Is Phatmass Dangerous To Teens?

[rachael]

ah. nevermind. that's not what i meant. -_-

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='rachael' date='Feb 8 2005, 05:07 PM'] ah. nevermind. that's not what i meant. -_- [/quote]
???

[rachael]

it's nothing to do with you.

[url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=28953"]http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=28953[/url]

[aloha918]

[quote name='dUSt' date='Feb 7 2005, 04:07 PM'] It's been brought up that phatmass isn't the safest place for teens because of some of the topics that get discussed here.

[b]Question to teens:[/b] Has phatmass made you stronger in your faith? Has phatmass made you doubt your faith?

Thoughts? [/quote]
i think that there are to many heated arguements........

sometimes people cant take that....especially teens

[jezic]

[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. 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. [/quote]
The problem i have with that is that parents don't say anything about stuff like homosexuality, at least not here. If they are to afraid to talk to them about it, then what happens? Kids will hear it at school.

I agree that dust is partially responsible, but no more than the rest of us. He can moderate yes, but we are all charged with defending the faith and correct moral errors that we see everywhere, not just here. It is a shared responsibility.

I thought of something that we could do and not make official, simply include a link to the area of the Catechism/other official document at the top of the first post on a questionable matter. That way there is no doubt. The agreement would be to do that on the first one, or if it is not there, then add it immediately.

I am just kinda throwing that out there though .....

[cathqat]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Feb 8 2005, 03:35 PM'] Your clarification did not address the problems I raised, especially over whether dust bears any responsibility for the content of this site. [/quote]
I think that dUst [i]already[/i] does a good job keeping the phorum on track.

[dUSt]

I like the catechism idea. In fact, this phorum use to have a "catechism" button that allowed you to automatically post catechism quotes by typing in the paragraph number.

I'm going to bring that function back soon.

[mulls]

i submit that people should be thankful for a moderator who actually cares who/how his site is affecting, especially in regards to the younger generation in this society of crass degradation all over the place.



*gives dUSt a pound*

[mulls]

meaning that this is a pretty cool thread to have opened.

[musturde]

[quote name='dUSt' date='Feb 7 2005, 04:25 PM'] For example, when certain members post about their homosexual lifestyle, or when schismatics post about things harmful to the church, etc.

My philosophy is to let these things get posted with the hope that the faithful Catholics on this board will sufficiently defend true church teaching.

Another philosophy which has been suggested is to strictly monitor and eliminate these types of topics all together.

My thought is that we shouldn't censor certain subjects because this world will not censor them when teens hit the real world. I allow most types of topics because I would prefer my teen (if I had a teen) be exposed to it here first, so that he/she will learn how to confront the issue later.

But I could be totally wrong. I have no degrees with this type of stuff. [/quote]
sometimes censoring isnt a good thing because if we dont see the both sides, how are we supposed to defend our side? If we see something we're not sure about, why not understand it more?

[jezic]

[quote name='dUSt' date='Feb 8 2005, 05:29 PM'] I like the catechism idea. In fact, this phorum use to have a "catechism" button that allowed you to automatically post catechism quotes by typing in the paragraph number.

I'm going to bring that function back soon. [/quote]
good deal.

My point there was (to clarify it further) then there would always be the authentic church teaching at the top so no one would need to be confused cause there is the little helper right there.

[Iacobus]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Feb 7 2005, 10:41 PM'] It's also pretty beaver dam annoying when people refuse to look at scientific evidence against evolution, of which there is a plentitude, as well as those who seem to think that science is the judge of the Faith rather than the other way around. Perhaps if we were all enlightened and self declared intellectuals we could understand. I suppose I'm just a willfully ignorant small minded dote. But this is not the place for that discussion. [/quote]
I would have PMed this if I could, but I can't so I am going to haul it up. My point wasn't so much that I don't like anti-e's but rather that I don't like anti-e's that do so just beacuse their reading of the Bible says God did it so it must be. If they base their disagreement in sound science, while I don't always agree, that is a much different case.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='dUSt' date='Feb 8 2005, 03:29 PM'] I like the catechism idea. In fact, this phorum use to have a "catechism" button that allowed you to automatically post catechism quotes by typing in the paragraph number.

I'm going to bring that function back soon. [/quote]
i really liked that function. i hope you can bring it back.

[Totus Tuus]

I was SO disappointed with the thread bashing what Rome said about human sexuality (in reference to sex change operations). There are some posters (who will remain unnamed) who were blatantly agains what Holy Mother Church teaches on some issues, and yet do not have "HELLO, I DO NOT REP. THE CHURCH" under their names. That is so tragic, because people looking into the Faith or not totally knowledgable of it may think that those people had legit. claims to defend their own ideals.
Sorry if this sounds like a rant. I suppose it is to a certain extent. But I am still debating leaving PM because of that. I particularly like Vocation Sation; it HAS helped me to find support in my vocation. But I question PM's overall faithfulness, I suppose.

[Good Friday]

[quote name='dUSt']I like 1 out of every 100 of GF's posts.[/quote]
That sounds about right.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='cathqat' date='Feb 8 2005, 06:26 PM'] I think that dUst [i]already[/i] does a good job keeping the phorum on track. [/quote]
Quit taking me out of context. I am not disputing the job dust does. I think you are well aware of that. He does a fine job. I have already said that, and said that his arguments for allowing some of the material that he chose to allow were fairly convincing. The argument is with your assertion that it is not dusts responsibility to monitor the content of this site. Both dust and I have taken issue with this assertion. I shall not respond to you again (at least not in this particular discussion), as I am tired of repeating myself.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='Iacobus' date='Feb 8 2005, 07:13 PM'] I would have PMed this if I could, but I can't so I am going to haul it up. My point wasn't so much that I don't like anti-e's but rather that I don't like anti-e's that do so just beacuse their reading of the Bible says God did it so it must be. If they base their disagreement in sound science, while I don't always agree, that is a much different case. [/quote]
Thank you for the clarification.

[jezic]

i thought of another thing, since there is already this resistance thing in the 20 and under. You could make that a forum that has a warning or requires a password or something.

Or something like that .....

[Micheal5403]

I think you should leave Phatmass just the way it is, Dust. One of my major pet peeves is when religious people never discuss any real world, relevent to everyday life, topics (other than like abortion) and want everything to be "protected". Because do you know what, the world isn't a protected place and teens need to be as prepared as possible for it. If that involves threads about controversial topics then oh well. I personally think that phatmass is a very good environment to learn about these "controversial" subjects because otherwise we'll just find out about them somewhere else. I hope I haven't offended anybody, but I'm 16, go to a public highschool, and I'm tired of people trying to cover up the corruption in the world, because it's there and people either need to learn how to handle it or to know when and what to avoid.

Peace,
Jacob

[popestpiusx]

Michael,
You have some good points, but that only goes so far. Ursurping the role of a parent is a bad thing.