Forums | MacLife

So it would be the parents responsibity to avert their childrens eyes if say their neighbor decided to paint a provacative mural on the front of their house? Would they have to not look at it every time they left their house? Or if they really dont like it would *they* have to move?

Its sounds like thats what you are saying

There's a difference between doing something specifically to harass someone and just doing something that some people just don't like.

I never said it was to specifically harrass. I meant it as they actually wanted it on their house for one reason or another.

So it would be the parents responsibity to avert their childrens eyes if say their neighbor decided to paint a provacative mural on the front of their house? Would they have to not look at it every time they left their house? Or if they really dont like it would *they* have to move?

Its sounds like thats what you are saying

There's a difference between doing something specifically to harass someone and just doing something that some people just don't like.

I never said it was to specifically harrass. I meant it as they actually wanted it on their house for one reason or another.

When did this turn from talking about Eve's breasts to provocative painting?

I put that in there as a descriptor. Dont get too hung up on it

Just posting this because it was buried under the landslide of "RonaldRegan"'s undead topics. I wanna see that logic Styer, this stuff always interests me.

I dunno, bananas are pretty phallic, peaches have the obvious euphamism, and melons, well... Plums are pretty sexy too.

Funny. It makes worlds of difference and you say not to get hung up on it.

I painting of a half naked woman is more provacative than a bowl of fruit, but you know that. the point is my original question to matt

What about the endlessly violent images on TV? Which is more damaging for kids, do you think?

the images on TV by far but guess what, parents can regulate tv.

We all get the "parents can regulate it argument" why do you keep diverting the thread to that Schnicky?

Maybe because like me I have no idea where this thread has been and where it is going, perhaps we are done here?

We all get the "parents can regulate it argument" why do you keep diverting the thread to that Schnicky?

Maybe because like me I have no idea where this thread has been and where it is going, perhaps we are done here?

Bingo. A few pages appeared on this thread in the last little while, and I haven't waded through all those posts.

Some priests say gambling and drinking is a sin, but raping little kids isn't. Oh, and a picture of our ancestors is horrible! Come on. If God wanted it a certain way, I'm sure he'd do something about it. God help us! We're showing what's under our clothes!

Which priests say that?

Father Peddie O'Bastard, for one.

Some priests say gambling and drinking is a sin, but raping little kids isn't. Oh, and a picture of our ancestors is horrible! Come on. If God wanted it a certain way, I'm sure he'd do something about it. God help us! We're showing what's under our clothes!

Which priests say that?

Father Peddie O'Bastard, for one.

Yeah, best proof ever. Especially since Bush has been quieting the news lately.

'Hey, global warming is coming!'
'Quiet yew. Let my oil buddies keep drilling and screwing the planet over.'

Heh heh. It's no wonder we never hear about his daughters. They're druggies. No one ever actually interviewed Chelsea Clinton, but we actually SAW her. No problems there .... I think.

But seriously though, why would this many people testify if they never got molested or anything? We know pedophiles are out there, and what better a job to get close to the kids? Besides, some religions say no women no marrying, so they're probably starved of sex.

*Puts up a flame shield*

Yeah, best proof ever. Especially since Bush has been quieting the news lately.

'Hey, global warming is coming!'
'Quiet yew. Let my oil buddies keep drilling and screwing the planet over.'

Heh heh. It's no wonder we never hear about his daughters. They're druggies. No one ever actually interviewed Chelsea Clinton, but we actually SAW her. No problems there .... I think.

But seriously though, why would this many people testify if they never got molested or anything? We know pedophiles are out there, and what better a job to get close to the kids? Besides, some religions say no women no marrying, so they're probably starved of sex.

*Puts up a flame shield*

-sigh-

1) Most pedophiles are married. It has nothing to do with being sex-starved
2) You said that certain priests say that pedophilia is not a sin.  That is still not true.  That's like saying because a doctor smokes, the doctor is telling patients that smoking is healthy.

Yep. Obviously the ones who do that to kids wouldn't think it's a sin, although they probably wouldn't actually SAY it 

Ahh this topic is depressing me

What makes breasts different from guns or soda, in regards to cencoring them? And I'm pretty sure I had another one, but I just forgot it.

I'd have to say that it's much easier to talk to your kids about guns and soda than breast-a-seez.  You can go out and buy your kids a soda and a gun, then drive to the shooting range and show them how to drink soda and shoot a gun safely.
Breasts, however...