Should cell phone texts be monitored by the government to prevent 'sexting'?
Sexting, for anyone who doesn't know, is basically when two people exchange sexual messages with each other, and many parents do not want their children partaking in such offensive actions. What is your opinion?
Yes
Side Score: 9
|
 |
No
Side Score: 21
|
|
|
|
|
3
points
I think we as citizens should allow the government to collect all of the duties of it's citizens and the private businesses ran by it's citizens and redeploy them as government duties. Children should be collected at birth and raised without parents in gender specific schools. They should be raised by like genders, and be tested and retested for strengths and weaknesses. One "strength" will be in genetics, and the children with good genes will be taken from the public school and taught sex education early. They will mix with the opposite gender early on as well to build sexual tension. The weaker individuals will be weeded out, leaving only the individuals that would produce the best offspring. They should mate by the age of 17, baring children around the time that they are 18. With a constant 18 year period between child birth, mutation will be accelerated, but also controlled. Anymore, an 18 year old giving birth to a child is usually a bad thing. It shows that they're irresponsible and careless. Some are living off of the state because they cannot afford to care for their children, and they typically find some way to help with the stress, drugs, which if found before child birth could alter the child that they carry. In a closed environment we could calculate the number of people needed from each hatchery, which would lesson the likelihood of overpopulation, we could control the genetic traits of the next generation (accelerating progressive evolution), and we could ensure healthy development of children. This would theoretically decrease our tax spending (that is wasted) in the long run, so long as children are healthy and there is an infrastructure that is in place to raise children. The amount of the money given to the state for human production is stretched because the number of successful children should trump that of the unsuccessful children. Less money would be spent on raising a large amount children that will fail, and instead be spend on a small amount of children that will not. Cell phones will be a thing of the past, and yes, all communication should be monitored from every individual by the state. If children are taught from a young age that society is more important than the individual, they will learn to think for the society, and not for themselves. Ethics will change to exclude the individual's needs over the society's, and instead place the society first, and then through the society, the individual. This would train them to look down upon sexual activity all together because one would be placing the individual's need before the community's (selfishly), and then if child birth occurs outside of the control of the state, would disrupt the clean operation of the state that everyone works for. It would naturally be shunned. Side: yes
|
2
points
No, since the idea of a government is highly out-dated. The governments humans had nearly 100 years ago are pretty much extinct. Back then, everyone was preparing for war, making kids, building houses, working in factory, building ships and stuff like that. The government was much more organized and motivated back then. It actaully existed like a government, unlike now. Today, the government does nothing, it takes name of a government but we can't see its form, because it's neraly not there, it's only partially there. When was the last time a government did something? Saving energy don't count, neither does healthcare. Since the government no longer exist, plus it's unreasonable to monitor anybody. It's a big No from me. Side: No
1
point
From my understanding Sexting is not what you described. Its more of a sexual harrasment, when one person bugs another person sexually while texting. Why would the government do such thing anyway, they dont give a damn what teens do. How do you tell the difference between sexual harrasment and...uh..consentual sexting anyway? That would be just stupid. But like JC said, I would sure apply for the postion to go through the pictures and stuff... HEHE Side: No
2
points
1
point
1
point
No. It's an absolutely ridiculous idea. There are more important things for the government to do than to be a parent for children and teens that already have parents doing a half-ass job. I know this sounds crass, but teens sending out nudes and have "text-sex" really need a reality check. It's one thing to say that actual sexual abuse (molestation, rape, incest, etc) are not the victims fault, but what's their excuse for participating in sending out nudes and shit over the phone? No one is holding a gun to their head or threatening them. They need to learn their lessons somehow. Otherwise, parents shouldn't be given anyone under, like, 16, cell phones. I get it, it's easier to stay in connect and check up on them, but woopie doo. It's still pretty easy to find someone with a phone you can borrow for 3 minutes. Side: No
A big, huge FUCK no. This would be a step towards communistic rule, and that's the last thing anybody wants, anywhere. Plus, it would just create more problems and put us in debt even more just to do what? Try to stop horny teenagers and charge them for "sex offending"? Not gonna happen. (Psst, if your contemplating sexting, don't show your face in the picture =P) Side: No
1
point
1
point
|
