Exactly. Of course, back then 'kids' were married by the time they were 16, so it was a whole lot easier to 'wait until you're married'.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Adds 'Explicit' Category for New App Store Submissions
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Exactly. Of course, back then 'kids' were married by the time they were 16, so it was a whole lot easier to 'wait until you're married'.
How did kids learn in the 1700's, 1800's and most of the 1900's? Some things they were taught at home and the rest they learned on their wedding night.
Me and my wife bumbled through our wedding night, believe me it is hard wired into humans to procreate, just at the appropriate time.
Just because something used to be done that way, doesn't mean it's a good thing. My dad: "we never put you in a car seat, and it turned out fine?" Yeah, well tell that to all the parents who slapped their kids onto the rear bench seat with no seatbelt or car seat and who never got to see their kids' 13th birthdays.
There used to be slavery in the 1700's and 1800's. People used to eat gruel. They used to die of plague. They used to carry their bowel movements onto the street in buckets.
The old ways are not often the best ways.
Whether it's in school or at home my daughter will be taught sex ed. Making her "wait til her wedding night" is bad parenting.
God forbid Christians partake of their first amendment rights.
Sure, if you like government infringing on your liberties at every level, from both parties...
Not to mention he's quick to mention teenage pregnancy rates of the 60s, but then he advocates going back to the schooling system of the 1700s, where the litteracy rates were really low and University education was for the rich only.
Poor kids, if he's not a troll, they are in for a very harsh life.
Only one party is interested in getting involved in what I do in my own home.
And by "public" I meant "government owned and operated." You have no first amendment right to have the government underwrite, support, or bless your religion. You are free to practice your religion in your home, your church, on private property, etc., but the government and my tax dollars should not be involved.
Nor have I ridiculed anyone or inferred that you did.
Laissez-faire parenting, as you incorrectly attribute it, is not new and neither are sex, drugs, or rock and roll. The difference is that it's out in the open now. My parents cared and they disciplined me, but not overly so. Thus I learned self-discipline, which was the goal. Overly strict parents led to the abuses and openness of the 60s. It was about rebellion and freedom, which you seem to be stiffling, in my opinion.
True laissez-faire parenting is bad. The middle path is best.
The problems with today's parents is that they're not ready to parent and so they still act like children and raise adults that are children.
I too will be on topic from here on out. I just needed to say something because I feel that you're being unjust to your children. One of the great things about this nation is that you're free to parent as you wish but with great power comes great responsibility.
I hope this opens the doors to add Porn and Porn-like apps to the store.
It is a matter of choice. If I want to view that material, I should be able to on my device (especially since there is no other supported method to do so).
It is a matter of choice. If I want to view that material, I should be able to on my device (especially since there is no other supported method to do so).
Gee, would've made more sense to do this the first time.
Maybe... however they got a lot of good press for removing the boob apps, now they can quietly add them back. Win - win!
Is that the same party that wants to track us via cell phones? Or the one telling us what kind of light bulbs we can use?
Actually, I'm not religious, but the first amendment applies whether you're on private or public property.
It would be the height of stupidity to have a 'explicit' category and not actually allow explicit apps. Girls in bikinis are not explicit.
Well *duh* THAT makes sense, should have been there since day 1... Of course there's no such thing on the web, so I dunno what the big deal is?! Parents have the job to take care of their kids, not government or companies...
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7E18 Safari/528.16)
I came to this thread with the intention of saying something like, "although I have no problem at all with apple banning these apps outright, this solution should make everyone happy." silly me, forgetting my own signature.
miles01110 said:
I came to this thread with the intention of saying something like, "although I have no problem at all with apple banning these apps outright, this solution should make everyone happy." silly me, forgetting my own signature.
I don't mind Christians using their first amendment rights, as long as they respect the fact that non-Christians have the same right. I respect people who speak their minds in a respectful manner. People who say what's on their minds & don't care if anyone gets hurt, I have a problem with. If you disrespect my way of thinking, how can I respect yours? I get really tired of people who think (or at least act like they think) that they're right, everyone else is wrong and if you're different, you're evil!
I also have a problem with people who are so politically correct, they don't say what they mean. If you don't have the respect for your beliefs, how will others?
Also, I hate "group think" where people think in groups, and only do what the group wants. While sacrifices do have to be made for the greater good, just doing what the group wants, or even worse, what you THINK the groups wants w/o even knowing for sure, is a bad idea IMO. I like a nice, clean, efficient democracy where people can say "This is what I want/need & this is why" & being able to satisfy those wants & needs.
Yes, it applies, but the first amendment also requires the separation of church and state. Your right to say what you want and to practice your religion does not trump my right to be free of a government that supports any particular religion. When the government used to post the ten commandments and nativity scenes in courthouses and city halls (which is what I was initially talking about), that infringes my first amendment rights, and, since there are plenty of other places where the people who did those things could instead speak their mind, it's much less of a burden to just make them go someplace else and do it.
The government can't pass laws requiring people to post the ten commandments or follow any religion, but the first amendment does NOT stop public employees from choosing to post the Ten Commandments or setup a Christmas Tree. Their first amendment rights do indeed trump your perceived right to not be offended.
I am not advocating doing everything like they were in the old days. For all the faults you mention, parents who use methods like mine do not have to deal with sexting, teenage VD or pregnancy, or substance abuse.
I said "Some things they were taught at home and the rest they learned on their wedding night.". I advocate teaching the mechanics, responsibilities and outcomes of sex as soon as the parent is ready and the child is mature enough.
The thing you can not teach, but only experience, is gratification. I do not believe that there is any need to experience sexual gratification prior to marriage.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7E18 Safari/528.16)
That's a ridiculous analogy. The ACLU supports the KKK's right to speak *free from government restriction*. The key word in that sentence is "government." apple choosing not to carry a product in a privately owned store because that product upsets some customers has nothing to do with the government telling the KKK they cannot peacefully assemble. The two situations are not just apples and oranges, they're apples and baseballs.
FrankieTDouglas said:
That's a ridiculous analogy. The ACLU supports the KKK's right to speak *free from government restriction*. The key word in that sentence is "government." apple choosing not to carry a product in a privately owned store because that product upsets some customers has nothing to do with the government telling the KKK they cannot peacefully assemble. The two situations are not just apples and oranges, they're apples and baseballs.
How did kids learn in the 1700's, 1800's and most of the 1900's? Some things they were taught at home and the rest they learned on their wedding night.
Me and my wife bumbled through our wedding night, believe me it is hard wired into humans to procreate, just at the appropriate time.
You paint a pretty picture of the kids in the 1700's, 1800's and most of the 1900's... But, I don't think that's how it all played out back then, just like that's not how it all plays out today.
The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you.
See, e.g.: Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573.
See also: Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39
(Nativity scene case and 10 commandment case)