quote:
Pesco probably says this to all the girls:
-> Pesco speaks from the Law's PoV <-
The Law > YouDont argue with me over a known fact. Children cannot exercise Constitutional Rights on there own. It must be with some sort of Parental/Gaurdian Assistance. This falls under the same category as why children that commit the same crimes as adults get different punishments.
The law is overgeneralized and highly impacted by self-righteous soccer moms.
quote:
Kegwen 2.0 had this to say about the Spice Girls:
The law is overgeneralized and highly impacted by self-righteous soccer moms.
BINGO! I didnt say my stance on the issue. I just stated how it is.
quote:
Kegwen 2.0's account was hax0red to write:
I hope you know he was referring to the fact that having no Constitutional rights as a child is essentially slavery...
That's not what it sounded like to me. 
quote:
Suddar Williams had this to say about the Spice Girls:
I'd argue Pesco's opinion, but I obviously have no rights to do anything without my mother's guiding hand. Oh, deliver me from evil and temptation and raise me completely naive to responsability and pain, and then send me into the world, completely blind to the ways of its workings. THANK YOU AMERICA.
See Above Post
quote:
Suddar Williams stopped staring at Deedlit long enough to write:
See the way I posted it before above post.
Stop posting so fast!
quote:
Dave Matthews Band - Typical Situation
Ten fingers we have each
Nine planets around the sun repeat
Eight ball is the last if you triumphant be
Seven oceans pummel the shores of the seaIt's a typical situation
In these typical times
Too many choicesEverybody's happy
Everybody's free
We'll keep the big door open
And everyone'll come around
Why are you different
Why are you that way
If you don't step in line
We'll lock you awaySix senses keeping
Five around a sense of self
Four seasons turn on and turn off
I can see three corners from this corner
Two is a perfect number
But oneEverybody's happy
Everybody's free
We'll keep the big door open
And everyone'll come around
Why are you different
Why are you that way
If you don't step in line
We'll lock you awayIt's a typical situation
In these typical times
We can't do a thing about it
quote:
Pesco had this to say about Pirotess:
Dont argue with me over a known fact. Children cannot exercise Constitutional Rights on there own. It must be with some sort of Parental/Gaurdian Assistance. This falls under the same category as why children that commit the same crimes as adults get different punishments.
Your "law" is a logically inconsistant double standard, and I find the idea of it's legitimacy incredibly suspect.
As a side note, in a great many modern trials, children who commit the same crimes as adults are more and more often recieving the same punishments.
Your whole argument isn't really applicable to the current situation anyway. The question is not in regards to whether or not these children have the right to wear these clothes if they choose to, the question lies in whether or not the government has the right to prohibit the existence of the clothes in question.
Fact of the matter is, arguments for prohibiting the garments lie entirely in the domain of personal opinion. [ 05-22-2002: Message edited by: Maradön? ]
Protect a child's innocence.
So they can go into the world a moron?
quote:
Pesco stopped staring at Deedlit long enough to write:
My stance....Protect a child's innocence.
If the child is the one buying the garment, is the child really innocent to begin with?
quote:
Check out the big brain on Suddar Williams!
Why the fuck should you protect a child's innocence?So they can go into the world a moron?
Because that is your job as a parent when they are still that young?
Jesus crap. It's not like said children become slutty because they buy said underpants, but because they are slutty they buy said underpants. The little underpants aren't going to wave their little assfloss fingers and go BOOGETY BOOGETY BOOGETY YUO AER CORRUPT. You're not "Protecting the poor little children's innocence" by not letting them have spiffy undies, you're just not letting them have spiffy undies.
quote:
Check out the big brain on Suddar Williams!
Why the fuck should you protect a child's innocence?So they can go into the world a moron?
And yet, so often people claim: "It's not the company's fault that the parent's can't control their children."
There's always a middle road, it seems.
Funny, this logic is 
quote:
A sleep deprived Pesco stammered:
Because that is your job as a parent when they are still that young?
Yes, it's your job as a parent, but is it the government's job as well?
quote:
This one time, at Pesco camp:
My stance....Protect a child's innocence.
The loss of innocence is a horrible thing. I wrote an essay on that this morning. Ecclesiastes states, "For in much wisdom is grief. And increase in knowledge brings increase in sorrow."
Innocence -> Knowledge -> Maturity = Sorrow
quote:
Maradön? had this to say about pies:
If the child is the one buying the garment, is the child really innocent to begin with?
Last time I checked... 12 year olds dont have jobs. And have a very very slim chance of spending whatever money they have on underwear.
My parents raised me with reality, not with soft puffy lovey dovey.
And you know what? I AM DAMN GLAD THEY DID.
You need to make your own choices in life--no matter HOW young you are. I, as a parent, would only be your guiding hand; advice from one who's had a little bit more experience. If my child makes a bad desicion, my child gets stung. But they learn.
quote:
Pesco probably says this to all the girls:
Last time I checked... 12 year olds dont have jobs. And have a very very slim chance of spending whatever money they have on underwear.
Check again.
quote:
From the book of Pesco, chapter 3, verse 16:
And have a very very slim chance of spending whatever money they have on underwear.
You're wrong in that assumption. [ 05-22-2002: Message edited by: Maradön? ]
quote:
Arttemis the Twink wrote this then went back to looking for porn:
By not letting them wear thong underpants?Jesus crap. It's not like said children become slutty because they buy said underpants, but because they are slutty they buy said underpants. The little underpants aren't going to wave their little assfloss fingers and go BOOGETY BOOGETY BOOGETY YUO AER CORRUPT. You're not "Protecting the poor little children's innocence" by not letting them have spiffy undies, you're just not letting them have spiffy undies.
Wait til you have a daughter
It is funny that all the people arguing in this thread, including myself, aren't parents. I'm not talking Soccer Moms.. just your average parent.
I'd want them to tell me right then what the fuck was going on, but I wouldn't cry out of the heavens in horror, crying tears of sorrow over my failed parenthood. Would I try to get them away from a life like that, though? Sure. But in the end, it's not my choice.
Besides, they could want to have a thong so that they don't get a panty line on their dresses. What about that?
Being straight with your kids about somethings like sex, alcohol and so on is one thing. Smacking them in place for dressing like a sl00t is another, to protect them from themselves and to protect them from others. There are alot of sickos out there, and I wouldnt want my daughter wearing anything that would trigger one of them if she so happened across them. I know the threat cant be completely removed... but I'd try my best to make it as little as possible.
That's really how my parents are raising me, because we can talk as friends and we all respect the hell out of eachother and respect eachother's opinions. I don't want to force my child to do something THEY don't want to do, but at the very least I want them to respect me enough to, if nothing else, hear out my opinion on the subject, and disregard it or take it into consideration or whatever. But never would I say "you CAN'T do that."
Telling them "I really don't think that's a good idea because I've done it before and gotten my ass beaten black and blue" would be seemingly more effective.
Because there isn't any of that "oh yeah well I'll show him I'll do it anyway CAN'T DO IT HE SAYS..."
Especially if they respect you.
"Don't want to sound like a fanboy, but I am with you. I'll buy it for sure, it's just a matter of for how long I will be playing it..."
- Silvast, Battle.net forums
quote:
Suddar Williams impressed everyone with:
No it isn't.Telling them "I really don't think that's a good idea because I've done it before and gotten my ass beaten black and blue" would be seemingly more effective.
Because there isn't any of that "oh yeah well I'll show him I'll do it anyway CAN'T DO IT HE SAYS..."
Especially if they respect you.
Yes, natural consequences can sometimes be the best teacher, but there do have to be some exceptions. Sometimes, the consequences are so bad that any responsible parent is obligated to stop their child.
As a fairly common example, pretty much 10-year-old out there has wanted to try driving a car. I probably would have jumped on the opportunity myself, if it had come up then. However, some untrained 10-year-old who tries to "drive fast" has a fair chance of permanently injuring or killing himself. It is the duty of a parent to prevent their child from driving if they don't think their child is able to handle it responsibly and safely. The child should not and does not have a right to decide otherwise, they are still unable to fully understand the consequences of their actions.
Sometimes, the consequences of an action are too strong to allow experience to be the sole educator. Often, choices can effect the rest of a person's life, and those choices shouldn't be made lightly by a child who, though they may intellectually know the consequences, don't really understand them.
________________________________
As for the official legal standing of minors, it's actually quite a complicated legal puzzle. I'm not sure there's yet an across-the-board decision on constitutional rights of minors. They do have some constituational rights (I believe right to due process is among them), but have only "weakened" versions of other constitutional rights, with lesser scope than an adult (note: this is only one interpretation of the law). As a quick example, An adult has the right for free speech, but cannot use that right for defamation, fraud, incitement to riot, solicitation to crime, and so on. However, with a minor, these restictions also include the use of offensive form[s] of expression . . . [to make] a political point Bethel v. Fraser, which is a right adults have.
Here's a relevant article on this topic that I found while looking for information: here. I can't make any solid declarations on it's accuracy, though. I've had a hard time finding information to compare it to. [ 05-22-2002: Message edited by: Chalesm ]
In the beginning the Universe was created.Douglas Adams, 1952-2001
I'm sure that getting kids clothing is hard. It should be. Teenagers want to push the limits of good taste. I know I did. And a parent shouldn't restrict them too much, but neither should a parent give a kid too much leeway.
Say Lyinar and I, for some reason, have a daughter IRL together someday. She's 12, and we're going clothes shopping. I'm likely to be very lenient to my little girl. But a g-string for a 12 year old? There is no way in HELL that I would be cool with that. I don't care what the circumstances are. No begging, whining, or pleading would get me around to thinking that a 12 year old is okay wearing a g-string.
Teenagers and pre-teens like to push authority. That's fine. I don't mind. I think parents, on the other hand, need to lean towards the side of caution. They're responsible for a child til it's 18. Kid can have a lot of responsibility before then, driving, working, etc, but they're still the parent's responsibility.
Parents, on the other hand, like to foist responsbility onto other people. Teachers, celebrities, fashion designers. And the problem is that two of those groups, fashion designers and celebrities, are about as irresponsible as they come. They're not looking out for their target audience's well-being. They're looking to sell a product, first and foremost (and often times, there's nothing beyond that) and you can't fault them for selling a product. It's legal. It's necessary to the free market capitalist system. It's not the responsibility of big business to raise kids. (that's the whole point to the social critique of businesses in the cyberpunk genre, btw, when people live in arcologies where the company manages their life for them) That's the realm of parents.
So the question isn't "Does my 12 year old daughter want these g-string panties and does she buy them for herself" because a 10-14 year old, at best, has a paper route or something (can't legally work til you're 15, I believe). Any other money they get, they get from me. Allowance, clothes money, all comes from me. So whether my kid wants them or not is irrelevant, because I won't pay for them, and I won't let her wear them. And I won't foist my responsibility for that sort of thing onto someone else.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
PS I saw a followup on that last night
The Constitution applies to every citizen of the United States, regardless of age.
Pesco, what you are thinking of is certain rules that forbid minors from enforcing their rights in court without parental consent.
Those laws are much less restrictive than they were in the past, but they generally still exist.
So, generally, if you wish to assert, in court, a Constitutional right, there is a chance that if you are a minor you will need parental consent or someone to stand in loco parentis, depending on the jurisdiction you live in.
A small distinction, perhaps, but an important one for the minors in this board to understand.
Thinking about your posts
(and billing you for it) since 2001
quote:
D wrote this then went back to looking for porn:
Mmmmmm... thongs...
Hell, when I was a kid I didn't wear any underwear at all half the time I was in public.
