Although your refrence to my not being too objective on evaluation my own problems may be entirely true, it is also entirely _irrelevant_, as it is my personal perception of the situation at hand and not the truth of the matter that effects my sense of morality, and is indeed the thing that effects my thoughts and therefore actions. Secondly, by controlling a person, your are not only not convincing them of anything, as that individual doesn't see any reason to be controlled (said individual doesn't learn anything from the controlling specifically, although you may provide education along with that control), but you are also helping to kill that individual, both intellectually, as you deny that individual the oppertunity of wresteling with a complicated issue, and spiritually (not to be confused with any kind of religion - this applies more to their personally, their 'beingness') as you subjugate them with your will - unless said individual decides to circument your will and then you have the same problems that I described before with any law.
Point 1: Just because this doesn't apply to you personally or to your percise situation at this percise moment doesn't make my point irrelevant, as people are, and forever will be interconnected - its life, people are social animals and as such will continue to interact. Therefore: just because you will not be influencing your son with my particuar philosophy doesn't mean that he will not be influenced by it. Point 2:Calling people "morally retarded" simply because they have different morals that you or I is both ineffective and increditably prejudice. I am a firm believer in nurture over nature, and from this perspective, such thinking is self destructive. The law is very helpful for this particular reason - it is essentially a large book of rules that our society at large has decided that we will all abide by. Despite the fact that it has gotten so big and bloated that this is seldom the case anymore. The fact is, that the law is all that our society has to shield its self from its self - short of a society-wide lets-get-togather-and-be-friends afternoon every week in which everyone would be forced to interact with everyone else (an impossiable task) and if people don't make friends, they would at least be able to understand eachother a bit and increase tollerance of eachother (since tollerance must replace repspect in large societies, as everyone can't know everyone). What needs to happen, and is happening is a revision of the law, as you read. Tying this back to the origional artical, and to your's, "...self moralization usually isn't overnight. It is a process and requires life experience and gradual development." is a statement that is entirely correct. However, deciding that the law is meaningless is also a life experience, as is breaking the law and circumventing broken censorship. All of these actions, like it or not, do contribute to a growing sence of lawlessness and a decrease of morality.
Your whole argument is totally valid and correct, except for your conclusion - you say that kids should be sheltered, and then you go and advocate that kids should be taught and educated - the two are mutually exclusive. Just like the DARE program, you would have kids taught not to take drugs without seeing the real thing - More Public Relations. Except that you don't urge that in your arguments. You want kids to be told real life stories, to see druggies and know (or as close to know with out actually taking drugs) how bad it really is to be addicted. Let me reiterate, THIS IS NOT SHELTERING. Back to the main topic, by annology, parnets, instead of buying censorship programs, should sit down with their kids and take them to PORN sites and educate them, and show them why they don't (or do? - just trying to keep an open mind...) believe in that kind of thing. Parents and such should sit down with their kids and go to violent sites and terrorist sites and any other sites that they feel are disturbing and they should sit down and educate their children, because sooner or later, no matter if there is a censorship program, the children will access those sites.
I do agree that in a perfect world with a large set a reviewers who kept a totally up to date set of websites that they tested rigourously against a fair set of guidelines, the system might, inspire good morals in kids. However, there are a few problems - that have already been pointed out in previous messages. Summarized: -->The list of sensored websites is never long enough - at least 50% of the sites that "need" to be censored aren't (free-email and porn) - and for lucrative websites (aka Porn) it is easy enough to find some way around censoring. -->The guidelines are rather shoddy. There are a lot of misused guidelines and such in place already, and some of the guidelines, themselves simply need to be thrown out, as they are no good at all. -->There are a lot of ways that people, from the computers that are using the censorship programs can circumvent them (using some portal like cookware) Now, then... All of these things togather and seperately attack the integrety of both "morality" and the law. the first point contributes to the belief that the law can be flouted with impunity, and that the censorship program is made by idiots. Face the facts - there are an increasing number of sites out there that provide free e-mail, and it is simply impossiable to filter them all - people will simply find other and then get their mail fowarded there. The act of fowarding shows a version of the law that is really flimsy - it is out dated and doesn't really apply to peoples' situations. The children that the censorship program is trying to "protect" may be encouraged to become script kiddies, or to simply believe that the law is inferior, or somehow doesn't apply as a result of their "out smarting" the system. The third catagory of 'shoddyness' applies here too. The second pointworks in tandem with the first and third points. What the second point tells the people that it is trying to "protect" is that it is really no good. For example: I go to a highschool, in and my highschool has ordered a supplimentary program over the internet, called APEX. Now, APEX is a fine program. I actually use it as a supplement for Calculus AB. The problem is that there are a couple of computers in the school that are there for student use, and they were filtered by "Bess", a filtering program created by N2H2. Bess filtered APEX - a STRICTLY EDUCATIONAL program that the district purchased. These kind of instances leave a strong impression in kids, especially the kind who would want to push the envalope. The result was that APEX had to have an alternate login site on the internet, as Bess continued to filter it - to this very day (3/11/00). This kind of result shows that the filtering programs, and by analogy - the law, are stupid and should not be headed, not because they aren't enforced, or are poorly worded or anyother reason besides that they are simply stupid and should never have been created at all. The two feed on eachother and form a kind of "If the law (or censorship program) is made stupid and I can flout it without any trouble, and I will never get caught, then what exactally is the purpose of the law? - Public Relations?!!!"
Slashdot Mirror
Although your refrence to my not being too objective on evaluation my own problems may be entirely true, it is also entirely _irrelevant_, as it is my personal perception of the situation at hand and not the truth of the matter that effects my sense of morality, and is indeed the thing that effects my thoughts and therefore actions. Secondly, by controlling a person, your are not only not convincing them of anything, as that individual doesn't see any reason to be controlled (said individual doesn't learn anything from the controlling specifically, although you may provide education along with that control), but you are also helping to kill that individual, both intellectually, as you deny that individual the oppertunity of wresteling with a complicated issue, and spiritually (not to be confused with any kind of religion - this applies more to their personally, their 'beingness') as you subjugate them with your will - unless said individual decides to circument your will and then you have the same problems that I described before with any law.
Point 1: Just because this doesn't apply to you personally or to your percise situation at this percise moment doesn't make my point irrelevant, as people are, and forever will be interconnected - its life, people are social animals and as such will continue to interact. Therefore: just because you will not be influencing your son with my particuar philosophy doesn't mean that he will not be influenced by it. Point 2:Calling people "morally retarded" simply because they have different morals that you or I is both ineffective and increditably prejudice. I am a firm believer in nurture over nature, and from this perspective, such thinking is self destructive. The law is very helpful for this particular reason - it is essentially a large book of rules that our society at large has decided that we will all abide by. Despite the fact that it has gotten so big and bloated that this is seldom the case anymore. The fact is, that the law is all that our society has to shield its self from its self - short of a society-wide lets-get-togather-and-be-friends afternoon every week in which everyone would be forced to interact with everyone else (an impossiable task) and if people don't make friends, they would at least be able to understand eachother a bit and increase tollerance of eachother (since tollerance must replace repspect in large societies, as everyone can't know everyone). What needs to happen, and is happening is a revision of the law, as you read. Tying this back to the origional artical, and to your's, "...self moralization usually isn't overnight. It is a process and requires life experience and gradual development." is a statement that is entirely correct. However, deciding that the law is meaningless is also a life experience, as is breaking the law and circumventing broken censorship. All of these actions, like it or not, do contribute to a growing sence of lawlessness and a decrease of morality.
Your whole argument is totally valid and correct, except for your conclusion - you say that kids should be sheltered, and then you go and advocate that kids should be taught and educated - the two are mutually exclusive. Just like the DARE program, you would have kids taught not to take drugs without seeing the real thing - More Public Relations. Except that you don't urge that in your arguments. You want kids to be told real life stories, to see druggies and know (or as close to know with out actually taking drugs) how bad it really is to be addicted. Let me reiterate, THIS IS NOT SHELTERING. Back to the main topic, by annology, parnets, instead of buying censorship programs, should sit down with their kids and take them to PORN sites and educate them, and show them why they don't (or do? - just trying to keep an open mind...) believe in that kind of thing. Parents and such should sit down with their kids and go to violent sites and terrorist sites and any other sites that they feel are disturbing and they should sit down and educate their children, because sooner or later, no matter if there is a censorship program, the children will access those sites.
How about this: Don't do drugs, because drugs are expensive, and they take a while to get off of
I do agree that in a perfect world with a large set a reviewers who kept a totally up to date set of websites that they tested rigourously against a fair set of guidelines, the system might, inspire good morals in kids. However, there are a few problems - that have already been pointed out in previous messages. Summarized: -->The list of sensored websites is never long enough - at least 50% of the sites that "need" to be censored aren't (free-email and porn) - and for lucrative websites (aka Porn) it is easy enough to find some way around censoring. -->The guidelines are rather shoddy. There are a lot of misused guidelines and such in place already, and some of the guidelines, themselves simply need to be thrown out, as they are no good at all. -->There are a lot of ways that people, from the computers that are using the censorship programs can circumvent them (using some portal like cookware) Now, then... All of these things togather and seperately attack the integrety of both "morality" and the law. the first point contributes to the belief that the law can be flouted with impunity, and that the censorship program is made by idiots. Face the facts - there are an increasing number of sites out there that provide free e-mail, and it is simply impossiable to filter them all - people will simply find other and then get their mail fowarded there. The act of fowarding shows a version of the law that is really flimsy - it is out dated and doesn't really apply to peoples' situations. The children that the censorship program is trying to "protect" may be encouraged to become script kiddies, or to simply believe that the law is inferior, or somehow doesn't apply as a result of their "out smarting" the system. The third catagory of 'shoddyness' applies here too. The second pointworks in tandem with the first and third points. What the second point tells the people that it is trying to "protect" is that it is really no good. For example: I go to a highschool, in and my highschool has ordered a supplimentary program over the internet, called APEX. Now, APEX is a fine program. I actually use it as a supplement for Calculus AB. The problem is that there are a couple of computers in the school that are there for student use, and they were filtered by "Bess", a filtering program created by N2H2. Bess filtered APEX - a STRICTLY EDUCATIONAL program that the district purchased. These kind of instances leave a strong impression in kids, especially the kind who would want to push the envalope. The result was that APEX had to have an alternate login site on the internet, as Bess continued to filter it - to this very day (3/11/00). This kind of result shows that the filtering programs, and by analogy - the law, are stupid and should not be headed, not because they aren't enforced, or are poorly worded or anyother reason besides that they are simply stupid and should never have been created at all. The two feed on eachother and form a kind of "If the law (or censorship program) is made stupid and I can flout it without any trouble, and I will never get caught, then what exactally is the purpose of the law? - Public Relations?!!!"