Protect the families and children and all this dandy bullshit whenever they look for reason to do it.
[quote]"Blocking is trivial to circumvent and it is likely a default blocking system would lull parents into a false sense of security," the letter said.
"A more complex, connected world needs parents to engage more with their children on issues of safety, privacy and personal development."
This view was backed up by Sir Tim Berners Lee, inventor of the world wide web, who told the BBC: "My personal preference has always been that if you want to block sites, you download software, and you install it for your children, rather than having the ISPs involved.[/quote]
What this suggests.
This piece of shit was proposed by a bunch of moronic christian special interest organisations if I recall correctly, where is the mention of that BBC?
I'd never agree with censorship of the internet, or anything else.
Practically, as suggested by the quotes above, this will just give parents the message that they should just continue not to bother looking into "that box/laptop thing that I check my banking on and share all my personal data with" because don't worry - the state will do it for you. This kind of measure just fosters ignorance and "leave it to the government"/TV babysitter parenting.
I think they'll find that messing with people's porn isn't going to pan out well. People get very defensive over their porn. Besides, I've never been too concerned about this, it seems far too ridiculous to even be feasible.
It's just another chocolate fireguard like blocking The Pirate Bay by DNS
Shouldn't it be opt-in? Pretty fucking draconian enrolling people in this by default.
Definitely. If anything it should be a service that is paid extra for by lazy ignorant parents who can't be bothered to look into how, as I said earlier, that box in the corner that eats their bank details, works.
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;37561218]Definitely. If anything it should be a service that is paid extra for by lazy ignorant parents who can't be bothered to look into how, as I said earlier, that box in the corner that eats their bank details, works.[/QUOTE]
Paying extra for a porn filter seems like the easy way out, when what we should really do is have mandatory "awareness programs" that hammer home the point of staying safe and being responsible online. In fact, i'm still standing by the whole "mandatory parenting qualification" as a legit thing that should happen; it would reduce the number of idiot fool parents, reduce population growth, and increase the overall intellectual quality of the next generation, even if there'll be a few more kids in care due to parents having kids without their diploma.
The way I see it, if you aren't qualified to be a parent, you shouldn't have kids, but if it's too late to abort, you can still visit your kid from time to time in a children's home, or alternatively try to get the qualification so you're legally-viable for having custody of your spawn. It's not as stupidly-restrictive as China's one kid rule, which seems to be resulting in a spike of "little emperor" only-children with bad attitudes, and it ensures that only people who're responsible and smart enough to properly take care of kids are able to become parents, resulting in a potential drop in bad parenting and a potential rise in kids with better minds (personality, intellect, understanding, etc).
Concerning porn, it's pretty much fact that during puberty, your sex drive ignites and pretty much needs to be managed properly; abstinence is a mental health hazard from where i'm standing, and if your primal urges are not satisfied and kept in-check, you might end up doing something terribly stupid on account of your reshuffling brain. So from my viewpoint, instead of striving to block porn altogether, teenagers should be advised about online safety and not viewing women (or men) as just objects of desire, and not be punished for viewing porn, since porn is kind of a pressure-release valve for many people; blowing off the steam that accumulates in the pipeline and whatnot. Like I said earlier, without proper outlets a chap (or chapette) with sexual pressure within might end up doing something stupid.
[quote]Ministers are suggesting that people should automatically be barred from accessing unsuitable adult material unless they actually choose to view it.[/quote]
Yeah, because i'm going to nip on pornhub for cooking recipies....
[QUOTE=ironman17;37561368]
... but if it's too late to abort, you can still visit your kid from time to time in a children's home,[/QUOTE]
The one problem I see here is that quite a few of the more stubborn would-be parents would refuse to get their license, because they know that basically their kid would be shipped off some place else. They could visit the kid almost whenever they want (I'd imagine there would be a curfew and whatnot), and they wouldn't have to worry about actually taking CARE of the kid's needs, as it would be taken care of by the home.
Basically, lazy parents would get even lazier.
[QUOTE=Jackald;37561579]I'm genuinely intrigued to consider what would happen if teenagers didn't have access to internet pornography...[/QUOTE]
Ask your dad about it.
[QUOTE=Jackald;37561662]You misunderstand me, Mr Johnson, what I mean is if teenagers suddenly don't have access to internet pornography and have to revert back to getting older brothers to buy porn mags or spy on each others' sisters or some shit.
I mean my Dad's generation had practice at that shit, but today's teenagers.... I think it might go quite hilariously.[/QUOTE]
For every peeping Tom out there, there'd be another one with a video camera recording that shit.
[QUOTE=Marcolade;37561447]The one problem I see here is that quite a few of the more stubborn would-be parents would refuse to get their license, because they know that basically their kid would be shipped off some place else. They could visit the kid almost whenever they want (I'd imagine there would be a curfew and whatnot), and they wouldn't have to worry about actually taking CARE of the kid's needs, as it would be taken care of by the home.
Basically, lazy parents would get even lazier.[/QUOTE]
Thing is, so long as their bad parenting doesn't infect the child, and the kid grows up to be a great person, the parents should be allowed some semblance of contact with the kid. I initially considered not letting the parents see the child, but number 1 it doesn't seem humane to keep a kid permanently separated from their parents, and number 2 I disagree with the notion of restraining orders.
So long as the kids are alright and lead to an awesome next generation, the parents can rot into mulch for all I care if they don't contribute anything good to the child's development process. A bad childhood can be the root of many psychological problems, I can tell you that. Also, perhaps to make parents even more driven to learn how to be good parents, if their kids are in the care home or whatever they still have to pay child support or something, ensuring that they still support the kid financially even if they don't contribute anything else to its childhood.
This would probably take care of the stubborn would-be parents refusing to obtain their Parenthood Diploma (sure, it's kind of a parenting license, but it's also a certification that says they're capable of caring for a child); they'd be financially-punished for being bad parents. However this also raises the issue of the "I never asked for this" kind of teenage moms who're against abortion (quick recap on my abortion status; aborting before consciousness forms is ok, but afterwards it is essentially killing a story in the process of being written).
I don't think it would be fair for a young teen mom being financially punished for something she never asked for, but then again if she proves she's capable of taking care of her child, she probably wouldn't have those problems. Either she decides to abort before it's too late, or she decides to keep the child; but the middle-ground would still be an option albeit probably a bit more expensive and not as kosher as i'd prefer. These kinds of issues and variables are kind of iffy, but they are a challenge, and what is life if not without challenge? Sure, survival is a big challenge by itself, but challenges in living can also help define a person's character.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
