by Squawk » Fri Oct 19, 2007 1:30 am
by JAS » Fri Oct 19, 2007 9:19 am
by Cambridge Clarrie » Fri Oct 19, 2007 10:06 am
by Psyber » Fri Oct 19, 2007 10:31 pm
by Mr66 » Fri Oct 19, 2007 10:35 pm
by Psyber » Fri Oct 19, 2007 10:41 pm
Mr66 wrote:Parents.
Charles Barkley said that all entertainers & athletes owe the public, is a good peformance.
by Squawk » Tue Oct 23, 2007 10:40 pm
by Psyber » Wed Oct 24, 2007 10:26 pm
Squawk wrote:Interesting that after all the debate about whether Cousins et al are role models or not, very few can seem to clarify what a role model constitutes?
by rod_rooster » Wed Oct 24, 2007 10:31 pm
Psyber wrote:It doesn't matter whether it is fair - public figures need to be regulated for the sake of those who may copy what they see.
by JK » Wed Oct 24, 2007 10:37 pm
rod_rooster wrote:Psyber wrote:It doesn't matter whether it is fair - public figures need to be regulated for the sake of those who may copy what they see.
What a lot of crap. If parents can't take the time to be proper role models for their children that is not the fault of entertainers or sports people. Where would you draw the line on who should be regulated? As i said, what a lot of crap. Perhaps parents should be regulated and those not capable of looking after children properly should not be allowed to have them.
by Psyber » Wed Oct 24, 2007 11:21 pm
rod_rooster wrote:Psyber wrote:It doesn't matter whether it is fair - public figures need to be regulated for the sake of those who may copy what they see.
What a lot of crap. If parents can't take the time to be proper role models for their children that is not the fault of entertainers or sports people. Where would you draw the line on who should be regulated? As i said, what a lot of crap. Perhaps parents should be regulated and those not capable of looking after children properly should not be allowed to have them.
by rod_rooster » Wed Oct 24, 2007 11:33 pm
by Squawk » Wed Oct 24, 2007 11:59 pm
rod_rooster wrote:Psyber wrote:Perhaps parents should be regulated and those not capable of looking after children properly should not be allowed to have them.
by rod_rooster » Thu Oct 25, 2007 12:12 am
Squawk wrote: I think the issue with public figures is that they are expected to set an example to society and so the benchmark is often perceived to be higher for them.
by Squawk » Thu Oct 25, 2007 12:25 am
rod_rooster wrote:Squawk wrote: I think the issue with public figures is that they are expected to set an example to society and so the benchmark is often perceived to be higher for them.
Is that fair though? I'd argue that it would do more damage to a child to see their mother/father get into a position such as getting drunk, wasted on drugs, arrested etc. than hearing about a sports person or entertainer doing similar.
by rod_rooster » Thu Oct 25, 2007 1:33 am
Squawk wrote:being drafted at 17 does really allow much opportunity for those kids to grow up and make mistakes in the process.
by Psyber » Thu Oct 25, 2007 11:55 pm
rod_rooster wrote:Psyber, i never suggested that the only people who have to provide a good example are the parents. If everyone in society is bad then people will continue to be no doubt. Fact is that there are people who should be more responsible than the sports people and entertainers yet aren't. If the people who should be educating children (whether that be parents, teachers, counsellors etc.) don't steer them in the right direction it is not the fault of the young men who might slip up and make a mistake in public once in a while. FFS i think we expect a little too much of blokes who are thrust into the limelight and public eye while still children themselves.
Why should a young bloke playing football have to be responsible for setting an example when the majority of teachers are out on a Friday or Saturday night getting plastered and doing god knows what with who knows who? Easy to get all high and mighty about someone who is in the public eye but what about all those who have direct contact with our youth who set a far worse example on a much more regular basis? Perhaps the problem lies there rather than sports people or entertainers??
by Dog_ger » Fri Oct 26, 2007 6:32 pm
by Mr66 » Fri Oct 26, 2007 9:30 pm
Psyber wrote:Mr66 wrote:Parents.
Charles Barkley said that all entertainers & athletes owe the public, is a good peformance.
Except a lot of kids see more of people who appear on TV than they do of their parents who both have jobs! And as they get towards adolescence and become anti-parent they actively seek outside models - and then who do they get! It doesn't matter whether it is fair - public figures need to be regulated for the sake of those who may copy what they see.
by Psyber » Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:08 pm
Mr66 wrote:Psyber wrote:Mr66 wrote:Parents.
Charles Barkley said that all entertainers & athletes owe the public, is a good peformance.
Except a lot of kids see more of people who appear on TV than they do of their parents who both have jobs! And as they get towards adolescence and become anti-parent they actively seek outside models - and then who do they get! It doesn't matter whether it is fair - public figures need to be regulated for the sake of those who may copy what they see.
I agree!
They should be regulated like their celebrity brethren in China, Cuba,North Korea,Iran etc...
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |