jc100
join:2002-04-10
1 edit | I can understand this one...
I am adamantly against the use of filters, BUT i think in this case it is something to consider. On a plane, you have LOTS of people in close proximity. If someone is getting off to some porn or viewing obscene material, others are affected by this decision. It's kind of like the fireworks argument. Fireworks are good if you do them in a non populated area. However, if you shoot them off in a busy suburb, you risk lighting someone's house on fire. It's a chance. The same here. Viewing porn in your OWN HOME or whenever in a "private" setting (IE not a library) is fine. Yet, when your choice goes against regard for public safety or the welfare of others, it has potential of being policed due to it's affect on other's. Unless the person viewing the porn wants to buy a laptop hood, I'm all for this decision to block content. I mean there are children and others within view who PROBABLY don't need to see or wish to see some guy's fetish being displayed. |
|
badtrip
East Bay
Premium
join:2004-03-20
Albany, CA | I agree with your statement. I strongly disagree with filters in a private environment but in a public environment (especially on a cramped, shitty American Airlines plane) I can see the logic behind their implementation. |
|
N3OGH
Bear patrol must be working like a charm
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to jc100
I'm totally staying away from the "won't someone please think of the children" argument. I couldn't care less about your kids. That's the job of parents.
As far as filtering, in general I am opposed. But in this case I would have to say I agree there is a need for filtering in such close quarters.
I really don't need to be subjected to "Two Girls one Cup" on a cross country flight.
--
Petty people are disproportionably corrupted by petty power… |
|
SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| reply to jc100
said by jc100  : On a plane, you have LOTS of people in close proximity. If someone is getting off to some porn or viewing obscene material, others are affected by this decision. So is farting and crying babies, but other passengers allow it to happen anyway. |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
| reply to N3OGH
Parents cannot filter everything their children experience. If you have children and can, please write a parenting book. I need help. If you don't have children, then please consider you have a potential knowledge gap. (You were serious and not just trolling, right?)
I believe adults have the responsibility to restrain their behavior. An ordered society requires certain behavior in public areas both toward other adults and especially toward children. There are even laws against such disruptive behavior so we cannot use the "free speech" excuse.
To maintain order, even atheists and agnostics must agree that their rights end when they impact the rights of someone else. If not, we have anarchy. We have clearly advanced beyond this whether you believe it's with or without God.
I would rather have the privilege of unfiltered access but if adults cannot consider others for the few hours they are on a flight, then we will lose that privilege. |
|
ReVeLaTeD
Premium
join:2001-11-10
San Diego, CA
| reply to jc100
said by jc100 :I am adamantly against the use of filters, BUT i think in this case it is something to consider. On a plane, you have LOTS of people in close proximity. If someone is getting off to some porn or viewing obscene material, others are affected by this decision. It's kind of like the fireworks argument. Fireworks are good if you do them in a non populated area. However, if you shoot them off in a busy suburb, you risk lighting someone's house on fire. It's a chance. The same here. Viewing porn in your OWN HOME or whenever in a "private" setting (IE not a library) is fine. Yet, when your choice goes against regard for public safety or the welfare of others, it has potential of being policed due to it's affect on other's. Unless the person viewing the porn wants to buy a laptop hood, I'm all for this decision to block content. I mean there are children and others within view who PROBABLY don't need to see or wish to see some guy's fetish being displayed. Hood won't do any good (intentional rhyme) because the person behind you can still see over or between the seat backs.
The easier answer: get the US to stop being so sensitive about a natural act.
I'm all fine for banning "alternative" porn...I mean truly disturbing stuff like CP, bondage, etc...but normal porn? Come on...isn't it the Japanese that have an annual festival to praise the phallus? |
|
yabos
join:2003-02-16
Ingersoll, ON | reply to jc100
Just yell out "WHY ARE YOU MASTURBATING TO PORN ON THE AIRPLANE" if you see it and the person will be embarrassed and probably not do it again. I don't see why anyone has to be filtered because it never works. |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10
| reply to rradina
I fully agree there. I didn't want to bring up the "Children" but it is one aspect to be considered. Parents CANNOT shelter them from stuff. I am very realistic and understand this point. I'm sure 12 yr old Timmy is hopping on his pc at night looking at porn, whether or not mom and dad want to admit to it. Most kids are WAY more tech savvy than their parents and bypass whatever filters that are put in place. Still, an adult has the PERSONAL responsibility to not subject others in close proximity to certain material. I know it's all about personal preference on what this material might be. However, common sense needs to rule on the side of caution when others are around. Once again, the person is an adult and has a responsibility to act as such. Therefore, what you do in your OWN home or a private setting is your problem. I could care less if you want to have an orgy with 6 women and 2 guys. However, when it comes to the public, some civility is needed. If others cannot respect this fine line, then "policing is needed" to ensure it isn't crossed. |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10
| reply to ReVeLaTeD
Well Mister,
A hood probably wouldn't work. There are those FULL hoods but I was being a bit sarcastic there. I would hope people wouldn't be that desperate and resort to that. However, I guess that would be an off the wall fix, pending it sheltered them from public view. Still, porn is porn. I know it's natural but what one deems "Normal" another might not. You can't pick and choose on this issue. It's either all or none, as you can't discriminate against others based upon your personal preference. I'd rather say porn is forbidden on a plane due to the same argument that applies to fireworks and driving around with it on your mini van.
P.S. I think this also should go for one's porn collection he or she might bring along on DVD. If someone is caught watching, they should be asked to stop. |
|
N3OGH
Bear patrol must be working like a charm
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
·Verizon FIOS
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to rradina
I was more looking to head the discussion off at the pass. People always seem to end up saying "what if my kids, blah blah blah".
I agree adults have a responsibility to behave as adults in public, and exercise due judgement. But, it seems like everyone lays issue after issue at the feet of "protecting the children". News flash to parents. Not everyone has kids. And if I hear one more 2 bit politician pander for votes by coming out against "violent video games" or "Gangsta rap music" I think I'm going to vomit.
Thus the reason I stated from the beginning I was avoiding it.
No where in my post did I make some free speech argument in favor of disruptive behavior. I have a bit more Constitutional knowledge than that.
Neither did I make the argument that someones rights should be permitted to impact the rights of someone else.
So I don't know how those arguments apply to my comments, as I clearly sated in my post I was in favor of filtering on flights.
--
Petty people are disproportionably corrupted by petty power… |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10
| reply to SilverSurfer
Silver, are you pulling for strings? Yes, I hate crying babies in a movie theater and on a plane. Sadly, these are things not in someone's control. No one can predict they will have gas or a colicky kid that day. Yet, a plane can stop and let a parent off if a kid is being a huge disruption. If their child is YELLING at the top of its lungs and cannot be calmed, the air line is within its full right to land and instruct the parent to catch another flight at a later time. Airlines are allowed to make judgment calls when other passengers are affected. The same with the guy with gas. If someone is SICK visibly and is shitting himself / vomiting, an airline can detour to get him or her to an airport clinic. So what's your point here? |
|
r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
St John'S, NL
 ·magicjack.com
 ·Cox HSI
·Insight Communicat..
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to jc100
There is no need to ban anything.
If there is a problem, the person needs to get a flight attendant and they will stop the person.
Also, if they ban some internet sites can they please ban babies. I hate when they cry the whole damn flight.
--
»www.ryanoneill.us |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to ReVeLaTeD
said by ReVeLaTeD :Hood won't do any good (intentional rhyme) because the person behind you can still see over or between the seat backs. The easier answer: get the US to stop being so sensitive about a natural act. I'm all fine for banning "alternative" porn...I mean truly disturbing stuff like CP, bondage, etc...but normal porn? Come on...isn't it the Japanese that have an annual festival to praise the phallus? Case in point
quote:
[Token has unknowingly watched a disturbing pornographic movie]
Token's Mom: Token? Did the boys come over and... show you a movie?
[Token just stares and remains silent]
Token's Dad: Token?
[Token remains silent]
Token's Dad: All right, Token, we know you must be very confused about what you saw.
[Token keeps staring and remains silent]
Randy Marsh: Yes, er... you see, Token, that was called a pornographic film. It shows adult men and adult women having sexual intercourse.
[Token still keeps silent]
Randy Marsh: Well, y-you see, when a-when a man and a woman fall in love, the-the man puts his penis in the woman's vagina. It's called lovemaking and it's part of being in love.
Token Williams: [after a long silence] And when the woman has four penises in her at the same time, then stands over the men and pees on them, is that part of being in love too?
[another silence]
Token Williams: Five midgets, spanking a man covered with 1000-isles dressing. Is that making love?
Token's Dad: [Aghast] Jesus, what kind of porno was that?
Gerald Broflovski: It was "Backdoor Sluts #9".
Token's Dad: Oh Jesus, not that one!
[his wife gives him a foul look]
So, how does a filter what type of porn is coming through? |
|
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
·Comcast
| reply to jc100
Porn is porn... uhm...
Who is going to be the judge and jury as to what is considered "porn"
Nudity?
REALLY skimpy swimsuits?
Body-painting?
Little 3-5 year old Johnny or Jenny is his/her wader pool with no clothes on?
You are now a CP purveyor because you sent or recieved those "revealing" pics of your neice or nephew/daughter or son/grandkids in the bath or pool.
You are a sexual deviant because you opened up the Swimsuit issue of Sports Illustrated on a flight to Miami from Oakland.
Who is going to determine what is ok and what is not?
Teh Pornz! ONOES!!1
Is this porn?
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera |
|
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL | Do you raise the same questions about the legitimacy of 180solutions (Zango) as a business?
--
The "Lifetime" channel is responsible for 83% of all divorces...Robert Ginty |
|
SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| reply to jc100
said by jc100 :Silver, are you pulling for strings? Yes, I hate crying babies in a movie theater and on a plane. Sadly, these are things not in someone's control. No one can predict they will have gas or a colicky kid that day. Yet, a plane can stop and let a parent off if a kid is being a huge disruption. If their child is YELLING at the top of its lungs and cannot be calmed, the air line is within its full right to land and instruct the parent to catch another flight at a later time. Airlines are allowed to make judgment calls when other passengers are affected. The same with the guy with gas. If someone is SICK visibly and is shitting himself / vomiting, an airline can detour to get him or her to an airport clinic. So what's your point here? My point is that none of the above referenced actually happen...flights don't stop or turn around because of crying babies or even passengers shitting themselves. And you quite clearly don't fly all that often if you believe otherwise.
Porn is enjoyed quietly on someone else's laptop, which is situated directly in front of that passenger, and, in order to see it you would have to be doing some serious rubbernecking either from off to the side or behind his seat. You're acting like you're being forced at gunpoint to watch it. You're not. You're being a drama queen. Compared to all the other annoyances going on in flight, porn is really negligible. |
|
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
·Comcast
| reply to S_engineer
said by S_engineer :Do you raise the same questions about the legitimacy of 180solutions (Zango) as a business? Spyware and data-mining the same as imagery on a plane?
Uhm... no. Do you?
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera |
|
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
·Comcast
| you miss the point. think its funny that the same people that endorse or accept one depraved industry with the justification that it's natural find it necessary to crucify another industry such as 180solutions for a different natural act, greed.
--
The "Lifetime" channel is responsible for 83% of all divorces...Robert Ginty |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA | reply to dadkins
I need to see more images like the second one before I can come to a conclusion.  |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| reply to rradina
said by rradina :To maintain order, even atheists and agnostics must agree that their rights end when they impact the rights of someone else. The problem is that non-atheists and non-agnostics often think their views are allowed to impact the rights of non-believers such as in the abortion area. The Abortion debate usually has the Religious Types thinking that their Religious beliefs gives them the right to impact those of other beliefs. This atatude was what lead to the Crusades and the Inquisition/etc. |
|
