Why people are still stuck in the past

Why SW isn't up to EP? Firstly, it's all about our postings going amiss here, and what's been taken as adult, mildly adult or non-adult content. Secondly, because of the first, any discussion of issues that are indeed important though sensitive are really not taken seriously here. Either it's censored from the start or the abuse is too overpowering.

Only this morning I've posted a decent enough piece on a good but yet thought provoking old Halloween-type movie. I don't see it anywhere on display. Perhaps it's really because of the content, or rather my take of the movie, or rather what the movie represents? I don't know, but there's also a question banging in my head right now.

Yesterday I heard a professional being interviewed on the on-going Prince Andrew scandal. He basically told the radio audience to the call-in show that we should stop calling 13 and 14 year olds children. I found that such a disgusting statement. Have we really gone no further in appreciation of how long growing up takes?

This morning it hit me again. If certain subject matter is being hidden just because of its content how will teenagers ever experience what a bad thing is anyhow? Hardly no-one is taking this seriously any more. No matter how many safeguards there are children will be always at risk. The solution is to inform them.

Not that I'm advocating anything too liberal or too obscene here. From past experience I know how deep evil gets and how easy it is to be lured by people with means and power. Let me just shorten this by claiming that innocence needs to be really protected instead of being locked up from the real world. I'm sure that even pre-war pinups are now considered as mildly adult. What's the use of that anyhow?

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

ArishMell · 70-79, M

The only way, really, to protect anyone from a hazard is to teach them how to deal with it.

It also needs understanding risk from hazard: the phrase "... putting [insert group of choice] at risk..." is just a meaningless cliche without clarifying both the hazard and approximate level of risk (though the latter is likely to be subjective).

My comments apply to anyone, regardless of age. Children and the elderly are very convenient beings to politicians, newspapers and campaigners; but anyone of any age can be at some risk from hazards of one sort or another.

.....

Wheover was the radio presenter, his stance seems to echo the 19C idea that children are to be but treated as miniature adults, not as children.

val70 · 51-55

@ArishMell It wasn't the presenter but a guest. I was a bit astounded that there was no reaction from the presenter though. Someone like James O'Brien would have done that.

Personally, I do agree that the guest's stance was actually... Victorian, if I still may use that word for it. In the medieval ages teenagers were simply considered as adults, and also thus in the mills during the industrial revolution

ArishMell · 70-79, M

@val70 Thankyou for clarifying that. Perhaps the presenter was trying to stay fairly neutral, in not reacting.

That use of children in Victorian industry, and very poor pay and conditions generally, was so bad it led to a lot of campaigning and eventually the first employee-protection regulation including permittted minimum ages and maximum hours.