Lumberjack
Premium
join:2003-01-18
Newport News, VA
| In the home parents, not government , is the filter.
When will governments and society learn that parents are the key holders to content their child sees while at home? Poor parenting already causes enough problems and for the governments of the world to believe they can 'help' just makes it worse.
--
»www.fairtax.org |
|
member
@rr.com
| What did you expect?
This is the wrong kind of plan, and it's proven by a teenager in a half an hour.
I still think that domain registrars and ISP's should work together to implement a categorized port based system to make it easier to filter traffic for parents and IT departments (or anyone who wants to filter traffic).
Kind of like the v-chip. The technology is there and it works pretty well. People simply need to learn how and use it. |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10
1 edit | reply to Lumberjack
Re: In the home parents, not government , is the filter.
Parental responsibility? HAHAHAHAH... That's similar to asking people with 10 kids and on welfare to use contraceptives. It won't happen. Still, IT IS NOT the government's job to regulate what parents deem acceptable. Only if the child is in mortal danger or being harmed should the government step in and assist. That's my opinion anyway. |
|
ib50MbSoon
Formerly TwoKDialup
Premium
join:2002-06-07
Coloma, MI
| This porn stuff has to stop...
even our pets are becoming warped.
--
Comcast has spoiled me rotten! |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to Lumberjack
Re: In the home parents, not government , is the filter.
said by Lumberjack  :When will governments and society learn that parents are the key holders to content their child sees while at home? Poor parenting already causes enough problems and for the governments of the world to believe they can 'help' just makes it worse. Hey why do the actual parenting when you can get the government to do it for you? I mean they do everyhting else so well, let them raise our kids too. |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10
| Yep why not. We should go back to that model they used in the 16th century. Give away your kids until they are older and take them back then. The wealthy would have others raise their kids or ship them off. Hell, lets just have the government set up parental centers. This way they can do whatever the bleep they want, and parents can just continue to pop them out with no remorse. Now back to reality, this is sarcasm, but it's quite sad that a government feels the need to dictate stuff like this. Then again, it happens in the U.S too. |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| Force Filtering?
They thought that 25 million homes would use the system, only 29,000 did. (And I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt that some of those 29,000 weren't multiple computers in the same house.) That means that only 0.116% of the target audience wound up actually interested enough to use the filter. So if only a tenth of one percent of your target audience actually is interested in porn filtering the logical step is to force filtering on 100% of users, right? 
--
-Jason Levine
Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar. Shooting For A Cause
Jason's Toolbox | PCQandA.com |
|
Stupid Parenting
@rwoodbroadband.com
 from:
TKJunkMail
| reply to Lumberjack
Re: In the home parents, not government , is the filter.
said by Lumberjack :When will governments and society learn that parents are the key holders to content their child sees while at home? You're assuming that the government is actually happy about good parenting practices; they aren't.
The thing to realize here is that lazy/stupid parenting gives the government (any government) an excuse to step in and act as a parent because they can claim that the "adults" that are supposed to be teaching their kids right from wrong are simply "not up to the task."
What's worse is that lazy and stupid people actually look forward to that happening. Because when the government takes responsibility for raising your children, it means that you don't have to spare them another thought.
Which frees up your time for other, more "important" things.
Don't get me wrong: I wish that every parent felt as you do. I'm just saying that lazy and stupid parenting works to the advantage of the government because it gives them an excuse to:
A) Run the lives of parents and their children (because they aren't capable of running their own lives).
B) Take more money away from people because, let's face it, running peoples' lives for them gets expensive.
...that's all.
Sorry to sound so cynical, but it just seems that everywhere I go in the US, I see parents who seem delighted to have other people raise their children for them.
And they are getting their wish. |
|
spamd
Premium
join:2001-04-22
Rockford, IL
 ·Insight Communicat..
| Let's stop it at the source!
Why waste our time with filters. It would be much more effective if we just introduce anti-hormone drugs or genital surgery to our children, all we need to do is take the urge away, what's wrong with that. After all, all the scientist say that the world has too many people anyway.
My vote goes to hysterectomy, castration, and or anti-hormone drugs. NIP it in the bud!!!
--
When everything is coming your way, you are in the wrong lane. |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10
| reply to Stupid Parenting
Re: In the home parents, not government , is the filter.
You forgot one key argument in your response, lazy parents can always fall back on the, it's not my problem and fault argument. If this fails and it's a government mandate, they can wash themselves of blame, and then scream and moan about it. Hence are the ways of the crap parents. Whine when it doesn't work, but all other times sit back and do nothing. Either way, it's not the government's place to dictate what should be done as long as no physical harm is coming to a child. Yet, these stupid parents as you said, give them the ammunition to do so on that very argument it's for the good of the child. |
|
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
| reply to Jason Levine
Re: Force Filtering?
said by Jason Levine :They thought that 25 million homes would use the system, only 29,000 did. (And I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt that some of those 29,000 weren't multiple computers in the same house.) That means that only 0.116% of the target audience wound up actually interested enough to use the filter. So if only a tenth of one percent of your target audience actually is interested in porn filtering the logical step is to force filtering on 100% of users, right? We've got the tyranny of the minority in the U.S. as well. Stupidity knows no limits.
--
The Toll
Let's Go Flyers!
|
|
idjk
@sprintlink.net
| reply to spamd
Re: Let's stop it at the source!
said by spamd :Why waste our time with filters. It would be much more effective if we just introduce anti-hormone drugs or genital surgery to our children, all we need to do is take the urge away, what's wrong with that. After all, all the scientist say that the world has too many people anyway. My vote goes to hysterectomy, castration, and or anti-hormone drugs. NIP it in the bud!!! This would actually work and in 1 generation the problem would be fixed for all times! |
|
TScheisskopf
World News Trust
join:2005-02-13
Belvidere, NJ
 ·Sprint Broadband D..
| reply to spamd
I am sure that if you were a fly on the wall during some conversations and meetings, what you described was discussed. Seriously discussed.
Some people's brains turn into tiny raisins when they ponder teenage sexuality. It's like they want to keep the kids in amber. And they were never teenagers.
They seem to forget that there is no more powerful natural force on earth than the teenage sexual drive. Earthquakes and hurricanes are mere bagatelles in comparison. |
|
axelrose
Merry X-mas Liberals..
join:2005-05-25
Chattanooga, TN
·Comcast
| It's for the children though
You guys should know we need to do everything including censorship and editing the constitution in order to protect little children.
It's for the children. Who is against the children?
Next week: Hate speech  filters [it's for the children  ]
--
"If you wait by the river long enough, the bodies of your enemies will float by." - Sun Tsu (544 – 496 BC) |
|
Corydon
Cultivant son jardin
Premium
join:2008-02-18
Denver, CO
clubs:
·Comcast
| My worry....
Is that cases like this, the Finnish experience with child porn filters, and the Danish experience against the Pirate Bay will lead to attempts to regulate OpenDNS and similar non-regulated DNS providers as "enablers" of kiddie porn, piracy or what have you.
Please note that this is not a defense of child abuse or piracy. I'm just tired of having my legitimate rights infringed because someone else might be abusing them (case in point that's really sticking in my craw right now is SafeDisc).
I wish that governments would go after the people who are actually breaking the law rather than mass-punishing everyone in an orgy of save-the-children paranoia.
But that's all, like, hard and stuff, you know? Much easier to punish everybody. |
|
Edward1978
join:2007-07-23
De Soto, IL | Wow 89 mil.
Just make a porn blacklist & offer software to interact with it. God give me 1 mil. I might come up with one that works. |
|
Logan 5
Wondering what happens next..
Premium,MVM
join:2001-05-25
The WasteLAN | If you cant beat em.........
force em.
Ohhhh I feel so dirty for thinking that but in this case it's true.
Can't beat em with filters so force 'em with regulations. |
|
Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| reply to axelrose
Re: It's for the children though
said by axelrose :It's for the children. Who is against the children? Me personally. They're small, annoying, and get in my way in amusement parks. Kids need more porn IMHO.
I kid. Though, damn if my attitude towards kids didn't nearly change while attending Disneyland's New Year Eve 2007. God that was an ocean of kids, literally. I couldn't take two steps without almost stepping on one. |
|
Loadofjunkk
@comcast.net
| What a waste of time and money!
I have no clue what the idiots in Canberra are doing!
A country that has topless beaches, naked shows on TV in the evenings, legal prostitution(this is true!), wants to force the ISP's to filter???
I think they have been drinking a few too many VB stubies.
I understand what they are trying to do, but aussie kids are exposed to sooo much alreay in their own homes and neighborhoods, they don't need it filtered from their PC's they need it filtered from everywhere else.
They need to be spending that money on saving the Reefs and Rainforests... not on forcing ISP's to be content police! |
|
Lumberjack
Premium
join:2003-01-18
Newport News, VA
| reply to jc100
Re: In the home parents, not government , is the filter.
I agree with you and most of the responses.
Instead of the government attempting a parenting role because parenting sucks, the government should instead parent the parents by competent legislation. I believe some governments already do this but at least in the US parents are not held accountable enough. Instead like somebody else had posted, the government rewards dumb parents by allowing tax breaks for not using birth control along with welfare, etc...
So instead of the message being "don't worry we'll raise them for you" it really should be "if you can't raise them, we won't and instead we'll give em to somebody else that can." And come on, cap the damn welfare and tax credits at 2 or 3 kids!
--
»www.fairtax.org |
|
