Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 78

Thread: Why Charging Money for Disclosure-Related Information is Wrong

  1. #31
    Senior Member United States Chester's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th January 2015
    Location
    Dallas, Texas USA
    Posts
    1,368
    Thanks
    5,295
    Thanked 6,591 Times in 1,349 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Joanna View Post
    Pebbles, there's a step beyond the 'Service to Self v. Service to Others' model which the awakening community needs to understand - because when you view/think through STO/STS as an either/or, you are invoking dualism and giving/focusing your energy into the polarity 'game'. I used to 'think' that way too, until I felt deeply what Source is, what Love is, in my own being. Since then, I view through the lens of Service to Source/Love - or more than that, Being Love, from which energies of 'service' naturally arise.
    Once you make that your compass, the dualism of STO v. STS becomes irrelevant, and limiting, because you know that all energy given/sent in service to Source goes precisely where it is needed, at the right time, in the right way - for your own highest good and for the highest good of All. Makes things very simple.
    Be(a)ware of those who invoke the STO/STS divide, while saying they come from unity consciousness, and of channeled info and/or entities that promote STO/STS, in the name of Source/Creator/Unity. They are perpetuating the illusion of duality, when true growth is in wholeness, trusting yourself to flow with Source, and that your words, actions and energies will therefore bring through love, peace and harmony, wherever it is required.
    GREAT POST! and I have been waiting for another to point this out. Thanks Joanna

    Heard this one..."Service to everything"

    No polarity found there.

    No duality.

    No third parties measuring if your service is overly self oriented or that you are so selfless you get a title such as "saint" or "angel" or something put in front of your name (as if the High Being we are would do that anyways).

    No third parties pointing out your "percentage" based on a paradigm most of us wish to see a thing of the past while waving a "Law of One" book in your face that is used and reinterpreted by a self anointed priesthood to insidiously hold the paradigm of polarity firmly in place - who wins? The PTCTB (the Powers that Continue to Be) who are saying, "Thank You."
    Last edited by Chester, 18th June 2015 at 14:03.

  2. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Chester For This Useful Post:

    bsbray (19th June 2015), bstuart (18th June 2015), Cearna (19th June 2015), CeeTee9 (18th June 2015), Joanna (19th June 2015), mojo (18th June 2015)

  3. #32
    Senior Member United States Chester's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th January 2015
    Location
    Dallas, Texas USA
    Posts
    1,368
    Thanks
    5,295
    Thanked 6,591 Times in 1,349 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Tanta View Post
    You can also consider how it would be like if WikiLeaks charged for info...yes they do ask for donation money and sell tshirt and stuff...but they wont make an "exclusive info" only available to an "exclusive wallet" since if they do they will be torn apart and by by goes their CREDIBILITY....same goes for the alternative media researcher(s) (if he has any left)
    Excellent distinctions Tanta.

    I also agree that the way Richard Dolan does it (for example) has a completely different aura to it. I have (and was happy to pay for) three of his books. There's one thing to being a history major in college, then going into a career researching and then writing books that are filled with sourcing which can be verified by anyone... develop the confidence in readers that you actually have a clue such that then you are able to offer well founded opinions.

    But to take multiple LSD trips while cleaning house and then one day telling folks to beware of the 150 million cloned zombies waiting for the bat signal so that they come out and bite you turning you into one is and then suggesting that if you pay $100" for a special limited time viewing of you standing on some stage where half the time you make jokes that no one laughs at and you have to explain to folks that it was a joke suggests the "discloser" (sadly) is the likely joke.

    Soooo... all I am pointing out is two examples of an extreme... So (my opinion only) clearly one end of the spectrum is taking the high road in what they are doing... the other cashes in on generating a high profile status, scaring the hell out of the vulnerable, addicting them to the need for intel (cha-ching) and promising (for pay... cha-ching) access to false hope and/or repackaged perennial philosophy as if anyone has a copyright on that.

  4. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Chester For This Useful Post:

    bstuart (18th June 2015), Cearna (19th June 2015), CeeTee9 (18th June 2015), Joanna (19th June 2015), mojo (19th June 2015)

  5. #33
    Retired Member United States
    Join Date
    12th March 2015
    Location
    Plano, TX
    Posts
    17
    Thanks
    340
    Thanked 75 Times in 16 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Joanna View Post
    Pebbles, there's a step beyond the 'Service to Self v. Service to Others' model which the awakening community needs to understand - because when you view/think through STO/STS as an either/or, you are invoking dualism and giving/focusing your energy into the polarity 'game'. I used to 'think' that way too, until I felt deeply what Source is, what Love is, in my own being. Since then, I view through the lens of Service to Source/Love - or more than that, Being Love, from which energies of 'service' naturally arise.
    Once you make that your compass, the dualism of STO v. STS becomes irrelevant, and limiting, because you know that all energy given/sent in service to Source goes precisely where it is needed, at the right time, in the right way - for your own highest good and for the highest good of All. Makes things very simple.
    Be(a)ware of those who invoke the STO/STS divide, while saying they come from unity consciousness, and of channeled info and/or entities that promote STO/STS, in the name of Source/Creator/Unity. They are perpetuating the illusion of duality, when true growth is in wholeness, trusting yourself to flow with Source, and that your words, actions and energies will therefore bring through love, peace and harmony, wherever it is required.
    I agree Joanna and precisely why everything should be free, IMHO. Perhaps a new acronym like STL (Service to Love/Life) should be used (given that STS is taken to mean "Service to Self") to infer the unity conscience. We are born with no material things and will leave this world with no material things so why do we feel it makes sense that we should have to pay for material things when, clearly, this system is designed to create division, separation and a world of the haves and have nots.

    Is it really so hard to conceive of a world where we all do what we love to do and/or do best to contribute to the pool of goods and services that are necessary to sustain good, comfortable, enjoyable, and healthy living for all? I guess it is for those who still believe they are entitled to more than others because they "worked hard for what they earned" as opposed to those who weren't so lucky to be born into a family, community, or country that enabled them to do the same. Perhaps this mentality is indicative of those who believe that most people are bad, lazy, irresponsible and/or don't care about doing what's right as opposed to those who believe that most people are good, want to work, be responsible and do the right things.

    Yes, that's not the world we currently live in. I get it. But it could be if we started focusing our attention on ways to make it happen instead of on more reasons why it could never happen. If we truly are "Creators" of our world, our destiny, then why do we not seem to want to create a world where everyone is free, healthy, happy and lives in peace and harmony with each other and the planet? The world we have created thus far is a far cry from that world. Makes me wonder if any of us are truly sane.

  6. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to CeeTee9 For This Useful Post:

    Cearna (19th June 2015), Joanna (19th June 2015), mojo (19th June 2015), Pebbles (20th June 2015)

  7. #34
    In Memoriam United States
    Join Date
    22nd April 2015
    Location
    Bay City, MI area
    Posts
    219
    Thanks
    792
    Thanked 992 Times in 213 Posts
    The next few years will see many houses with drive by appeal. Built on sand, they will collapse for lack of a sound foundation. Leaders lacking internal spiritual work commensurate with their public performance will lose their following. Don't fall for it or get out when you wake up.

    Sam presented an amazing and true "scam" that exemplifies this process. But you are not an innocent "victim." If you get caught in such a disappointment, it is a lesson about your own level of spiritual development. Give thanks for the lesson, grow and move on with your life.

    Don't support Koch Brothers products. Watch a few videos about them if you don't know their political antics and express your moral/ spiritual power at the grocery store: https://www.facebook.com/notes/boyco...53902421342335.

    Some corporations are already getting the meme and changing tactics to maintain their power. Don't fall for it. For example DQ has changed their identification as fast food to "fan" food. Bank America is trying to overcome their bankster image with ads about helping small businesses.

    Stop shopping at Walmart figuring you are smart consumer buying for less. You have heard how they mistreat employees and you are tainting your spiritual growth and development. You are as much a puppeteer as the Congress people accepting their PAC money.

    There are many things like this that will show your spiritual growth. Don't just sit there complaining "give me, give me." That is just the way you have been trained for generations to accept social engineering. Empower yourself.

    Look how imaginative we humans can be

    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAHSKVX5K4c
    Last edited by grannyfranny, 19th June 2015 at 03:40. Reason: humor- go team go

  8. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to grannyfranny For This Useful Post:

    bsbray (19th June 2015), CeeTee9 (19th June 2015), Chester (19th June 2015), JByas (19th June 2015), Joanna (19th June 2015), mojo (19th June 2015), RealityCreation (19th June 2015)

  9. #35
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    23rd April 2015
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia.
    Posts
    628
    Thanks
    2,858
    Thanked 2,690 Times in 607 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by CeeTee9 View Post
    I agree Joanna and precisely why everything should be free, IMHO. Perhaps a new acronym like STL (Service to Love/Life) should be used (given that STS is taken to mean "Service to Self") to infer the unity conscience. We are born with no material things and will leave this world with no material things so why do we feel it makes sense that we should have to pay for material things when, clearly, this system is designed to create division, separation and a world of the haves and have nots.

    Is it really so hard to conceive of a world where we all do what we love to do and/or do best to contribute to the pool of goods and services that are necessary to sustain good, comfortable, enjoyable, and healthy living for all? I guess it is for those who still believe they are entitled to more than others because they "worked hard for what they earned" as opposed to those who weren't so lucky to be born into a family, community, or country that enabled them to do the same. Perhaps this mentality is indicative of those who believe that most people are bad, lazy, irresponsible and/or don't care about doing what's right as opposed to those who believe that most people are good, want to work, be responsible and do the right things.

    Yes, that's not the world we currently live in. I get it. But it could be if we started focusing our attention on ways to make it happen instead of on more reasons why it could never happen. If we truly are "Creators" of our world, our destiny, then why do we not seem to want to create a world where everyone is free, healthy, happy and lives in peace and harmony with each other and the planet? The world we have created thus far is a far cry from that world. Makes me wonder if any of us are truly sane.
    CeeTee9...let's go for it...STL! And Sam, Service to Everything.

    This is the next stage of consciousness evolution...because if folk have to keep measuring/assessing whether their thoughts/words/actions are STS or STO, then they simply do not know yet that they are Love, they are Self-as-an-expression-of-Source. When we're in that place, we don't have to ask, because we can feel and are one with every vibration we radiate. But if people keep opposing 'self' and 'others' they will keep feeding the sense of 'small ego self' rather than merging that small sense of self with their One-Self/Source Self, higher self, whatever you want to call it, which knows there is no separation. In that knowing, polarities just evaporate, like a lot of hot air.

    Of course, to be able to Know oneself as Love, and that Love is the central unity energy of Source/Creator, does also mean dropping that Love is a 'distortion' (such as is stated in the Law of One material)....because if folk believe that Love 'distorts your ions', then they're already in separation viewing, and their energy flow will go off at a 'distorting angle' rather than through unity. That's what caused polarity in the first place.....and perpetuates it.....

  10. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Joanna For This Useful Post:

    bsbray (19th June 2015), CeeTee9 (19th June 2015), Chester (19th June 2015), mojo (19th June 2015), Pebbles (20th June 2015)

  11. #36
    Senior Member United States Chester's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th January 2015
    Location
    Dallas, Texas USA
    Posts
    1,368
    Thanks
    5,295
    Thanked 6,591 Times in 1,349 Posts
    One of the important aspects of generating a profit if your presence is primarily on the internet involves "branding."

    When you see folks hitting the scene and sharing their experiences, even writing a book, maybe they have site or blog and maybe they have a donate button - I got no issue... lots of folks out there like that.

    When they begin hiring professional graphic artists to create banners with their logo and then blast those banners across all the sites their "story" appears, this isn't someone who has the best interests of Earth and Her inhabitants foremost in their mind IMO. Its someone trying to make their "persona" a brand. Soon you see professional sites and blogs. Notice the banner... the logo... branding branding branding. Their persona soon becomes bigger than Coca-Cola. Those who might have studied the human psyche are very aware as to how this effects the sub-conscious. Some folks catch on and see the light... but there are masses of the vulnerable and they get sucked in.

    Big difference - true, human.. make some mistakes experiencers...

    Then the sharks that only care about sucking in the masses, achieving a branded status such that they develop a cult following... once they achieve critical mass and have a large enough penetration of the "market," they are always ensured that there's plenty of new dupes to replace the ones who finally begin to see the inconsistencies and/or lies and/or maniacal and relentless self-defensiveness and/or "delays in your salvation."
    Last edited by Chester, 19th June 2015 at 04:43.

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Chester For This Useful Post:

    CeeTee9 (19th June 2015), Joanna (19th June 2015)

  13. #37
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    23rd April 2015
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia.
    Posts
    628
    Thanks
    2,858
    Thanked 2,690 Times in 607 Posts
    Also remember, folk's motivations are often mixed, and fame can (and often does) unbalance people who started out with noble intentions and genuine gifts. So can I suggest here, where you feel/perceive that has occurred, send that soul love, mercy and healing, from your heart....in the spirit of service to everything....

  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Joanna For This Useful Post:

    CeeTee9 (19th June 2015), Chester (19th June 2015)

  15. #38
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    10th June 2015
    Posts
    1,009
    Thanks
    2,129
    Thanked 3,244 Times in 922 Posts
    Maybe I'm off topic here, but charging for disclosure is an ancient tradition practiced by religious even till today. To pay to go an kneel before a divine stone or the likes, in many ways is very similar: Someone or some group claiming rights to artifact or information and requiring payment thereof as some type of rite of passage.

    Paywalls in the NY Times or Wall Street Journal are much the same. You can pay to get their spin on current events that somehow may align you with the goddess in the financial or political scenes.

    Perhaps payments made for the upkeep of institution is actually a valid consideration in these cases.

    And even commercial type "for profit" fronts that may require payment for privileged use, with the flashy banners, in my opinion, is ok too. Even if the information disclosed is completely based on fabricated even propaganda type junk; entertainment value is worthy of compensation too, even pornsters and religious leaders deserve compensation for their efforts, by those who find some value or comfort deserving of consideration.

    But, since I don't find any value, entertainment or otherwise, in the aforementioned offerings, I prefer not to buy in. That is my choice.

    What I do have a problem with, is an obligation to make payment for benefits or other offerings that I don't want or need.

    And while I may find guiding the dumbed down amassed herds towards the proverbial cliff of the sensationalistic sound-byte to be an appalling practice, that is actually a different issue. I do not have a TV at home for that reason.

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to lcam88 For This Useful Post:

    Chester (19th June 2015)

  17. #39
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    15th April 2015
    Posts
    47
    Thanks
    41
    Thanked 230 Times in 47 Posts
    I personally have no problem with people charging money for work they do. It's not like all Disclosure information being revealed is all true. It sounds like there's massive amounts of purposeful disinfo and some people are using much more due diligence in what they release. That takes a lot of work vetting sources and corroborating the information. A lot of work. I wish it were that everything was true and you could just release the info in massive dumps, but that just isn't the case. I mean, we're talking about the single most important event in modern human history unveiling right before our eyes. There's too much money and power at stake to just allow it without a fight.

  18. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ctiger2 For This Useful Post:

    Chester (19th June 2015), lcam88 (19th June 2015), mojo (19th June 2015)

  19. #40
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    10th June 2015
    Posts
    1,009
    Thanks
    2,129
    Thanked 3,244 Times in 922 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by ctiger2
    I mean, we're talking about the single most important event in modern human history unveiling right before our eyes. There's too much money and power at stake to just allow it without a fight.
    I suppose the above statement is indeed a valid argument to position as an appeal to enhance morality. Personally, I am as yet unaware of an event with the magnitude as you are claiming, as something external to me. I am not even sure we are referring to the same event, much less how money and power may have some type of stake in the revelation thereof. Just out of curiosity, what event are you referring to?

    And I do apologize, I haven't read the entire thread just yet. I've read the initial posting and perhaps the first 3 or 4 comments only. I have spent some time thinking about what Sam Hunter was saying and how I felt about it all.

    And even while considering your point, ctiger2, at this point in human history the stage is set the way it is. Vetting information is a requirement for any good journalist and it has been made considerably much harder simply because of the volume of stuff out there. There is so much happening around the world that many things just aren't covered at all. I would contend that even atrocities that would make blood boil, don't get coverage in some cases.

    The inverse of that scenario is also quite plausible to understand: if I had been the center of a great revelation to be (or being) made to humanity (as you claim) and understanding the way things are, and the truth being of actual importance, I would find a way that makes sense for the revelation of those truths to be actually meaningful.

    The very contention that there is confusion to neutralized such a truth, presuming that an effort had indeed been made to reveal that truth, is also a contention for the claimed effort itself. Especially, if you make such a large claim as "being the single most important event".

    Just for context of what I mean, almost everything I hear in the news is supported circumstantially at best, I cannot say I actually trust in the ethics of modern day journalism. Take Malaysia 370 for example: I do not know that such a flight actually even took off? All we have are airport records and claims/pictures of families searching for their loved ones, but both of those are quite possible to stage as part of a hollywood movie; I haven't taken the time to actually vet those claims. Why the cynicism? Well, wasn't everyone also willing to accept Mother Theresa for what the Catholic church presented her to be? Wasn't it the vetting done by a journalist that revealed what could only be called a sinister plot? There is no real way to discern what is true without a new level of scrutiny nobody can really maintain. Call it an information arms race of sorts.

    To me there really only is a view to entertainment/sensationalistic value as a plausible way to rationalize claims this big.

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to lcam88 For This Useful Post:

    Chester (19th June 2015)

  21. #41
    Senior Member United States Chester's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th January 2015
    Location
    Dallas, Texas USA
    Posts
    1,368
    Thanks
    5,295
    Thanked 6,591 Times in 1,349 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    Maybe I'm off topic here, but charging for disclosure is an ancient tradition practiced by religious even till today. To pay to go an kneel before a divine stone or the likes, in many ways is very similar: Someone or some group claiming rights to artifact or information and requiring payment thereof as some type of rite of passage.

    Paywalls in the NY Times or Wall Street Journal are much the same. You can pay to get their spin on current events that somehow may align you with the goddess in the financial or political scenes.

    Perhaps payments made for the upkeep of institution is actually a valid consideration in these cases.

    And even commercial type "for profit" fronts that may require payment for privileged use, with the flashy banners, in my opinion, is ok too. Even if the information disclosed is completely based on fabricated even propaganda type junk; entertainment value is worthy of compensation too, even pornsters and religious leaders deserve compensation for their efforts, by those who find some value or comfort deserving of consideration.

    But, since I don't find any value, entertainment or otherwise, in the aforementioned offerings, I prefer not to buy in. That is my choice.

    What I do have a problem with, is an obligation to make payment for benefits or other offerings that I don't want or need.

    And while I may find guiding the dumbed down amassed herds towards the proverbial cliff of the sensationalistic sound-byte to be an appalling practice, that is actually a different issue. I do not have a TV at home for that reason.
    Yes... and you appear to be a sovereign being who is able to exercise sound discernment and who makes wise choices.

    What about those who demonstrate they are under a massive spell and their sub-conscious propels them to stick like glue to the next savior who will soon be signing a contract with a well known toy company for the release of their "action figure" and in the meantime, the real and organized powers that be (at the board level) are happy to suggest to the CEO of the toy company to sign the contract! All because this enhances the strength of the fortress of their paradigm where the masses are massively de-powered. It starts with the persona... that then goes into branding and using all sorts of networks of circular verification and then comes the coffee mugs, t-shirts, sports caps, lighters, key chains and... soon - the comic books, the action figures and sooooon... the video game!

  22. The Following User Says Thank You to Chester For This Useful Post:

    lcam88 (19th June 2015)

  23. #42
    Senior Member United States Chester's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th January 2015
    Location
    Dallas, Texas USA
    Posts
    1,368
    Thanks
    5,295
    Thanked 6,591 Times in 1,349 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by ctiger2 View Post
    I personally have no problem with people charging money for work they do. It's not like all Disclosure information being revealed is all true. It sounds like there's massive amounts of purposeful disinfo and some people are using much more due diligence in what they release. That takes a lot of work vetting sources and corroborating the information. A lot of work. I wish it were that everything was true and you could just release the info in massive dumps, but that just isn't the case. I mean, we're talking about the single most important event in modern human history unveiling right before our eyes. There's too much money and power at stake to just allow it without a fight.
    If I work within the framework established by a legal system where I create "art films" that feature sexual acts in a very soft and non-explicit way and I sell these films and make a living at it... is this ok or not?

    If within this same legal framework I create and sell graphic films which are clearly degrading of the female... is this ok or not?

    Do not make a mistake and think that I am implying what my view would be in either of these cases.

    What I am asking is... should we be allowed to review the materials and share with others our opinions about these materials from the viewpoint of... is one or the other or both likely harmful to others? Who would those others be? Would an accurate word for those at greater risk be "the vulnerable?"

    Orrrrr, should we all take the view that everyone is free on their own to decide for themselves what they wish to expose themselves to and thus there should be laws made in society (not private forums by the way who should be allowed to determine their own rule set) that prevent others from stating their views as to what may be harmful and why?

    I ask this question because I am truly on the fence about all this. Part of me desires to ride off into the sunset and live my otherwise blissful life and care nothing of what may befall anyone else.

    I am truly at the "dilemma stage" here. I hope folks will respond to this.

  24. The Following User Says Thank You to Chester For This Useful Post:

    lcam88 (19th June 2015)

  25. #43
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    10th June 2015
    Posts
    1,009
    Thanks
    2,129
    Thanked 3,244 Times in 922 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Sam Hunter
    What about those who demonstrate they are under a massive spell and their sub-conscious propels them to stick like glue to the next savior...
    That is a good question and you have posed many positions that are quite interesting indeed.

    I don't have the answer to your question.

    But maybe it's equally fitting to ask why it's important to consider "John Doe" if he is pleased where he finds himself. Perhaps it's more important to think about the "John Doe" who is waking up. I like this forum because it seems to be a partial answer to that.

    It appears you have included elements from some of my other postings. I'm flattered. And thanks for that.

    EDIT (The dilemma):

    Freedom

    Should an individual have the freedom to bring about his own demise? Is it worth the cost, in freedom to all, to try and protect a cohort from something that might actually be necessary for their growth? (Oh the loaded question hahahaha)

    For consideration, I submit the notion of brush fires in Australia. For the longest time Australians where fearful for their destructive potential and people actively sought to suppress these fires by any and all means. The brush got thicker and thicker until one day, by chance lightening struck off one of these fires and it could not be controlled. The result was that everything was burnt much more intensely than if otherwise if fires had been more regular. 100 year old trees that had lived through dozens of other fires, killed...

    Personally, and under my own mental dispositions including belief, experience and reasoning, think freedom is more important than impositions for ones own good.
    Last edited by lcam88, 19th June 2015 at 17:02. Reason: include

  26. The Following User Says Thank You to lcam88 For This Useful Post:

    Chester (19th June 2015)

  27. #44
    Senior Member United States Chester's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th January 2015
    Location
    Dallas, Texas USA
    Posts
    1,368
    Thanks
    5,295
    Thanked 6,591 Times in 1,349 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    Freedom

    Should an individual have the freedom to bring about his own demise? Is it worth the cost, in freedom to all, to try and protect a cohort from something that might actually be necessary for their growth? (Oh the loaded question hahahaha)

    For consideration, I submit the notion of brush fires in Australia. For the longest time Australians where fearful for their destructive potential and people actively sought to suppress these fires by any and all means. The brush got thicker and thicker until one day, by chance lightening struck off one of these fires and it could not be controlled. The result was that everything was burnt much more intensely than if otherwise if fires had been more regular. 100 year old trees that had lived through dozens of other fires, killed...

    Personally, and under my own mental dispositions including belief, experience and reasoning, think freedom is more important than impositions for ones own good.
    Yet what about when this spills over to exposing and infecting your own children? This gets really tricky and frankly, I truly have not made a solid decision about this... Its a real dilemma.

  28. The Following User Says Thank You to Chester For This Useful Post:

    lcam88 (19th June 2015)

  29. #45
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    10th June 2015
    Posts
    1,009
    Thanks
    2,129
    Thanked 3,244 Times in 922 Posts
    Perhaps no solid decision regarding children can really ever be made as a final heuristic we may live by (the sweeping decision). In fact I despise heuristics in general, makes me think of organized religion.

    Parents have an instinctive response to protect children and its only over time that they relinquish that instinctive response as children grow up. We are less inclined to break out the band-aid and anti-septic when a teen son trips over while crowing at the girl next door, for example.

    Some types of attacks made on adults will still provoke their parents to be protective even knowing their children are adults.

    But parents shouldn't be required to relinquish their freedom to be protective of their children, such a thing is tantamount to denying them their humanity.

    All of that said, perhaps the best protective measures that may be taken are not necessarily restrictive in nature, but an educative process. Sometimes restrictions may just be necessary, no doubt, and the saddest scenario of all is when it is necessary and there is nothing we can do about it.

    At this point, I suspect you have stretched the argument of this thread beyond its natural limit, if I may say so. I hardly expect a parent to finance a pre-teen child in an endeavor to subscribe to Penthouse online, if you get my notion. The educative process there being, earn your money and decide how best... These types of decisions are probably quite obvious to the most common of folk. No dilemma right?
    Last edited by lcam88, 19th June 2015 at 19:00.

  30. The Following User Says Thank You to lcam88 For This Useful Post:

    Chester (19th June 2015)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •