the face.
He seemed a little haggard, but it did not slow him down,
he was humming to the neon of the universal sound.
6.52am
9 March 2017
Offline @Ron Nasty i was planning on having the discussion flow like a medley.
Anyways, i thought i’d point out that sometimes the teacher really shouldn’t be teaching kids certain things or will do it with a bias in order to further their political agenda. A perfect example of this is teaching pre-pubescent kids about LGBT issues.
The following people thank Dark Overlord for this post:
BeatlebugIf you're reading this, you are looking for something to do.
2 Guest(s)