plenty of Republicans, but no daily sermons printed in the local paper. Just an indication of some places being more conservative than others, that's all.
If you think religion=conservative, you don't know much about the religious spectrum in the US.
Any other approach runs into the quid custodes problem, which ultimately leads to a repeat of the Inquisition.
I think you just made his point: dredging up moral demons hardly helps your position. Knee-jerk comparisons to witch-burnings, inquisitions (no matter how historically questionable) or nazism might fire up the troops, but it also tends to isolate those in the middle -- parents, such as myself, who don't generally support censorship, but who do sympathize with the concerns of those on the other side of the issue.
I, for one, felt slightly offended to be broad-brushed by implication as an inquisitorial, witch-hunting nazi simply because I think the pro-filtering crowd has concerns that need to be addressed, not mocked.
I have no sympathy for parents who indulge in electronic babysitting of any form.... [That's] ultimately responsible for things like Columbine. But I digress.
Yes, you do. And please stop. It's been my experience that most of your "opponents" on this issue are not weekend parents, but rather the opposite; take the time to know your enemy, and I'd venture you'd find that most of them are very involved in their children's lives. It's why they're concerned about such issues in the first place. Not because they're looking for substitutes for involved parenting, but because they are involved parents. Trying to pin tragedies such as Columbine on them is hardly conducive to convincing them to listen to your arguments. At least, it wouldn't work with me.
Frankly, I think a real good solution is simply to remove the 'Net access altogether from the kids' section and replace it with a copy of Britannica... the uncensored Net is no place for unsupervised younglings. If Mother wants to sign for her kids' adult-grade library card, including a release of liability, that's her problem.
I proposed a similar solution in a/. forum a few months ago. I was unmercifully attacked as a witch-hunting censor out to destroy the First Amendment (quite amusing, actually, since I don't even live in the United States).
Apparently, quite a large contingent of/.ers considers any attempt by parents to control (nay, even monitor) the information their children have access to as morally outrageous as burning books. I was accused of many unspeakable attrocities - including what to/.ers appears to be the ultimate sin - impeding my children's First Amendment rights. (The fact that, since my children are not American, they don't have any First Amendment rights didn't seem to deter them in the least.)
But when we consider adults in the adult section of a public library, paid for by you and me the taxpayers, censorship in any form has no place.
This, as far as it goes, is fine. However, I suggest you need to take the next step and address (not dismiss) the concerns of those who don't cotton to the idea of their tax money being used to fund someone's porn habit at the local library.
It very simply constitutes prior restraint on free speech
But the issue, from what I can tell, is not so "very simple". If it were, it wouldn't even come up.
And even then, it only addresses the concerns of Americans. You should consider that an increasingly large segment of the Internet community is not constrained by American laws or philosophies. And unless you're considering imposing your American jurisprudence on the rest of us, you'll need to find arguments which will play well outside of Peoria (or, in this case, the United States). While America may think of itself as the center of the universe, you need to keep in mind that fully 95% of the world's population is not subject to its laws or constitutions.
Some folks learned the hard way about sixty years ago about defending their rights, and that so-called "middle ground," and six million of them paid with their lives.
Again, rewriting history does nothing to help your case. Six million Jews were not killed for defending their rights, or whatever "middle ground" you're talking about. They were killed because they were Jews. Period. It may be tempting to attempt to enlist them to your cause. It also strikes me as rather revisionist.
I've given up trying to understand Slashdot moderation.
Recently, I spent an hour or so composing a detailed and -- if I may be so bold -- rather informative post in reply to an inquiry from an AC who was obviously clueless on the subject we were discussing. No flamage, no name-calling, no baiting. I got a 1 for my efforts, and that, presumably, was simply because I didn't post as an AC.
The reply, which read in its entirety, "You're a f***ing moron. Go f*** yourself." was moderated up to 3 and labeled "Insightful."
I've decided the best way to deal with the moderators here is to set my threshold back down to 0 and decide for myself what's valuable and what's not.
parents who attempt to monitor their children's every move are doing them a disservice.
I do not monitor my kids' every move. My children have a great deal of latitude in their actions and choices -- more than many children two or three years' their seniors.
What I said was that I have the right to know what my kids do - if I chose to excercise that right - because I am their parent.
/Why/ does providing genetic material to another person grant one the right to monitor their every action?
It doesn't. However, providing the genetic material, plus food, clothing and shelter, education, birthday presents, and fourteen years of 24x7 care does.
[Me]: it is my responsibility as a parent to decide what, when, where and how my child learns.
[Trepidity]: It's a parent's responsibility to guide a child's learning, but not to control it.
I'm not sure this isn't simply a disagreement over terms. If I'm tooling down the road trying to keep my car between the lines, am I guiding my car or controling it? See what I mean?
[el_chicano]: My parents trusted me, and therefore they gave me lots of space...
What I find particularly ironic is that all this 'friendly' advice I've been getting lately is probably coming from college kids who don't have the first clue about parenting.
So everyone here basically assumes I don't trust my kids, that I'm trying to wrap them in some kind of protective cocoon because why - simply because I don't want schools or libraries letting them access porn on the internet without my prior approval?
Let's see: how many American twelve- and fourteen-year olds get to:
1. Set their own bed times.
2. Date. Yes, my 14-year old son has been on two dates - both unchaperoned.
3. Run the family business. My son conducts the family business by himself every Saturday, and makes all his own business decisions. In a couple of years he'll be joined by his sister.
My son has been through his school's (optional) sex education classes, with complete parental approval. I simply requested to see the materials first.
My daughter will begin her sex education next year, but by then she will already knows most of what the class will teach, and a few things it won't.
I've had friends whose parents were really strict when they were growing up. These kids quickly learn to challenge their parents
I don't mean to be a wet blanket here, but anecdotal evidence is conclusive of little. I have seen friends raise their kids in completely permissive environments, and the kids turn into spoiled brats. That also proves nothing.
The parents say "no sex" and the first thing they do is start sleeping around.
I suggest the issue may not be as simple as this. It is definitely possible to lay out do's and don'ts without your kids rebelling on you. It worked for me when I was growing up, and it works with my kids. Trust me - sometimes the best answer to "Why?" is, "Because I said so."
It is just as one-sided when it is YOU that sets the rules of the debate.
I set no rules because I am not engaged in a debate. A prerequisite to contributing intelligently to any thread is to read it first. You should try it.
2. It's off-topic. Uhhh... "censorware" is used for what?
"Keeping pornography from children" is only one of many things "censorware" is used for. It can also be used for keeping pornography from adults, for preventing access to, say, bomb-, gun- or drug- manufacturing information, or even keeping children from accessing those most dangerous of all sites - religious fundamentalists.
Again - the purpose of this discussion is the appropriateness of filtering software, not the affects of pornography, drug-manufacturing or religious fundamentalism on children.
O.K. so YOU want to protect YOUR children. Censorware is business's/government's attempt to help YOU protect YOUR children. The only way business/government will undermine your parental authority is if they say "absolutely no censorship is allowed" because YOU want to censor YOUR children's content. They are on YOUR side, or haven't you noticed?
Bingo. Couldn't have said it better myself.
For libraries and schools to impose filtering they have to get permission from the legislature or bureaucracy (until it gets overthrown by the courts as unconstitutional).
This, as I'm sure you'll agree, depends on which constitution you're talking about. Yours or mine.
It could be in the form of a special library card... Or... parental permission slip
If YOUR kids have to get an "internet card" then MY kids have to too.
Our kids don't even live in the same country. It's highly doubtful they use the same library.
YOU may not trust YOUR children, but many... parents do
And those parents will sign the slip. I probably will, too. Where's the problem?
{special inflammatory language clipped}
Bah - I've wasted enough time on you!
Once, back in my university days in the States, I attended a student activities day, in which various student groups hawked their wares and conducted membership drives. I walked over to the local atheist group's table and started examining their materials. I was preparing to ask the person behind the table a question, but made the incalculable blunder of letting the word religion escape my lips. After subjecting me to a 14-minute 28-second (I timed it) non-stop tirade on the evils of religion, during which time I was unable to get a word in edgewise, he looked me straight in the eye and said, "Now go away! I'm tired of answering your questions!"
You are now presenting an excellent argument AGAINST censorship.
Really? When did I ever present an argument for censorship?
If a person had a restrictive environment as a child, he will try to break the rules at the first opportunity.
CFR (call for references). Any child will try to "break the rules at the first opportunity". That's the nature of being a child.
I travel a lot for professional reasons, and I have seen this - it is the men who were raised in the most conservative families that seek the opportunity for extra-marital sex when away from home. They were raised with the concept that sex is something you lie about to the other members of the family.
Really? Just how many cheating men do you know? And have you really discussed family backgrounds and psycho-sexual histories with all of them?
As it happens, I've travelled a time or two myself. I could claim to have observed exactly the opposite. Then where would we be?
[Me:] So-called "free sex" carries many consequences outside of the immediate act, whether mutually consented to or not. Or does, for example, a wife not have the right to divorce an unfaithful husband?
[You:] I'll make a moral judgement here, and say it is right that a wife can divorce an unfaithful husband. What has that got to do with pornography?
Nothing. Wrong context. The original poster attempted to distinguish between "customs" and "ethics", and then immediately dumped the whole of human sexuality into the "customs" basket. I questioned that. A later poster then attempted to define "ethical sex" as anything occurring between two consenting adults. That's what elicited my statement above. The discussion had nothing to do with pornography.
I would much prefer to hear your views on this:
from what I have observed, it is the countries with the most restrictive sexual laws that treat women as objects.
As it happens, I hold a Masters in intercultural studies, have lived on (not just traveled to) four continents, and have visited a fifth. I do not state this to claim any sort of expertise, but merely to say that I believe my cross-cultural experience stacks up rather favorably to the original commentor's.
As for the comment, leaving aside loaded terminology such as "oppressive", "sexual equality", and so on, which almost defy quantitative definition, my observations are as follows:
First: the complexes and interplays that constitute any society or culture are extremely varied and subtle, and can take sociologists and anthropologists decades to understand; cultural analysis within any given culture is not a task for the faint of heart. Cross-cultural comparisons are frought with even greater pitfalls. And yet the original commentor (was it you?) attempts to do this between two societies as disparate as Sweden and Saudi Arabia with no apparent qualification outside of a few frequent flyer points.
Second: we must distinguish between causal and correlative relationships. It is one thing to state, "Where A exists, B also exists." This is a correlative statement. It is an altogether different thing to therefore conclude, "Therefore, A causes B." That is a causal statement. It may be that A causes B. It may be that B causes A. It may be that both A and B are caused by a third, as-yet-undetermined factor C. Or it may turn out that there is no correlation between A and B whatsoever.
Even in the hard sciences, causal relationships are notoriously difficult to determine. In the soft sciences they can be royal pains in the arses, indeed. In fact, the original commentor only gives us two data -- Sweden and Saudi Arabia. Ever try to plot a curve with two data points? We can't even reliably establish correlation on two data, and yet the original commentor attempts to fill in the entire curve.
Now to specifics:
I have travelled through several countries with different customs
Travelling through foreign countries no more qualifies one as an anthropologist than stopping in a hospital to ask directions qualifies one to give medical advice. I have insufficient information to judge the original commentor's qualifications as an anthropologist.
it is the countries with the most restrictive sexual laws that treat women as objects.
What does the original commentor mean by "restrictive sexual laws"? Has he made the legal systems of any of these countries a point of study? If not, how much does he really know about their respective laws?
In a sense, any law is by definition "restrictive". And thus, laws against rape would qualify as "restrictive sexual laws". Surely, however, this was not the original commentor's intent. Are his criteria for defining "restrictive sexual laws" objective or mere personal bias?
And what does he mean by "treating women as objects"? I know what I mean by it, but I don't know if he means the same thing.
Finally, see my comments above about correlation and causation.
in Sweden nudity and sex scenes are carried on Television, during the day. In Saudi Arabia no porn is allowed at all. Sweden leads the world in sexual equality, while in Saudi Arabia women can't vote - and are treated pretty badly.
Here's an example of the problems we can encounter when we fail to distinguish correlation and causation.
You note two phenomena: A (the availability of pornography), and B (the equality of women). It is one thing to speak about correlation: "I've noticed that in countries where pornography is restricted, women don't have full equality." Taken in isolation, however, your statement, clearly implies a causal relationship, viz., that A causes B. To wit: women owe their equality to the free availability of pornography.
Before you hit the reply button, I realize you are not making any claim for causation here. The original comment however, was not so clear, which is why disambiguation is necessary.
As I think you would agree, it's more likely that both A and B are effects of some other (unidentified) cause C.
Further, based on the correlation (not causation) between A and B (which I only grant for the sake of argument; as I have argued above, I don't think two data constitute sufficient evidence to establish correlation), you argue that this suggests freely available pornography does not lead to increased objectification of women.
I would argue that Sweden and Saudi Arabia are far to disaparate culturally and politically to make such simplistic comparisons of any value. One of the major problems with cross-cultural comparisons is that we have no control groups. Ideally, in order to test our theory (namely, that increased pornography does not lead increased objectification of women), we should clone both Sweden and Saudi Arabia. In Sweden B, we restrict pornography, while in Saudi Arabia B we freely allow it. Then we sit back and watch what happens. Does the fate of women in Saudi Arabia B improve? Does the lot of women in Sweden B plummet?
Now if porn is harmful, why are women better off in Sweden than in Saudia Arabia? (I do realize that better off is a moral judgement, too.
No, rather it's a value judgment. Moral judgements ask, "What's right and wrong?" Value judgements ask, "What's important?"
You're asking the wrong question. The proper question to ask is: are women in Sweden better off with or without freely available pornography? And would Saudi Arabian women be better off if pornography were less restricted there? Can you see how these are very different questions from the one you have asked?
There may also be mitigating factors at work. Just because free availability of pornography hasn't led to subjugation of women in Sweden doesn't necessarily mean pornography doesn't tend to objectify women. It may simply mean there are other cultural or historical factors at work in Sweden which mitigate the objectifying tendencies of pornography as a whole. Conversely -- playing diabolisadvocatas here -- I might argue that restricting pornography decreases the objectification of women; it's just that in Saudi Arabia there are factors involved which restrict women's equality despite the lack of pornography.
By way of analogy, one might argue as follows: in the US, children eat lots of sugary candies. In Taiwan (where I live) they don't. Yet American children have fewer cavities on average than Taiwanese children. If sugary candies really caused tooth decay as dentists claim, why are American teeth better off than Taiwanese teeth?
The answer, of course, is that sugary candies do cause tooth decay; their effect is simply offset by other mitigating factors - in this case, the presence of chlorinated water supplies in nearly all American cities.
Of course, I'm not sure how I became involved in this discussion, since nowhere in this forum have I advocated restricting pornography.
I know the arguement of Iranians and the Taliban in Afganistan that keeping women out of the work force and forcing them to keep to their dress code protects them. I don't agree with it - do you?
Frankly, I would argue it doesn't much matter what you or I think about it. The question is, does it work for them? How do the Afghanis feel about it? How do we encourage the Afghanis to work toward a truly indigenous understanding of equality? And - most importantly - are we willing to allow that the result might ultimately take a cultural shape we might not be entirely comfortable with? Or are the Americans simply going to go barging in and insist that the Afghanis line themselves up behind the American definition of "equal rights"?
You keep going on about the "evidence" you possess, yet you don't share it with us.
I didn't, and I won't, for three reasons:
1. The original poster attempted to establish debate rules in which he arrogated to himself the right to decide what evidence I would be allowed to introduce. I will not engage in any debate on any subject under such one-sided conditions.
2. It's off-topic. Or have you forgotten that the topic here is "Censorware", not "the effects of pornography on children"?
3. It's irrelevant. My point here was is, and will continue to be this: As a parent, it is my right and my responsibility to decide what is and what is not appropriate for my children. No government, no public institution, and certainly no self-styled "anti-censorship" crusader is in a better position to judge their best interests. I expect my public institutions and my government to respect my parental authority, not undermine it.
Note that I am not arguing for any of the following:
- Banning pornography from the Internet.
- Preventing adults - or even other peoples' children - from accessing pornography at public libraries.
- Legislation attempting to define or control Internet content.
The only thing I ask is that public libraries and schools make a good-faith effort to respect my wishes as the parent of my children.
This could take the form of point-of-delivery filtering software (as imperfect as it may currently be), as jCaT originally argued for. It could be in the form of a special library card for "checking out" Internet terminals. Or it could simply be a parental permission slip I sign that allows my children to access the Internet from libary or school terminals.
Now, please explain to me what's so unreasonable about my request.
exposure to pornography will NOT, by itself, incentivate the practice of anti-ethical sex
Of course, your definition of "anti-ethical" sex is not shared by everyone. But this is verging on the off-topic.
So-called "free sex" carries many consequences outside of the immediate act, whether mutually consented to or not. Or does, for example, a wife not have the right to divorce an unfaithful husband?
Am I missing something? What other evidence can there be to ban a substance other than proof that it is harmful?
Last I checked, the FDA requires the pharmaceuticals company to prove its drug is beneficial before granting approval. Simple "absence of harm" won't cust the mustard.
If you are going to insist that *I* play by *your* rules...
You? I couldn't care less what rules you play by. I do object to you forcing my children to live in a world governed by your rules.
As to my evidence, in fact, most of it is non-religious. I simply refuse to engage in any debate in which my opponent gets to arbitrarily pick and choose what evidence I'm allowed to introduce.
YOU are the one trying to control the flow of information here, Kaiwen.
To my own children - you're damn right, I am! No state - and certainly no "anti-censorship crusaders" - are going to take control of my children away from me.
To paraphrase Stephen King...
You're kidding, right? Your guide to child-rearing is a second-rate author of pulp horror novels? Hmm. This may explain a lot about the American mentality.
Know that I will fight your ideas where I find them.
Well, there's still some small hope you'll never show up in my little corner of the world -- where at least some modicum of sanity can still be found.
So you object to the fact that public libraries have anything about human sexuality in them, right?
Wrong. I have absolutely no objections to public libraries carrying information on human sexuality.
My objection is to the notion that it's good to allow minors unfettered access to such material (and most especially to material that has no educational value - such as lurid close-ups of female genitalia) without parental approval.
If a public library is considering allowing my kids to access pornography on its Internet terminals, it should at least have the decency to get my approval first.
Public libraries in the US...
That's nice. I don't live in the US.
If you truly object to your children learning about human sexuality...
Neither did I say I object to my children learning about human sexuality. However, it is my responsibility as a parent to decide what, when, where and how my child learns. It's a responsibility I as a parent take very seriously, and I would not appreciate my public institutions undermining my efforts.
What is the danger in a child seeing a vagina in Hustler, and why is it not dangerous to see the same thing in a medical book?
Who says it's not? Personally, I don't want my kids looking at pictures of vaginas anywhere without my prior approval. And I wouldn't appreciate their school providing them unrestricted access to material I, as a parent, have deemed inappropriate for them. Fortunately, here we do not (yet) have that problem.
One distinction, however, can be made: Hustler presents the vagina in an erotic context; the medical text does not.
What are, exactly, the intrinsic dangers that may afflict a minor - of any age - who has access to pornography?
"Hey, we can't prove it's harmful, so therefore it's OK." There are, in fact, many intrinsic dangers, as a perusal of the relevant literature will show. I'll leave that as an excercise for you to persue.
Perhaps what is needed is a clear distinction between "customs" and "morals".
Thank you for attempting to clarify the problem.
You don't, however, explain why you so cavalierly consign sex and pornography to the "customs" side of the tally sheet. Many of us (and I would claim the vast majority of the world's population on my side here) consider the issue of human sexuality to be frought with moral/ethical issues. Lumping it without explanation into the same category as "What do I wear to the senior prom?" does nothing to help your argument.
...and the burden of proof is on you to show harm, not on him to show harmlessness. You haven't done that. Care to try?
As soon as you demonstrate why the burden of proof is mine. I deny it.
There is plenty of evidence demonstrating the negative effects pornography can have on individuals. This is not to say every individual will be negatively affected, merely that pornography can have negative effects.
In fact, the poster to which I replied made an even broader claim - not that exposure of minors to pornography is merely harmless, but that it is, in fact, beneficial.
Imagine if the FDA started approving drugs just because no one could prove them harmful.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny how it's only "legislating morality" when you don't agree with it.
If I want to outlaw pornography, I'm trying to legislate my morality. If I want to outlaw child pornography, I'm a right-thinking person.
Since most laws have a moral base the political process is largely concerned with "legislating morality". Deal with it.
Lee Kai Wen
If you think religion=conservative, you don't know much about the religious spectrum in the US.
Lee Kai Wen
Any other approach runs into the quid custodes problem, which ultimately leads to a repeat of the Inquisition.
I think you just made his point: dredging up moral demons hardly helps your position. Knee-jerk comparisons to witch-burnings, inquisitions (no matter how historically questionable) or nazism might fire up the troops, but it also tends to isolate those in the middle -- parents, such as myself, who don't generally support censorship, but who do sympathize with the concerns of those on the other side of the issue.
I, for one, felt slightly offended to be broad-brushed by implication as an inquisitorial, witch-hunting nazi simply because I think the pro-filtering crowd has concerns that need to be addressed, not mocked.
I have no sympathy for parents who indulge in electronic babysitting of any form. ... [That's] ultimately responsible for things like Columbine. But I digress.
Yes, you do. And please stop. It's been my experience that most of your "opponents" on this issue are not weekend parents, but rather the opposite; take the time to know your enemy, and I'd venture you'd find that most of them are very involved in their children's lives. It's why they're concerned about such issues in the first place. Not because they're looking for substitutes for involved parenting, but because they are involved parents. Trying to pin tragedies such as Columbine on them is hardly conducive to convincing them to listen to your arguments. At least, it wouldn't work with me.
Frankly, I think a real good solution is simply to remove the 'Net access altogether from the kids' section and replace it with a copy of Britannica... the uncensored Net is no place for unsupervised younglings. If Mother wants to sign for her kids' adult-grade library card, including a release of liability, that's her problem.
I proposed a similar solution in a /. forum a few months ago. I was unmercifully attacked as a witch-hunting censor out to destroy the First Amendment (quite amusing, actually, since I don't even live in the United States).
Apparently, quite a large contingent of /.ers considers any attempt by parents to control (nay, even monitor) the information their children have access to as morally outrageous as burning books. I was accused of many unspeakable attrocities - including what to /.ers appears to be the ultimate sin - impeding my children's First Amendment rights. (The fact that, since my children are not American, they don't have any First Amendment rights didn't seem to deter them in the least.)
But when we consider adults in the adult section of a public library, paid for by you and me the taxpayers, censorship in any form has no place.
This, as far as it goes, is fine. However, I suggest you need to take the next step and address (not dismiss) the concerns of those who don't cotton to the idea of their tax money being used to fund someone's porn habit at the local library.
It very simply constitutes prior restraint on free speech
But the issue, from what I can tell, is not so "very simple". If it were, it wouldn't even come up.
And even then, it only addresses the concerns of Americans. You should consider that an increasingly large segment of the Internet community is not constrained by American laws or philosophies. And unless you're considering imposing your American jurisprudence on the rest of us, you'll need to find arguments which will play well outside of Peoria (or, in this case, the United States). While America may think of itself as the center of the universe, you need to keep in mind that fully 95% of the world's population is not subject to its laws or constitutions.
Some folks learned the hard way about sixty years ago about defending their rights, and that so-called "middle ground," and six million of them paid with their lives.
Again, rewriting history does nothing to help your case. Six million Jews were not killed for defending their rights, or whatever "middle ground" you're talking about. They were killed because they were Jews. Period. It may be tempting to attempt to enlist them to your cause. It also strikes me as rather revisionist.
Lee Kai Wen
OK, Jon. We all know you have an axe to grind against religion. Must you insert it into everything you write?
Recently, I spent an hour or so composing a detailed and -- if I may be so bold -- rather informative post in reply to an inquiry from an AC who was obviously clueless on the subject we were discussing. No flamage, no name-calling, no baiting. I got a 1 for my efforts, and that, presumably, was simply because I didn't post as an AC.
The reply, which read in its entirety, "You're a f***ing moron. Go f*** yourself." was moderated up to 3 and labeled "Insightful."
I've decided the best way to deal with the moderators here is to set my threshold back down to 0 and decide for myself what's valuable and what's not.
He said Hustler, not Playboy.
I do not monitor my kids' every move. My children have a great deal of latitude in their actions and choices -- more than many children two or three years' their seniors.
What I said was that I have the right to know what my kids do - if I chose to excercise that right - because I am their parent.
It doesn't. However, providing the genetic material, plus food, clothing and shelter, education, birthday presents, and fourteen years of 24x7 care does.
I'm not sure this isn't simply a disagreement over terms. If I'm tooling down the road trying to keep my car between the lines, am I guiding my car or controling it? See what I mean?
What I find particularly ironic is that all this 'friendly' advice I've been getting lately is probably coming from college kids who don't have the first clue about parenting.
So everyone here basically assumes I don't trust my kids, that I'm trying to wrap them in some kind of protective cocoon because why - simply because I don't want schools or libraries letting them access porn on the internet without my prior approval?
Let's see: how many American twelve- and fourteen-year olds get to:
1. Set their own bed times.
2. Date. Yes, my 14-year old son has been on two dates - both unchaperoned.
3. Run the family business. My son conducts the family business by himself every Saturday, and makes all his own business decisions. In a couple of years he'll be joined by his sister.
My son has been through his school's (optional) sex education classes, with complete parental approval. I simply requested to see the materials first.
My daughter will begin her sex education next year, but by then she will already knows most of what the class will teach, and a few things it won't.
I don't mean to be a wet blanket here, but anecdotal evidence is conclusive of little. I have seen friends raise their kids in completely permissive environments, and the kids turn into spoiled brats. That also proves nothing. I suggest the issue may not be as simple as this. It is definitely possible to lay out do's and don'ts without your kids rebelling on you. It worked for me when I was growing up, and it works with my kids. Trust me - sometimes the best answer to "Why?" is, "Because I said so."I set no rules because I am not engaged in a debate. A prerequisite to contributing intelligently to any thread is to read it first. You should try it.
"Keeping pornography from children" is only one of many things "censorware" is used for. It can also be used for keeping pornography from adults, for preventing access to, say, bomb-, gun- or drug- manufacturing information, or even keeping children from accessing those most dangerous of all sites - religious fundamentalists.
Again - the purpose of this discussion is the appropriateness of filtering software, not the affects of pornography, drug-manufacturing or religious fundamentalism on children.
Bingo. Couldn't have said it better myself. This, as I'm sure you'll agree, depends on which constitution you're talking about. Yours or mine. Our kids don't even live in the same country. It's highly doubtful they use the same library. And those parents will sign the slip. I probably will, too. Where's the problem?{special inflammatory language clipped}
Once, back in my university days in the States, I attended a student activities day, in which various student groups hawked their wares and conducted membership drives. I walked over to the local atheist group's table and started examining their materials. I was preparing to ask the person behind the table a question, but made the incalculable blunder of letting the word religion escape my lips. After subjecting me to a 14-minute 28-second (I timed it) non-stop tirade on the evils of religion, during which time I was unable to get a word in edgewise, he looked me straight in the eye and said, "Now go away! I'm tired of answering your questions!"
Was that you?
Then you're replying to the wrong guy. I didn't write that.
Here, I'll save you the trouble of fumbling through your dictionary. From Mirriam Webster, 10th edition:
First, please read my message (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=99/12/24/085The first thing you'll notice is the comment to which I was replying. The claim was that anything that cannot be proved harmless must therefore be OK.
The FDA is an example (see above) to counter that claim.
Whoever made the leap from that to accusing me of comparing information to drugs must have been smoking some himself (drugs, not information).
You are now presenting an excellent argument AGAINST censorship.
Really? When did I ever present an argument for censorship?
If a person had a restrictive environment as a child, he will try to break the rules at the first opportunity.
CFR (call for references). Any child will try to "break the rules at the first opportunity". That's the nature of being a child.
I travel a lot for professional reasons, and I have seen this - it is the men who were raised in the most conservative families that seek the opportunity for extra-marital sex when away from home. They were raised with the concept that sex is something you lie about to the other members of the family.
Really? Just how many cheating men do you know? And have you really discussed family backgrounds and psycho-sexual histories with all of them?
As it happens, I've travelled a time or two myself. I could claim to have observed exactly the opposite. Then where would we be?
Personal anecdotes make bad evidence.
As it happens, I hold a Masters in intercultural studies, have lived on (not just traveled to) four continents, and have visited a fifth. I do not state this to claim any sort of expertise, but merely to say that I believe my cross-cultural experience stacks up rather favorably to the original commentor's.Nothing. Wrong context. The original poster attempted to distinguish between "customs" and "ethics", and then immediately dumped the whole of human sexuality into the "customs" basket. I questioned that. A later poster then attempted to define "ethical sex" as anything occurring between two consenting adults. That's what elicited my statement above. The discussion had nothing to do with pornography.
As for the comment, leaving aside loaded terminology such as "oppressive", "sexual equality", and so on, which almost defy quantitative definition, my observations are as follows:
First: the complexes and interplays that constitute any society or culture are extremely varied and subtle, and can take sociologists and anthropologists decades to understand; cultural analysis within any given culture is not a task for the faint of heart. Cross-cultural comparisons are frought with even greater pitfalls. And yet the original commentor (was it you?) attempts to do this between two societies as disparate as Sweden and Saudi Arabia with no apparent qualification outside of a few frequent flyer points.
Second: we must distinguish between causal and correlative relationships. It is one thing to state, "Where A exists, B also exists." This is a correlative statement. It is an altogether different thing to therefore conclude, "Therefore, A causes B." That is a causal statement. It may be that A causes B. It may be that B causes A. It may be that both A and B are caused by a third, as-yet-undetermined factor C. Or it may turn out that there is no correlation between A and B whatsoever.
Even in the hard sciences, causal relationships are notoriously difficult to determine. In the soft sciences they can be royal pains in the arses, indeed. In fact, the original commentor only gives us two data -- Sweden and Saudi Arabia. Ever try to plot a curve with two data points? We can't even reliably establish correlation on two data, and yet the original commentor attempts to fill in the entire curve.
Now to specifics:
Travelling through foreign countries no more qualifies one as an anthropologist than stopping in a hospital to ask directions qualifies one to give medical advice. I have insufficient information to judge the original commentor's qualifications as an anthropologist. What does the original commentor mean by "restrictive sexual laws"? Has he made the legal systems of any of these countries a point of study? If not, how much does he really know about their respective laws?In a sense, any law is by definition "restrictive". And thus, laws against rape would qualify as "restrictive sexual laws". Surely, however, this was not the original commentor's intent. Are his criteria for defining "restrictive sexual laws" objective or mere personal bias?
And what does he mean by "treating women as objects"? I know what I mean by it, but I don't know if he means the same thing.
Finally, see my comments above about correlation and causation.
Here's an example of the problems we can encounter when we fail to distinguish correlation and causation.You note two phenomena: A (the availability of pornography), and B (the equality of women). It is one thing to speak about correlation: "I've noticed that in countries where pornography is restricted, women don't have full equality." Taken in isolation, however, your statement, clearly implies a causal relationship, viz., that A causes B. To wit: women owe their equality to the free availability of pornography.
Before you hit the reply button, I realize you are not making any claim for causation here. The original comment however, was not so clear, which is why disambiguation is necessary.
As I think you would agree, it's more likely that both A and B are effects of some other (unidentified) cause C.
Further, based on the correlation (not causation) between A and B (which I only grant for the sake of argument; as I have argued above, I don't think two data constitute sufficient evidence to establish correlation), you argue that this suggests freely available pornography does not lead to increased objectification of women.
I would argue that Sweden and Saudi Arabia are far to disaparate culturally and politically to make such simplistic comparisons of any value. One of the major problems with cross-cultural comparisons is that we have no control groups. Ideally, in order to test our theory (namely, that increased pornography does not lead increased objectification of women), we should clone both Sweden and Saudi Arabia. In Sweden B, we restrict pornography, while in Saudi Arabia B we freely allow it. Then we sit back and watch what happens. Does the fate of women in Saudi Arabia B improve? Does the lot of women in Sweden B plummet?
No, rather it's a value judgment. Moral judgements ask, "What's right and wrong?" Value judgements ask, "What's important?"You're asking the wrong question. The proper question to ask is: are women in Sweden better off with or without freely available pornography? And would Saudi Arabian women be better off if pornography were less restricted there? Can you see how these are very different questions from the one you have asked?
There may also be mitigating factors at work. Just because free availability of pornography hasn't led to subjugation of women in Sweden doesn't necessarily mean pornography doesn't tend to objectify women. It may simply mean there are other cultural or historical factors at work in Sweden which mitigate the objectifying tendencies of pornography as a whole. Conversely -- playing diabolis advocatas here -- I might argue that restricting pornography decreases the objectification of women; it's just that in Saudi Arabia there are factors involved which restrict women's equality despite the lack of pornography.
By way of analogy, one might argue as follows: in the US, children eat lots of sugary candies. In Taiwan (where I live) they don't. Yet American children have fewer cavities on average than Taiwanese children. If sugary candies really caused tooth decay as dentists claim, why are American teeth better off than Taiwanese teeth?
The answer, of course, is that sugary candies do cause tooth decay; their effect is simply offset by other mitigating factors - in this case, the presence of chlorinated water supplies in nearly all American cities.
Of course, I'm not sure how I became involved in this discussion, since nowhere in this forum have I advocated restricting pornography.
Frankly, I would argue it doesn't much matter what you or I think about it. The question is, does it work for them? How do the Afghanis feel about it? How do we encourage the Afghanis to work toward a truly indigenous understanding of equality? And - most importantly - are we willing to allow that the result might ultimately take a cultural shape we might not be entirely comfortable with? Or are the Americans simply going to go barging in and insist that the Afghanis line themselves up behind the American definition of "equal rights"?I didn't, and I won't, for three reasons:
1. The original poster attempted to establish debate rules in which he arrogated to himself the right to decide what evidence I would be allowed to introduce. I will not engage in any debate on any subject under such one-sided conditions.
2. It's off-topic. Or have you forgotten that the topic here is "Censorware", not "the effects of pornography on children"?
3. It's irrelevant. My point here was is, and will continue to be this: As a parent, it is my right and my responsibility to decide what is and what is not appropriate for my children. No government, no public institution, and certainly no self-styled "anti-censorship" crusader is in a better position to judge their best interests. I expect my public institutions and my government to respect my parental authority, not undermine it.
Note that I am not arguing for any of the following:
- Banning pornography from the Internet.
- Preventing adults - or even other peoples' children - from accessing pornography at public libraries.
- Legislation attempting to define or control Internet content.
The only thing I ask is that public libraries and schools make a good-faith effort to respect my wishes as the parent of my children.
This could take the form of point-of-delivery filtering software (as imperfect as it may currently be), as jCaT originally argued for. It could be in the form of a special library card for "checking out" Internet terminals. Or it could simply be a parental permission slip I sign that allows my children to access the Internet from libary or school terminals.
Now, please explain to me what's so unreasonable about my request.
No. Filtering software is like putting those books on a shelf behind the circulation desk.
Unless you're saying your library puts Playboy on the same shelf with all the other periodicals.
If you don't want your kids to see it, that's your responsibility.
And it's the library's responsibility to respect my responsibility, not provide an end-run around it.
It derives from the fact that I am my kids' parent.
Of course, your definition of "anti-ethical" sex is not shared by everyone. But this is verging on the off-topic.
So-called "free sex" carries many consequences outside of the immediate act, whether mutually consented to or not. Or does, for example, a wife not have the right to divorce an unfaithful husband?
Yeah, I have a penis. And if I stick it in a woman against her will, that's wrong, no?
You've been watching too much late night TV or something....
Last I checked, the FDA requires the pharmaceuticals company to prove its drug is beneficial before granting approval. Simple "absence of harm" won't cust the mustard.
You? I couldn't care less what rules you play by. I do object to you forcing my children to live in a world governed by your rules.
As to my evidence, in fact, most of it is non-religious. I simply refuse to engage in any debate in which my opponent gets to arbitrarily pick and choose what evidence I'm allowed to introduce.
YOU are the one trying to control the flow of information here, Kaiwen.
To my own children - you're damn right, I am! No state - and certainly no "anti-censorship crusaders" - are going to take control of my children away from me.
To paraphrase Stephen King...
You're kidding, right? Your guide to child-rearing is a second-rate author of pulp horror novels? Hmm. This may explain a lot about the American mentality.
Know that I will fight your ideas where I find them.
Well, there's still some small hope you'll never show up in my little corner of the world -- where at least some modicum of sanity can still be found.
Wrong. I have absolutely no objections to public libraries carrying information on human sexuality.
My objection is to the notion that it's good to allow minors unfettered access to such material (and most especially to material that has no educational value - such as lurid close-ups of female genitalia) without parental approval.
If a public library is considering allowing my kids to access pornography on its Internet terminals, it should at least have the decency to get my approval first.
Public libraries in the US...
That's nice. I don't live in the US.
If you truly object to your children learning about human sexuality...
Neither did I say I object to my children learning about human sexuality. However, it is my responsibility as a parent to decide what, when, where and how my child learns. It's a responsibility I as a parent take very seriously, and I would not appreciate my public institutions undermining my efforts.
What makes "religious sources" biased? The fact that they disagree with you?
Perhaps I consider any source that ipso facto rejects religious viewpoints biased.
I refuse to play by your rules. So where do we go from here?
Oh, and by the way, information is not a drug.
Yeah, so? What does this have to do with pornography?
Oh! You're trying to say pornography is just "information"?!
Sheesh!
Who says it's not? Personally, I don't want my kids looking at pictures of vaginas anywhere without my prior approval. And I wouldn't appreciate their school providing them unrestricted access to material I, as a parent, have deemed inappropriate for them. Fortunately, here we do not (yet) have that problem.
One distinction, however, can be made: Hustler presents the vagina in an erotic context; the medical text does not.
What are, exactly, the intrinsic dangers that may afflict a minor - of any age - who has access to pornography?
"Hey, we can't prove it's harmful, so therefore it's OK." There are, in fact, many intrinsic dangers, as a perusal of the relevant literature will show. I'll leave that as an excercise for you to persue.
Perhaps what is needed is a clear distinction between "customs" and "morals".
Thank you for attempting to clarify the problem.
You don't, however, explain why you so cavalierly consign sex and pornography to the "customs" side of the tally sheet. Many of us (and I would claim the vast majority of the world's population on my side here) consider the issue of human sexuality to be frought with moral/ethical issues. Lumping it without explanation into the same category as "What do I wear to the senior prom?" does nothing to help your argument.
As soon as you demonstrate why the burden of proof is mine. I deny it.
There is plenty of evidence demonstrating the negative effects pornography can have on individuals. This is not to say every individual will be negatively affected, merely that pornography can have negative effects.
In fact, the poster to which I replied made an even broader claim - not that exposure of minors to pornography is merely harmless, but that it is, in fact, beneficial.
Imagine if the FDA started approving drugs just because no one could prove them harmful.
Excuse me?! As a parent, I most certainly DO have the right to know everything my kids do!