Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | ... | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19
703 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 67

Trusted

  Reply # 866594 26-Jul-2013 13:44
3 people support this post
Send private message

Klipspringer:
freitasm: Back to what Talkiet raised. Why block pornography? Because someone doesn't like it? This is not good enough reason.



Will pornography have a negative influence if seen by young kids?

Yes of course.

Then surely we should be asking why are we not blocking it?


You hold an unfounded belief at the heart of your debate.

There is no evidence to support your claim. And note: for such an important matter as universal censorship, we will accept only the most robust, scientific and peer reviewed studies and will need a few of them, spanning decades of research. Gold Standard.

Klipspringer, we get you are conservative. We get it. We all think it's a bit backward, but hey it takes all sorts.

What we don't get is why you insist people having sex is bad. Maybe you can explain?

Is the sexual act itself bad?

Or just certain types of sexual act?

Or is it pictures of the sexual act that are bad, but the sex is ok?

Is the sexual imagery bad when it is in written form? Or just audio?

At what age is someone allowed to see sexual acts without harm, and what do you base that on?

How many viewings of sexual activity does it take to injure a child? How do you define and quantify the injury?


Anyone else feel free to answer too.

2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 286
Inactive user


  Reply # 866604 26-Jul-2013 14:08
Send private message

Brendan: You hold an unfounded belief at the heart of your debate. <SNIP...

There is no evidence to support your claim. And note: for such an important
matter as universal censorship, we will accept only the most robust, scientific
and peer reviewed studies and will need a few of them, spanning decades of
research. Gold Standard.


It sounds like you asking for evidence of absence. (Proving the impossible)

You cannot prove that something is NOT there.

You therefore cannot prove that porn is NOT harmful to young kids. You wasting your time if you asking, or expecting such a study.

You can however prove that something is harmful. Plenty of studies out there that porn is harmful for young children.

Klipspringer: Children Are Severely Victimized by Pornography


Brendan:
What we don't get is why you insist people having sex is bad. Maybe you can
explain?

Is the sexual act itself bad?

Or just certain types of sexual act?

Or is it pictures of the sexual act that are bad, but the sex is ok?

Is the sexual imagery bad when it is in written form? Or just audio?

At what age is someone allowed to see sexual acts without harm, and what do you
base that on?

How many viewings of sexual activity does it take to injure a child? How do you
define and quantify the injury?


I love sex.

Read the article I posted earlier on netnanny. (Recommended by
fellow geekzones users).





3668 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2190

Trusted
Spark NZ

  Reply # 866617 26-Jul-2013 14:17
4 people support this post
Send private message

Klipspringer: [snip]
Klipspringer: Children Are Severely Victimized by Pornography

[snip]



There's not a single reference in there to any research that could claim to be unbiased...

For a start, it's on a site with an agenda to push.

Any writing which includes phrases like "Countless studies have proved conclusively" have not been appropriately peer reviewed.

It uses emotionally charged language such as "admitted to actually doing some of the prurient things they had seen in the pornography within a few days of exposure"

News reports are flaky at best, and refer frequently to individual instances, where's it's usually not possible to pin down blame to a single cause.

Actually, I got to this bit and gave up:

"Children are highly impressionable! Most incidents like those cited above occur after extremely limited exposure to pornography, in some cases only once or twice! What will happen now that pornography of every kind imaginable is instantly available over the Internet? And, believe it or not, organizations like the American Library Association and the ACLU are doing everything in their power to prevent libraries from protecting children from pornography on the Internet!

They actually have the audacity to label protection of children as "censorship!"

That whole 'article' is tripe. It's biased and only written to advance a pre-existing view.

Cheers - N

P.S. I skipped to the end and found this note on the author...

"Mark B. Kastleman is the author of the revolutionary new book titled The Drug of the New Millennium-the Science of How Internet Pornography Radically Alters the Human Brain and Body-A Guide for Parents, Spouses, Clergy and Counselors."

Sounds totally legit, competely objective.


3668 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2190

Trusted
Spark NZ

  Reply # 866619 26-Jul-2013 14:17
2 people support this post
Send private message

I note Klipspringer, that you have actively avoided answering the challenging questions I have raised.

Cheers - N

2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 286
Inactive user


  Reply # 866628 26-Jul-2013 14:20
Send private message

Talkiet: I note Klipspringer, that you have actively avoided answering the challenging questions I have raised.

Cheers - N


You keep asking for evidence of absence.
You not going to get it from me or anybody else either ...



3668 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2190

Trusted
Spark NZ

  Reply # 866629 26-Jul-2013 14:20
Send private message

Klipspringer:
Talkiet: I note Klipspringer, that you have actively avoided answering the challenging questions I have raised.

Cheers - N


You keep asking for evidence of absence.
You not going to get it from me or anybody else either ...




I know what that is, and no I have not been.

http://www.geekzone.co.nz/forums.asp?forumid=48&topicid=126932&page_no=15#866382

Cheers - N


4530 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2022

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 866630 26-Jul-2013 14:20
One person supports this post
Send private message

But every sentence ends in an exclamation mark! That's the hall mark of well-thought-out, reasoned discussion! Not to mention science!

Children! Prurience! Penises!




iPad Air + iPhone SE + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.


4530 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2022

Trusted
Subscriber

Reply # 866631 26-Jul-2013 14:21
2 people support this post
Send private message

Talkiet: I note Klipspringer, that you have actively avoided answering the challenging questions I have raised.

Cheers - N


Mine too. :-)




iPad Air + iPhone SE + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.


2091 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 848


  Reply # 866632 26-Jul-2013 14:22
Send private message

Inphinity:
wasabi2k:
Inphinity:
Klipspringer:All I am saying is that an "opt out" of certain stuff would make our lives as a parent a little easier.


There are already plenty of opt-out options, a number of which have been discussed in this thread. 


Opt out is a very different proposition to Opt In.

See guilty until proven innocent vs innocent until proven guilty. By your logic both are the same.


Er, as in the post you've quoted, Klip was specifically saying an opt-out would make things easier, and I was responding that there are already opt-outs available. That's completely unrelated to the discussion over the pros and cons of opt-out vs opt-in. By your logic, wibble-deeble boop-boop wop.


Just because I misread that and in fact agree with all previous statements does not make me any less right.

Alternatively - I should have my coffee before posting. Opt In good, Opt out bad. thanks. moving on. Apologies for the confusion.

3730 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1212


  Reply # 866713 26-Jul-2013 17:05
Send private message

For those who think we don't need ISP blocks because it is the parents responsibility to raise their children correctly.

Taking that argument to another situation.

Would you let young children swim alone if you have raised them well and taught them everything they need to know?

After all, kids always do what they are told and never push boundaries. And accidents cannot happen. Right?

3668 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2190

Trusted
Spark NZ

  Reply # 866714 26-Jul-2013 17:08
6 people support this post
Send private message

surfisup1000: For those who think we don't need ISP blocks because it is the parents responsibility to raise their children correctly.

Taking that argument to another situation.

Would you let young children swim alone if you have raised them well and taught them everything they need to know?

After all, kids always do what they are told and never push boundaries. And accidents cannot happen. Right?


No, but I wouldn't require that the government made lifeguards mandatory at every single bit of water in NZ including all coastlines, all pools, all rivers, all lakes etc.

It would be my responsibility to ensure that my kids swam in safe places - that means I would take them to beaches with lifeguards, monitored pools etc if I didn't want to oversee them myself. I wouldn't expect some 3rd party to magically cover every single possible bit of water with lifeguard coverage..

Cheers- N


3343 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1089

Trusted
Vocus

  Reply # 866715 26-Jul-2013 17:09
Send private message

surfisup1000: Would you let young children swim alone if you have raised them well and taught them everything they need to know?


No.  But should the government insist that there be armed guards at every beach, at everyone's cost, just in case?  Because that's the closest analogy in your straw man scenario.  Also the fact that seeing some porn has yet to actually kill anyone (outside, perhaps, of heart attacks).

3668 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2190

Trusted
Spark NZ

  Reply # 866716 26-Jul-2013 17:10
One person supports this post
Send private message

ubergeeknz:
surfisup1000: Would you let young children swim alone if you have raised them well and taught them everything they need to know?


No.  But should the government insist that there be armed guards at every beach, at everyone's cost, just in case?  Because that's the closest analogy in your straw man scenario.


Chuckle. Beat ya :-) But yeah, same answer :-)

But this is the point where someone decides that the analogy is flawed since it didn't support their point.

Cheers -N

810 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 191
Inactive user


  Reply # 866736 26-Jul-2013 17:33
Send private message

KiwiNZ:
PaulBags:
Klipspringer:
SaltyNZ:
Klipspringer: Lets not go down the road of, if it happens its bad parenting.
Ok, how about we just say that your inability to control what goes on in your own home does not mean that the rest of us can't manage it without government assistance.
It is under control in our own home. Why do u think otherwise?Kids go out to places. They go to sleepovers. They can use other PC's, laptops etc ....How do you propose any parent control that?IE: my 6year old gets behind a friends computer that has been used the night before to watch some porn. She clicks on the location bar, it brings down a list of recent sites. She accidentally click on the latest one. Don't tell me it cant happen with a 5 year old! As I said previously. Young kids do not need to see this stuff. Anything that proposes to limit it, or make it harder for kids to get there hands on it (accidentally/or on purpose), cannot be bad!


So let's be clear: your arguing from the position that it shouldn't be possible to opt out in case your kid comes to my house and starts randomly clicking things on my computer? I'd expect any guest in my house to have more respect than that, 6 years old or not. Perhaps you should actually talk to the parents of your childrens friends; if you don't like their answers about internet security, don't let your kid stay there.

 

Klipspringer: Children Are Severely Victimized by Pornography

The combination of pornography and the pedophiles it produces is deadly for children. The brutal abuse of children by pedophiles pumped up on porn is tragic, shocking and heartbreaking.

Men who view pornography portraying 18-year-old women dressed to look like young teens, often act out their prurient sexual cravings by raping"real" young teens.

Children and teens who are exposed to pornography have these images etched in their memories for the rest of their lives. These images can be triggered and can surface without warning, leaving the potential for numerous problems in future life.

Internet pornography is often the first exposure that children and teens have to sexual images. This plants in them a twisted and perverse view of human intimacy that is difficult or impossible to weed out. These early learning experiences can lead to sexual deviancy and crime, and often negatively affect their future relationships and marriages.

When a father or mother is involved with pornography, the children will suffer in some way. This can range from something as simple as a parent who is often moody, angry, or "in his or her own world," to a father or mother who commits incest. Pornography hurts husband and wife relationships and breaks up marriages, which of course seriously impacts the children in the family. Only pain is in store for children with a father or mother hooked on pornography.


And we wonder why our society has turned out the way it has.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

First of all, pedophiles aren't interested in porn. It's possible they may use it in trying to groom a child for sex, buy they are by definition sexually interested in young children, not legal porn.

It's a big leap from porn to raping people. Rapists rape for the power and control. Also the majority of "18-year-old women dressed to look like young teens" on the internet are actually clearly in their 30's and wearing alot of make up. Or they are 18, have no idea how to act or have sex, and are down right boring.

As for imagery stuck in a teenagers mind: I have the image of a few female teachers from back in the day in the back of my mind somewhere, should we ban female teachers? Or make or women wear burkas? I suppose your also a supporter of same sex schools? At least I never heard of anyone being raped in a mixed sex school, can't say the same for all boy's schools.

Walking in on their parents is often a childs first exposure to sexual imagery too. It's the explanations (or lack of) afterwards or beforehand that matter. I posit that lack of knowledge about sex is far more damaging to adolescents.

And as for that last statement.. What?. That only happens to ultra conservative stuck ups, or when parents start smoking crack.

And finally: the scare tactics of one online porn filter do not amount to meaningful research.


It is not a laughing matter

The issues arn't laughing matters, but the propaganda is.

Klipspringer:
jarledb:
Klipspringer:
But it will make it harder for my 6 year old to stumble across it. And thats what this is all about


And for that you have software and other solutions that are easy to put in place if you want to nanny your computer or your network.

Why does that have to be put in place for everyone?


And that software and protection I can only put in place at home.

Why does everyone have to receive porn?




It's not like it's being beamed to you, you have to access it.

Klipspringer:
jarledb:
Klipspringer: 

This is about protecting our kids.


By that logic there should be in opt in option for alcohol information on the net too. Not to mention making it harder to get to alcohol in shops. I think we can agree that alcohol is a much bigger problem than porn.


Its pretty hard for kids here to buy alcohol in NZ. Not impossible, but its hard.

Kids are pretty well protected in just about everything, and in most places here in NZ.

This same level of protection does not exist online.

By your logic we should allow kids into shops where they sell cigaretts, remove the age limit on them. Allow them to buy alcohol, take away that age limit too. Allow them into porn shops.  After all parents should be parenting them not to go there, not to smoke underage, not to drink underage. As others have pointed out here in this thread, its the parents fault if they go there.

Why do we have these age limits? Lets take these age limits away.




At 6 years old it's damn right it's the parents fault if kids go walking into these shops: 6 year olds shouldn't be running around on their own. There is actually nothing to stop kids walking into smoke stores (do you mean dairies???)/alcohol/porn stores already, only difference is that once in them the cashier can tell them to get out.

Lias:
Klipspringer: 

Who is implying we ban porn? This thread is about opting to receiving it, or opting out.

Nobody is proposing banning anything.



Yes you are.. We're talking about having ISP's implement a censorship filter that effectively ban's porn unless you opt out of it. You can try and spin that however you like it but it's a ban of sorts nonetheless.. 



Not to mention that with the scenario Klipspringer keeps suggesting being able to opt out doesn't even make sense.

Inphinity:
Klipspringer:
I suppose having to "opt in" to porn is not really a solution for all of those late night porn surfers. I can understand now why so many are against this.


Sure, some will be against it for this. Many more are against the *idea* of mandated censorship of legal content. This has been raised many times in this thread, and so far the only argument against that is, effectively, "LALALALALALA". Noones forcing you to view this content, so don't view it?

QFT.

dickytim:
Klipspringer:
Lias:
Klipspringer: 

Who is implying we ban porn? This thread is about opting to receiving it, or opting out.

Nobody is proposing banning anything.



Yes you are.. We're talking about having ISP's implement a censorship filter that effectively ban's porn unless you opt out of it. You can try and spin that however you like it but it's a ban of sorts nonetheless.. 



Who says it has to work that way?
I would like the ability to "opt out" Having to "opt in" would be better. But either way I dont really care.

Thats not banning anything. Either way you still get to watch your crap


I don't have a problem with you being able to opt out of having porn available on your internet connection. No-one does.

The argument is about forcing others to adopt your views via censorship.

Frankly I don't care if the ISP's offer a porn filter, so long as it doesn't effect my porn watching.

At this point in the argument I kinda do wish that Klipspringer couldn't opt out of being capable of connecting to porn via their internet connection. In fact, part of me wishes that that was all they were able to access for a awhile. But then I'm kind of a mean person.

Klipspringer:
Brendan: You hold an unfounded belief at the heart of your debate. <SNIP...

There is no evidence to support your claim. And note: for such an important
matter as universal censorship, we will accept only the most robust, scientific
and peer reviewed studies and will need a few of them, spanning decades of
research. Gold Standard.


It sounds like you asking for evidence of absence. (Proving the impossible)

You cannot prove that something is NOT there.

...YOU claimed that porn harms young children. That is a statement in the affirmative, and something that could be proven. So prove it. As for stating net nanny was advocated by other geekzone users: it was only advocated as a web filtering service, NOT as an authoritative source on child psychology. When your source states that viewing pornography == being raped then I'm sorry, but it's just not believable.





Alright, this thread has been alternately horrifying and hilarious (if only in a dark manner). I'm going to unwatch this now, I clearly have nothing more to add and I'm sick of seeing the same argument being shot down over and over.

2278 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 370

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 866738 26-Jul-2013 17:47
Send private message

I think it would be interesting to get comments from the wife's and children of contributors of this thread to get a balanced view on the matter.

A bunch of guys discussing whether they should be able to view porn is rather predictive.

1 | ... | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19
Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.