how-to block ads
|
billsweat
join:2001-04-24
Burton, MI
| Re: Is google to blame? Just for disclosure's sake, I consider myself a "religious fundamentalist" and I have a few problems with this line of thinking.
1. Yes, sexuality is part of life. I just hope that you're not equating what passes for porn on the net with normal sexuality. Call me a prude but I haven’t had any relations with a sheep or an 8 year old.
2. Just because it's hard to protect our kids doesn't mean that society should stop trying. The "adult" section in the bookstore is protected from minors or the owner is liable. Anybody who exposes minors to porn on the net by posting links in an AOL children’s section should be just as liable. Pedophiles who target children using whatever medium should be caught and jailed.
3. I understand that I'm responsible for my children's safety. I need some tools to help. Currently it's a choice of a) not allowing any access, b)constantly monitor, or c) risk exposure to bad stuff. A and B aren’t really practical. I'm reasonably sure that I can let my kids go to Barnes and Noble without getting exposed to people having sex with cows. Why not the web? | |
|  
rahlquist
Redeye
join:2001-10-30
Villa Rica, GA
| Re: Is google to blame? said by billsweat:
1. Yes, sexuality is part of life. I just hope that you're not equating what passes for porn on the net with normal sexuality. Call me a prude but I haven’t had any relations with a sheep or an 8 year old.
No, I don’t equate that myself. However some do and that’s their choice and hopefully in some way they will have to answer for that one day.
said by billsweat:
2. Just because it's hard to protect our kids doesn't mean that society should stop trying. The "adult" section in the bookstore is protected from minors or the owner is liable. Anybody who exposes minors to porn on the net by posting links in an AOL children’s section should be just as liable. Pedophiles who target children using whatever medium should be caught and jailed.
I agree with the pedophiles being jailed. No argument on posting porn links in a children’s forum being wrong. However the lines we have now we once did cross as a society. What’s acceptable now wasn’t acceptable then and vice versa.
said by billsweat:
3. I understand that I'm responsible for my children's safety. I need some tools to help. Currently it's a choice of a) not allowing any access, b)constantly monitor, or c) risk exposure to bad stuff. A and B aren’t really practical. I'm reasonably sure that I can let my kids go to Barnes and Noble without getting exposed to people having sex with cows. Why not the web?
Because with proper supervision the web isn’t inherently dangerous or evil, its just information, be it writing, photos, whatever its all 1's and 0's. I don’t have a problem with you protecting your children. That’s great, just don’t wipe things out because you don’t agree with them. If I want to go to a porn site and give them a credit card number that they may lose to a hacker that’s my business.
As for B&N a quick one word search shows they carry books on bestiality I bet and they have been in the news plenty of times fighting over picture books of young children... The point of the B&N image is also that kids get snatched at stores, and through contact with someone on the internet they can get snatched as well.
Just be careful is the best advice, and expect to occasionally run into a problem. Just playing devils advocate.
--
The difference between foresight and hindsight is only a matter of when you bother to think things through.
[text was edited by author 2001-11-27 16:25:28] | |
| 
pupowski$
join:2001-01-15
Atlantis
| Give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's... said by billsweat:
Call me a prude but I haven’t had any relations with a sheep or an 8 year old.
Thanks for the revelation, most people are revolted by the thought of sex with children or animals. Sex with sheep is not unknown in church going anti-porn rural America, but they don't like anybody watching, so they can deny it like the numerous TV evangelists caught with their pants down. said by billsweat:
Just because it's hard to protect our kids doesn't mean that society should stop trying.
Nice cliche, but laced with deception, like the failed war on drugs that has filled Americas prisons to gain moral majority votes for right wing opportunists. The US constitution allows for States to make different decisions on such matters, like Nevada does with Prostitution, and Utah with Alcohol. "Our children" is often grandiose hypocrisy that really means "your children".God and country are smoke-screens scoundrels use frequently these days to stifle debate and impose their values beyond societal norms. That's no different than the Talliban or Khoumheini's fanatics. Freedom of religion is one thing, imposing it's values without a public vote is another. Abortion is a classic example. Assisted suicide is another, and one that directly impacts me professionally. I'm opposed to both, but I don't want anybody forcing others to follow in the name of righteous indignation. Those are states rights issues as well, and should be voted upon.
said by billsweat:
Pedophiles who target children using whatever medium should be caught and jailed.
I'm with you 100% on that, but the definition isn't the same in every country. Remember that Bible Belt States like Florida have allowed 12 year old girls to marry, raising serious questions about who is and isn't a child. Young teenage girls get married frequently where my family came from, and neither they nor I see a problem with it. American yuppie parents pretend everybody should go to college, and own an SUV first, but they are out of touch, like some fundamentalists. In nations where war and disease decimate families, young marriages and large families are about survival.
said by billsweat:
I understand that I'm responsible for my children's safety. I need some tools to help. I'm reasonably sure that I can let my kids go to Barnes and Noble without getting exposed to people having sex with cows. Why not the web?
You have the tools, use them!The Web is outside of your family sphere of influence, so is censorship and thought control. Sometimes the "solution" is a greater danger than the problem. Very few groups have done more harm to Americans than the fanatics who call themselves the "Christian right". To a real Christian there is no such thing as "my children", since all are God's children, and we are merely custodians. Cynical "Christian right" zealots are steeped in such hypocrisy, as they claim to be pro life yet have an insatiable blood lust for the death penalty and vengeance via unjust prison sentences with no rehabilitation. Christ's example was tolerance and forgiveness. Jesus wants people to open their hearts, not close their minds!
The "Christian right" would probably arrest Jesus for vagrancy if John Ashcroft wasn't already holding him without charges as a terrorist suspect.
They also claim to care about children and morality, but support corrupt politicians and businessmen who cheat the public, underpay workers, defeat the law, and live lives of decadent excess.This quote is attributed to Jesus Christ, but many "fundamentalists" prefer to ignore it.
"Give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's and give unto God what is God's."
[text was edited by author 2001-11-28 00:09:49] | |
| | billsweat
join:2001-04-24
Burton, MI
| Re: Give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's... Wow! You so misunderstand my point of view that I'm not sure how to respond but here goes.
1. Surely there are people who profess to be religious that do bad things. I'm not here to defend them. That's their problem. Likewise, I don't care much if you visit porn sites, have sex with animals, use drugs, etc. That's not the point. What I do object to is that I and my kids constantly receive unsolicited spam depicting explicit sexual (often what I would consider deviant) activity. Where else in normal society is that true?
2. I agree that we are a nation of laws. The problem with your examples is that they apply to adults. Nevada doesn't allow children to become prostitutes. In every state supplying alcohol to a minor is a felony. The problem with the web is that the technology is ahead of the laws. It would be against the law for someone to walk up to a child and hand them pornography. Why is it all right to email it to them?
3. What does 12 year olds getting married have to do with pedophiles who stalk 12 year olds, pretending to be 12 year old boys? I'm pretty sure that, even in Florida, a 12 year old would need their parents written permission to get married. I don't suspect that many 12 year olds are getting married in today's U.S. society.
4. Your views on the "Christian Right" show your hypocrisy. The "zealots" that I know don't knowingly "support corrupt politicians and businessmen who cheat the public, underpay workers, defeat the law, and live lives of decadent excess". If I made such a stereotypical statement, you'd be the first to label me a bigot.
5. Yes, Christ's example was forgiveness. What has that to do with being against porn being distributed to minors? What do you think Jesus’ attitude would be on this issue? Willing to forgive is not the same as acceptance.
6. You're taking the "Give unto Caesar" quote out of context. In the U.S., there is no Caesar. Our government is "by the people". I certainly have the right to lobby for laws that reflect my morality, as do you. There is really no serious public debate if porn, alcohol, etc. should be available to children. It's already been decided that they should not be. That same logic should apply to the web. | |
| | |
pupowski$
join:2001-01-15
Atlantis
| Re: Give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's... said by billsweat:
It would be against the law for someone to walk up to a child and hand them pornography. Why is it all right to email it to them?
It's not, but spammers just flood everyone. I don't like spam either, but Google isn't spamming anybody, it's a search engine.
said by billsweat:
What does 12 year olds getting married have to do with pedophiles who stalk 12 year olds, pretending to be 12 year old boys?
Am I supposed to know what you're talking about? The age reference was simply to indicate "kiddy porn" is difficult to define, particularly above a certain age. A local professor's life was ruined by a high profile trial for viewing "kiddy porn". He was acquitted, and it turns out that none of the "children" were identified. A couple "Expert Witnesses" testified two girls "must be under 14 years of age". That kind of sexual witch hunt is unacceptable, so is having your morality replace freedom of information on the internet. If you don't like it, don't look. said by billsweat:
The "zealots" that I know don't knowingly "support corrupt politicians and businessmen who cheat the public, underpay workers, defeat the law, and live lives of decadent excess".
I guess you don't hang out with Trent Lott, Billy Tauzin, or Jerry Fallwell.
said by billsweat:
You're taking the "Give unto Caesar" quote out of context. In the U.S., there is no Caesar.
No I'm not. Caesar means the government, the statement was timeless. It means don't force your religious beliefs upon the secular world, they each have their place.
--
Revolution is just evolution with more bandwidth | |
| | | | billsweat
join:2001-04-24
Burton, MI
| Re: Give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's... 1. I agree that we're a little off topic but there was a reference to porn links in AOL pages clearly intended for children. I've equated that to porn spam. Maybe that's a separate discussion. I hate spam of any kind. I get lots of unsolicited snail mail which is the same as spam in my mind. I don't get any snail mail with porn. Why is that? Because there are very stringent rules about mailing adult material. All I'm asking for is that those same rules apply to the net.
2. Are you pretending to not know what child porn is? Because 12 year olds can get married, it's acceptable to distribute pictures of them engaged in sex acts? I actually sympathize with the professor. I'm probably guilty myself. You open the e-mail that's titled "Here's the information you requested" and there it pops up. If you're referring to me, you're right. I can just ignore it. That same argument doesn't apply to children.
3. I don't follow Billy Tauzin closely. Trent Lott and Jerry Fallwell say some things that I don't agree with but generally we're on the same page. If I had to pick a spokeman it would be Ralph Reed or Billy Graham. Do you listen to what they say or just their reputations in the liberal world?
4. You're just plain wrong. If you read the context, the religious leaders were trying to trick Jesus into saying if it was right or wrong to pay taxes. If he said yes, they were going to accuse him of supporting a corrupt government. If he said no, treason. If you think about it (and have the same belief in God that I do), what doesn't belong to God? There's nothing there that prevents anyone from working to fashion the laws according to their moral beliefs. I don't think that we're really arguing if child porn and giving children porn are wrong. I think we would both agree that they are. Our disagreement is if that should apply to the web. My question is, why shouldn't it? | |
| | | | |
pupowski$
join:2001-01-15
Atlantis
| Re: Give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's... said by billsweat:
1. I agree that we're a little off topic but there was a reference to porn links in AOL pages clearly intended for children.
Perhaps we can find common ground against spam, which I don't appreciate either. Nobody is arguing in favor of pornography for or about children. That is deviant behavior. The point of contention is how do adults surf unfettered, while children are protected. In my view it is the responsibility of the parent or guardian to decide what sort of material their child is exposed to. You seem to want some material off the net to protect your children at the expense of other surfers. We simply have different points of view.
--
Revolution is just evolution with more bandwidth | |
| | | | |
pupowski$
join:2001-01-15
Atlantis
| said by billsweat:
I don't follow Billy Tauzin closely. Trent Lott and Jerry Fallwell say some things that I don't agree with but generally we're on the same page. If I had to pick a spokeman it would be Ralph Reed or Billy Graham. Do you listen to what they say or just their reputations in the liberal world?
I have no idea what the "liberal world" is, unless you mean the mass media, and I don't find TV or Tabloids credible. I have always held Billy Graham in high regard, but I regard Ralph Reed as an opportunist, and Fallwell as a cynical buffoon. Trent Lott is tarnished by the company he keeps, Tauzin is corrupt, and a good example of why we need political reform. Bob Dole, Barry Goldwater, and William F. Buckley commanded respect, but this crop of conservatives has brought more corruption and abuse then anybody in memory, except Bill Clinton. They indulge a pornography of power, which is far more dangerous.
You can influence the laws with your moral beliefs, but you cannot impose them by fiat or manipulation. Christians also believe in honest business and government, so did conservatives, until they gained power. If you haven't noticed conservative values go down the tubes with the republican majority, you must not be paying attention.
--
Revolution is just evolution with more bandwidth | |
| | | |
|
