View Full Version : Those darn kids...


West 36
Mar 18, 2007, 12:40 AM
It seems to me alot of politics have to do with what children. What I mean is the world seems to revolve around what we see as acceptable for kids. Nudity? UNACCEPTABLE! Cursing? UNACCEPTABLE? Godlessness? UNACCEPTABLE! The admission that death exists and everyone will go through with it? UNACCEPTABLE! The world is a happy place and everyone gets along? Its the TRUTH! Everything is easily defined as good or evil? TRUTHINESS! etc. Do you consider this true? Do modern politics go on for the sake of protecting our children, even if we lose a little ourselves?
Please comment on what you think! If you know any facts, please share.

Lone Wolf
Mar 18, 2007, 01:34 AM
I don't notice that. There is too much political correctness in the Western world sometimes... That story about the Christmas fur-tree somewhere in the USA being deleted from some place in order not to make not-Christians enraged is really too much. :rolleyes: We haven't got this thing in Russia, mind you. But I don't remember werid children politics stuff.

Actually, the modern mass-media can only harm the chilren. It's very good there was no TV in our house, when I was a small kid, and so I didn't fill my head with stuff like,

"Our new Shauma shampoo will make your hair long, wavvy, and beautiful!"
"Oh, I want to love you so much, I want to bite you so much, Oh, oh, oh..." :rolleyes:
etc.

Plotinus
Mar 18, 2007, 05:17 AM
I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. Do you have examples?

And does this really belong in World History?

Cuchullain
Mar 18, 2007, 11:36 AM
Actually, with the growing obesity "epidemic" (no pun intended) in the U.S., I think nudity really should be unacceptable. Who wants to look at a bunch of naked fat people? Even when I take a shower in the morning, I keep the light off --- so I don't accidentally look at myself naked. I've spent a fortune on therapy already.

Lone Wolf
Mar 18, 2007, 12:00 PM
Really? Oh, my.

Greeneyedzombie
Mar 18, 2007, 05:27 PM
Actually, with the growing obesity "epidemic" (no pun intended) in the U.S., I think nudity really should be unacceptable. Who wants to look at a bunch of naked fat people? Even when I take a shower in the morning, I keep the light off --- so I don't accidentally look at myself naked. I've spent a fortune on therapy already.

:) :) :D :D

to the op. are you from america? cause that is what we think of america over here. that they are overdoing things. and what happend to parental responsibility? I think people today are to quick of putting responsibility of what kids see and do on the goverment and companies.

Ukas
Mar 18, 2007, 06:05 PM
I understand this rant quite well. For example nudity and sex are seen naughty and dirty in public places and/or in TV, but then again almost everyone have sex and are nude every now and then. In addition there are millions of prostitutes and massive porn industry in the western world. If it's not hypocritical then I don't know what is.

Greeneyedzombie
Mar 18, 2007, 06:18 PM
sex and nudity is supposed to be naughty and dirty ;)
but the problem is that people see it as wrong and that it should be forbidden, while it is a naturel thing. While al those violent movies and tv shows don't get such a response, wich I think are much more harmfull. And this attitude does more wrong then good.

Pokurcz
Mar 18, 2007, 06:21 PM
More nude boobies! Freedom to the people!:bounce:

I need some sleeeepppppppppppp.....(fell off chairrrrr...)

West 36
Mar 18, 2007, 06:56 PM
I understand this rant quite well. For example nudity and sex are seen naughty and dirty in public places and/or in TV, but then again almost everyone have sex and are nude every now and then. In addition there are millions of prostitutes and massive porn industry in the western world. If it's not hypocritical then I don't know what is.

YES, this is what I mean, thank you!

Plotinus
Mar 19, 2007, 02:15 AM
That's not politics, then, that's society.

I still don't understand what you're talking about. Who, exactly, says that nudity is wrong in public and yet goes nude in public? Surely only an individual can be a hypocrite, not a society.

And "godlessness"?? When any politician (outside America, and perhaps Italy) talks about God their ratings plummet. Look what happened to Blair when he said something about praying. Everyone thought he must be insane!

Pokurcz
Mar 19, 2007, 04:50 AM
P

You forget about Poland, lately the government is buck crazy about God.

I can understand the hypocrisy they're talking about, furthermore I have seen state level hypocrisy quite often here in Sweden. Them being so proud about their nature preserves and stuff, but not baning products from other countries that destroy nature there. Like ethanol produced in Brazil.

Like for example being so proud about CO2 emissions being so much lower in Sweden than before, not mentioning that a large part of that is because a lot of manufacture has moved to cheaper countries and taken the pollution with them. (that by the way is an other reason for the USA to sign the Kyoto agreement)

Or them pointing the finger at Poland for being the greatest polluter of the Baltic with fertilizer residue, when they themselves produce twice as much pollution per farmed acre themselves, Poland unfortunately has almost four times the population.

Swedes being so proud of their health care and dental care as per tradition, when other countries like Britain or Germany have surpassed them a decade ago. It goes on.

Ukas
Mar 19, 2007, 07:04 AM
That's not politics, then, that's society.

I still don't understand what you're talking about. Who, exactly, says that nudity is wrong in public and yet goes nude in public? Surely only an individual can be a hypocrite, not a society.


Group of individuals form a society, which collectively shares common values, standards and practises.

Slaughter
Mar 19, 2007, 08:38 AM
I can understand the hypocrisy they're talking about, furthermore I have seen state level hypocrisy quite often here in Sweden. Them being so proud about their nature preserves and stuff, but not baning products from other countries that destroy nature there. Like ethanol produced in Brazil.

Destroy Nature? Our Etanol is much cleaner than your polluting, dirty, war-mongering, expensive and blood-soaked OIL!! Etanol is going to be the FUEL OF THE FUTURE (until Fusion batteries, that is) and these swedes should use it ALL THE TIME (ok, I don't use it right now, but my car is going to be flex!)

And I think that the 'political correctness' wave dind't hit us yet. Besides, Brazil ins't the kind of place where we have problems with muslins and all that.

Plotinus
Mar 19, 2007, 11:42 AM
Group of individuals form a society, which collectively shares common values, standards and practises.

But a society cannot act hypocritically. Only an individual can. If you and I both belong to the same society, and I indulge in a practice which you condemn, neither of us is guilty of hypocrisy. That would only happen if one of us both condemned and indulged in the practice.

Pokurcz
Mar 19, 2007, 01:30 PM
Slaughter

The world demand for ethanol is on the rise as many countries mix in more ethanol in to their petrol and rising popularity of Flex fuel vehicles.

Brazil is the worlds largest producer of ethanol, and produces it very cheaply out of sugarcanes compared to others (for example Mexican maize).

The rise of demand has made it more expensive on the global market because of limited production capability. There fore it has become more lucrative for the sugar barons in Brazil.

The problem is that a lot of rain forest is being cut down for cultivation of sugar, especially at the Atlantic coast.

Secondly the barons behave ruthlessly in taking land from poor farmers without consent or payment, forcing them to move to the slums of cities. Or they get hired by the plantation where they often do not get paid enough or anything at all, effectively enslaving the poor.
People who protest, get threatened, beaten or even killed.

The situation bares striking similarities to feudal Europe in the middle ages.
The rising demand makes it worse for more people, and halts progress in rural Brazil.

It is therefor far from "politically correct", unfortunately.

West 36
Mar 19, 2007, 04:52 PM
What I mean is an individual trying to please society, like a politician saying he wants to protect our kids from seeing a naked body, and people will think thats good until as a society they think that seeing a naked body is a bad thing. Like that statue in D.C. that had a bare breast and some guy thought it necessary to make it covered, which happened. Censoring art and the human body, so kids don't have to know about boobs.

warpus
Mar 19, 2007, 05:01 PM
Godlessness? UNACCEPTABLE!

What do you mean by godlessness?

Plotinus
Mar 20, 2007, 02:27 AM
What I mean is an individual trying to please society, like a politician saying he wants to protect our kids from seeing a naked body, and people will think thats good until as a society they think that seeing a naked body is a bad thing. Like that statue in D.C. that had a bare breast and some guy thought it necessary to make it covered, which happened. Censoring art and the human body, so kids don't have to know about boobs.

That has to be just in America, where they still suffer from puritanism! You can't expect normal values in a country where, every year, they celebrate the fact that they were founded by people who were too religiously weird to cope with seventeenth-century England...

Lone Wolf
Mar 20, 2007, 05:32 AM
What do you mean by godlessness?

I think West 36 means atheism...

Swedishguy
Mar 20, 2007, 05:35 AM
Swedes being so proud of their health care and dental care as per tradition, when other countries like Britain or Germany have surpassed them a decade ago. It goes on.
You're lying. It ain't true. :huh:

Pokurcz
Mar 20, 2007, 11:05 AM
"You're lying. It ain't true."

Which part do you find untrue?

Swedishguy
Mar 20, 2007, 11:09 AM
"You're lying. It ain't true."

Which part do you find untrue?
This part:
Swedes being so proud of their health care and dental care as per tradition, when other countries like Britain or Germany have surpassed them a decade ago.
Is it pure chance we have the almost highest average lifespan? :rolleyes:

Pokurcz
Mar 20, 2007, 11:23 AM
"almost highest average lifespan"

That is the result of the huge efforts made during most of the previous century. Standards of health care and dental care today, or especially the past decade, whilst measures have started being taken, have declined considerably since the seventies and eighties.

The double standards I'm pointing out have been perpetrated during the last decade when the general and official view of the situation have been that Sweden is number one "as always" whilst the truth has been far from it.

The decline of the standard of living has been such that from being number three on the world list in the seventies Sweden is now down to number sixteen.

Swedishguy
Mar 20, 2007, 11:24 AM
The decline of the standard of living has been such that from being number three on the world list in the seventies Sweden is now down to number sixteen.
Actually, we're second. :mischief:

Pokurcz
Mar 20, 2007, 11:30 AM
No Switzerland is second, and has been so since the seventies. Norway on the other hand is number one.

Pokurcz
Mar 20, 2007, 11:34 AM
http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/QUALITY_OF_LIFE.pdf

I was apparently wrong due to old numbers, but in the mid to late nineties Sweden was nr. 16.

Knight-Dragon
Mar 21, 2007, 02:29 AM
Meandering topicless rant thread closed.

If you wish, you can start another one in OT.