Thread: No porn please we're a Christian government Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023043
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
Interesting short blog post from liberalconspiracy.org claiming that a non independent non parliamentary independent parliamentary commission is trying to censor the Internet for the sake of the children.
What you shipmates think? Conspiracy theory?
Who gets to decide what we can access on the Internet.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
It should be a criminal offense to have a computer in an environment where a minor can access traumatizing and depraving material.
Similarly to supply one. Or such material. Like an 18 certificate game to a mother at the Tesco checkout for her 12 year old son.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
quote:
What you shipmates think? Conspiracy theory?
I'm always up for a new conspiracy theory. They are so much fun.
But what's new here? Politics has been bedevilled by MP's commissioning non-elected people and bodies to tell them what they want to hear for many years now. Harriet Harman had a bit of a reputation for it, though whether she was worse than anyone else is another matter.
There are of course a huge range of practical considerations which no doubt others will raise, but my point is that this is hardly anything new.
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
quote:
Lest we forget, Safe Media’s stating objectives don;t stop at just pornography…
to minimise the availability of potentially harmful media content displaying violence, pornography and explicit sex, bad language and anti-social behaviour and the portrayal of drugs
These bastards want to censor the internet outright.
Hmmm, I use the internet quite a lot, and a bare minimum of it consists of violence, porn, sex, bad language, anti-social behaviour and drugs.
Of course that stuff is there, but I don't see anything wrong with the idea of people needing to opt in to it.
As for the rest of the stuff in the article regarding the "independent inquiry" stuff that actually turns out to be sponsored by someone, isn't that what most "parliamentary inquiry" is? Lobbying by another name. If it's not actually a select committee or the like, then it's just someones particular interest.
Posted by Edith (# 16978) on
:
It probably isn't anything new, but those of us who have seen the effects of children being exposed to pornography because of its easy availability and / or because many parents are too lazy or too computer illiterate to stop it, would welcome anything which restricts access. I don't understand why it is a problem to ask those who have studied a particular matter to give informed advice; election does not confer knowledge or necessarily wisdom. And I note that those who wax indignant about 'censorship' are generally chaps, not mothers and grandmothers.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Edith wrote:- quote:
I don't understand why it is a problem to ask those who have studied a particular matter to give informed advice; election does not confer knowledge or necessarily wisdom.
You are right of course. And any government must listen to representations from people outside its own circle, whether or not that is called lobbying. But there is a point to be made about seeking information from people who are pretty well guaranteed to come up with a POV that suits you, then claiming it is unbiased consultancy. It isn't, and, moreover, politics is bedevilled by failures to adequately debate the pros and cons of any change.
I'm probably broadly supportive of what is proposed, but I am concerned about the broader issue of adequately understanding what we are getting ourselves into. What we might be getting ourselves out of is probably easier to define, though of course the limits of that are going to be up for debate.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
In an environment with minors one should only be allowed to criminally accountably opt in to it.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Once you've got a censored internet, you don't have any control over what gets added to the blacklist.
Sorry and all, but *that* is not a force for good. We won't even know what it is we don't know. I'm going to put my (and everyone else's) ability to learn stuff the government and their corporate paymasters don't want me to know ahead of the unwillingness of some parents to parent properly.
These kids who are watching porn online are also watching 18 films and playing 18 games with their parents' consent, tacit or explicit.
No doubt at all that it damages their childhood and their adulthood, but this isn't the way to do it.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Interesting short blog post from liberalconspiracy.org claiming that a non independent non parliamentary independent parliamentary commission is trying to censor the Internet for the sake of the children.
What you shipmates think? Conspiracy theory?
This shipmate says 'Political grandstanding', for both parties.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
What you shipmates think? Conspiracy theory?
My thought was more like "import from Australian politics". For which I am truly sorry.
Mind you, if what they're suggesting is OPT-IN, then I doubt you actually have much of a problem and hysteria about it is misplaced. Because aroud here, people had to work quite hard to get 'opt-in' on the table rather than the prospect of the internet being filtered for all and sundry, regardless of whether any impressionable youngsters were present.
The whole topic's gone rather off the boil here in the last couple of years, actually. Was quite the hot topic at one point. I think it died when someone's draft blacklist leaked. It had some utterly, utterly bizarre entries on it, perfectly legitimate websites that had somehow been captured because they had a word of interest in them somewhere.
[ 07. May 2012, 12:25: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
If you're over 18 and not in need of protection by the law, and want to poison your mind, what's the problem ? How does protecting minors from paraphilia and other evil affect our rights to political freedom ? How are they connected ? And wouldn't a real grown up sacrifice 'political freedom' for protection of the vulnerable
?
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
Yep - I'd go with having to 'opt in' too.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
The non-independent non-parliamentary independent parliamentary enquiry is very funny, really.
These issues always bring up Lenin's dictum, 'Who whom?'
Who decides what material is off-limits, and to who? Sorry, whom.
It tends to expand as well, not just sexual imagery, but anti-social imagery as well! What the hell is anti-social?
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
What a couple of old reactionary fuddy-duddies FAILING TO SEE THE THREAT TO OUR BLOOD BOUGHT LIBERTIES !!!!
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
If you're over 18 and not in need of protection by the law, and want to poison your mind, what's the problem ? How does protecting minors from paraphilia and other evil affect our rights to political freedom ? How are they connected ? And wouldn't a real grown up sacrifice 'political freedom' for protection of the vulnerable
?
Firstly, most households get their internet down a single 'pipe'. The ISPs will be censoring content not on the basis of the individual who is accessing the information, but on the wider household basis. If you can't imagine legislation that imposes an ISP-based internet block on all households that contain children, then you lack imagination.
Secondly, blocking can be done in two ways - a whitelist and a blacklist. If your wanted DNS is on the blacklist, you can't connect to it. If it's not on a whitelist, likewise. Ask your local secondary school IT person how they block access to proxy servers and TOR. Most of it is done on a whitelist basis, which means (for example) I can't access YouTube clips of science and engineering stuff in the classroom. It's a blunt instrument that infringes on my ability to demonstrate science, let alone my political freedoms.
Thirdly, the vulnerable need their political freedoms far more than the secure. A real grown-up knows this.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I have seen one suggested solution, which is to give all sex web-sites .xxx domain names, and then give parents the ability to block them.
One obvious problem with it is that there is nothing to stop somebody starting a porn web-site without an .xxx domain name, say, .hotmiddleclasstoryladies.
I think blacklists don't work, as they are soon out of date, and are very easy to circumvent.
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
I would just note that the internet has many problems related to that of controlling porn. We should restructure it to control the wide variety of scams that plague it, too. We should be able to use e-mail without having to shield ourselves from torrents of spam. Why would anyone think that "freedom" means that other people can abuse you however they like?
It will be quite difficult to bring law to Russian and Nigerian internet thieves, but we either need to remove those countries from access to the internet or find a way to prosecute and imprison the many thieves who prey on people from those countries. This lawlessness has gone on for far too long.
I would personally not be opposed to an "opt in" policy for porn -- but it should be coupled with aggressive inforcement of the policy. We just don't have the infrastructure at this time to keep the internet from being a haven for thieves and con men. That needs to change if the internet is to continue to thrive. Or so ISTM.
--Tom Clune
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
I would personally not be opposed to an "opt in" policy for porn -- but it should be coupled with aggressive inforcement of the policy. We just don't have the infrastructure at this time to keep the internet from being a haven for thieves and con men. That needs to change if the internet is to continue to thrive. Or so ISTM.
It should be noted that one of the reasons the internet has thrived is the lack of a central gatekeeper for content. Bear in mind that the internet we have today was not inevitable. If you recall back to the early days of making the internet available to the wider public the model was more of a "walled garden" than an "information superhighway". (Think Compuserve or early AOL.) Access could be had to sites with the provider's domain, but no further. I would argue that eliminating this restriction is one of the things that made the internet so attractive to the masses.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
What, children need paraphilia as the price for an irresponsible adult's 'political freedom' ?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
What, children need paraphilia as the price for an irresponsible adult's 'political freedom' ?
Given that no one really knows how paraphilias are formed (but we're fairly certain that they're not made by exposure to porn), restricting all internet traffic to a level considered safe for the average six year old seems a gratuitous over-reaction.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
What, children need paraphilia as the price for an irresponsible adult's 'political freedom' ?
Children get unfettered access to scenes of violence often IRL, not on screens. How's about sorting out some serious problems for once?
Opt-in won't address some aspects of internet porn as some sites won't co-operate even if the ISPs all do (and you can bet that the nastier the site's content, the less co-operative they will be), and the greater problems of paedophilia in the family and 'grooming' will remain unaffected.
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Access could be had to sites with the provider's domain, but no further. I would argue that eliminating this restriction is one of the things that made the internet so attractive to the masses.
Yes, I agree. But what has inevitably happened is that it has become the domain of predators, and that will change the perceived desirablitiy of it as increasing numbers of people are subject to various kinds of scams. Ten years ago, nobody worried about scams at all. Now, everybody who is on the net has a variety of firewall and malware protection software, and it just isn't enough. I already know some people who have started to opt out of internet use because of the extreme vulnerability that they find themselves subject to. This will only grow as the thefts become more prevalent.
My wife and I already devote an hour or two a week to undoing the effects of electronic theft. And we haven't ever suffered the worst of the identity theft problems. I expect that people will start dropping out of the internet and even credit card use as this problem continues unabated.
--Tom Clune
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
I wouldn't trust you, a computer and a 6 year old in the same house.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
While internet fraud is a problem, it's not one that can be solved by banning pornographic websites.
In other, related, news:
quote:
Remember the controversial Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show, in which Justin Timberlake exposed Jackson’s breast to the whole world, in which half the audiences faces melted like that scene in the Well of Souls in Raiders of the Lost Ark from the shock? And nearly the other half of the audience’s heads exploded like in Scanners? Well, it turns out that the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia finally resolved the long, ongoing nightmare that we’ve all been distressed over for the past eight year on Wednesday, “ruling that CBS doesn’t have to pay $550,000 in fines levied by 20 affiliates for indecent exposure. Voting 2-1 to void the fine, the court stated that the FCC has maintained a “consistent refusal” to treat sudden nude images as indecent, and there was no reason to treat the Jackson case differently.”
Is it pure coincidence that Janet Jackson's nipple was exposed for half a second on American television's most watched program and a mere four and half years later the world economy collapsed? I think not!
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Well, laugh if you want, but Ms Jackson's nipple caused severe mental anguish to my 89 year old grandad, who swore that he had seen it, but then immediately doubted his own perceptions. This in fact led him to a kind of existential anguish, which only abated after reading Sartre's 'Being and Nothingness', after which he opined, that not being able to remember a nipple, is in some ways the same as there being no nipple. He put this to the check-out girl in Tesco's, so you can see the kind of depravity which can ensue.
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
While internet fraud is a problem, it's not one that can be solved by banning pornographic websites.
That's true. My original point, which apparently was not made sufficiently clearly that it communicated to you, was that the basic problem was internet security. If the infrastructue is in place for insuring that, issues like control of porn become matters for policy debate rather than technical impossibilities. To my mind, porn is just a fun sideshow to the real problems that the internet faces.
--Tom Clune
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
While internet fraud is a problem, it's not one that can be solved by banning pornographic websites.
That's true. My original point, which apparently was not made sufficiently clearly that it communicated to you, was that the basic problem was internet security. If the infrastructue is in place for insuring that, issues like control of porn become matters for policy debate rather than technical impossibilities. To my mind, porn is just a fun sideshow to the real problems that the internet faces.
--Tom Clune
Well, some countries are already implementing that kind of top-down control of internet content and access. I'm not sure I'd like to see the results emmulated elsewhere, though.
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Well, some countries are already implementing that kind of top-down control of internet content and access. I'm not sure I'd like to see the results emmulated elsewhere, though.
Yes, that is the issue. Oddly, not everyone would buy your implication that the way to decide whether an approach is useful or not is to look at the paradigm case of abuse for such things. The notion that an open society will conduct its business just like a totalitarian state does is at best questionable. In the extreme, it is worth having some concerns about. But there is massive room for introducing controls on the internet before it becomes nothing more than a mouthpiece for the state. Or so ISTM.
--Tom Clune
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Edith:
those of us who have seen the effects of children being exposed to pornography because of its easy availability and / or because many parents are too lazy or too computer illiterate to stop it, would welcome anything which restricts access.
Those effects are what, exactly?
What's the problem, again? For the most part, the system is already opt-in. I'm hardly bombarded with nudity or importuning when surfing the net. The only exceptions are when an image pops up in Google results due to blatent misrepresentation, i.e. completely irrelevant search terms (usually numerous) in the description. Google provides an opportunity to report these incidents, and I do so. Let's hope that such reports are acted upon in some way. They do seem to be less frequent than they used to be.
Frankly, however, such abuse outrages me more as a cataloger than as a self-appointed guardian of public morals. It would be the same if the content were totally "innocuous." The morass resulting when products are indexed only by their own producers and marketers is evident. It underlines the continuing need for this work as done by those who are both skilled and disinterested. (Librarianship/information science, anyone?)
When I don't want porn, I don't get porn. Are you sure this isn't a tempest in a teapot from people who don't want others to have porn?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Well, some countries are already implementing that kind of top-down control of internet content and access. I'm not sure I'd like to see the results emmulated elsewhere, though.
Yes, that is the issue. Oddly, not everyone would buy your implication that the way to decide whether an approach is useful or not is to look at the paradigm case of abuse for such things.
I do find that odd. When governments propose vastly expanding their powers of control in a new direction I consider the question "how could this new authority potentially be abused" to be a fairly basic and obvious one.
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
The notion that an open society will conduct its business just like a totalitarian state does is at best questionable. In the extreme, it is worth having some concerns about. But there is massive room for introducing controls on the internet before it becomes nothing more than a mouthpiece for the state. Or so ISTM.
There's a long tradition of censorship even in countries long considered "open" and democratic. A better question is "Why will it be different this time?"
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Tom,
Look to your own, conservative politicians. Do you trust them to decide what you are allowed access to? It isn't necessarily about being as restrictive as China. Just who gets to decide how much restriction is the correct amount? That is the worrisome bit. Especially as I think the porn bit is merely to grease the gate hinges. What next will be deemed unsuitable?
Side note: if your child is accessing porn, the problem may not be with unrestricted websites.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
It isn't a conspiracy 'theory' as such. It is more of an actual conspiracy.
C.A.R.E., an extreme fundamentalist group had the ear of New Labour because it produced free (biased) researchers.
Premier Radio is mostly evangelical but not exclusively (A friend of mine who is an anglo-catholic priest has a show on it). I signed one of their petitions in support of Religious Education being in the English Baccalauriate. Since thenh, I get e mails asking me to sign up to issues with which i do not agree
However, they are a lesson in how to get involved as Christians. If only those of us on the left wing were as effective.
On the issue of porn, I am no prude and realise that a high percentage of man and teenage boys access it but it is a far cry frojm the more 'innocent'stuff of my teens. I still remember the first full-frontal nude woman on top shelf magazines. The amount and explicit nature of stuff online worries me because I think it degrades women (and men) and creates low self-esteem on normal people who are not so physically fit and well-endowed.
I am anti-censorship on the whole but most parents do not know enough about computers to know how a filter works. So maybe an opt-in scheme is needed. (As long as it doesn't filter breast cancer sites like a lot of network filters do.)
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
There's a long tradition of censorship even in countries long considered "open" and democratic. A better question is "Why will it be different this time?"
You're not under the impression that the Comstock laws are still the law of the land, are you? If you understand that they are not, then you must realize that it is different this time.
--Tom Clune
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
if your child is accessing porn, the problem may not be with unrestricted websites.
Quite likely, the ubiquity of computers and "wired" electronic devices generally is probably a far more serious larger issue. What does it do to brains? I doubt that computers have any place in an elementary classroom, and they've been greatly oversold for middle school years as well. The notion that schools desperately need more Internet bandwith is a facile cop-out. With a more skeptical culture, it would be easier for parents to restrict the use of computers by children, for important reasons that have nothing to do with pornography-- but it would solve that problem as well.
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Tom,
Look to your own, conservative politicians. Do you trust them to decide what you are allowed access to? It isn't necessarily about being as restrictive as China. Just who gets to decide how much restriction is the correct amount? That is the worrisome bit. Especially as I think the porn bit is merely to grease the gate hinges.
If you were following the discussion with Croesos, you must realize that my main concern is not pornography at all. Rather, it is the open predation that characterizes the internet increasingly. Furthermore, even folks who don't themselves use the internet are subject to this predatory behavior -- stores routinely store and transport all manner of information about their customers by the internet, and many of them have been robbed. But this robbery is visited upon the customers, not the store. It is out of control and must be stopped.
Getting control of the internet in a way that allows for this sort of control would presumably make it trivial to enforce whatever porn policy the society found to be appropriate. Failing to put such an infrastructure in place would make it virtually impossible to impose selective order on the internet.
So the technical argument has to begin with whether or not we want any controls on the internet. If not, we will continue with what we have until people opt out of the electronic society entirely, for their own safety. If so, then we can decide what we want to apply those controls to, and under what conditions. My belief is that the internet is reaching a critical mass of thievery that will require imposition of a meaningful safety infrastructure.
Pretending that the real problem with the internet is that dirty pictures are downloadable is just brain-dead. I was hoping to refocus the core of the debate to the real issue. Once we actually can control what happens in the ether, we can decide how much control we find appropriate. But the notion that we can reasonably continue as we are going strikes me as willfully blind to the reality of the medium.
--Tom Clune
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Ms Jackson's nipple caused severe mental anguish to my 89 year old grandad . . . which only abated after reading Sartre's 'Being and Nothingness'. . . . He put this to the check-out girl in Tesco's. . . .
If he persuaded a Tesco's checkout girl to look into Sartre, then some good did come of it after all. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I wouldn't trust you, a computer and a 6 year old in the same house.
And this is exactly the problem. We'll go from opt-in, to opt-out, to "you've got children in your household, so you don't get a choice".
No, no and thrice no. If it came to that, I'd be getting satellite broadband from a non-UK provider.
It's also not a little odd that there's a dichotomy here, with those folk who'd not normally countenance interference with what goes on in the home imposing the strictest possible controls on what information is available to that family. "It's only porn," they say. Aljazeera often shows images that wouldn't pass the usual mores of western broadcasting. Block that too?
The internet has, like a lot of emergent technologies, been a force for both good and evil. And as uncomfortable as I am arguing for unrestricted public access to pornography, the answer does not lie with legislation, but with individual responsibility. I simply don't trust governments and corporations to play nicely.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Ms Jackson's nipple caused severe mental anguish to my 89 year old grandad . . . which only abated after reading Sartre's 'Being and Nothingness'. . . . He put this to the check-out girl in Tesco's. . . .
If he persuaded a Tesco's checkout girl to look into Sartre, then some good did come of it after all.
Yes, but chatting with her about nipples was rather an uneasy time for everyone, until she tracked down a baby's bottle for him, which pacified him, and in fact, everyone really. He was led off muttering something about the Lacanian sense of the Imaginary, I think he meant that a plastic nipple is not distinguishable from Ms Jackson's televised nipple. Who knows? Ms Jackson, I suppose.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
My belief is that the internet is reaching a critical mass of thievery that will require imposition of a meaningful safety infrastructure.
I have never once suffered any thievery over the internet. I have, however, been assaulted in the street, had cars stolen and broken into, been subject of a burglary and a robbery.
It's the meat stuff that bothers me far more.
Whilst I'd agree that a person's information is theirs, and that data farming and ID theft are real problems, a lot of it is easily avoided by being as smart on the internet as you are in life.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Pretending that the real problem with the internet is that dirty pictures are downloadable is just brain-dead.
With that I firmly agree. You mention the extensive use of digital telecommunications (to describe it more generically than "The Internet", as the design of the Internet seems to be the issue) as problematic in the lives even of people who are not wired.
You should bear in mind, though, that the likeliest redesign will favor commercial, industrial, governmental, and other large institutions over private citizens (especially members of the 99%) with a two-tiered structure that would starve small subscribers of bandwidth and other features. Far from solving the problems you describe, it would be a nightmare, as if Orwell were merely too early with his predictions.
I'll take the status quo, warts and all, just as I'd rather live with the U.S. Constitution as is, for all its faults, than with anything likely to result from a convention.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
There's a long tradition of censorship even in countries long considered "open" and democratic. A better question is "Why will it be different this time?"
You're not under the impression that the Comstock laws are still the law of the land, are you? If you understand that they are not, then you must realize that it is different this time.
Just pointing out that, contrary to your prior assertion, large-scale censorship isn't something that only totalitarian governments get up to. Unless you're claiming that the turn of the twentieth century United States was a totalitarian state (which seems to be defining totalitarianism down) or that the Comstock laws weren't really censorship (which is just plain wrong).
At any rate, just saying "this time we'll do censorship right" isn't very convincing, especially given that the motivation seems to be pretty much the same (keep smut out of other people's hands).
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Doc Tor wrote:
The internet has, like a lot of emergent technologies, been a force for both good and evil. And as uncomfortable as I am arguing for unrestricted public access to pornography, the answer does not lie with legislation, but with individual responsibility. I simply don't trust governments and corporations to play nicely.
Yes, that sums it up for me. I do wonder if porn is a Trojan horse, behind which will march the forces of censorship of 'anti-social' material. I think the internet makes governments and news corporations nervous, as it takes information and news out of the hands of the rich and powerful, to an extent.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
I said 'I completely agree Doc.' initially. So we must be complicit in the corruption of minors due to irresponsible adults. Freddy Forsythe called it Devil's Alternative.
Then I just kept mulling over the utter depraving filth that the corporate OWNERS of the internet make billions out of. As the technology advances ticking "I am over 18" isn't good enough. I used biometric security years ago. There is NO excuse for the SUPPLY of a computer to the domestic market with default access to corrupting material. There is no excuse for allowing corrupting material to be published any where on the internet, no protection from prosecution, for service providers, where a minor could easily access it and no adult be held responsible.
I'd freely vote for that.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
In an environment with minors one should only be allowed to criminally accountably opt in to it.
Eh? You want us opt in to using the public roads, being British, breathing the polluted air? All of which have killed a lot more children than the Internet has. What do you want to do to those that don't choose to be in?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Er, what is 'corrupting material'? Pictures of people fucking?
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Yeah Ken, and I'd uninvent distillation too.
Aye feathered serpent, well done.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Then I just kept mulling over the utter depraving filth that the corporate OWNERS of the internet make billions out of.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I said 'I completely agree Doc.' initially. So we must be complicit in the corruption of minors due to irresponsible adults. Freddy Forsythe called it Devil's Alternative.
Then I just kept mulling over the utter depraving filth that the corporate OWNERS of the internet make billions out of. As the technology advances ticking "I am over 18" isn't good enough. I used biometric security years ago. There is NO excuse for the SUPPLY of a computer to the domestic market with default access to corrupting material. There is no excuse for allowing corrupting material to be published any where on the internet, no protection from prosecution, for service providers, where a minor could easily access it and no adult be held responsible.
I'd freely vote for that.
Thanks pal. We wouldn't have the internet on which The Ship sails with the kind of restrictions you mention. Governments would love an international authority that could close down sites and compel ISPs to conform to some moral standard. The nanny states and zombie capitalists would actually agree on something and we would all be the losers.
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Doc Tor wrote:
The internet has, like a lot of emergent technologies, been a force for both good and evil. And as uncomfortable as I am arguing for unrestricted public access to pornography, the answer does not lie with legislation, but with individual responsibility. I simply don't trust governments and corporations to play nicely.
Yes, that sums it up for me. I do wonder if porn is a Trojan horse, behind which will march the forces of censorship of 'anti-social' material. I think the internet makes governments and news corporations nervous, as it takes information and news out of the hands of the rich and powerful, to an extent.
Absolutely. The "won't someone think of the children" line is utterly mendacious cant; the current UK government doesn't give a flying one about children - or, indeed, anyone else that isn't themselves. It is all about control of the internet - every government's dream. This manufactured anti-porn moral panic campaign is, I would point out, currently being vociferously supported by the Daily Mail (despite a 10-1 Thumbs Down from their readers' online comments).
If parents/guardians don't want their offspring viewing what they deem to be unsuitable material, the solution is in their own hands - either smarten up enough to set unhackable controls, pay someone to do it - or, radically, stop allowing the kids unfettered computer access in rooms where they can't be seen.
If we can view nothing unsuitable for minors, we will end up only watching Disney movies.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Anytime SS. It'll come. Internet piracy anyone ? Guvvamunt uh ?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
One of the comical things about the Daily Mail campaign on this, is that normally they are an advocate of the small state. Let parents look after their children, stop the government snoopers intruding.
But on this issue, and others, suddenly the small staters want very big state control, and want large amounts of snooping. Like, oh yes, I do want 'cumguzzlingsluts' in my living room, and I hereby append my signature to this.
What a useful list that would be to someone! Say a journalist with a large address book, packed full of interesting phone numbers, who was curious about which public figures like porn?
Posted by passer (# 13329) on
:
Well, Paul Dacre was mentally scarred in his youth by exposure to a Sex Pistol, so he should know about this sort of thing. That's why his Mail Online site is so prudish.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Please God, he didn't catch a sight of Ms Jackson's nipple, or who knows the consequences?
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
One of the comical things about the Daily Mail campaign on this, is that normally they are an advocate of the small state. Let parents look after their children, stop the government snoopers intruding.
The other comical thing is that their Mail Online site alternates columnists bemoaning the decline in morals with pictures of female celebrities with not many clothes on. Presumably that way their readers can see what they are supposed to be disapproving of.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I said 'I completely agree Doc.' initially. So we must be complicit in the corruption of minors due to irresponsible adults. Freddy Forsythe called it Devil's Alternative.
Who needs Freddy Forsythe to tell us? Ain't it obvious? The traditional devil's number is two; and guess what number underlies digital technology from the ground up?
We need a whole technological revolution informed by Trinitarian teaching, so that silicon chips are designed around the number 3 instead.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I said 'I completely agree Doc.' initially. So we must be complicit in the corruption of minors due to irresponsible adults. Freddy Forsythe called it Devil's Alternative.
Who needs Freddy Forsythe to tell us? Ain't it obvious? The traditional devil's number is two; and guess what number underlies digital technology from the ground up?
We need a whole technological revolution informed by Trinitarian teaching, so that silicon chips are designed around the number 3 instead.
Good idea. The alternatives would be:
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Please God, he didn't catch a sight of Ms Jackson's nipple, or who knows the consequences?
And can you imagine the trauma to the average sixteen year old if they came across an online image of Michelangelo's David? (NSFW!!! ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Avert your eyes!!!) Imagine the roiling confusion and unaswered questsions! Starting with "if David is Jewish, how come he's not circumcised?"
Posted by Edith (# 16978) on
:
Can I give you one example of two eleven year old girls in school? I used to run a website named after and about a cat. The children used to produce wonderful writing and incredible inventive magazine sections for it. So enthusiastic were they that they would stay in a lunchtimes to do extra work on it. I used to be busy myself flitting around the classroom and keeping a general eye.
One morning I was met by the parents of the girls asking for 'a word'. One of them was the Pastor of the local evangelical church. It seems that they had decided to plan a special room for the cat ad had typed in Pussy Makeover.
Two things. We had the strictest of controls on and the parents were, quite rightly very vexed. Nobody needs to see this sort of thing. I for one would be happy to have such sites blocked.
I suppose there will be those who will chuckle st this story. But, actually, it wasn't funny then and it's not funny now.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
Croesus-- Indeed. Originally conceived to go high in the cathedral of Florence, David was placed instead in front of the city hall. Wikipedia explains:
quote:
Because of the nature of the hero that it represented, it soon came to symbolize the defense of civil liberties embodied in the Florentine Republic, an independent city-state threatened on all sides by more powerful rival states and by the hegemony of the Medici family. The eyes of David, with a warning glare, were turned towards Rome.
Very dangerous notions. Down with him!
Posted by barrea (# 3211) on
:
Call me extreme if you like (I don't care) but I would like to see all porn banned on the net
even for adults. I don't think even that people should be allowed to opt into it.
Why would Christians want to see degrading pictures of women and children being abused, and men too doing all sorts of evil things.
These things must stick in the minds of the people who watch it, and cause no end of confusion for teenage boys who get hooked on it.
It should be stopped altogether, but I supose that is easier said than done, when people are making millions out of it.
What I can't understand is why Christians are defending it on this thread.
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on
:
How would you define porn ?
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
How would you define porn ?
Ah, yes. "It all depends on what the meaning of 'is' is..."
--Tom Clune
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
But Edith, Barrea, all of our political freedoms are at stake! Child sacrifices have to be made.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
Call me extreme if you like (I don't care) but I would like to see all porn banned on the net
even for adults.
<snip>
What I can't understand is why Christians are defending it on this thread.
Is there a definition of pornography that wouldn't also include the Bible? Maybe if you exclude the written word and confine the definition only to images, but there's some pretty racy stuff in the First Testament.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Is there one that includes it ?
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on
:
Rodin's The Kiss ? Rape of Lucretia by Titian ? A Clockwork Orange ? The Pianist ? Brokeback Mountain ?
Oh and broadly speaking, I think we should have the same social rules on the portrayal of sex as we do on the portrayal of death.
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Is there one that includes it ?
Would you consider the as erotica or porn ? Song of Solomon
ETA - link may not be work safe, depending on how uptight your work is.
[ 07. May 2012, 19:01: Message edited by: Think² ]
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
How would you define porn ?
A very good question. As with so many other things there is good porn and bad porn.
There is porn that is degrading and exploitative.
There is porn that is exciting and sex positive.
And while the comments up thread about it being "mostly chaps" is true the times they are a changing and a lot of good porn is being made by and watched by women these days.
As for the worries about children it's really very simple. You don't leave a child with internet access unsupervised in exactly the same way as you don't leave a child unsupervised in many other situations. Case solved.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Is there one that includes it ?
Considering how many depraved acts have Biblical names (sodomy, onanism, doing it Jerusalem style, etc.) I'm not sure how you can even ask that.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
I'm sorry ?
The use of those terms is 'the depiction of acts in a sensational manner, with the entire focus on the physical act, so as to arouse quick intense reactions' i.e. arousal.
You must have a VERY low threshhold.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I'm sorry ?
The use of those terms is 'the depiction of acts in a sensational manner, with the entire focus on the physical act, so as to arouse quick intense reactions' i.e. arousal.
You must have a VERY low threshhold.
I've already found a way for enterprising pornographers of the future to have their work classified as "non-pornographic" under MPCn&SB's new Comstock regime. Simply make sure there's something in there not focused on the physical act. For instance, nudes in all kinds of interesting poses wouldn't be pornographic, since there's no "act" as such being depicted. Likewise, as long as a few lines of philosophy or quantum mechanics is, um, inserted into hardcore films, then they're not pornographic since the entire focus isn't on the physical act.
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on
:
That makes for a long argument on artistic merit really doesn't it.
But I am not sure even if we had the technology that I think that censorship is the answer. Largely because I don't trust the censors. Also I am not sure that watching people have sex is really the problem.
Presumably most people have sex at some point - this is not new information.
The problem, from my point of view, is with the exploitation of vulnerable people to produce porn - and the hazards people are exposed to in the process. And making sure people are not exposed to age inappropriate material.
Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on
:
Also consider that most tech advances, ESPECIALLY those around streaming video and audio (eg BBC iPlayer etc), would nto have even come about if the TCP/IP internetwork had been designed in the same way as the old-style terminal-access X25 networks.
Think of all the innovations that have been enabled by the very open Internet that also, yes, enables Rule 34.
Screw it - even HOME VIDEO mostly came about because of porn!
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
That makes for a long argument on artistic merit really doesn't it.
But I am not sure even if we had the technology that I think that censorship is the answer. Largely because I don't trust the censors. Also I am not sure that watching people have sex is really the problem.
Presumably most people have sex at some point - this is not new information.
The problem, from my point of view, is with the exploitation of vulnerable people to produce porn - and the hazards people are exposed to in the process. And making sure people are not exposed to age inappropriate material.
Of course, if you want to play the sleezy, "define your terms" game ad nauseum, there is no shortage of terms you've used in your post that could tie lawyers into knots for centuries. OTOH, what you would have on the other side of that casuistry is the morality of a lawyer...
--Tom Clune
Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on
:
Further to this - the very sex industry that is having people like CARE panicking... developed stuff like Flash Video players... which has begat BBC iPlayer..
Credit Card online merchant service... leading to Amazon...
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Of course, if you want to play the sleezy, "define your terms" game ad nauseum, there is no shortage of terms you've used in your post that could tie lawyers into knots for centuries. OTOH, what you would have on the other side of that casuistry is the morality of a lawyer...
Ironically, the most famous phrase rejecting a fixed definition of pornography was coined by a lawyer.
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Of course, if you want to play the sleezy, "define your terms" game ad nauseum, there is no shortage of terms you've used in your post that could tie lawyers into knots for centuries. OTOH, what you would have on the other side of that casuistry is the morality of a lawyer...
Ironically, the most famous phrase rejecting a fixed definition of pornography was coined by a lawyer.
It was coined by a judge, a critter who is traditionally afforded a somewhat more evolved status than the slime from which he arose...
--Tom Clune
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
That makes for a long argument on artistic merit really doesn't it.
But I am not sure even if we had the technology that I think that censorship is the answer. Largely because I don't trust the censors. Also I am not sure that watching people have sex is really the problem.
Presumably most people have sex at some point - this is not new information.
The problem, from my point of view, is with the exploitation of vulnerable people to produce porn - and the hazards people are exposed to in the process. And making sure people are not exposed to age inappropriate material.
Of course, if you want to play the sleezy, "define your terms" game ad nauseum, there is no shortage of terms you've used in your post that could tie lawyers into knots for centuries. OTOH, what you would have on the other side of that casuistry is the morality of a lawyer...
--Tom Clune
You are missing my main point, which is that I think the area of greatest moral concern - and which requires the most regulation - is what is actually done rather than how it is recorded or published.
Taking someone who has been emotionally or physically abused in childhood - so they have bugger all self-esteem - and persuading them to rely on the paid for 'appreciation' of others for what remains of their self-worth, whilst they reenact their objectification is evil. Buying it is morally bankrupt.
But letting it happen in the first place is society's failing.
If on the other hand you can find a happy well adjusted set of or pornstars who want to fuck for you to watch I don't care. My problem is that I don't believe that you have.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
It was coined by a judge, a critter who is traditionally afforded a somewhat more evolved status than the slime from which he arose...
A judge is just a lawyer who knows a politician.
At any rate, as far as the exploitive practices involved in producing pornography are concerned it could be argued that the internet as a means of distribution is actually undercutting such producers economically. The threshhold expense of both producing and distributing pornography has plummetted in the digital age, putting enthusiastic amateurs* in direct competition with the professionals and cutting the price they can demand for their product.
--------------------
*It's so easy even U.S. Congressmen can do it!
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
I appreciate why barrea can't understand why some of us are arguing *for* porn, but please realise that that our positions are a lot more nuanced than that. I'm not *for* Page 3 because I'm in favour of a free press: I realise that Page 3 is a by-product of having a free press. (Likewise, I'm not *for* Top Gear because I support the principle of the TV licence.)
Your position on internet censorship will depend on, in part, your attitude to porn. And for that matter, vice versa. Above all, I suppose, it depends on how liberal you want your society: what are you prepared to tolerate in order for what you do to be tolerated in return?
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
Why would Christians want to see degrading pictures of women and children being abused, and men too doing all sorts of evil things.
These things must stick in the minds of the people who watch it,
This description applies just as much to war movies and even war documentaries (to name just two genres). Mustn't we ban these, too?
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Another false dichotomy. My behaviour doesn't have to be tolerated. My behaviour isn't a threat to minors.
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on
:
According to whom, I could asert you promugate heresy and therefore corrupt their souls. Which, if I believed it, would be very important to me.
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
The internet porn tidal wave is blighting childrens and young adults lives. It is, in my opinion, the greatest moral threat we face.
You can't argue how wonderful the technology is and then say it is impossible to find a way that children's inner lives are not twisted and broken in ways that will follow them through their whole lives.
Get a grip, can we not agree that children watching porn is bad and we agree that we should try and find a way to age restrict it? All this is just plain common sense.
AtB, Pyx_e
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Another false dichotomy. My behaviour doesn't have to be tolerated. My behaviour isn't a threat to minors.
According to any number of atheists it is.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Get a grip, can we not agree that children watching porn is bad and we agree that we should try and find a way to age restrict it? All this is just plain common sense.
Yes.
So how would you do it?
I know how I already do it, with a combination of education, discipline and active internet surveillance (which they know about). The computers are in a public part of the house, and their phones are blocked from accessing the internet by the phone co.
I appreciate that's not how some (many? I don't know) parents do things, and we probably wish that they did. I am, however, uncomfortable with the notion that I impose my standards of parenting on them because I never know when that idea's going to come back and bite me on the arse.
It's (IIRC) already illegal to *show* a minor pornography. Can you make a case for it to be illegal to permit a minor to view pornography through inaction or negligence?
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Get a grip, can we not agree that children watching porn is bad and we agree that we should try and find a way to age restrict it? All this is just plain common sense.
AtB, Pyx_e
You're right Pyx_e. If only we lived in a world where things like parents existed. Sadly we can only dream I guess.
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
The internet porn tidal wave is blighting childrens and young adults lives. It is, in my opinion, the greatest moral threat we face.
So forget ecological damage blighting the world for future generations, economics that are causing children to starve, the murder of innocents, homophobic and race related violence etc. etc.
The number one moral threat is......a child seeing images of people having sex....which can be easily prevented....
Yeah I have no faith in your sense of priorities right now.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Let them bring it on mate. Nothing in MY Christianity can be constituted as child abuse. What an absolute bloody travesty. For ME to be tolerated ACTUAL child abuse must be ? I used to think you were smart mate.
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It's (IIRC) already illegal to *show* a minor pornography. Can you make a case for it to be illegal to permit a minor to view pornography through inaction or negligence?
You see, this is one of the things I find confusing. The former is regarded as a pretty unsavoury crime - it's grooming. So why is the latter regarded as no big deal?
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Let them bring it on mate. Nothing in MY Christianity can be constituted as child abuse. What an absolute bloody travesty. For ME to be tolerated ACTUAL child abuse must be ? I used to think you were smart mate.
What you don't seem to be getting that there are roughly 60 million people in the country and they will have different views of what is beyond the pale.
Q1 Should any form of porn be legal?
Q2 Should it matter if it is online or on paper or on disc?
Q3 What level of control should we control over peoples lives to avoid specific risks?
Q4 What are we prepared to do to avoid the risk of a child ( of what age?) Seeing porn (of what type?)
Q5 What are we prepared to do to avoid the risk of a child suffering a severe injury - should parents be allowed to put children in cars merely because it is convenient for them?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Let them bring it on mate. Nothing in MY Christianity can be constituted as child abuse. What an absolute bloody travesty. For ME to be tolerated ACTUAL child abuse must be ? I used to think you were smart mate.
I think you'll find that claim in Christopher Hitchen's "God is not great", amongst other places.
To reiterate, some atheists believe parents inducting and indoctrinating children into their religion constitutes child abuse.
It goes further, of course: you'll find adherents of many/most/all the world's religions who believe that *not* inducting and indoctrinating their children into their religion constitutes child abuse.
And further still, you'll find adherents of many/most/all the world's religions who believe that other parents inducting and indoctrinating their children into their religion constitutes child abuse.
You can argue (legitimately) that western atheists picking on Christianity are having a bit of a first-world problem: most expressions of Western Christianity are relatively benign. But still, it's an argument you should be aware of.
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
I have good strong relationships with my own young adult children and with many young people in my community. Sadly not all my parenting is top notch, I do try and I do work with young people who have been given little or no boundaries. Even I who as a parent tried am saddened by my sons expectations, ideas and thought processes. He has had active parenting and input on this matter, most don’t.
My apologies for not adding the phrase “in this country” to my concerns of the morals of the young (and not so young) but how you managed to squeeze ecological issues into the equation is beyond me.
We are no longer talking about a “Playboy” under the covers and we are no longer talking about watching people have sex (which in itself is inappropriate for children). We are talking about sadistic, degrading, fetishistic, animalistic and dehumanising sex acts in 2 clicks. Your attempt to downplay this is worrying. And to even begin to suggest that this is appropriate for a child to see only shows your ignorance. We are creating a generation of men who think everything is possible doable and acceptable and women who are put in a very difficult position, no pun intended.
We dont’ give kids drink, cars, guns, drugs for a reason.
AtB, Pyx_e
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
Doc Tor - But this is a hopeless argument. It's like a parody of moral relativism.
Obviously Martin is arguing that on this point he is right and they are wrong. And so he is.
Your argument boils down to "Some people disagree with you - therefore you must be wrong". It's like an argument from authority, except without the authority!
[cross-posted with Pyx_e]
[ 07. May 2012, 22:23: Message edited by: TurquoiseTastic ]
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on
:
Yes, but, we don't prevent adults owning cars if they have kids I case they should nick their parents keys. What should be legal pornwise, is a slightly different issue. We teach kids all sorts of safety rules and implement many safety strategies around them - I don't see why the internet is so uniquely challenging in this respect. I wouldn't let a child of mine have a tv in their room because it would mean I could not be clear that they were watching appropriate stuff - I would take similar precautions over the internet. Its not rocket science.
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Doc Tor - But this is a hopeless argument. It's like a parody of moral relativism.
Obviously Martin is arguing that on this point he is right and they are wrong. And so he is.
Your argument boils down to "Some people disagree with you - therefore you must be wrong". It's like an argument from authority, except without the authority!
[cross-posted with Pyx_e]
No Doc Tor is arguing that the fact that some people disagree with you is evidence that you have to be 'tolerated which is one of the reasons we extend tolerance to things we disagree with - so our stuff can be tolerated.
I am a feminist I am not pro-porn - just don't think what is proposed is a good solution.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It's (IIRC) already illegal to *show* a minor pornography. Can you make a case for it to be illegal to permit a minor to view pornography through inaction or negligence?
You see, this is one of the things I find confusing. The former is regarded as a pretty unsavoury crime - it's grooming. So why is the latter regarded as no big deal?
I don't know.
I do think it's a big deal, which is why (amongst other reasons - I work in a school, and Mrs Tor is a lawyer) I do my utmost to keep it out of the house and away from my kids.
I know that other parents don't share my view regarding what's age-appropriate - regarding not just the internet, but games, videos, alcohol, homework and bed-times - and obviously, I think I'm right. But if we took a left-field example from that list, would you make bed-times for children of certain ages mandatory? If so, how would you enforce it? Kids coming into school still tired is a real problem, and it can affect their education and behaviour severely. Not ensuring your children get enough sleep so they can learn the next morning is low-level, chronic child abuse.
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
But if a city had a severe joyriding problem, it would be completely appropriate for the local government to take steps to discourage this, perhaps by requiring manufacturers to construct cars in such a way as to make hotwiring difficult.
Parents of course should be bringing their children up in such a way that they didn't choose to go joyriding. But help from the government is welcome.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Doc Tor - But this is a hopeless argument. It's like a parody of moral relativism.
Obviously Martin is arguing that on this point he is right and they are wrong. And so he is.
Your argument boils down to "Some people disagree with you - therefore you must be wrong". It's like an argument from authority, except without the authority!
[cross-posted with Pyx_e]
I appreciate this. Some people will always disagree with something. For example, is it right that Jewish boys undergo genital mutilation when they're only 8 days old? There are a wide range of views on that...
It's not a question of right and wrong. It's a question on how far the State interferes with the rights of the family as to how it organises and conducts itself, and also how much free access the State allows to the internet. These things are on a sliding scale: if I'm to be allowed to warp my children into being leftist demagogues with the Bible in one hand and a red flag in the other, I have little choice but to accept that other parents are going to do it differently.
The porn question is easy. It's the solution that's difficult.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
But if a city had a severe joyriding problem, it would be completely appropriate for the local government to take steps to discourage this, perhaps by requiring manufacturers to construct cars in such a way as to make hotwiring difficult.
Parents of course should be bringing their children up in such a way that they didn't choose to go joyriding. But help from the government is welcome.
I think you'll find it was the insurance companies who 'helped'. The government did squat.
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
But we think it is OK for the State to intervene sometimes - if children aren't being fed properly, or are being injured and maltreated, for example.
And we even think it is OK for the State to compel children to be educated (you and I are both complicit in that!)
So "non-interference by the State in family life" is clearly not an absolute. We are arguing about how much State interference is a good thing.
I'd suggest that it's a trade-off: to justify a high level of interference, you need a big benefit / prevention of a big harm.
This amount of censorship, if you want to call it that, looks to me like a very small additional level of State interference to do a moderate amount of good.
Sounds like a win to me.
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
But if a city had a severe joyriding problem, it would be completely appropriate for the local government to take steps to discourage this, perhaps by requiring manufacturers to construct cars in such a way as to make hotwiring difficult.
Parents of course should be bringing their children up in such a way that they didn't choose to go joyriding. But help from the government is welcome.
I think you'll find it was the insurance companies who 'helped'. The government did squat.
But it would not be wrong for the government to do something, would it?
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
My apologies for not adding the phrase “in this country” to my concerns of the morals of the young (and not so young) but how you managed to squeeze ecological issues into the equation is beyond me.
We are discussing the internet. It's more or less global. So are all the examples I gave including ecological issues. If you really want to just concentrate on this country there are still many more things to be more concerned about than porn on a computer that a parent can password.
quote:
We are no longer talking about a “Playboy” under the covers and we are no longer talking about watching people have sex (which in itself is inappropriate for children). We are talking about sadistic, degrading, fetishistic, animalistic and dehumanising sex acts in 2 clicks.
Which we can prevent our children from watching by use of a simple password.
quote:
Your attempt to downplay this is worrying. And to even begin to suggest that this is appropriate for a child to see only shows your ignorance.
Could you point out for me where I suggest that porn is appropriate for a child to see. In nearly every post I've made I've mentioned ways of stopping children from seeing it please re read if you missed it the first time.
quote:
We are creating a generation of men who think everything is possible doable and acceptable and women who are put in a very difficult position, no pun intended.
Yeah I watched a superman movie last week and now of course I'm totally convinced I can leap tall buildings.
quote:
We don’t’ give kids drink, cars, guns, drugs for a reason.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Nor do "we" allow them to sit unsupervised in front of a computer and watch porn.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Turquoise Tastic wrote:
This amount of censorship, if you want to call it that, looks to me like a very small additional level of State interference to do a moderate amount of good.
To me, it looks like a lot of state interference. I suspect it would be the precursor to other restrictions, as I don't think in general that governments and news corporations like the internet in its unrestricted form, and they want to regulate it. This to me is a big harm.
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Your attempt to downplay this is worrying. And to even begin to suggest that this is appropriate for a child to see only shows your ignorance.
Could you point out for me where I suggest that porn is appropriate for a child to see. In nearly every post I've made I've mentioned ways of stopping children from seeing it please re read if you missed it the first time.
You certainly give the impression that you think it is no big deal.
quote:
quote:
We are creating a generation of men who think everything is possible doable and acceptable and women who are put in a very difficult position, no pun intended.
Yeah I watched a superman movie last week and now of course I'm totally convinced I can leap tall buildings.
for example, with comments like the one above.
quote:
quote:
We don’t’ give kids drink, cars, guns, drugs for a reason.
Nor do "we" allow them to sit unsupervised in front of a computer and watch porn.
Yes, yes we do. That is the problem. Even good parents might do this by accident, and unfortunately not all parents are good parents.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
But we think it is OK for the State to intervene sometimes - if children aren't being fed properly, or are being injured and maltreated, for example.
And we even think it is OK for the State to compel children to be educated (you and I are both complicit in that!)
Yes. Except we don't compel them to be educated in a school. Parents can and do homeschool.
quote:
So "non-interference by the State in family life" is clearly not an absolute. We are arguing about how much State interference is a good thing.
I'd suggest that it's a trade-off: to justify a high level of interference, you need a big benefit / prevention of a big harm.
And I have never argued otherwise. We both (I presume) have a statutory duty to report suspicions of child abuse. We know where that rubber hits the road.
quote:
This amount of censorship, if you want to call it that, looks to me like a very small additional level of State interference to do a moderate amount of good.
Sounds like a win to me.
Define porn. Tell me who sits between me and the internet deciding on whether I'm looking at porn. Tell me how easy/difficult it will be to open and close the adult gate.
Again - this is where it gets really difficult. We can't stop grown-ups speeding using tech that's over a 100 years old. What will tech-savvy kids do?
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on
:
A question for those who seem to think that porn can be a) defined and b) banned: What about sexual content in non-porn books, films, etc. as well as advertising? What would you do about, say, Cosmopolitan or the Victoria's Secret catalogue? OliviaG
ETA Young men do subscribe to the Victoria's Secret catalogue. It's free soft porn, delivered right to your mailbox.
[ 08. May 2012, 00:14: Message edited by: OliviaG ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
The internet porn tidal wave is blighting childrens and young adults lives. It is, in my opinion, the greatest moral threat we face.
The existence of the tidal wave, though, is something of a myth. I don't have them to hand, but I recently saw some statistics about the makeup of the internet and porn sites weren't anywhere NEAR as large a component as some people would have you believe.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
My suspicions of this rush to censorship are increased by the description by Safer Media of their concerns about 'violence, pornography and explicit sex, bad language and anti-social behaviour and the portrayal of drugs'.
This sounds to me like a classic right-wing diatribe, although I don't know if they are all right-wing people behind it.
I am old enough to remember the Lady Chatterley trial, and I suppose some people want to roll it all back, and bring back blanket censorship, and I oppose it.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Isn't there actually some evidence that the increase in porn has been accompanied in some countries by a decrease in sex crimes? I don't have the research details to hand at the moment, and it's late, but I will look it up.
It is subject to the usual proviso of not confusing correlation with causation!
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
A question for those who seem to think that porn can be a) defined and b) banned: What about sexual content in non-porn books, films, etc. as well as advertising? What would you do about, say, Cosmopolitan or the Victoria's Secret catalogue? OliviaG
ETA Young men do subscribe to the Victoria's Secret catalogue. It's free soft porn, delivered right to your mailbox.
50 years ago, I remember it was National Geographic, photography magazines, and underwear ads, which teenage boys used to hunt down. Imagine masturbating over a corset ad!
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
But we think it is OK for the State to intervene sometimes - if children aren't being fed properly, or are being injured and maltreated, for example.
And we even think it is OK for the State to compel children to be educated (you and I are both complicit in that!)
Yes. Except we don't compel them to be educated in a school. Parents can and do homeschool.
But it's not easy. The default option is that your children will go to school; the system is set up so that you are pushed towards the default option. If you want to homeschool you will need to show that you are doing it properly.
This is to my mind a big, big imposition. Much worse than the proposed filter - much more difficult to opt out, hugely affects family life and relationships. But I'm pretty sure it's a good thing on balance.
quote:
quote:
So "non-interference by the State in family life" is clearly not an absolute. We are arguing about how much State interference is a good thing.
I'd suggest that it's a trade-off: to justify a high level of interference, you need a big benefit / prevention of a big harm.
And I have never argued otherwise. We both (I presume) have a statutory duty to report suspicions of child abuse. We know where that rubber hits the road.
quote:
This amount of censorship, if you want to call it that, looks to me like a very small additional level of State interference to do a moderate amount of good.
Sounds like a win to me.
Define porn. Tell me who sits between me and the internet deciding on whether I'm looking at porn. Tell me how easy/difficult it will be to open and close the adult gate.
Again - this is where it gets really difficult. We can't stop grown-ups speeding using tech that's over a 100 years old. What will tech-savvy kids do?
Even though many people speed and drive badly, it's a good thing for there to be a speed limit and driving licences. The rules are sometimes arbitrary, and they won't do the job on their own - it's essential for people to take responsibility for their own driving. That's not an argument for not bothering to have traffic laws.
You seem to be confident that you can be the gatekeeper for your children, and I'm sure you do a good job. So clearly you have some criteria for judging what is unacceptably pornographic on their behalf. It can be a difficult call sometimes, but often it'll be obvious.
The suggested filter wouldn't be as nuanced as you are. There will be borderline cases. But would it really be that difficult to make most
of the decisions?
And sure, tech-savvy kids who want to find the hard stuff will do so, just like they'll get hold of vodka and cigarettes. That's no excuse for allowing free samples to be given away in the sweet shop.
[correcting quote format!]
[ 08. May 2012, 00:26: Message edited by: TurquoiseTastic ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
My hunch is that Cameron et al will go through the motions of 'consultation', and then somewhere down the road, they will quietly drop this one. They will be told by the ISPs that it is technically impossible, that parental controls are already provided, and that parents can supervise their kids best.
Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on
:
Until computers and all other media devices that can deliver porn for viewing can also act as virtual parents, guardians, teachers or supervisors, then the responsibility will continue to lie on actual human adults who are supposed to be supervising children.
But I suppose I'm hopelessly odd here. I don't think parents should leave children unsupervised with computers, video game consoles, or TVs. Nor do I believe they should be allowed to use hand held gaming devices, smart phones, or guns without supervision. Period.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
ETA Young men do subscribe to the Victoria's Secret catalogue. It's free soft porn, delivered right to your mailbox.
Unless Victoria's Secret catalogues now include bare breasts, the Daily Mail website would also be soft porn by your definition.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
ETA Young men do subscribe to the Victoria's Secret catalogue. It's free soft porn, delivered right to your mailbox.
Unless Victoria's Secret catalogues now include bare breasts, the Daily Mail website would also be soft porn by your definition.
The Daily Mail website is, by most people's definition, soft porn.
And if only that was the only damaging thing about the Mail...
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Even though many people speed and drive badly, it's a good thing for there to be a speed limit and driving licences. The rules are sometimes arbitrary, and they won't do the job on their own - it's essential for people to take responsibility for their own driving. That's not an argument for not bothering to have traffic laws.
You seem to be confident that you can be the gatekeeper for your children, and I'm sure you do a good job. So clearly you have some criteria for judging what is unacceptably pornographic on their behalf. It can be a difficult call sometimes, but often it'll be obvious.
The suggested filter wouldn't be as nuanced as you are. There will be borderline cases. But would it really be that difficult to make most
of the decisions?
And sure, tech-savvy kids who want to find the hard stuff will do so, just like they'll get hold of vodka and cigarettes. That's no excuse for allowing free samples to be given away in the sweet shop.
Of course, most kids who get hold of vodka and cigarettes get hold of them from their parents. I appreciate the irony in expecting those same parents to act as gatekeepers to the internet, but hey.
We do have speed limits. We don't have speed limiters (on domestic vehicles at any rate). We have drink-driving laws. We don't have breathalysers on the dashboard. We do have laws that prevent children's exposure to pornography and violent images... tell me how that's working out.
This isn't a council of despair. There are lots of things that both parents and ISPs can do in collaboration. I'd be happy with a system (like I have on my home network) which emails me daily reports on pages viewed (which can't be foxed by privacy mode settings on the browser, either. And my daughter has a terrible taste in music.). It puts the onus back on the parents to regulate internet usage, and makes everyone accountable. My kids know this is what happens. If they have a problem, they know to tell me there and then. Sometimes searches and links do go awry. It's all fairly benign.
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
[QUOTE]You certainly give the impression that you think it is no big deal.
----snip----
for example, with comments like the one above.
So you cannot point to where I suggest that porn is appropriate for a child to see. As for giving that impression, sorry if I wasn't clear enough. I was trying to point out I'm skeptical of the ideal that people would watch fantasy and then go and act it out in real life. Not that I think it's ok for children to watch bad porn. Sorry if I gave that impression.
quote:
We don’t’ give kids drink, cars, guns, drugs for a reason.
Nor do "we" allow them to sit unsupervised in front of a computer and watch porn.
---
quote:
Yes, yes we do. That is the problem. Even good parents might do this by accident, and unfortunately not all parents are good parents.
I await your post where you argue that cars and drink should be outright banned.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
The analogy with alcohol is interesting (although I know that all analogies fail at some point), as the state does not demand that you sign a list of people who want to buy it. Of course, there are various legal requirements around alcohol, including not selling it to children, but parents are responsible for how alcohol is handled in the home, in front of kids.
The US also tried to ban it, with, let us say, predictable results.
Alcohol also kills many people, yet we are permitted to buy it.
Posted by passer (# 13329) on
:
Most of the points discussed in this thread are picked up in this article in yesterday's Guardian online. The article's title sums it up.
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
As is often the case I can see a lot of us are talking past each other in this thread.
In general half of us seem bemused that they have to keep repeating themselves: "But why aren't you getting the fact that children seeing porn is wrong"!
The other half seem bemused that they have to keep repeating themselves: "But why aren't you getting the fact that it's wrong to let children use the internet unsupervised".
Posted by passer (# 13329) on
:
Indeed sir, indeed. I think everyone here thinks it's wrong for kids to have access to porn, no matter how the access is effected. No reasonable person would opine otherwise. However the undercurrent of fear at the attempt by government to control access to the internet is a real one.
That won't happen, of course. It's unenforceable. "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" etc. They can't do it effectively even in China, a totalitarian state, so they have fuck-all chance of doing it in the West. But they can keep mooting it to keep the paranoia levels high!
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
quote:
The other half seem bemused that they have to keep repeating themselves: "But why aren't you getting the fact that it's wrong to let children use the internet unsupervised".
An argument crushed years ago by smart phones.
But to try another way; I allowed and controlled my childrens realtionship with alcohol. I was not prohibative but spoke of it and allowed them to drink when and was as much as I deemed appropriate. And the law supports this. Makignit illegal for them to be supplied with alcohol. Yet kids (including my kids) get hold of booze.
With porn the tap is wide open to anyone. Parental control is a given but not all parents do it, the effects of watching porn are less obvious but just as damaging and there is very little legal attempt to control it.
We are not talking at cross purposes, you are ignorant of the facts. Seemingly on purpose.
A fellow priest is an Army Chaplin, one his greatest pastoral challenges is the debt soldiers run up watching porn on their phones.
AtB, Pyx_e
Posted by Niminypiminy (# 15489) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
quote:
The other half seem bemused that they have to keep repeating themselves: "But why aren't you getting the fact that it's wrong to let children use the internet unsupervised".
An argument crushed years ago by smart phones.
(...)
A fellow priest is an Army Chaplin, one his greatest pastoral challenges is the debt soldiers run up watching porn on their phones.
AtB, Pyx_e
Yep, it's the phones that are the problem, not relatively easily policed computers in the home.
Talking to teenagers about porn, who makes it, at what cost, what its pleasures and pains are, why and how it is different from sex in person, is probably the answer. But it's difficult for so many of us to talk about sex to other adults we are intimate with, let alone our children, let alone porn. I'm really not looking forward to the day when I have to talk to my sons about why they shouldn't assume that all women love anal sex.
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
An argument crushed years ago by smart phones.
Is it so inconceivable to just not give a smart phone to an underage person? When they are old enough to be holding down a job that lets them afford one they can make up their own minds how they want to use it.
quote:
With porn the tap is wide open to anyone.
Again if they are underage it is only open if unsupervised.
quote:
Parental control is a given but not all parents do it,
If we were to run society to accommodate the very worst of its members then pretty much everything would be banned. Want to drive? Do dangerous sports? Swim in the ocean? Drink? Climb a mountain? Sorry some parents don't supervise their kids so you can't.
But this point has been brought up repeatedly and bad parents are still being used as an argument so I guess at this point we are just going to have to agree to disagree. quote:
the effects of watching porn are less obvious but just as damaging and there is very little legal attempt to control it.
It's not just as damaging. Porn does not damage your liver, cause heart disease and all the other associated physical problems. I agree it should not be shown to minors but I don't think saying is as damaging as drink is a good comparison.
quote:
We are not talking at cross purposes, you are ignorant of the facts. Seemingly on purpose.
A fellow priest is an Army Chaplin, one his greatest pastoral challenges is the debt soldiers run up watching porn on their phones.
AtB, Pyx_e
Which particular facts am I ignorant of?
And your army chaplain story is another great example of why I think your comparisons are missing the mark.
1. I could run up a debt buying computer games, or fishing gear, or holidays, or new cars, if I was foolish with money. Would that be any reason to ban any of the above? Of course not.
2. Your shifting the discussion onto adults. Under age children shouldn't have access to credit or debit cards they can use to buy things online. If they do then more fool their parents.
[ 08. May 2012, 11:09: Message edited by: George Spigot ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Niminypiminy wrote (love the name):
Talking to teenagers about porn, who makes it, at what cost, what its pleasures and pains are, why and how it is different from sex in person, is probably the answer. But it's difficult for so many of us to talk about sex to other adults we are intimate with, let alone our children, let alone porn. I'm really not looking forward to the day when I have to talk to my sons about why they shouldn't assume that all women love anal sex.
Fair comments. But you seem to assume that if a teenage boy sees images of anal sex, he will assume that his girl-friend loves it. Really?
If he has been brought up in a loving home, surely he will understand that she has a mind (and body) of her own, that she may like anal sex or she may not, and that it is possible to discuss these things, and negotiate about them.
This idea that images determine the way we see reality is quite odd I think. I see an image of a woman in a certain role, therefore I see women as being in that role. Like, I don't think for myself?
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Jahlove: quote:
If we can view nothing unsuitable for minors, we will end up only watching Disney movies.
Disney, suitable for children?! Have you watched Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs recently? Or Bambi, or Tarzan, or the Hunchback of Notre Dame (which is not suitable for adults either, if they are familiar with the original story) ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I said 'I completely agree Doc.' initially. So we must be complicit in the corruption of minors due to irresponsible adults. Freddy Forsythe called it Devil's Alternative.
Then I just kept mulling over the utter depraving filth that the corporate OWNERS of the internet make billions out of. As the technology advances ticking "I am over 18" isn't good enough. I used biometric security years ago. There is NO excuse for the SUPPLY of a computer to the domestic market with default access to corrupting material. There is no excuse for allowing corrupting material to be published any where on the internet, no protection from prosecution, for service providers, where a minor could easily access it and no adult be held responsible.
I'd freely vote for that.
There are things I consider more obscene than who inserts what where. Positive portrayals of genocide and portrayals accepting slavery being obvious ones.
Are you prepared to agree with me that if "There is no excuse for allowing corrupting material to be published any where on the internet, no protection from prosecution, for service providers, where a minor could easily access it and no adult be held responsible." this should be applied on far far more than who inserts what into whom where?
I'm thinking of one source I consider extremely corrupting for a number of reasons. It contains repeated positive accounts of genocide. Underage pregnancy. Death by torture. Slavery actively affirmed. It has lead to war and the death of many more people than internet porn ever has. And reading of it has led millions of people away from Christianity.
Three guesses as to the name of the book I'm talking about. And in many ways I find it far more obscene than any porn I've either watched or read.
Should we ban that? And the supply of a computer with default access to it?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Oh, you mean the Bible!
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The analogy with alcohol is interesting (although I know that all analogies fail at some point), as the state does not demand that you sign a list of people who want to buy it. Of course, there are various legal requirements around alcohol, including not selling it to children, but parents are responsible for how alcohol is handled in the home, in front of kids.
The US also tried to ban it, with, let us say, predictable results.
Alcohol also kills many people, yet we are permitted to buy it.
We are permitted to buy it, but it is most certainly regulated. We can argue about what the best form of regulation is, but it's not some massive infrigement of our basic rights that there should be some sort of regulation. Why not the same with porn?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The analogy with alcohol is interesting (although I know that all analogies fail at some point), as the state does not demand that you sign a list of people who want to buy it. Of course, there are various legal requirements around alcohol, including not selling it to children, but parents are responsible for how alcohol is handled in the home, in front of kids.
The US also tried to ban it, with, let us say, predictable results.
Alcohol also kills many people, yet we are permitted to buy it.
We are permitted to buy it, but it is most certainly regulated. We can argue about what the best form of regulation is, but it's not some massive infrigement of our basic rights that there should be some sort of regulation. Why not the same with porn?
Well, if you mean the same sort of regulation, then I am not required to enter my name into a database in order to buy alcohol, yet we know that alcohol kills thousands of people every year, with millions of hospital admissions, and a cost of billions, I would think.
But I am allowed to take this toxic stuff into my home, and consume it in front of the kids, and so on. It is up to me to teach my kids about booze, and its pitfalls.
Posted by Niminypiminy (# 15489) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Niminypiminy wrote (love the name):
Talking to teenagers about porn, who makes it, at what cost, what its pleasures and pains are, why and how it is different from sex in person, is probably the answer. But it's difficult for so many of us to talk about sex to other adults we are intimate with, let alone our children, let alone porn. I'm really not looking forward to the day when I have to talk to my sons about why they shouldn't assume that all women love anal sex.
Fair comments. But you seem to assume that if a teenage boy sees images of anal sex, he will assume that his girl-friend loves it. Really?
If he has been brought up in a loving home, surely he will understand that she has a mind (and body) of her own, that she may like anal sex or she may not, and that it is possible to discuss these things, and negotiate about them.
This idea that images determine the way we see reality is quite odd I think. I see an image of a woman in a certain role, therefore I see women as being in that role. Like, I don't think for myself?
Images don't entirely determine the way we see reality. But they do have a big effect on it. And the images that are in circulation in a particular society do at the very least give us a repertoire of possible images which shape our thoughts, dreams and fantasies, often at a level of which we are not aware. Religous art is a good example of how images have been consciously used to shape people's ideas. Advertising is the obvious example. I think it's naive to say that people are not influenced by imagery around them -- just as it is disingenuous to say that there is a simple relationship between what you see and what you do.
Any boy or girl who has been brought up in a loving home may well have learned about consent, and what it means to say yes, and to say no to something. But if they are also watching porn then the stuff that happens in porn and doesn't in real life gets to look more normal. It isn't either you know what's what, or you believe what you see, it's both and.
I don't have a problem with both and. It's helping people to get there that is the difficult bit. Hard cases make bad law, and worst case scenarios are often over-pessimistic, it's true. Still, I feel troubled by what the effects of the explosion of access to pornography may be, and how we, as a society, might respond to them.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Well, I was a psychotherapist for 30 years, and my view is that it's our early relationships which are critical here. If you were abused, you may want to abuse others, or get them to repeat the abuse.
If you were loved, it is likely you will want to love and be loved.
I think this trumps all the images which we see in our lives, by far.
My son loved guns when he was a kid, and eventually we let him have an air-rifle. Some friends were shocked and said it would affect his character. Well, he is a very sweet and non-aggressive person.
He also watched porn, I recall, as a teenager. I can't see any ill effects.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Oh, you mean the Bible!
I thought he was talking about the Beano.
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, if you mean the same sort of regulation, then I am not required to enter my name into a database in order to buy alcohol, yet we know that alcohol kills thousands of people every year, with millions of hospital admissions, and a cost of billions, I would think.
I don't see why "opting in" to a filter is being portrayed as a horrific "oooh, they'll have our names on a DATABASE" scare. I'm sure that the records Google and ISPs have of our search and browsing history are much more extensive.
In any case, some ISPs have this sort of "opt-in" already! My O2 mobile broadband certainly does. Why not just extend this to all ISPs?
Posted by Niminypiminy (# 15489) on
:
Even if our basic templates for how we relate to others are laid in early childhood, that doesn't mean we can't be influenced by images we see later in life. It's both-and, again. If we weren't influenced by images advertising would not be a multi-million dollar/pound industry.
Your point is like saying 'all we have to do is to make sure that all families are loving and secure, and that all parents are able to parent their children properly, and then we won't have a problem with porn/guns/whatever'.
And it's hard to disagree that we should work on the fundamentals. But that still leaves all the families now that are not loving, and where the parents cannot parent properly. What's to be done about those situations?
And, speaking only for myself, and because my children haven't reached that stage yet, I am not so blithely confident that their sexual repertoire and their fantasy lives won't be shaped by seeing porn, and that they won't act that out in some way.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
One of the comical things about the Daily Mail campaign on this, is that normally they are an advocate of the small state.
No they aren't. Like most conservatives they are authoritarians at heart. Just more honest about it than the ones that pretend to be libertarians.
And, like most people, they think they are the good guys. And if I am one of the good guys, obviously the state ought to be punishing those bad people over there for the bad things they do, but leaving ME alone.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Niminypiminy
I don't know if you picked up on an earlier post, that some countries have seen both an explosion of porn and a decline in sex crimes, e.g. US, Denmark, Japan.
Of course, this doesn't mean that one causes the other, but if I was a researcher in these areas, or a statistician, I would be working flat out to exclude other variables or confounds, to see if there is a connection.
Another issue of interest to me, but rather off-topic, I'm not sure that anyone really knows what porn means. Is an image of a naked woman simply a sexual image? I don't know, and I don't know if anybody else does.
If we find ancient figurines of naked women with exposed genitals and breasts we tend to talk about fertility and the goddess!
So there is a possibility that porn in part represents the recrudescence of a deep pagan imagery. Maybe Christians oppose that.
[ 08. May 2012, 15:12: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
@Doc Tor
No one else seems willing to answer your question re defining porn so I'll have a crack at it.
Any media that is purposefully designed to create sexual excitement in the viewer.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
@Doc Tor
No one else seems willing to answer your question re defining porn so I'll have a crack at it.
Any media that is purposefully designed to create sexual excitement in the viewer.
I'm a writer. It's my job to produce vicarious emotional responses to the written word.
You can see where I'm going with this, right? If I write a sex scene with the express intent of creating sexual excitement in the reader, I'm writing porn.
I'm not afraid of that definition, mind, but that's an awful lot of 20th century literature suddenly on the top shelf.
(There are times when being able to write an erotically-charged scene with the appropriate physiological responses in the reader would be invaluable. It's not in my skill-set, unfortunately. I'm inexplicably more comfortable describing what it's like to shoot someone in the head than I am describing what it's like to give someone a good seeing-to.)
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Kenneth Clark tied himself in knots trying to answer this question, I think for the Longford enquiry. He was obviously trying to hedge round the Victorian predilection for statues of nude women in soft draperies, and paintings likewise.
He defined art as contemplative, and therefore pornography was not art, as it is a 'guide to action'.
So all those Victorian gentlemen gazing at the latest Waterhouse painting? Dunno. They could say to their wives, just a spot of contemplation, dear.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lamia_Waterhouse.jpg
[ 08. May 2012, 15:46: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
@Doc Tor
No one else seems willing to answer your question re defining porn so I'll have a crack at it.
Any media that is purposefully designed to create sexual excitement in the viewer.
I'm a writer. It's my job to produce vicarious emotional responses to the written word.
You can see where I'm going with this, right? If I write a sex scene with the express intent of creating sexual excitement in the reader, I'm writing porn.
I'm not afraid of that definition, mind, but that's an awful lot of 20th century literature suddenly on the top shelf.
(There are times when being able to write an erotically-charged scene with the appropriate physiological responses in the reader would be invaluable. It's not in my skill-set, unfortunately. I'm inexplicably more comfortable describing what it's like to shoot someone in the head than I am describing what it's like to give someone a good seeing-to.)
I agree completly.
Posted by Val Kyrie (# 17079) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Doc Tor wrote:
The internet has, like a lot of emergent technologies, been a force for both good and evil. And as uncomfortable as I am arguing for unrestricted public access to pornography, the answer does not lie with legislation, but with individual responsibility. I simply don't trust governments and corporations to play nicely.
Yes, that sums it up for me. I do wonder if porn is a Trojan horse, behind which will march the forces of censorship of 'anti-social' material. I think the internet makes governments and news corporations nervous, as it takes information and news out of the hands of the rich and powerful, to an extent.
Absolutely. The "won't someone think of the children" line is utterly mendacious cant; the current UK government doesn't give a flying one about children - or, indeed, anyone else that isn't themselves. It is all about control of the internet - every government's dream. This manufactured anti-porn moral panic campaign is, I would point out, currently being vociferously supported by the Daily Mail (despite a 10-1 Thumbs Down from their readers' online comments).
If parents/guardians don't want their offspring viewing what they deem to be unsuitable material, the solution is in their own hands - either smarten up enough to set unhackable controls, pay someone to do it - or, radically, stop allowing the kids unfettered computer access in rooms where they can't be seen.
If we can view nothing unsuitable for minors, we will end up only watching Disney movies.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on
:
There is alot of stuff on the internet I wouldn't want minors to see and a fair bit that is - or should be - illegal.
But leaving that aside for a moment, if we accept masturbation is normal - and specifically normal for teenagers going through puberty - what is it, whilst we desperately try to stop them seeing or reading porn of any kind, or naked people of any kind, (and try to stop them having sex with anyone else), that we expect them to focus on to do this? What would we consider, healthy, appropriate or 'sex positive? Or are we always expecting that they will some how get around the prohibitions and we will always pretend to be shocked ?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
doing it Jerusalem style
What's that? I have never heard of it. Nor has Google.
Posted by Val Kyrie (# 17079) on
:
When I was a teenager (about 40 years ago) we used to find porn magazines in the bushes, or up alleys. We didn't immediately develop fetishes, or act out what was in the pictures... In fact we mostly laughed, made vomit faces and went on with the struggle of being awkward, spotty and moody.
Most kids are actually quite prudish and get sexual thrills from very "ordinary" porn - regarding the more "unusual" stuff as something to laugh about with their mates.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
There is alot of stuff on the internet I wouldn't want minors to see and a fair bit that is - or should be - illegal.
But leaving that aside for a moment, if we accept masturbation is normal - and specifically normal for teenagers going through puberty - what is it, whilst we desperately try to stop them seeing or reading porn of any kind, or naked people of any kind, (and try to stop them having sex with anyone else), that we expect them to focus on to do this? What would we consider, healthy, appropriate or 'sex positive? Or are we always expecting that they will some how get around the prohibitions and we will always pretend to be shocked ?
Yes, it's almost like an eternal conflict. The adults say that you will not have access to such material, even if you are throbbing with hormonal lust, and just need an aid to masturbation, and the teenage boy (and also girl, I think) declares, that he will, through ingenuity and sheer will-power, find a way through that prohibition.
There's probably something Darwinian to say here about the sheer resolve of the sex drive, but I can't think of how to say it.
Reminds me of those training exercises in the Army - you are dropped in the middle of Kinder Scout, and within one hour you must locate a jumbo jet, a lady's embroidered hanky, and a pile of porn.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Niminypiminy
I don't know if you picked up on an earlier post, that some countries have seen both an explosion of porn and a decline in sex crimes, e.g. US, Denmark, Japan.
Of course, this doesn't mean that one causes the other, but if I was a researcher in these areas, or a statistician, I would be working flat out to exclude other variables or confounds, to see if there is a connection.
Honestly, such observations fail lesson one of scientific interpretation, i.e. confusing correlation with causation.
Years ago, people used to say that no studies had ever shown that porn caused sexual violence. There are two meta-studies of the data that seemed to bear that out. I'm not sure anyone is saying that these days. For a start, it implies that the population is homogeneous in this matter. For a second thing, it has been known for years that sex offenders almost always have a porn obsession too.
More recent overviews have re-examined the data, and if there is an emerging theme it is that the public is heterogeneous in its response to pornography. Yes, there is some evidence that there may be no negative impacts on the majority of the population insofar as sexual violence is concerned. Indeed there may be a very slight positive impact. Unfortunately there also appears to be a small population of males who are seriously affected by it, and for the most part this group contains the group of sex offenders. So if this is true (it seems to me it offers a better explanation than anything else I have seen), there is likely no way of accessing such benefits as are claimed without activating some fairly dreadful consequences, largely to be felt by innocent third parties of course.
And unfortunately it also seems that this group is affected not just by violent porn, but a much wider range of stimuli, including more vanilla porn, once they have been sensitized.
I've only mentioned sexual violence because that is the only area I have seen a fairly population-wide claim of benefit being made. It is hardly the only area that pornography affects though.
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
There is alot of stuff on the internet I wouldn't want minors to see and a fair bit that is - or should be - illegal.
But leaving that aside for a moment, if we accept masturbation is normal - and specifically normal for teenagers going through puberty - what is it, whilst we desperately try to stop them seeing or reading porn of any kind, or naked people of any kind, (and try to stop them having sex with anyone else), that we expect them to focus on to do this? What would we consider, healthy, appropriate or 'sex positive? Or are we always expecting that they will some how get around the prohibitions and we will always pretend to be shocked ?
Just because Gwai mentioned this to me and we had a conversation, I had this thought:
Is there a form of visual sexualized imagery such that you could look at a real live woman the way you looked at the image and not be socially out of line? I think a problem with porn in general is that it's by definition objectifying, meaning that it turns the model into a object designed merely for the sexual stimulation of the viewer. It is not a person. While I have sympathy with the thrust of your claim, I'm skeptical that any kind of visual stimulus is going to be able to get around this problem of objectification. You might be able to pull something like that off with erotic fiction, since in that case there's at least a character, but it's still an ultimately consumptive medium.
The only thing I can think of is actual relationships with actual women.
I think I agree that being shocked is dishonest and silly at best, and tabooing isn't an answer. I just don't think porn is really a great answer either. It's really an awkward situation. When my son gets old enough (God willing and all that) I imagine I'd teach him that it's fine to use porn is one must (and accept that he's likely to anyway) but also make sure he gets that it's no replacement for a relationship with an actual human being.
Posted by Niminypiminy (# 15489) on
:
Based on (admittedly quite a lot) of anecdotal evidence, I would not be surprised to hear that porn use is increasingly implicated in relationship breakdowns. Not porn use by teenagers, but by adult men in relationships with adult women.
It may well be that anything will break a relationship, but it seems to me that porn use is a new and increasingly important factor. (I heard of a situation recently where the male partner was using porn while his baby was asleep beside him on the bed -- you may say the baby wasn't harmed, but I think most people would think that was really, really bad behaviour.)
Secondly, those people who say 'just control your children's internet use' may be living in a completely different parenting universe to me. Even if your child doesn't have a pc in his bedroom, some of his friends probably do; even if you don't allow him a smart phone (and you might as well force him to wear a t-shirt with 'social outcast' on it), his friends will.
Censorship's bad, we can all agree on that. But I don't think unrestricted porn -- at the level it is now available -- is that great either.
My 7 year old son learned about 'two girls one cup' (scat porn) from a 9 year old -- who goes to a Steiner school and has no computer use allowed. Do I want to be dealing with that? Not really.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Honest Ron Bacardi wrote:
Honestly, such observations fail lesson one of scientific interpretation, i.e. confusing correlation with causation.
I was a bit puzzled that you said this, since I explicitly used the sentence 'this does not mean that one was caused by the other'.
But I guess in your idiolect, this must mean 'this does mean that one was caused by the other'. Odd, isn't it?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Niminypiminy:
Based on (admittedly quite a lot) of anecdotal evidence, I would not be surprised to hear that porn use is increasingly implicated in relationship breakdowns. Not porn use by teenagers, but by adult men in relationships with adult women.
There are a lot of things that are "implicated in relationship breakdowns" (alcohol, adultery, financial hardship), but criminalizing those things doesn't make those relationships any healthier. I'm not entirely sure what the end goal is here. A society where no one knows that sex exists until it's explained to them by their same-gendered parent on their wedding night? That seems a bit extreme.
I'm also a bit curious about the motivation behind the proposed censorship regime. There seem to be two main causes cited: "what about the children" and (from the thread title) "this is a Christian nation". Leaving aside the question of those shipmates posting from nations without established religions, how far should a Christian nation go in insuring published information conforms with religious doctrine? Is non-Christianity sufficient reason for suppression or does there have to be some other justification, like the alleged harm from seeing an unclothed nipple?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Honest Ron Bacardi wrote:
Honestly, such observations fail lesson one of scientific interpretation, i.e. confusing correlation with causation.
I was a bit puzzled that you said this, since I explicitly used the sentence 'this does not mean that one was caused by the other'.
But I guess in your idiolect, this must mean 'this does mean that one was caused by the other'. Odd, isn't it?
You, of course, followed up with the usual "but . . . " that inevitably follows a speaker who wants plausible deniability that they're not really saying what they're actually saying.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
"The alleged harm from seeing an unclothed nipple", made me laugh, and then I felt guilty, as this is a serious subject, but there is something comical in some of the stuff posted here. I just get the impression that some people just don't like the idea of images of naked people.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Honest Ron Bacardi wrote:
Honestly, such observations fail lesson one of scientific interpretation, i.e. confusing correlation with causation.
I was a bit puzzled that you said this, since I explicitly used the sentence 'this does not mean that one was caused by the other'.
But I guess in your idiolect, this must mean 'this does mean that one was caused by the other'. Odd, isn't it?
You, of course, followed up with the usual "but . . . " that inevitably follows a speaker who wants plausible deniability that they're not really saying what they're actually saying.
Inevitably? Fucking hell. I was talking about removing variables or confounds, to see if there is a link between increase in porn and decrease in sex crimes. So far, as far as I can see, no-one has yet done this.
It could be a 'people who eat chocolate live longer' type correlation, I accept, i.e. not causative.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Quetzlcoatl! You also used the same construct in your earlier post.
Perhaps in your enthusiasm you failed to read the rest of my post wherein I pointed out that multivariate analysis on a subsample that has not been confirmed to represent the larger claimed population is a statistical waste of time - ? (That's the slightly longer, slightly blunter reply).
Posted by Niminypiminy (# 15489) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
There are a lot of things that are "implicated in relationship breakdowns" (alcohol, adultery, financial hardship), but criminalizing those things doesn't make those relationships any healthier. I'm not entirely sure what the end goal is here. A society where no one knows that sex exists until it's explained to them by their same-gendered parent on their wedding night? That seems a bit extreme.
I don't think it's a zero-sum argument of the kind you are parodying here. It's more a case that there are two things that are neither of them great. Censorship, yes, that's bad. Unrestricted porn use, that's not wonderful either.
I don't know what the answer is. I'm not up for defending freedom of speech by denying that porn can have ill-effects. But neither am I up for saying that no-one should ever look at anything that might turn them on in case someone is harmed.
[ 08. May 2012, 18:49: Message edited by: Niminypiminy ]
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
Call me extreme if you like (I don't care) but I would like to see all porn banned on the net even for adults. I don't think even that people should be allowed to opt into it.
All I can say is I'm glad I don't live in the world you want (for reasons having nothing directly to do with porn) and at my age am likely to predecease any serious efforts to impose it. As for younger generations, however, we can only hope for the best. No doubt ayatollahs would love to see it.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
Call me extreme if you like (I don't care) but I would like to see all porn banned on the net even for adults. I don't think even that people should be allowed to opt into it.
All I can say is I'm glad I don't live in the world you want (for reasons having nothing directly to do with porn) and at my age am likely to predecease any serious efforts to impose it. As for younger generations, however, we can only hope for the best. No doubt ayatollahs would love to see it.
It would be interesting to see how 'porn' would be defined if it was banned. For example, would the great Victorian painters of drapery-shrouded maidens, showing a hint of breast or nipple be classed as porn? See the ref to Waterhouse above.
I remember two cynical versions of this. One is: I like erotica, you like porn; and the other is, erotica is for posh boys, porn for the plebs (with thanks to Dennis Skinner).
Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, if you mean the same sort of regulation, then I am not required to enter my name into a database in order to buy alcohol, yet we know that alcohol kills thousands of people every year, with millions of hospital admissions, and a cost of billions, I would think.
I don't see why "opting in" to a filter is being portrayed as a horrific "oooh, they'll have our names on a DATABASE" scare. I'm sure that the records Google and ISPs have of our search and browsing history are much more extensive.
In any case, some ISPs have this sort of "opt-in" already! My O2 mobile broadband certainly does. Why not just extend this to all ISPs?
There is a *massive* difference between filtering to a mobile phone, which is by its nature a single-user device... and actually defined to a single named user (associated with the SIM card), and filtering into a network - which could have any number of devices hanging off it, with any number of users.
The main issue you have is that a lot of the non-technical people pushing for this are still thinking in terms of the dialup model - where individual user logins were assigned - this is no longer the case.
When you sign up for fixed-line broadband, your ROUTER will be assigned a login name and password - to bring the connection up between your network and the ISP's network. This is a far cry from the User Agent prompting for an individual userid (think similar to AOL as was, or Prestel etc), then firing up the modem, establishing and authenticating as an individual user.
Take my live connection - I have have this going on (authenticated to the Ship - NOT to my ISP), my Roberts radio is playing out a stream from the BBC, my phone is updating its mail client from my ISP and from Google on the same cycle.
If I was married, my wife could be using another lappie on the *same network*, kids could be using consoles.. ON THE SAME NETWORK.
Different ages, different requirements, different network destinations. Riding the same physical connection.
The *ONLY* place to control based on home policy is at THIS end of the WAN drop (the home router). It would be technically possible to roll out a small rack containing a wired modem-router, proxy server downstream, and a wifi interface downstream of THAT - THEN your kids could authenticate as themselves onto THIS wifi interface and get the relevant restrictions applied based on a locally-managed user account.
Personally, I want my connection to stay wide open...
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Niminypiminy:
Secondly, those people who say 'just control your children's internet use' may be living in a completely different parenting universe to me. Even if your child doesn't have a pc in his bedroom, some of his friends probably do; even if you don't allow him a smart phone (and you might as well force him to wear a t-shirt with 'social outcast' on it), his friends will.
I'd just like to point out that (a) neither of my kids have a smart phone, as do neither of their parents, and (b) watching porn is the lesser sin compared with promulgating this particular attitude.
Away with your first-world problems.
Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on
:
Missed the edit window -
But wanted to add...
"Different ages, different requirements, different network destinations. Riding the same physical connection."... simultaneously.
Oh - and the telly streaming a film from Blinkbox or Lovefilm.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Alex Cockell
Thanks for that. Is it also correct that a home filter can be easily uninstalled, when the inevitable innocent websites are blocked ('holidays in Essex' or 'Scunthorpe'), but if these were blocked with an ISP filter, you are stuck with it? Of course, you can paraphrase, as in 'holidays in the county in which Southend plays such a fragrant role', etc.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Doc Tor writes quote:
I'd just like to point out that (a) neither of my kids have a smart phone, as do neither of their parents, and (b) watching porn is the lesser sin compared with promulgating this particular attitude.
It may be worth adding that nobody around here has a smartphone either. Smartphones are great for many things, but making phone calls is not one of them. iPhones especially. In the sticks a regular 2G signal is the stuff of dreams. Everyone is holding on to their old Nokias until phone manufacturers catch up with their own technology.
Is this smartphone porn thing an urban phenomenon?
Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Alex Cockell
Thanks for that. Is it also correct that a home filter can be easily uninstalled, when the inevitable innocent websites are blocked ('holidays in Essex' or 'Scunthorpe'), but if these were blocked with an ISP filter, you are stuck with it? Of course, you can paraphrase, as in 'holidays in the county in which Southend plays such a fragrant role', etc.
Depends how it's done. If you're using a content filter on a proxy server and the home's wifi interface is downstream of this (slaved to a RADIUS server to allow per-user logins), that individual user could have limits lifted.
If it's done at the ISP, then it would mean opening up or closed down on a network-wide basis. And would mean contacting the ISP.
Again - no granularity available. Dial-up mentality at work in the proponents' minds.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Back to the subject matter.
What exactly is it that is going to be banned? Access to XXX websites? Graphic images involving sex? What exactly?
It may be worth actually noting where children come across such explicit images. In the UK and Germany at least, it isn't the internet at all, but in videos, films and games.
As for the internet, visiting adult sites is in the minority - only a minority of children under 16 have done that. Most exposure is due to popups from "poisoned" (otherwise legitimate) websites, unrequested approaches on social networking sites, MMS images sent to their phones and a whole raft of stuff like that. Most of it arrives unrequested. I'm not saying that something cannot be done with each of these things, but the message is certainly that the belief you can just block children from access to pornography is currently a fond dream. Short of taking all technology away from them and isolating them from their friends, that is.
As a parent there is surely now a pressing need to work with your children on how to deal with the problem. You can request as many blocks from your ISP as you like. You can buy a commercial router with extensive programmable blocks which you keep updated. You can run filtering software. None of these things will do more than reduce the incidence of certain types of porn activity - none can stop it. Reliance on blocking alone is a futile strategy.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Granularity is my favourite word at the moment. It is useful in many social situations.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Honest Ron Bacardi
Interesting points. I have assumed that the current Conservative/Daily Mail campaign is not a realistic one, but a sort of fantasy piece of kite-flying, perhaps to distract from the shambolic state of government policies. Deep in their hearts, they do not intend to do anything.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You can see where I'm going with this, right? If I write a sex scene with the express intent of creating sexual excitement in the reader, I'm writing porn.
I'm not afraid of that definition, mind, but that's an awful lot of 20th century literature suddenly on the top shelf.
20th century? I know people who say they have been sexually aroused by reading Jane Austen's novels. And lots of people would say that about Byron's poetry. Hardly a mention of exposed flesh in either.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Come to that (oops), orgasm during communion is not unknown, is it? So my ex-Catholic priest buddy tells me.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Anyone would think none of you watched Ken Bigley get his head cut off alive for most of it or that little vignette of the guy doing reverse colonic irrigation on to some girl's face that did the rounds. Oh and the Russian hammer murder. So worth the 'freedom'.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
I for one haven't a clue what you are referring to Martin.
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
Ask a teenager they will explain it.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
That might expose me to pornography.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Anyone would think none of you watched Ken Bigley get his head cut off alive for most of it or that little vignette of the guy doing reverse colonic irrigation on to some girl's face that did the rounds. Oh and the Russian hammer murder. So worth the 'freedom'.
For once I do know what Martin is on about! I've heard about all those events and despite spending way too much time on-line and watching plenty of post-watershed TV (including Al Jazeera's English language service) I've never seen footage of ny of those.
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
tsk Sioni every 12 year old knows how to use Google.
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
There is alot of stuff on the internet I wouldn't want minors to see and a fair bit that is - or should be - illegal.
But leaving that aside for a moment, if we accept masturbation is normal - and specifically normal for teenagers going through puberty - what is it, whilst we desperately try to stop them seeing or reading porn of any kind, or naked people of any kind, (and try to stop them having sex with anyone else), that we expect them to focus on to do this? What would we consider, healthy, appropriate or 'sex positive? Or are we always expecting that they will some how get around the prohibitions and we will always pretend to be shocked ?
Just because Gwai mentioned this to me and we had a conversation, I had this thought:
Is there a form of visual sexualized imagery such that you could look at a real live woman the way you looked at the image and not be socially out of line? I think a problem with porn in general is that it's by definition objectifying, meaning that it turns the model into a object designed merely for the sexual stimulation of the viewer. It is not a person. While I have sympathy with the thrust of your claim, I'm skeptical that any kind of visual stimulus is going to be able to get around this problem of objectification. You might be able to pull something like that off with erotic fiction, since in that case there's at least a character, but it's still an ultimately consumptive medium.
The only thing I can think of is actual relationships with actual women.
I think I agree that being shocked is dishonest and silly at best, and tabooing isn't an answer. I just don't think porn is really a great answer either. It's really an awkward situation. When my son gets old enough (God willing and all that) I imagine I'd teach him that it's fine to use porn is one must (and accept that he's likely to anyway) but also make sure he gets that it's no replacement for a relationship with an actual human being.
My preferred option would be to steer said teen towards literature that does contain some exolicit sexulity but in a context that models a healthy relationship.
But I think that not thinking this through is part of the social problem of teens and porn. We expect them to come to terms with and manage their sex drive in socially appropriate ways, but ostensibilty we also don't want them to access any sexually explicit material that is not health related, or participate in any sexualised relationships that get as far as being undressed. Whereas what we in fact do as asociety is implicitly tolerate such things providing we are not aware of them at the time they are happening. Teen fiction tries to tackle this a bit - but is Judy Blume porn ?
It doesn't make a lot of sense, and I am not sure what the solution is - but teens will seek out sexual material - and if all that is available is sleazy crap, then some how or another that is what they will be exposed to. We are not really giving them a coherent message about what we do want them to do instead.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Think wrote:
It doesn't make a lot of sense, and I am not sure what the solution is - but teens will seek out sexual material - and if all that is available is sleazy crap, then some how or another that is what they will be exposed to. We are not really giving them a coherent message about what we do want them to do instead.
That's an interesting point. Could there be an authentic erotica for teenagers? And for adults?
It reminds me of DH Lawrence arguing that we have done the dirt on sex, and made it dirty. And it seems difficult to lift the dirt off and produce something interesting and beautiful.
I suppose the British are still embarrassed about sex, and are recovering from the formidable Victorian repression/obsession, so that as it rises to the surface, it arrives covered in detritus and muck, i.e. shame and embarrassment.
Plus the fact that it is a major capitalist industry, I guess.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
tsk Sioni every 12 year old knows how to use Google.
Quite so. My objection to Safe Media's proposal is that it won't be effective! It will make parents complacent, give false comfort to those who feel 'something must be done' and give legitimacy to governments that wish to restrict the ability of citizens to communicate freely (like some of them don't?).
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Think wrote:
It doesn't make a lot of sense, and I am not sure what the solution is - but teens will seek out sexual material - and if all that is available is sleazy crap, then some how or another that is what they will be exposed to. We are not really giving them a coherent message about what we do want them to do instead.
That's an interesting point. Could there be an authentic erotica for teenagers? And for adults?
It reminds me of DH Lawrence arguing that we have done the dirt on sex, and made it dirty. And it seems difficult to lift the dirt off and produce something interesting and beautiful.
I suppose the British are still embarrassed about sex, and are recovering from the formidable Victorian repression/obsession, so that as it rises to the surface, it arrives covered in detritus and muck, i.e. shame and embarrassment.
Plus the fact that it is a major capitalist industry, I guess.
If you read the big EU-funded survey published last year called "Risks and Safety on the Internet", it doesn't look as though that is true. Certainly the self-image thing would suggest what you say - it just doesn't seem to be borne out in practice. Granted that porn accesses are only one measure, but it is a major part of what we are talking about here.
It does raise a major point though, which is that the situation varies a lot from country to country, so it is unwise to draw too many conclusions from studies undertaken in just one country. However, if you are looking for one country that stands out from the rest, look at the stats for the USA.
I fully agree also with what Sioni Sais has just posted - there is a very real risk of parental complacency involved in reliance on filtering. As already pointed out, the majority of porn that children are exposed to would not be touched by such an approach (let alone the other stuff mentioned). It also needs to be borne in mind that so far as the producers of this stuff are concerned, more filtering will just lead to new ways of circumventing filtering. That's not an excuse for not doing it of course, just a warning.
Posted by Niminypiminy (# 15489) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Think wrote:
It doesn't make a lot of sense, and I am not sure what the solution is - but teens will seek out sexual material - and if all that is available is sleazy crap, then some how or another that is what they will be exposed to. We are not really giving them a coherent message about what we do want them to do instead.
That's an interesting point. Could there be an authentic erotica for teenagers? And for adults?
It reminds me of DH Lawrence arguing that we have done the dirt on sex, and made it dirty. And it seems difficult to lift the dirt off and produce something interesting and beautiful.
I suppose the British are still embarrassed about sex, and are recovering from the formidable Victorian repression/obsession, so that as it rises to the surface, it arrives covered in detritus and muck, i.e. shame and embarrassment.
Plus the fact that it is a major capitalist industry, I guess.
The 'Victorian repression/obsession' with sex is a myth -- for which I blame the Victorians' modernist children, among them DH Lawrence. See
Michael Mason's The Making of Victorian Sexuality for a readable debunking of the myth.
Also, isn't the shame and embarrassment, muck and detritus part of what makes sex exciting? Even if we could, would we want to live in a sexual world of only clean-sheets-vanilla-lights-on-perfectly-loving-and-interesting-and-beautiful sex?
I think Honest Ron Bacardi has it right that we have to find some way of talking about porn in a sensible way, most urgently to our children, but also in a wider public discourse. (That's the hardest part.)
I also think that it would be a good use of public funds to spend money on really good research about who uses porn, and what its effects are, and what's changed in the last few years, if anything. We know that porn has effects (that's why people use it, no?), we just don't know if it has other effects apart from the ones it is supposed to have. At the moment, istm, all we have (certainly all I have) is uninformed opinion.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Shame and excitement seem to be in a very complicated relationship, as far as I can see. We are perhaps ashamed because we are excited, in a kind of animal way. But also maybe shame is itself also exciting, so in porn there is a furtive element expressed - this is exciting because there is a taboo on it. But I suppose the taboo has been (partly) lifted.
It suggests that porn must be forbidden in some way or other, for it to have its impact.
So maybe society treads a path between allowing it some breathing space, but also repressing it to a degree, in order to preserve its potency!
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Pyx_e was pointing out earlier that it is not that uncommon for people to develop crippling obsessions with porn. It's hardly the only thing people can get obsessed by (and obsession seems to affect men more than women) but I don't think that this effect relies in any way on it being forbidden or disapproved.
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
If I was married, my wife could be using another lappie on the *same network*, kids could be using consoles.. ON THE SAME NETWORK.
Different ages, different requirements, different network destinations. Riding the same physical connection.
The *ONLY* place to control based on home policy is at THIS end of the WAN drop (the home router). It would be technically possible to roll out a small rack containing a wired modem-router, proxy server downstream, and a wifi interface downstream of THAT - THEN your kids could authenticate as themselves onto THIS wifi interface and get the relevant restrictions applied based on a locally-managed user account.
Personally, I want my connection to stay wide open...
Well that's fine. Just opt-in for your whole network and all will be as before. Why is that so terrible?
Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
If I was married, my wife could be using another lappie on the *same network*, kids could be using consoles.. ON THE SAME NETWORK.
Different ages, different requirements, different network destinations. Riding the same physical connection.
The *ONLY* place to control based on home policy is at THIS end of the WAN drop (the home router). It would be technically possible to roll out a small rack containing a wired modem-router, proxy server downstream, and a wifi interface downstream of THAT - THEN your kids could authenticate as themselves onto THIS wifi interface and get the relevant restrictions applied based on a locally-managed user account.
Personally, I want my connection to stay wide open...
Well that's fine. Just opt-in for your whole network and all will be as before. Why is that so terrible?
The issue is that differing levels of granularity may be desired for different family members. or users on a connection - this can't be supplied when you only have one entity known by your ISP...
The "under-18-prove-you're-over" block that got slammed on mobiles affected Oddbins workers for several days as the company used O2 for all their work mobiles.. and they just banged it in place.
Affected their ability to work...
Surely the paranoid ones here don't want comms suitable only for their youngest... and not have suitable limits for each family member...
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
My preferred option would be to steer said teen towards literature that does contain some exolicit sexulity but in a context that models a healthy relationship.
That's more likely to work with girls than with biys. With exceptions, females get off on the written word plus fantasising whereas boys get off on pictures.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
The internet porn tidal wave is blighting childrens and young adults lives. It is, in my opinion, the greatest moral threat we face.
What?: Greater than global warming, third world poverty7
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
The issue is that differing levels of granularity may be desired for different family members. or users on a connection - this can't be supplied when you only have one entity known by your ISP...
The "under-18-prove-you're-over" block that got slammed on mobiles affected Oddbins workers for several days as the company used O2 for all their work mobiles.. and they just banged it in place.
Affected their ability to work...
Surely the paranoid ones here don't want comms suitable only for their youngest... and not have suitable limits for each family member...
But at the moment there is no granularity either. Everyone gets everything, unless you take steps at a household level to restrict this.
So you're no worse off under the new scheme. If you find the filter unnecessarily "one-size-fits-all", you can opt out of it, and go back to the way you were doing things before. Is that really such an imposition?
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
My preferred option would be to steer said teen towards literature that does contain some exolicit sexulity but in a context that models a healthy relationship.
That's more likely to work with girls than with biys. With exceptions, females get off on the written word plus fantasising whereas boys get off on pictures.
Well when I polled a load of my female friends on this very question a while ago they blew a collective rasberry and insisted they loved visual porn. I think the whole "Men are more aroused by visuals that women" trope is a bit of a myth.
Personally when I was younger I used to love the Black Lace novels and Ann Rice writing as A.N. Roquelaure.
[ 09. May 2012, 16:52: Message edited by: George Spigot ]
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
tsk Sioni every 12 year old knows how to use Google.
12? 5 or 6 I should think. A nine-year-old who couldn't use Google these days is no more likely than one who couldn't use a phione or a TV remote.
Still doesn't make the censorship argument right.
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
My preferred option would be to steer said teen towards literature that does contain some exolicit sexulity but in a context that models a healthy relationship.
That's more likely to work with girls than with biys. With exceptions, females get off on the written word plus fantasising whereas boys get off on pictures.
Why is it always men who say this? Took me a long while as a youngster to work thru the question of why one of the soft porn titles available in those days was called *Men Only* - as if women weren't allowed to look at their own bodies! As I got more eddicated, I realized that this was just another form of control - *we* (men) can just about accept (allow) *you people* (women) to get your rocks off on the written word (that keeps you in the Pure and Innocent Madonna camp) while we (hetero) men can and must only get off on pictures of what is, essentially, YOU.
Stats may not show it (self-reporting in such an area being generally unreliable) but I bet (if we filter out the socially-conditioned shamed demographic), women DO enjoy *porn* as much as men.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
I said it because that is what I have read. I don't think i have ever conferred with other men.
As it happens, I am a male who found stories more of a turn on than pictures. Then again, pictures were not very explicit back in the 60s when I was a teenager.
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
There is alot of stuff on the internet I wouldn't want minors to see and a fair bit that is - or should be - illegal.
But leaving that aside for a moment, if we accept masturbation is normal - and specifically normal for teenagers going through puberty - what is it, whilst we desperately try to stop them seeing or reading porn of any kind, or naked people of any kind, (and try to stop them having sex with anyone else), that we expect them to focus on to do this? What would we consider, healthy, appropriate or 'sex positive? Or are we always expecting that they will some how get around the prohibitions and we will always pretend to be shocked ?
Just because Gwai mentioned this to me and we had a conversation, I had this thought:
Is there a form of visual sexualized imagery such that you could look at a real live woman the way you looked at the image and not be socially out of line? I think a problem with porn in general is that it's by definition objectifying, meaning that it turns the model into a object designed merely for the sexual stimulation of the viewer. It is not a person. While I have sympathy with the thrust of your claim, I'm skeptical that any kind of visual stimulus is going to be able to get around this problem of objectification. You might be able to pull something like that off with erotic fiction, since in that case there's at least a character, but it's still an ultimately consumptive medium.
The only thing I can think of is actual relationships with actual women.
I think I agree that being shocked is dishonest and silly at best, and tabooing isn't an answer. I just don't think porn is really a great answer either. It's really an awkward situation. When my son gets old enough (God willing and all that) I imagine I'd teach him that it's fine to use porn is one must (and accept that he's likely to anyway) but also make sure he gets that it's no replacement for a relationship with an actual human being.
My preferred option would be to steer said teen towards literature that does contain some exolicit sexulity but in a context that models a healthy relationship.
But I think that not thinking this through is part of the social problem of teens and porn. We expect them to come to terms with and manage their sex drive in socially appropriate ways, but ostensibilty we also don't want them to access any sexually explicit material that is not health related, or participate in any sexualised relationships that get as far as being undressed. Whereas what we in fact do as asociety is implicitly tolerate such things providing we are not aware of them at the time they are happening. Teen fiction tries to tackle this a bit - but is Judy Blume porn ?
It doesn't make a lot of sense, and I am not sure what the solution is - but teens will seek out sexual material - and if all that is available is sleazy crap, then some how or another that is what they will be exposed to. We are not really giving them a coherent message about what we do want them to do instead.
Well said. Another issue I think is that "we" are the parents, and we don't really agree amongst ourselves. And then there's the mixed signals from different outlets. Society isn't a single unit here, but a competitive commons.
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Society isn't a single unit here, but a competitive commons.
Which is as good an argument as I've heard against government-imposed censorship of the internet.
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Society isn't a single unit here, but a competitive commons.
Which is as good an argument as I've heard against government-imposed censorship of the internet.
Or at least a different set of tactics. I'm not arguing necessarily that gov't shouldn't be involved, though that might follow from what I'm saying.
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Society isn't a single unit here, but a competitive commons.
Which is as good an argument as I've heard against government-imposed censorship of the internet.
Or at least a different set of tactics. I'm not arguing necessarily that gov't shouldn't be involved, though that might follow from what I'm saying.
Indeed, the tactics need work. At work, we filter our connection to keep the students off Facebook and YouTube and away from porn/violence/gambling/etc.- but it also plays hob with health teachers doing a unit on breast cancer, or a school event filmed by a parent and put on YouTube is a royal pain to show to the kids in the school it was filmed at.
I'm not sure what the solution is, but I'm pretty sure a one-size-fits-all system of filtering out "bad stuff" isn't it.
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on
:
There's no point in trying to ban commercial porn to protect children when the children can make their own p0rn.
If your (general) kid is flashing on the internet under your very own roof, how can you NOT know? Or how can you excuse yourself for not knowing? And what can you reasonably expect anyone else to do about the fact that you have raised a spectacularly stupid and screwed up kid? OliviaG
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
What bothers me is that the companies that advertise on the site mentioned in the article you linked to claim that they had no idea that their ads were appearing on the site. They claim that they employ one or more marketing companies to handle the placement of ads for them.
Is no one responsible for anything anymore?
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
... Is no one responsible for anything anymore?
Welcome to the wonderful world of contracting out / outsourcing. OliviaG
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
There's no point in trying to ban commercial porn to protect children when the children can make their own p0rn.
If your (general) kid is flashing on the internet under your very own roof, how can you NOT know? Or how can you excuse yourself for not knowing? And what can you reasonably expect anyone else to do about the fact that you have raised a spectacularly stupid and screwed up kid? OliviaG
I would have thought it's very easy not to know. Simple enough for a child to take a mobile phone camera into their bedroom. And I don't think it's necessarily children of completely negligent parents who might do this - children have always done spectacularly stupid things, no matter how well parented. The technology amplifies the opportunity for their stupidity to get them into trouble.
I agree that it's difficult to see what can be done to stop it, though.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
Kids have always been heavily swayed by peer pressure. It's a little strange to point to one child as "spectacularly stupid and messed-up"
when all he or she is doing is jumping onto a bandwagon. Or maybe it is not a bandwagon, the kid is unusually stupid and messed up, and the problem described in the article is overblown. Pick your poison, but don't try to have it both ways. I bet that the activity on such sites is monitored by the management and that users caught exposing themselves are shut off immediately. And by the way, if the exhibitionists are as young is they are described, then any viewer sitting at a monitor for two hours eating it up is breaking the law. Calling yourself a journalist and writing on a blog how shocked-shocked you are might not impress a judge and jury.
Six reasons young Christians leave church according to findings of the Barna Group.
quote:
Reason #1 – Churches seem overprotective.
A few of the defining characteristics of today's teens and young adults are their unprecedented access to ideas and worldviews as well as their prodigious consumption of popular culture. As Christians, they express the desire for their faith in Christ to connect to the world they live in. However, much of their experience of Christianity feels stifling, fear-based and risk-averse. One-quarter of 18- to 29-year-olds said “Christians demonize everything outside of the church”.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
More relevant to this thread are the following points from the article:
Reason #4 – Young Christians’ church experiences related to sexuality are often simplistic, judgmental.
and
Reason #5 – They wrestle with the exclusive nature of Christianity.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
I can see how reason 4 could be relevant to the discussion, but reason 5 ?
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on
:
Because in these multicultural days, it is very hard to accept that our nice Muslim, Sikh, and non-Christian friends, neighbours and colleagues, for example, are going to hell. Kind of like with teh gayz. The fact that Christians often oppose anti-bullying initiatives in schools specifically on religious grounds (presumably because they want Christian kids to be free to tell little Rupinder and Alia they stink of sulfur at recess) doesn't help matters. OliviaG
Posted by Adrian1 (# 3994) on
:
I think there are plenty of filtering products on the market if parents have a mind to use them. We've moved on a long way from the world of fifteen - or even ten - years ago when most children were computer savvy and the majority of adults clueless about such things. I certainly don't think more censorship's needed and the UK Government's plans to routinely monitor all online activity are, if anything, misguided. The record of successive Governments (of all hues) on IT and Data Protection has scarcely been impressive.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Because in these multicultural days, it is very hard to accept that our nice Muslim, Sikh, and non-Christian friends, neighbours and colleagues, for example, are going to hell. Kind of like with teh gayz. The fact that Christians often oppose anti-bullying initiatives in schools specifically on religious grounds (presumably because they want Christian kids to be free to tell little Rupinder and Alia they stink of sulfur at recess) doesn't help matters. OliviaG
OK - but it's only people who support double-predestination who would say such things. And probably not all of them. How has such a minority come to dominate this matter?
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Because in these multicultural days, it is very hard to accept that our nice Muslim, Sikh, and non-Christian friends, neighbours and colleagues, for example, are going to hell. Kind of like with teh gayz. The fact that Christians often oppose anti-bullying initiatives in schools specifically on religious grounds (presumably because they want Christian kids to be free to tell little Rupinder and Alia they stink of sulfur at recess) doesn't help matters. OliviaG
OK - but it's only people who support double-predestination who would say such things. And probably not all of them. How has such a minority come to dominate this matter?
At least in the US, it's because they're loud and well-funded. Conservative evangelical mega-churches have both the manpower and cash to push their points of view; smaller congregations do not.
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
At least in the US, it's because they're loud and well-funded. Conservative evangelical mega-churches have both the manpower and cash to push their points of view; smaller congregations do not.
While there is some truth to this, it neatly glides over the widespread embarrassment of the more "mainstream" churches to talk about their faith at all. ISTM that this reticence has been a long-standing problem, and provided the rich soil in which the con evos thrived in the first place.
--Tom Clune
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Thanks both - I understand what you say, jbohn, but these are people who used to be on the margins. If as tclune has said there is an embarrassed silence about faith from the mainstream then you will have a vacuum waiting to be filled. Isn't this to a substantial degree self-inflicted damage if so?
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
The fact that Christians often oppose anti-bullying initiatives in schools...
Not round here they don't. You mst know some funny Christians.
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
but it's only people who support double-predestination who would say such things.
Why? What have they to gain by it? Its the Arminians who ought to want to put the fear of Hell into unbelievers in the hope that they would repent and save themseves.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
I can see how reason 4 could be relevant to the discussion, but reason 5 ?
I think it is something to do with tkem thinking of church as 'an exclusive club' - so it isn't for sinners e.g. those who look at porn. Mind you, plenty of churchgoers look at port.
Posted by Mogwai (# 13555) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Because in these multicultural days, it is very hard to accept that our nice Muslim, Sikh, and non-Christian friends, neighbours and colleagues, for example, are going to hell. Kind of like with teh gayz. The fact that Christians often oppose anti-bullying initiatives in schools specifically on religious grounds (presumably because they want Christian kids to be free to tell little Rupinder and Alia they stink of sulfur at recess) doesn't help matters. OliviaG
IME christians don't believe in hell at all. Which is a good thing I suppose.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
ken asked: quote:
Why? What have they to gain by it? Its the Arminians who ought to want to put the fear of Hell into unbelievers in the hope that they would repent and save themseves.
Maybe some do, but for the most part that just seems to be the dominant sector doing it in the USA (to which the Barna group was referring). If I'm wrong I'm open to correction. I assume the "x is damned to hell" teaching is intended to underline the gravity of a correct decision when addressed to y.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Actually, having just posted that, Southern Baptists are somewhat Arminian, aren't they? I have certainly heard the rhetoric from them, so if they are, fair comment.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
I can see how reason 4 could be relevant to the discussion, but reason 5 ?
I think it is something to do with tkem thinking of church as 'an exclusive club' - so it isn't for sinners e.g. those who look at porn. Mind you, plenty of churchgoers look at port.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I thought the really exclusive ones professed not to have any alcoholic beverage of any kind, although I suppose they might look at some.
Posted by Bartolomeo (# 8352) on
:
I wonder how many of the porn filters out there include the ship on their blacklist, whether for reasons of sexual content or the prevalence of "hate speech" on the hell board.
You know, because we use words like "fuck" and "penis."
[ 19. May 2012, 18:11: Message edited by: Bartolomeo ]
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
Probably not many.
I imagine that while the average parent would not be pleased at a child using language like that, he/she would be pretty resigned to children learning such language sooner or later, probably sooner.
What irritates me more is that a person can't perform a search on Google for "pussy makeover" (as mentioned on an earlier page) without getting a lot of X-rated material. There is something deeply wrong about that. I tried it myself yesterday. I didn't investigate any of the links to see if cats were involved.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
Google settings - set safe search to 'strict' - hit save - then google pussy makeover - no problem.
If you don't bother educating yourself on searching, how are you going to teach anyone else?
[ 20. May 2012, 03:17: Message edited by: Louise ]
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
If you had done your own homework, you would have have edited your last post to say "safe search set to strict results in 'pussy' being filtered out".
Whether you think that's no problem I don't know. Personally I think it makes searching "pussy makeover" rather pointless.
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
Must resist temptation to post link to The pussy cat song by The Asylum street spankers.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
If you had done your own homework, you would have have edited your last post to say "safe search set to strict results in 'pussy' being filtered out".
Whether you think that's no problem I don't know. Personally I think it makes searching "pussy makeover" rather pointless.
If your object is not to be exposed to vaginas or to have 11 years olds see porn, then that obtains it, if your object is to find out how to makeover your cat, then you set the search setting to moderate and search for
~cat makeover
so google knows you're looking for domestic felines and not genitalia. (the tilde is for a synonym search)
If you put in
~cat pussy makeover
then you do get hits for sites with the innocent feline use of the word pussy.
Although the most sensible thing would be to search for cat makeover in the first place
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
That is indeed the most sensible thing in the circumstances, which rather illustrates my point that it is a great pity circumstances are as they are.
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
At least in the US, it's because they're loud and well-funded. Conservative evangelical mega-churches have both the manpower and cash to push their points of view; smaller congregations do not.
While there is some truth to this, it neatly glides over the widespread embarrassment of the more "mainstream" churches to talk about their faith at all. ISTM that this reticence has been a long-standing problem, and provided the rich soil in which the con evos thrived in the first place.
--Tom Clune
It glides over it because I wasn't trying to diagnose the reasons for the rise of con-evo-ism (is that even a word?). That said- I think you're absolutely correct.
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Thanks both - I understand what you say, jbohn, but these are people who used to be on the margins. If as tclune has said there is an embarrassed silence about faith from the mainstream then you will have a vacuum waiting to be filled. Isn't this to a substantial degree self-inflicted damage if so?
Undoubtedly. Again, I wasn't laying responsibility or looking into causation- just reporting on the situation as it stands. The real question for mainstream religion, as I see it, is what to do about it now that it exists.
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Although the most sensible thing would be to search for cat makeover in the first place
Oh, there you go- trying to insert logic and reason into it. What fun is that? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0