What is your opinion of the following statement?

You are correct. many young people seem to be unsupervised on here or their parents do not care about the content they are posting. I have two daughters that participate in YA. One is 12 and the other almost 15. I supervise them constantly. They are good, sensible kids who stick to categories they know about and enjoy such as music, wrestling, football etc. No matter which one is on the site it becomes a family affair. Our computer is in our lounge room, so they cannot use it without my supervision and they are fine with that. My 14 yr old has ventured into pre teen once and was so like omg have these kids got nothing better to do than do things they are not ready for. She hangs in the music and entertainment sections 95% of the time. Parents need to be more responsible if they are going to let their children participate. And I agree that Laws differ from country to country etc and it would be a good idea to have an International code of conduct and behaviour. The hard part is getting people to follow it. I guess for those of us that are not from the US, we need to respect and except that Yahoo is an American based company and abide by those Laws. The best answer I can offer you at this point.

If anyone admits on this site that he/she is under 13, I use the Report Abuse button to let the team know. It's not safe for young children to be giving out personal information about themselves. The problem with supervising adults is that there is no way for Yahoo! to tell if there is adult there supervising or not. Fortunately, there are a lot of people on this site who look out for these children. As mentioned earlier, you can report abuse to get the team to look into questionable posts by users of any age.

The leaderboard is designed to show who has earned a lot of points legitimately through useful contributions rather than through just gaming. This also makes it easier for gamers to be spotted and suspended. The whole points system is designed to get people to contribute well. There are some who abuse that system, but it does have it's benefits (mentioned elsewhere many times).

Anything illegal in the United States is against the rules here on Yahoo! Answers. Anything against the community guidelines is against the rules. The Y!A team cannot give you a definition of morals, but they have given you a set of rules for the site that covers the basics. These are subject to be altered slightly as the site continues to develop, with user feedback or by the discretion of the team. It's not just inconsistency. They're trying to improve the system... or so I see it.

hi. i in my view disagree with the respond. One definition of philosophy is "the rational examine of the truths and concepts of being, expertise, or habit." by a man or woman's philosophy, they'll come into expertise of regardless of they choose to question. a man or woman could make judgements based on the understanding they discover or the solutions they have faith. in my opinion, which could nevertheless be top or incorrect, a philosophy can furnish a man or woman the two a path and a verify on many diverse matters. yet, if philosophy is purely the thank you to seek, what happens once you come across some thing? Do you characteristic that answer to the philosophy you observed or do you basically take the respond as a around discover? i've got faith which you will see that it the two way yet in addition that a philosophy can the two reason a man or woman to seek for an answer and discover it too. additionally, i do no longer think of which you will be ignorant in philosophy because of the fact there is not any one thank you to verify it. thank you and robust bye.

Parents are responsible for their children, not a company an organization or a government. You are right, this is an international forum, perhaps you should petition the U.N. for an answer.

I agree this is America and Freedom of Speech rules

I agree as some of these kids are never being supervised

we live in a post Bush/Chenny world where they can make the law and break it too. so, just suck it up and move on.

dude, get a life

Yup, I copied and pasted. This is what morality means according to Wikepedia. I also know what morality means to myself. I agree that it should be an open forum. I don't understand why the points system is the way it is. I actually participate in this forum for entertainment, and yes some of the content offends me. I am learning to ignore the questions that I find offensive and answer only the questions that interest me, such as yours seem to do. Good luck with your quest to find the truth to Yahoo....

Morality

Morality deals with that which is regarded as right or wrong. The term is used in regard to three contexts: individual conscience, systems of principles and judgments, sometimes called moral values, shared within a cultural, religious, secular, Humanist or philosophical community and codes of behavior or conduct derived from these systems.

Personal morality defines and distinguishes among right and wrong intentions, thoughts or actions. Human conscience is widely acknowledged to encourage individuals to do right; its origins and role are the subject of much discussion. Belief in an effective system of divine judgment often helps with personal motivation, as classically seen in the success of Medieval codes of knighthood and the spread of Islam. The desire to conform to the behavior of a group to which an individual belongs or aspires to belong is also a powerful force, though it may generally apply to more general cultural norms and customs, where the dichotomy is between proper and improper behavior.

Group morality develops from shared concepts and beliefs and is often codified to regulate behavior within a culture or community. Various defined actions come to be called moral or immoral. Individuals who choose moral action are popularly held to possess "moral fibre", whereas those who indulge in immoral behavior may be labelled as socially degenerate. The continued existence of a group may depend on widespread conformity to codes of morality; an inability to adjust moral codes in response to new challenges is sometimes credited with the demise of a community (a positive example would be the function of Cistercian reform in reviving monasticism; a negative example would be the role of the Dowager Empress in the subjugation of China to European interests). Within nationalist movements, there has been some tendency to feel that a nation will not survive or prosper without acknowledging one, common morality.

Codified morality is generally distinguished from custom, another way for a community to define appropriate activity, by the former's derivation from natural or universal principles. In certain religious communities, the Divine is said to provide these principles through revelation, sometimes in great detail. Such codes may be called laws, as in the Law of Moses, or community morality may be defined through commentary on the texts of revelation, as in Islamic law. Such codes are distinguished from legal or judicial right, including civil rights, which are based on the accumulated traditions, decrees and legislation of a political authority, though these latter often invoke the authority of the moral law.

In any society, actual behavior patterns diverge, sometimes seriously, from accepted notions of how one ought to behave. This dissonance is exaggerated for political effects by the pundits of hypothetical morals, who invite confusion as to the details and applicability of a group's fundamental moral code.

Morality can also be seen as the collection of beliefs as to what constitutes a good life. Since throughout most of human history, religions have provided both visions and regulations for an ideal life (through such beliefs characterized by 'the god(s) know what's best for us') morality is often confused with religious precepts. In secular communities, lifestyle choices, which represent an individual's conception of the good life, are often discussed in terms of "morality". Individuals sometimes feel that making an appropriate lifestyle choice invokes a true morality, and that accepted codes of conduct within their chosen community are fundamentally moral, even when such codes deviate from more general social principles.

The systematic study of morality is a branch of philosophy called ethics. Ethics seeks to address questions such as how one ought to behave in a specific situation (applied ethics), how one can justify a moral position (normative ethics), how one should understand the fundamental nature of ethics or morality itself, including whether it has any objective justification (meta-ethics), and the nature and explanation of moral capacity or the ontogenetic development of moral agency (moral psychology).

For example, in applied ethics, three issues that revolve around interpretations of the moral ban on murder - capital punishment, abortion and wars of invasion - are under contentious discussion in United States society and politics. In normative ethics, a common question is how one would justify a lie given for the sake of protecting someone from harm. Do the terms "good", "evil", "right", and "wrong" make sense? Meta-ethics asks whether the "good" exists, or is "right" simply relative and "morality" simply a statement of preference (an idea called "cultural relativism")?