Is Phatmass Dangerous To Teens?

[AngelofJesus]

Eternal Vigilance is the price of freedom. Whatever you decide upon, be hot or cold not lukewarm. If you allow freedom, be vigilant in making sure it stays clean. If you don't want carp at all then restrict it and kick people out who do not comply. Waffling on this issue will create inordinate amount of unecessary back lash. Stick to your convictions and go with it.

Mods have the delete key. Everyone responsible for policing carp. Either way you decide phatmass will remain the orthodox site that it is. Jesus never waffled on his message and stuck to his guns even when it meant his life. If he suffered then you as his disciple will also suffer.

Your messenger/servant.

[Good Friday]

On the subject of whether or not Phatmass is good for teens -- newsflash, they already know about this stuff. More than the adults here probably do, in fact. Maybe it's not the ideal for them to know about it, but they do. The question now is whether or not they will hear a diversity of opinions on the topics, or if they will only hear the secular culture's opinion. Personally, I'm NOT in favor of them hearing only the opinions of the secular culture.

I know you all think I am perhaps the suckiest Catholic on this website (reflected in the fact that I am labelled non-Catholic, which was brought about by my own temper) -- but the fact is that I would not be either a sucky Catholic or a good Catholic if it weren't for Phatmass, I wouldn't be Catholic at all. I would most likely be a Neo-Pagan, if I were not by now an atheist. I may be a sucky Catholic, I don't know -- but if it weren't for Phatmass, I wouldn't even be a sucky Catholic. I'm not the ideal, but I could be worse.

If it were not for Phatmass, people who were Protestants would still be Protestants. People who wanted to commit suicide may have done it. People who had a drug probem may never have attempted to overcome it. People who were having a sexual relationship with their gay partners wouldn't have decided to live a lifestyle in accordance with Church teaching. I would not have decided that even though I disagree with Church teaching on homosexuality, I will remain celibate. If it were not for Phatmass's existence, and if it were not for the permission to discuss these very adult issues -- some of us would be in a lot worse shape than we're in right now. Yes, we are all imperfect -- some of us more than others, me more than most. But my point here is that many of us who are here now would be far worse if we had never encountered this place.

And as a final point, I think the worse danger for teens is the total lack of charity currently being exhibited by many people. I'm guilty of causing much of this or at least being a contributing catalyst that has set it all in motion, and I accept my responsibility for it. But I'm asking everyone to please acknowledge their own guilt, get a grip, and move on. When even I get sick of the drama and think it's ridiculous, then it really must be, because I love drama. Let's all please try to take a deep breath and not hate each other.

And by all means, if it will make anyone feel better, blame it all on me -- because I am, in fact, significantly responsible. I wanted this outcome and now that I see it, I don't like it and wish I had never done what I did to get here. So if you want to blame anyone, blame me, but please let's just all move on from here before things get irrevocably out of hand.

[dUSt]

I like 1 out of every 100 of GF's posts.

[rachael]

[quote name='dUSt' date='Feb 8 2005, 11:17 AM'] I like 1 out of every 100 of GF's posts. [/quote]
ouch.

[rachael]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Feb 7 2005, 10:03 PM'] That's a rather loose argument don't you think. Should the failure of some parents to do their job justify others failing to do theirs? [/quote]
restricting pm to people due to age (except for maybe things like the nfp phroum) is dumb and worthless. end of story. parents should monitor their children online. it shouldn't be dUSt's job.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='rachael' date='Feb 8 2005, 12:55 PM'] restricting pm to people due to age (except for maybe things like the nfp phroum) is dumb and worthless.  end of story.  parents should monitor their children online.  it shouldn't be dUSt's job. [/quote]
Nice argument. Try again. You did not address my problem (though others have already). The problem I was raising is that the failure of parents to improperly monitor their children does not excuse us from placing inappropriate materials in front of them and thus exacerbating the problem. Just because they may be getting an orthodox spin on these subjects does not mean that the subject itself is fit for discussion in an open forum. Let me give an example. We must teach our children the Ten Commandments, right? Yes. Does that mean I should expose them to all the details of what is entailed in the sixth and ninth commandments before they are of an age where they are spiritually ready for it? No. Who decides when they are spiritually ready for it? I do, as the head of my household. It is not up to a school, a website or anyone else. It is up to me as the father of my children. Until my children reach their majority, they are under my headship. If they I allow them to be exposed to something they are not spiritually prepared for while in their minority, I will be responsible for that. I will have neglected my duty as their father. That does not mean that whoever put the information in front of them bears no responsibility. If some communist nun at the local Catholic high school (not that I would send my kids there) is teaching sex ed. stuff, she is also responsible. Why? Because it is not her place. She has no right to expose things to people that are best addressed by parents. The failure of some parents do their job would not excuse her. It is from this standpoint that I am approaching this question, and it is not as easily dismissed, as you may like.

Edited February 8, 2005 by popestpiusx

[cathqat]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Feb 7 2005, 10:03 PM'] That's a rather loose argument don't you think. [/quote]
I do not think it is a weak argument to say that it is the responsibility of parents to monitor what their children read rather than dUst. It is parents' responsibility to choose what schools their children will attend, what books they will read, what TV and movies they will see, and what websites they visit.

And if you think it is the moderators' responsibility rather than parents', then they have to remove [i]everything[/i] that may not be appropriate for anyone as young as 5 years, because anyone who can read may read this phorum. I do not think that is a reasonable expectation, but if you do, you probably shouldn't be willing to participate in the phorum at all.

[cathqat]

[quote name='traichuoi' date='Feb 7 2005, 10:32 PM'] a person can't be Oriental. [/quote]
Historically, the term has been applied to people as well as objects. But it's an older usage that is no longer regarded appropriate, and may even be considered offensive. Likewise, "Negro" is no longer used, though it was the common terminology in Dr. King's day.

[dUSt]

As far as it being the parents responsibility to monitor what their children read and not mine, I don't totally agree with that.

I think a parent would be doing a good job by knowing what websites their children visit, but we can't expect the parents to read everything on that website. That's where the responsibility shifts to me. Parents say yes to allowing their kids to visit phatmass, and in doing so, they place a certain trust in me to make sure that the material on this website is appropriate.

I take responsibility for that, and in turn, I place a large amount of trust in all of the faithful Catholics who post on this board to counter any innapropriate material with the correct, moral responses and actions.

I don't try to limit the content so much as I am confident that the content will dealt with in a way that the church endorses.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='cathqat' date='Feb 8 2005, 03:40 PM'] I do not think it is a weak argument to say that it is the responsibility of parents to monitor what their children read rather than dUst. It is parents' responsibility to choose what schools their children will attend, what books they will read, what TV and movies they will see, and what websites they visit.

And if you think it is the moderators' responsibility rather than parents', then they have to remove [i]everything[/i] that may not be appropriate for anyone as young as 5 years, because anyone who can read may read this phorum. I do not think that is a reasonable expectation, but if you do, you probably shouldn't be willing to participate in the phorum at all. [/quote]
I think that it is weak for the simple fact that, barring further clarification, the argument could easily be used to justify anything. My point, once again, is this: if you read the rest of my posts you will see that I am well aware of a parents responsibility in this regard. But the failure of parents to do their job is not a justification to allow anything to be discussed on a public forum that allows minors to participate. The site is geared toward attracting minors or young adults. The issues being discussed, so my argument went before, is one best left to parents, not to a website. That is true regardless of whether or not the parents actually do their job. That is not necessarily dust's problem. What is his problem is whether or not the content on this site is appropriate for minors whose level of spirituality he has no idea (most of the time). He (and Aluigi) gave some good arguments in favor of allowing it. They were good enough to convince me that it may be worth taking the risk. The rest of the arguments I have seen thus far, including yours, have been too slippery to hold water. Essentially, I am now merely explaining why I was against the idea in the beginning, and why I still have misgivings about it. Again, dust and aluigi had some good reasons, and so I will simply say that it seems to me that dust is sure enough about it to justify his approach. It's his site. I have no further objections.

[AngelofJesus]

[quote]If some communist nun at the local Catholic high school (not that I would send my kids there) is teaching sex ed. stuff, she is also responsible. Why? Because it is not her place. She has no right to expose things to people that are best addressed by parents. The failure of some parents do their job would not excuse her.[/quote]


While it is true, that the communist nun is responsible for what she teaches, she is also teaching her own words. dUSt on the other hand does not necessarily endorse everything that is said at Phatmass nor does it come from him. You can not blame a mayor of a town for a crime commited by a citizen, you can however blame him if the crime persists and nothing is done about it.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='dUSt' date='Feb 8 2005, 03:51 PM'] As far as it being the parents responsibility to monitor what their children read and not mine, I don't totally agree with that.

I think a parent would be doing a good job by knowing what websites their children visit, but we can't expect the parents to read everything on that website. That's where the responsibility shifts to me. Parents say yes to allowing their kids to visit phatmass, and in doing so, they place a certain trust in me to make sure that the material on this website is appropriate.

I take responsibility for that, and in turn, I place a large amount of trust in all of the faithful Catholics who post on this board to counter any innapropriate material with the correct, moral responses and actions.

I don't try to limit the content so much as I am confident that the content will dealt with in a way that the church endorses. [/quote]
Thank you dust. That's what I am trying to get at.

[cathqat]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Feb 8 2005, 03:01 PM'] I think that it is weak for the simple fact that, barring further clarification, the argument could easily be used to justify anything. [/quote]
There's been lots of clarification by me, by dUst, by Aluigi, and others. Please don't pretend that more has not been said.

[cathqat]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Feb 8 2005, 03:04 PM'] [quote]I don't try to limit the content so much as I am confident that the content will dealt with in a way that the church endorses.[/quote]

Thank you dust. That's what I am trying to get at. [/quote]
As I said before:
[quote]I think that many teens are exposed to all sorts of non-Catholic and even anti-Catholic ideas in the media, in their schools, among their friends and family, and even in their own parishes. I think it's safe to say that most of them are not experiencing heresy, schism, materialism, or whatever for the first time when they read posts here.

But they do find positive and truly Catholic responses to these things here, and a kind of fellowship with other people who want to foster their faith, and they may not get that elsewhere. So I think a forum like this can be a very beneficial experience for them, even when we're discussing difficult issues, as they themselves attest.[/quote]

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='cathqat' date='Feb 8 2005, 04:21 PM'] There's been lots of clarification by me, by dUst, by Aluigi, and others. Please don't pretend that more has not been said. [/quote]
Did you read my post? I am quite certain that I said Dust and Aluigi had some fairly convincing arguments. The argument that we are currently discussing, and that I referred to as weak, is one that dust has also disagreed with, namely:

[quote]I think their parents should be monitoring what they read, not dUst. [/quote]

Your clarification did not address the problems I raised, especially over whether dust bears any responsibility for the content of this site. I still think this is a matter of concern considering the age group this site generally attracts. It's not something to be ignored.