|
On July 28 2013 01:22 Xialos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 01:12 peacenl wrote:On July 28 2013 00:59 Talin wrote:On July 27 2013 20:10 LAN-f34r wrote:
Lets face it. Not all parents are good parents. This will help the children of said parents (children of sucky parents are still children). Also, not all parents are very tech savy (to say nothing of grandparents etc that may take care of them). They may not know how to make a filter - this will support those parents.
Independent of any other (more controversial) benefits, I believe that this out ways any cons. I agree that there are good parents and bad parents, I just don't think that quality of parenting is determined by the degree of obsessiveness over children coming across porn. I'm all down with government measures that counteract some of the aspects of actual bad parenting, but there's no evidence to suggest that this one does that at all. It's very much based in the obsolete "everything about sex is dirty and/or immoral" premise, that itself stems mainly from religious beliefs and traditions. It's not the governments' role to interfere with our lives, it should be kept to a minimum at least to ensure our freedoms. However, this idea is completely twisted it seems as they want to take every opportunity to impose things on us, just because something affects a small amount of the population. Government laws, measures should be a last resort because it doesn't fix the problem from its root (such as bad parenting and parents not using internet filters), but takes away the symptoms of a problem, while at the same time the true problem doesn't disappear. I haven't found the logic thus far other than abuse of power. You said : «It's not the governments' role to interfere with our lives, it should be kept to a minimum» You realize that it's a subjective opinion? The political spectrum has 2 sides, right and left... You are clearly on the right side, but some people are on the left side you know... consider that.
That's bullshit, I am something you would consider left, because I hate the whole financial sector and think it should be banned. But what people do in their private should be their business as long as they do not really harm others.
Instead of banning porn they should emphasize on educating parents more and creating a system where parents have more time for their children instead of having to work themselves to death and come home exhausted and unwilling to spend time with their children because of that.
I mean parents themselves should look what their children are doing and prepare them for the world.
I mean there is porn and lots of fetishes and things people like and what not and just not showing them doesn't make it going away.
If children or young teens want to see sex, porn or stuff they will find their way, we have, and so will they.
The only thing we should ban and get rid of is our society our politicians and the whole financial sector and every rich guy.
Perhaps it would also be a good idea to ban political stuff because it might influence people in a bad way or drive them towards making wrong decisions, who knows.
|
On July 28 2013 01:22 Xialos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 01:12 peacenl wrote:On July 28 2013 00:59 Talin wrote:On July 27 2013 20:10 LAN-f34r wrote:
Lets face it. Not all parents are good parents. This will help the children of said parents (children of sucky parents are still children). Also, not all parents are very tech savy (to say nothing of grandparents etc that may take care of them). They may not know how to make a filter - this will support those parents.
Independent of any other (more controversial) benefits, I believe that this out ways any cons. I agree that there are good parents and bad parents, I just don't think that quality of parenting is determined by the degree of obsessiveness over children coming across porn. I'm all down with government measures that counteract some of the aspects of actual bad parenting, but there's no evidence to suggest that this one does that at all. It's very much based in the obsolete "everything about sex is dirty and/or immoral" premise, that itself stems mainly from religious beliefs and traditions. It's not the governments' role to interfere with our lives, it should be kept to a minimum at least to ensure our freedoms. However, this idea is completely twisted it seems as they want to take every opportunity to impose things on us, just because something affects a small amount of the population. Government laws, measures should be a last resort because it doesn't fix the problem from its root (such as bad parenting and parents not using internet filters), but takes away the symptoms of a problem, while at the same time the true problem doesn't disappear. I haven't found the logic thus far other than abuse of power. You said : «It's not the governments' role to interfere with our lives, it should be kept to a minimum» You realize that it's a subjective opinion? The political spectrum has 2 sides, right and left... You are clearly on the right side, but some people are on the left side you know... consider that.
That's a weird assessment, as there's plenty of people who'd argue the opposite about their respective parties and their opponents. Which is of course why just seeing the whole spectrum as having only two sides is about as dumb as this plan.
For your reference, Cameron is considered a conservative.
|
On July 28 2013 01:22 Xialos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 01:12 peacenl wrote:On July 28 2013 00:59 Talin wrote:On July 27 2013 20:10 LAN-f34r wrote:
Lets face it. Not all parents are good parents. This will help the children of said parents (children of sucky parents are still children). Also, not all parents are very tech savy (to say nothing of grandparents etc that may take care of them). They may not know how to make a filter - this will support those parents.
Independent of any other (more controversial) benefits, I believe that this out ways any cons. I agree that there are good parents and bad parents, I just don't think that quality of parenting is determined by the degree of obsessiveness over children coming across porn. I'm all down with government measures that counteract some of the aspects of actual bad parenting, but there's no evidence to suggest that this one does that at all. It's very much based in the obsolete "everything about sex is dirty and/or immoral" premise, that itself stems mainly from religious beliefs and traditions. It's not the governments' role to interfere with our lives, it should be kept to a minimum at least to ensure our freedoms. However, this idea is completely twisted it seems as they want to take every opportunity to impose things on us, just because something affects a small amount of the population. Government laws, measures should be a last resort because it doesn't fix the problem from its root (such as bad parenting and parents not using internet filters), but takes away the symptoms of a problem, while at the same time the true problem doesn't disappear. I haven't found the logic thus far other than abuse of power. You said : «It's not the governments' role to interfere with our lives, it should be kept to a minimum» You realize that it's a subjective opinion? The political spectrum has 2 sides, right and left... You are clearly on the right side, but some people are on the left side you know... consider that.
There are actually people who think the government controlling what information is available to us is a good thing? o_O
If this was just porn, I wouldn't feel strongly about it because as the OP said, you can opt out of this quite readily, however I highly doubt the government would stop at censoring porn.
|
On July 28 2013 01:37 zbedlam wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 01:22 Xialos wrote:On July 28 2013 01:12 peacenl wrote:On July 28 2013 00:59 Talin wrote:On July 27 2013 20:10 LAN-f34r wrote:
Lets face it. Not all parents are good parents. This will help the children of said parents (children of sucky parents are still children). Also, not all parents are very tech savy (to say nothing of grandparents etc that may take care of them). They may not know how to make a filter - this will support those parents.
Independent of any other (more controversial) benefits, I believe that this out ways any cons. I agree that there are good parents and bad parents, I just don't think that quality of parenting is determined by the degree of obsessiveness over children coming across porn. I'm all down with government measures that counteract some of the aspects of actual bad parenting, but there's no evidence to suggest that this one does that at all. It's very much based in the obsolete "everything about sex is dirty and/or immoral" premise, that itself stems mainly from religious beliefs and traditions. It's not the governments' role to interfere with our lives, it should be kept to a minimum at least to ensure our freedoms. However, this idea is completely twisted it seems as they want to take every opportunity to impose things on us, just because something affects a small amount of the population. Government laws, measures should be a last resort because it doesn't fix the problem from its root (such as bad parenting and parents not using internet filters), but takes away the symptoms of a problem, while at the same time the true problem doesn't disappear. I haven't found the logic thus far other than abuse of power. You said : «It's not the governments' role to interfere with our lives, it should be kept to a minimum» You realize that it's a subjective opinion? The political spectrum has 2 sides, right and left... You are clearly on the right side, but some people are on the left side you know... consider that. There are actually people who think the government controlling what information is available to us is a good thing? o_O If this was just porn, I wouldn't feel strongly about it because as the OP said, you can opt out of this quite readily, however I highly doubt the government would stop at censoring porn.
With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.
<3 Star Trek !
|
On July 28 2013 01:12 peacenl wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 00:59 Talin wrote:On July 27 2013 20:10 LAN-f34r wrote:
Lets face it. Not all parents are good parents. This will help the children of said parents (children of sucky parents are still children). Also, not all parents are very tech savy (to say nothing of grandparents etc that may take care of them). They may not know how to make a filter - this will support those parents.
Independent of any other (more controversial) benefits, I believe that this out ways any cons. I agree that there are good parents and bad parents, I just don't think that quality of parenting is determined by the degree of obsessiveness over children coming across porn. I'm all down with government measures that counteract some of the aspects of actual bad parenting, but there's no evidence to suggest that this one does that at all. It's very much based in the obsolete "everything about sex is dirty and/or immoral" premise, that itself stems mainly from religious beliefs and traditions. It's not the governments' role to interfere with our lives, it should be kept to a minimum at least to ensure our freedoms. However, this idea is completely twisted it seems as they want to take every opportunity to impose things on us, just because something affects a small amount of the population. Government laws, measures should be a last resort because it doesn't fix the problem from its root (such as bad parenting and parents not using internet filters), but takes away the symptoms of a problem, while at the same time the true problem doesn't disappear. I haven't found the logic thus far other than misuse of power because of inability to solve problems.
When it comes to raising children, the parents' "freedoms" often undermine the child's development and ultimately affect their whole lives in a negative way. You have some parents objecting to the government infringing on their freedoms, but they themselves have no similar ideological qualms when it comes to putting themselves in a position of absolute power and authority over the lives of their children.
Children watching porn is probably not even in the top 100 elements of bad parenting, which is the real reason why this law is just pandering bullshit. However, there are other parenting issues that are very, very real - and the only hope a child has is to be lucky enough not to be born to such parents. And I don't think leaving it down to the luck of the draw is an acceptable way for the society to deal with those problems.
Fixing the problem at its root is mostly impossible, or at the very least sub-optimal. Those "roots" run very deep, and at the root level, there are no isolated social problems you can solve - they're all intertwined. In order to solve one, you usually need to solve most of them, if not all.
|
On July 28 2013 01:22 Xialos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 01:12 peacenl wrote:On July 28 2013 00:59 Talin wrote:On July 27 2013 20:10 LAN-f34r wrote:
Lets face it. Not all parents are good parents. This will help the children of said parents (children of sucky parents are still children). Also, not all parents are very tech savy (to say nothing of grandparents etc that may take care of them). They may not know how to make a filter - this will support those parents.
Independent of any other (more controversial) benefits, I believe that this out ways any cons. I agree that there are good parents and bad parents, I just don't think that quality of parenting is determined by the degree of obsessiveness over children coming across porn. I'm all down with government measures that counteract some of the aspects of actual bad parenting, but there's no evidence to suggest that this one does that at all. It's very much based in the obsolete "everything about sex is dirty and/or immoral" premise, that itself stems mainly from religious beliefs and traditions. It's not the governments' role to interfere with our lives, it should be kept to a minimum at least to ensure our freedoms. However, this idea is completely twisted it seems as they want to take every opportunity to impose things on us, just because something affects a small amount of the population. Government laws, measures should be a last resort because it doesn't fix the problem from its root (such as bad parenting and parents not using internet filters), but takes away the symptoms of a problem, while at the same time the true problem doesn't disappear. I haven't found the logic thus far other than abuse of power. You said : «It's not the governments' role to interfere with our lives, it should be kept to a minimum» You realize that it's a subjective opinion? The political spectrum has 2 sides, right and left... You are clearly on the right side, but some people are on the left side you know... consider that.
Why deal with these what if's anyway, when the gov. acts like a corporatist government instead of a socialist one. Also look into the historic idea behind the formation of a government.
I don't see any point in dealing with other types governments, than the one that is serving today. The current government decides what happens not the people or their subjective opinions. If read Obama's/Cameron's website, you'd see that they explicitly state that they want to keep government interference with human lives to a minimum.
But let's not get ahead of ourselves, this goes beyond left or right wing, because almost any political party wants to gov. influence on humans kept at a minimum. There's only a difference in what each party identify as measures that are absolutely required to be carried out by the government. If you can find any party that is explicitly out to increase the control on humans without an ideal behind it, let me know.
|
On July 28 2013 01:37 zbedlam wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 01:22 Xialos wrote:On July 28 2013 01:12 peacenl wrote:On July 28 2013 00:59 Talin wrote:On July 27 2013 20:10 LAN-f34r wrote:
Lets face it. Not all parents are good parents. This will help the children of said parents (children of sucky parents are still children). Also, not all parents are very tech savy (to say nothing of grandparents etc that may take care of them). They may not know how to make a filter - this will support those parents.
Independent of any other (more controversial) benefits, I believe that this out ways any cons. I agree that there are good parents and bad parents, I just don't think that quality of parenting is determined by the degree of obsessiveness over children coming across porn. I'm all down with government measures that counteract some of the aspects of actual bad parenting, but there's no evidence to suggest that this one does that at all. It's very much based in the obsolete "everything about sex is dirty and/or immoral" premise, that itself stems mainly from religious beliefs and traditions. It's not the governments' role to interfere with our lives, it should be kept to a minimum at least to ensure our freedoms. However, this idea is completely twisted it seems as they want to take every opportunity to impose things on us, just because something affects a small amount of the population. Government laws, measures should be a last resort because it doesn't fix the problem from its root (such as bad parenting and parents not using internet filters), but takes away the symptoms of a problem, while at the same time the true problem doesn't disappear. I haven't found the logic thus far other than abuse of power. You said : «It's not the governments' role to interfere with our lives, it should be kept to a minimum» You realize that it's a subjective opinion? The political spectrum has 2 sides, right and left... You are clearly on the right side, but some people are on the left side you know... consider that. There are actually people who think the government controlling what information is available to us is a good thing? o_O If this was just porn, I wouldn't feel strongly about it because as the OP said, you can opt out of this quite readily, however I highly doubt the government would stop at censoring porn.
Not many. LOL @ it being a left vs right thing. Both the left and right are very opposed to this in general. The political spectrum cannot be likened to two sides of a coin.
|
Porn is not for children, but keeping porn away from them is the parents job.
I can see good reasons for providing the tools to help concerned parents, but forcing it down peoples throats is not the way to do it.
I think this law falls well inside the realm of moral regulating, but it is also opening up further regulation at ISP-level, so it is also a slippery legal decission in terms of internet regulation. His aversion against filtering on any other media tends to confirm that this is a first step towards a far heavier regulation of the internet.
In the end, the guy, more or less needs a miracle to keep his job after 2014. I am not sure that trying to feast on UKIP voters in a fight of far right ideological policies (anti-EU, moral regulation, austerity/government without influence on economic matters etc.) is gonna help him catch labour.
|
They're banning rape porn ostensibly to keep it out of the hands of children. Ridiculous. Why is rape porn apparently so damaging to children, and not anal or lesbian? Why is there a supposed crisis of rape porn adled children in the UK? In reality its just a populist authoritarian attempt to get rid of something most people dont particularly like, and hes using "but what of the children??" as his goto excuse.
Lets face it, if you cant stop your children from consuming copious amounts of rape porn, you probably cant stop them from doing much.
|
Northern Ireland174 Posts
internet filters (if any should exisit at all) should always be opt-in NOT opt-out.
This whole issue kinda reminds me of the lyrics to Vanilla Sex by NOFX and sums up my feelings on the matter.
+ Show Spoiler +Don't ever take away from me my pornography We obviously don't agree on what's obscene I have the right to choose what I Want to see and read Don't try to take away from me My right to privacy cause what I Do is no one's business but me So stay in your missionary position I hope that you get bored to death There's no way I'm going through life Having vanilla sex The government's trying to get into Your bedroom you better lock your Door and close your shades because There could be someone watching you today Why do you try to make things illegal Why do we have to be 21 Are you afraid that people are having Too much fun Why do you care what I do in my bedroom Why do you want to know how I screw It seems to me you've got nothing better to do
|
Northern Ireland25771 Posts
On July 28 2013 01:57 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 01:12 peacenl wrote:On July 28 2013 00:59 Talin wrote:On July 27 2013 20:10 LAN-f34r wrote:
Lets face it. Not all parents are good parents. This will help the children of said parents (children of sucky parents are still children). Also, not all parents are very tech savy (to say nothing of grandparents etc that may take care of them). They may not know how to make a filter - this will support those parents.
Independent of any other (more controversial) benefits, I believe that this out ways any cons. I agree that there are good parents and bad parents, I just don't think that quality of parenting is determined by the degree of obsessiveness over children coming across porn. I'm all down with government measures that counteract some of the aspects of actual bad parenting, but there's no evidence to suggest that this one does that at all. It's very much based in the obsolete "everything about sex is dirty and/or immoral" premise, that itself stems mainly from religious beliefs and traditions. It's not the governments' role to interfere with our lives, it should be kept to a minimum at least to ensure our freedoms. However, this idea is completely twisted it seems as they want to take every opportunity to impose things on us, just because something affects a small amount of the population. Government laws, measures should be a last resort because it doesn't fix the problem from its root (such as bad parenting and parents not using internet filters), but takes away the symptoms of a problem, while at the same time the true problem doesn't disappear. I haven't found the logic thus far other than misuse of power because of inability to solve problems. When it comes to raising children, the parents' "freedoms" often undermine the child's development and ultimately affect their whole lives in a negative way. You have some parents objecting to the government infringing on their freedoms, but they themselves have no similar ideological qualms when it comes to putting themselves in a position of absolute power and authority over the lives of their children. Children watching porn is probably not even in the top 100 elements of bad parenting, which is the real reason why this law is just pandering bullshit. However, there are other parenting issues that are very, very real - and the only hope a child has is to be lucky enough not to be born to such parents. And I don't think leaving it down to the luck of the draw is an acceptable way for the society to deal with those problems. Fixing the problem at its root is mostly impossible, or at the very least sub-optimal. Those "roots" run very deep, and at the root level, there are no isolated social problems you can solve - they're all intertwined. In order to solve one, you usually need to solve most of them, if not all.
It's only gaining traction because, somehow in this day and age people still continue to be wilfully obstinate in learning to be at least vaguely tech-literate. It's a pathetic mentality, my grandad is in his 80s now and only really started using a PC in his mid 70s, and he knows his way around a little.
Parents of really overweight kids are far better candidates for intervention than parents who don't know how to block porn, or any number of other 'problems'.
That said, just out of principle I want as little interjection as possible about these kind of things, but hell if you're dealing with problems at least deal with things that ARE problems
|
They should ban violent video games next because children might get their hands on them. Why do they allow violent movies in the UK in this day and age either? Can someone from the UK help me out and explain why these things aren't banned? Its for the children right?
|
On July 28 2013 01:37 schimmetje wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 01:22 Xialos wrote:On July 28 2013 01:12 peacenl wrote:On July 28 2013 00:59 Talin wrote:On July 27 2013 20:10 LAN-f34r wrote:
Lets face it. Not all parents are good parents. This will help the children of said parents (children of sucky parents are still children). Also, not all parents are very tech savy (to say nothing of grandparents etc that may take care of them). They may not know how to make a filter - this will support those parents.
Independent of any other (more controversial) benefits, I believe that this out ways any cons. I agree that there are good parents and bad parents, I just don't think that quality of parenting is determined by the degree of obsessiveness over children coming across porn. I'm all down with government measures that counteract some of the aspects of actual bad parenting, but there's no evidence to suggest that this one does that at all. It's very much based in the obsolete "everything about sex is dirty and/or immoral" premise, that itself stems mainly from religious beliefs and traditions. It's not the governments' role to interfere with our lives, it should be kept to a minimum at least to ensure our freedoms. However, this idea is completely twisted it seems as they want to take every opportunity to impose things on us, just because something affects a small amount of the population. Government laws, measures should be a last resort because it doesn't fix the problem from its root (such as bad parenting and parents not using internet filters), but takes away the symptoms of a problem, while at the same time the true problem doesn't disappear. I haven't found the logic thus far other than abuse of power. You said : «It's not the governments' role to interfere with our lives, it should be kept to a minimum» You realize that it's a subjective opinion? The political spectrum has 2 sides, right and left... You are clearly on the right side, but some people are on the left side you know... consider that. That's a weird assessment, as there's plenty of people who'd argue the opposite about their respective parties and their opponents. Which is of course why just seeing the whole spectrum as having only two sides is about as dumb as this plan. For your reference, Cameron is considered a conservative.
I have not related the opinions of the parties to their respective political ideology(left/right). I was just pointing the fact that this guy was on the right side of the political spectrum because he thinks that the governement should have minimum impacts on society. Of course the information issue cannot be necessarily related to your political ideology...
And of course the the political spectrum cannot be likened to two sides of a coin, it's a line, you can be anywhere on that 100 000 000m line.
|
Are they serious? Who in their right minds would allow more government spying after the NSA thing?
|
Northern Ireland25771 Posts
On July 28 2013 07:52 i_bE_free wrote:
Are they serious? Who in their right minds would allow more government spying after the NSA thing?
Vast swathes of people don't seem to care really.
Not quite sure why this is the case, but I no longer expect better
|
On July 28 2013 05:17 Smat wrote:
They should ban violent video games next because children might get their hands on them. Why do they allow violent movies in the UK in this day and age either? Can someone from the UK help me out and explain why these things aren't banned? Its for the children right?
This isn't at all about banning porn.
Violent movies, if you want to use the comparison, are already government-regulated. A kid wants to see an adult-rated movie, he needs an adult with him to go to a theater, or to rent/purchase the movie from a store. But now a kid with internet access can watch things much more horrific than even what you see in the movies, in terms of violence, without anyone to personally verify the kid's age.
It's an internet issue, it's not banning any actual material. We've long regulated kid's from watching adult material in other venues, but in the internet there is nothing of any substance actually preventing kids from witnessing material and imagery that is truly more sensational, shocking and provocative than it has ever been before.
On July 28 2013 01:57 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 01:12 peacenl wrote:On July 28 2013 00:59 Talin wrote:On July 27 2013 20:10 LAN-f34r wrote:
Lets face it. Not all parents are good parents. This will help the children of said parents (children of sucky parents are still children). Also, not all parents are very tech savy (to say nothing of grandparents etc that may take care of them). They may not know how to make a filter - this will support those parents.
Independent of any other (more controversial) benefits, I believe that this out ways any cons. I agree that there are good parents and bad parents, I just don't think that quality of parenting is determined by the degree of obsessiveness over children coming across porn. I'm all down with government measures that counteract some of the aspects of actual bad parenting, but there's no evidence to suggest that this one does that at all. It's very much based in the obsolete "everything about sex is dirty and/or immoral" premise, that itself stems mainly from religious beliefs and traditions. It's not the governments' role to interfere with our lives, it should be kept to a minimum at least to ensure our freedoms. However, this idea is completely twisted it seems as they want to take every opportunity to impose things on us, just because something affects a small amount of the population. Government laws, measures should be a last resort because it doesn't fix the problem from its root (such as bad parenting and parents not using internet filters), but takes away the symptoms of a problem, while at the same time the true problem doesn't disappear. I haven't found the logic thus far other than misuse of power because of inability to solve problems. When it comes to raising children, the parents' "freedoms" often undermine the child's development and ultimately affect their whole lives in a negative way. You have some parents objecting to the government infringing on their freedoms, but they themselves have no similar ideological qualms when it comes to putting themselves in a position of absolute power and authority over the lives of their children. Children watching porn is probably not even in the top 100 elements of bad parenting, which is the real reason why this law is just pandering bullshit. However, there are other parenting issues that are very, very real - and the only hope a child has is to be lucky enough not to be born to such parents. And I don't think leaving it down to the luck of the draw is an acceptable way for the society to deal with those problems. Fixing the problem at its root is mostly impossible, or at the very least sub-optimal. Those "roots" run very deep, and at the root level, there are no isolated social problems you can solve - they're all intertwined. In order to solve one, you usually need to solve most of them, if not all.
Of those 100 other elements of bad parenting, I think you'll find there often are laws to prevent those elements from ruining the kids' lives. Sadly, those laws aren't going to offer anyone absolute protection, and they're of course never going to solve the "roots" of the problems. But they can still be beneficial.
We allow regulations in other venues all the time, we never questioned big-government laws that banned kids from buying porn at the local quik-e-mart. But someone wants to do to ISPs what we essentially do with every other porn-outlet, and people act like their freedom is being taken away. If you aren't of minor age, or are incapable of telling your ISP that you want access to adult-material, you aren't losing anything at all from this law.
The "slippery slope" argument is a BS, malleable, all-purpose argument that could be applied to anything the government does. Our ISPs should offer the same child-protection that we've long demanded from all other purveyors of adult material.
Since this thread is full of platitudes and outrage, I have to say I can't help but think a lot of the moral outrage at this is over the thought that some people might have to actually interact with another human being at some point in order to get to their porn... I can imagine some poor husband not being comfortable telling his Victorian wife he turned off the ISP protection, and then she asks why. Luckily for that guy, porn stores and DVDs still exist. He'll survive as his father and father's father did.
|
When it comes to raising children, the parents' "freedoms" often undermine the child's development and ultimately affect their whole lives in a negative way.
Well Talin the standard by which that should be judged is the child's ability to function in society. And obviously a large number of parents fail at that to a disgusting degree. All parents fail to some degree there. And it is not the parental "freedoms" that cause harm, it is bad exercise of them. It's very doubtful that contracting such authority out would make things better; the governmental agencies that already can and do assume authority over children when necessary usually do just as badly at preparing the children to be functional adults. As you say, it's a problem with no full solution.
but they themselves have no similar ideological qualms when it comes to putting themselves in a position of absolute power and authority over the lives of their children.
It's not really an ideological question. It's biology and evolution. Parents do not generally have a formed ideology of why they should have near-absolute power over their children other than "it's my child." That's biology talking right there. Biology > ideology unless there is a very very strong case against it, which in the situation of parental "freedoms" there is not. In the examples we have of ideology trumping "it's my child," the children on the whole do not seem to be much better off. Physical sexual or severe emotional abuse excepted of course.
On July 28 2013 06:43 Xialos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 01:37 schimmetje wrote:On July 28 2013 01:22 Xialos wrote:On July 28 2013 01:12 peacenl wrote:On July 28 2013 00:59 Talin wrote:On July 27 2013 20:10 LAN-f34r wrote:
Lets face it. Not all parents are good parents. This will help the children of said parents (children of sucky parents are still children). Also, not all parents are very tech savy (to say nothing of grandparents etc that may take care of them). They may not know how to make a filter - this will support those parents.
Independent of any other (more controversial) benefits, I believe that this out ways any cons. I agree that there are good parents and bad parents, I just don't think that quality of parenting is determined by the degree of obsessiveness over children coming across porn. I'm all down with government measures that counteract some of the aspects of actual bad parenting, but there's no evidence to suggest that this one does that at all. It's very much based in the obsolete "everything about sex is dirty and/or immoral" premise, that itself stems mainly from religious beliefs and traditions. It's not the governments' role to interfere with our lives, it should be kept to a minimum at least to ensure our freedoms. However, this idea is completely twisted it seems as they want to take every opportunity to impose things on us, just because something affects a small amount of the population. Government laws, measures should be a last resort because it doesn't fix the problem from its root (such as bad parenting and parents not using internet filters), but takes away the symptoms of a problem, while at the same time the true problem doesn't disappear. I haven't found the logic thus far other than abuse of power. You said : «It's not the governments' role to interfere with our lives, it should be kept to a minimum» You realize that it's a subjective opinion? The political spectrum has 2 sides, right and left... You are clearly on the right side, but some people are on the left side you know... consider that. That's a weird assessment, as there's plenty of people who'd argue the opposite about their respective parties and their opponents. Which is of course why just seeing the whole spectrum as having only two sides is about as dumb as this plan. For your reference, Cameron is considered a conservative. I have not related the opinions of the parties to their respective political ideology(left/right). I was just pointing the fact that this guy was on the right side of the political spectrum because he thinks that the governement should have minimum impacts on society. Of course the information issue cannot be necessarily related to your political ideology... And of course the the political spectrum cannot be likened to two sides of a coin, it's a line, you can be anywhere on that 100 000 000m line.
No no no wanting government intrusion into private life at a minimum and government presence/impact in society at a minimum are two very different things. Private life and society are not the same thing.
|
Northern Ireland25771 Posts
Who is being protected from pornography? It's pointless to regulate it in such a manner considering how sex-obsessed and vacuous so much of mass culture is. It's like removing a fingernail from a gangreous limb and looking around smugly as if you've made a dent on the issue at hand.
It's noting more than a bullshit morality campaign run by the tabloid press in this country to make people forget the industry-wide illegality and dubious editorial content they have pursued for as long as I can remember.
|
What I want to know is, if you opt out in for porn (or w/e) will the isps still ban some of the really messed up stuff etc. anyway, i.e., is there a blanket level of censorship for all people (even those who 'opt in' for porn)? That could indicate government censorship even when it isn't wanted.
The people who say our culture is oversexualised, children are being exposed to porn too early etc. may have a point, but then why does the Government have to put in measures under the guise of 'protecting against child porn'. Why can't the government acknowledge what their propositions will actually entail, that's the least I would expect from them. It seems that there's policy put in place too often which effects people 'unintentionally' given what the government has said the policy is for. (In reality this is probably not unintentionally but the government should at least acknowledge that).
In this specific example, surely making parents aware of what their kids may be viewing on the internet and the steps they can take to prevent it would be the first step.
|
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
That said this is one of the first steps in western world to a censored internet and to prepare, slowly but surely, to form of a police state. Now this won´t affect most people in Britain.
We´ll see if internet news, reporters and political groups will get shut down because of "terrorists" acts and or crime versus the governing power relations or even just because of the children issue(just using unreal arguments, don´t even try to respond you fool) in let´s say 20 years. The problem they are addressing with this specific law/rule/whatever is society related and not a problem of the free internet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
