That's why there's Netflix streaming for the kid, and a bottle of scotch for me.

Why would I rent a single title for $4 when I have Netflix? I hand them a fair amount every month. They give me all I can consume. If content providers don't want to play with Netflix, then they lose out on my money. It's that simple.

It was my understanding that the actual talent that made the content possible were a minuscule portion of the money surrounding a production. For instance I've heard quotes such as less than $0.10 of every dollar made goes to a recording artist. If that's true then I don't really believe that's the problem. The problem is all the greedy little middle men with wayward ideas about how to monetize content.

I have a hunch that she has an empathy for children which is what drove her to pursue the education thing. While it might be more practical to choose a different career, it is unlikely that she would ever be happy with anything less than engaging young minds.

Has she considered private schools, or even private tutoring (think Silvan or Math Addvantage)? The environment for both is radically different from that of a public school. In both cases the students involved are more likely to be "reachable" and education the actual goal.

Quite right, it would be sneaking into their father's porn collection when nobody's looking. Which of course is the next stop after looking up genitals. Just as on Wikipedia kids will seek out the childhood taboos of genitals, peeing, etc. after which, armed with new search terms will discover other angles on human sexuality and how much more useful Google is to pursue that.

My point is, that this is not a new development with the advent of Internet. Open parental engagement, not content filters is what is required if children are to develop a healthy perspective and treatment of the subject. Would it be helpful if people didn't flaunt it in front of children too young to understand? Perhaps. But, parents are also too quick to use this as a wall to hide behind for the sake of their own comfort. They'd rather hide the subject and not deal with it because the idea of discussing human sexuality with their children makes them uncomfortable. Most kids are quite capable of grasping at an elementary school age what the parts are, where they go, and why people put them there. Parents aren't owning up to the reality that their children, no matter how tightly they think they are blocking their exposure will eventually be exposed and at a far earlier age than most would consider possible. Regardless of what they do their children will be exposed to and pursue the subject. Either the parents can guide them through the subject and instill the values they want them to have or they can let them draw their own conclusions from exploring the perversions manifest and offered up by a minority of diseased minds.

This is simply an evolution of children looking up "genitals" in the encyclopedia on the shelf. The solution isn't to ban/filter content, the solution is for parents to be proactive and have frank, honest and ongoing conversation with their children about human sexuality. Just because you rip the page out of your encyclopedia at home doesn't mean they won't go look it up on their next visit to the public library. Hiding, prohibiting, and generally making it a taboo subject, especially for children whom are naturally curious will only motivate them to chase after it. When they do, it won't be the parents that are in control of the lessons learned.

Sending them a bill is irrelevant when the patient doesn't pay. The unpaid expenses accrued by the hospital trickle down to everyone else receiving care.

As for the root cause of the problem, you can blame it on greed and this.

The only way I would accept that would be for you to opt out of every tax payer sponsored program contributing to you, every law protecting your societal status. That you would opt out of every insuree sponsored insurance benefit, every patient sponsored medical treatment. That you would establish an adequately funded trust fund for every one of your dependents as well as a fund to pay for disposing of your larded a** when you quiescently eat yourself to death.

In other words, if you do not want society to regulate what you do, then you have not right to ask that same society to contribute to your benefit.

It's called the emergency ward at the hospital. I am unaware of any state in the U.S. that does not provide one.

What is considered a crime and the severity there of is a societal issue expressed through government legislation. Fill in some of the bits between either end and you'll see that it really isn't a false continuum. To help inspire your imagination I'll start things for you. Obviously the position of some are debatable but also not the point

1. Parent depriving their child of typical experiences because of their lifestyle
2. Parent depending upon the aid of their child because of their lifestyle
3. Parent influencing their child into the same lifestyle
4. Parent depriving their child of essentials because of their lifestyle
5. Parent orphaning their child due to unhealthy lifestyle
6. Parent harming their child's health because of their lifestyle (think hot box smoking or reckless driving)
7. Parent mentally abusing their child
8. Parent physically abusing their child
9. Parent physically and irreparably damaging their child
10. Parent murdering their child
11. Parent torturing their child until they die