I'm not suggesting it's an invalid request, but I think it's one of those things where 95% of people bitch about a feature being removed that only 5% of them actually ever used.
This isn't removing a feature. It's failing to implement it. Removing Linux compatibility was annoying because it was already there, and they decided to remove it.
Children shouldn't be exposed to explicit sex or violence.
Here's where I disagree. It doesn't harm them to be exposed to either. I think it's best to just leave them alone and be a parent by educating them as needed.
What kind of argument is that? There doesn't exist perfect solutions to anything, including a nanny state. Education really will eliminate many of the cases that you describe (note: not all of them). That's good enough, and society as a whole doesn't have to suffer as with these proposed solutions.
Civility demands that we become responsible for each other.
Not for every single person in existence regardless of whether or not what they did was intentional.
What's clear is that children need protection from concepts they have no context for.
What you don't seem to be understanding is that education is what will fix this, not ignorance. That's what we need to protect them from, if anything (not just them either: many, many adults are ignorant as well). You've given no facts or evidence that they need to be protected. You just keep repeating it.
How many children do you think can't tell that the pixels on the screen aren't real? To decrease this number even further, how about teenagers? People aren't as naive as you believe, even children and teenagers. The greatest threat is ignorance, lack of intelligence, and lack of self restraint, which are the leading causes of pregnancies and STDs. There is no doubt about that.
Your black and white world
How is arguing that children absolutely need to be protected from images because they'll go insane not a black and white world?
Letting Darwin rule is so terribly expensive.
You're right! Clearly we must make it our initiative to protect all people from themselves at all times, regardless of their intentions. Knifes? Do away with those. Arms? Legs? Cars? They could hurt themselves. Do away with them or make them extremely difficult to obtain. Hey, it's not that difficult to get them! Just a few added annoyances (for the betterment of the nanny state, of course).
It separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom.
Here I thought it was the ability to utilize logic and reason to a greater degree! But, then again, many humans don't seem to be able to do either.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, then? Neither has been done. Regardless, until there's hard evidence, nothing should be done.
You believe there are parents. Sometimes there are not.
You're right. Sometimes there isn't. Everyone else shouldn't have to suffer because of that. It's also an abysmally small chance that a teenager won't know that it's fiction. So, even if there aren't parents, common sense and logic will take hold. For those cases that neither work, well, we can't fix everything. Society shouldn't have to suffer because of a few people. It's just a shame that they exist, but nothing can be done for them. They'll find a way around these so-called "safety nets" either way while the rest of us suffer for no good reason.
Sometimes knifes are used to kill people. Do we ban all knifes or make them extremely hard to get for everyone because of that? Actually, the same could be said about almost every object in existence. It's just absurd to ban something because a very, very select few will abuse them or get hurt.
but there also needs to be a safety net
There is! It's call common sense, education, and parenting. It isn't called ignorance, censorship, or lies.
We're censoring for children, Internet porn. Adults get to move on and view what they will.
Yet, it will be more difficult for everyone to get a hold of it (and for no good reason). That's nonsensical.
No. We need absolute scientific fact here.
You think I don't understand natural urges?
If you did, you'd know that ignorance isn't the cure for preventing pregnancies or STDs.
Did you read the link? Or are you just having fun digging in your heels?
Yes, I read the link. It had fun citing little surveys, stating assumptions (yet again the assumption that teenagers magically don't know the difference between fiction and reality, for some reason), and saying that more research needs to be done (no doubt about that), but it didn't really provide any scientific fact.
If you're going to censor something or make it harder to get (for anyone, not just children), you must have absolute scientific fact to back up your case. If you don't, it just becomes mere assumptions and personal opinions.
Me? I don't believe that people are a movie away from becoming a murderer, rapist, sex addict, etc. I find the very idea to be absurd. It's not a case of "monkey see, monkey do." That's a nice little statement, but most people really aren't that stupid, especially when they know that it's all just works of fiction.
My advice: drop the nanny state, and let parents do their jobs (not the job of censoring everything, but of educating their kids). Actually, if all it is is education, I wouldn't mind others doing it as well.
In other words, blatant indoctrination. There's enough of this going on as it is. I don't mean of cold, hard facts, I mean parents indoctrinating their children with pointless personal and religious beliefs.
That's for those children that have parents, that care, that take the time to do this.
So is education.
Congruently, read this
That didn't really give any new information or evidence. It just repeated what you've basically been saying the entire time while occasionally citing pointless surveys. Surveying children indoctrinated by their parents about the effects of pornography on people? Really?
Children need to be children;
As I've said time and time again, they can't do that if you keep them in a bubble.
Also, nowhere did I suggest that it should be forced on them. I've been suggesting that for the most part we just leave them alone.
eventually, they express interest.
Yes, they do, but they can't if you keep them in a bubble.
Kids often live in this world not knowing what's real and not.
Where are you getting this? Even five year old children can tell the difference between works of fiction and reality. Perhaps not pornography films, but they wouldn't want to watch those in the first place. But, then again, even I knew movies weren't real at a young age. Oh, and here's a funny word: parenting.
And they can act on information believed to be real to them, but isn't to an adult.
Oh, yes. That magical ability that only rears its head once one turns 18. Only the chosen ones can differentiate between fiction and reality.
Just like all of those children who go out and rape and murder people because they saw it in some form of media! That number is staggeringly high, right? It's not just limited to a very few insane people, right? Certainly not. Bad parenting also has nothing to do with any of this.
As I said before, people have natural urges. They won't go away by them not viewing pornography, and STDs and pregnancies won't go down (they'll go up, most likely) by keeping people ignorant. These are teenagers. These aren't five year old kids who may be more likely to think a realistic movie is real, but teenagers who for the most part know better. The amount who don't is likely again, abysmally small.
people like you by not linking you with the first result on Google, then.... lol?
What first result in Google? You mean the one that isn't scientific in the least and is mere propaganda? I need scientific fact here, not garbage.
Most of them make assumption after assumption that a large majority of people can't differentiate between what is obviously fiction and reality. Even small children can do this.
But, as I said, even if they can't, education is key. Parents, schools, etcetera. Keeping them ignorant will only make the problems worse due to them not knowing how to act upon their natural urges.
Having two accounts to mod yourself up is also pretty pathetic.
I never modded myself up. I mean, you can already tell.
IF you really want to start a flame war, talk about violence game ratings.
What? We're having an argument. Of course I'm going to state my views.
Were it my choice, we'd find an intelligent, graduated methodology of exposing children to violence, rather than letting them think it's normal.
Not surprised, I guess. Where do you get the assumption that any child, regardless of age, is idiotic and downright insane enough to believe that a bunch of pixels on the screen is abysmally small? Even if they do believe that it's real, there's a cure: education (not years of it, but five seconds from the parents). Then they can keep consuming the entertainment and don't have to be trapped in a bubble all of their life.
I believe that children shouldn't be exposed to it
You've offered no real reason why, and I've already responded to your individual points. I'm waiting on you.
they do, and get the wrong ideas.
It's much better to keep them in a bubble where they will remain ignorant about the realities of sexual intercourse, right? That will surely help prevent STDs and pregnancies! Education is bad! Oh, and if they already know about the consequences sexual intercourse can have, the chances of them not knowing that pornography is a work of fiction and unrealistic is abysmally small. But, then again, there's a cure for that, too: parents.
Some take it further and act on sex ideas without suitable context and understanding of consequences.
You mean the amount of people that is so abysmally small that it's not worth worrying about? What about the amount of people who go and shoot a bunch of people because they saw it in a form of media? Also abysmally small. We can't let these people (who would likely already do it in the first place) ruin something for everyone (and for their own kind).
They didn't emerge from the womb knowing about rape, HIV, the nature of consensual conduct, relationships, birth control, and so on.
No, they didn't. But they do have natural urges, and if they don't know the consequences of acting upon them, the situation will only get worse.
Some don't get education.
What do you think we should do about that?
Often, they don't.
That's not my fault. That's not societies fault. But, as I said, even little kids can differentiate between fiction and reality, and if someone is part of the abysmally small group that can't, it is likely they would have already done something in the first place.
I'm not trying to put children in bubbles
What else could you possibly be trying to do? You're suggesting that we censor material for them and keep them ignorant (which will just make matters worse). Sounds like a bubble to me.
to let them be children
Yes, let them be. Don't keep them in bubbles, and don't keep them ignorant.
It's not a kind world out there.
Please tell me how keeping them ignorant until the last minute is going to help them with this.
I agree. All videos of murder and violence and such should also be hindered from children.
Somehow, I'm not surprised.
Pornography gives children a false idea about sexuality.
Which ones? Probably not little kids, as they likely won't even want to watch it in the first place (or at least, I didn't). If you mean teenagers, then no, I'm will to bet that a large percentage of them are intelligent enough to differentiate between fiction and reality. This isn't some magical trait that you acquire at age 18. Even little children can tell the difference. But, hey, if they can't, the parents can merely do their job and tell them.
Ignorance isn't a cure. Many will act on their natural urges sooner or later and be completely unaware of the consequences due to the little bubble they've been kept in.
And no, I still am not your Google boy, you do your own research (where would I be if I needed to provide proof of all generally accepted facts?).
Sorry, but if you go around saying that your statements are facts and then fail to give any citations, the burden of proof is on you. I mean, what do you think citations are for? Imagine if every article just told people to stop being lazy and go search Google for some article or paper of which they don't even know its name when they're the ones who claimed that the contents of the article were facts in the first place!
No, I'm not your Google boy. Back up your claims. I don't even know the name of the papers you want to cite, and there's far too much religious propaganda on the internet to weed through it all.
But I don't understand how you can fail to see how exposing children to porn at a young age might have similar effects to sexual molestation.
What? Really? I seen pornography as a child (alone, I might add). I wasn't traumatized. I just thought it was gross. I wasn't idiotic enough to believe it was real or go try it (why would I do that if I thought it was gross). It's merely a bunch of images. They aren't being harmed in any way, shape, or form as in the case of sexual molestation.
The amount of intelligent, informed people, children or not, who replicate things that they see in works of fiction is abysmally small. It's the ignorant people who never had real parents who we need to be afraid of, as they don't even know what they're doing.
You've known no child. Maybe you've *seen* one, but you've understood none.
You must be able to read my mind and magically know what I am! Assumptions, assumptions.
Ask how many pregnancies among students there were in the past 24 months.
My response: "Due to pornography or natural urges combined with ignorance and a lack of self-restraint?"
I don't see where this was mentioned before.
get hormones
"They don't get hormones. They already have them. They don't suddenly turn into sex-craving children after watching pornography. They'll either think it's gross or they won't."
Nor this.
and experiment
"Education does wonders!"
I've mentioned this, but it goes along with my point. Keeping people ignorant isn't going to solve anything. They'll end up being unprepared and not know what to do.
You have to catch, as a civil society, the ones that don't as a responsible act for the general good.
"Blaming pornography for ignorance isn't going to solve anything. Neither is purposefully keeping people ignorant. In fact, the latter will just make the situations you described even worse."
Sorry, but it's the people who are keeping children in little bubbles that are holding us back. They wish to keep them ignorant for an indefinite amount of time, and when they finally choose to let them learn, they have no idea what to do. You mentioned pregnancies, STDs, and other things. In reality, it is intelligence and education that will fix these problems, not ignorance. Many will still act upon their urges even if they don't know the consequences it will bring them (most likely because they don't know the consequences it will bring them).
You also never addressed the issue about violence a few posts back. I'd say that acting upon natural urges is better than murdering someone or hurting them. So, why aren't we trying to do away with that, as well? I don't understand this mentality.
Ask how many pregnancies among students there were in the past 24 months.
Due to pornography or natural urges combined with ignorance and a lack of self-restraint?
get hormones
They don't get hormones. They already have them. They don't suddenly turn into sex-craving children after watching pornography. They'll either think it's gross or they won't.
and experiment
Education does wonders!
You have to catch, as a civil society, the ones that don't as a responsible act for the general good.
Blaming pornography for ignorance isn't going to solve anything. Neither is purposefully keeping people ignorant. In fact, the latter will just make the situations you described even worse.
Not likely. Let me ask you this: how many children go out and shoot someone because they saw it in a movie? Actually, for that matter, how many of them experiment with actual sexual intercourse because they viewed pornography and happened to think it wasn't completely nasty? How is violence any less worse than consensual sexual intercourse between two adults? Why shouldn't that be opt-in like they think pornography should be?
Besides that, again, I mention parental guidance. Not the type that keeps them in a bubble, but actual guidance.
2) Re-examine your sentence and think about what you said. Then imagine the typical household where two parents work, or one works two jobs, and so on. Get out of your box and consider the context of people unlike yourself, and their needs.
It doesn't exactly take huge periods of time to tell someone whether or not something is real and if it's dangerous. That's like saying you didn't have time to tell your child not to wander in the middle of the street.
3) Curiosity is great. Sex at age 11 is not, etc.
We're talking about pornography. Stop mentioning actual sex.
I refuse to offer any explanation other than "it scars children". If you want studies, you go find them yourself. To me, it's self-explanatory.
What kind of response is that? "I'm going to make a statement and say that there exists studies which prove it, but then I'm not even going to link to them! Oh, and then maybe I'll say that anyone who disagrees lacks common sense!"
I'm sorry, but what harm can this possibly have on them? In my actual experience, no child I've known has not been able to differentiate between fiction and reality. I mean, it might not have been pornography that they were viewing, but it was movies (and fairly realistic ones, too). This isn't some magical ability that people acquire when they turn eighteen. Even children can tell the difference. At most, the child will likely think that pornography is nasty, but I highly, highly doubt that anyone would ever be traumatized for life. That's just absurd. But, hey, if they are unable to tell the difference, their parents could do their jobs and merely tell them that it's not real. Keeping them in a little bubble is just going to make life harder down the road.
Furthermore, if we're going to do this to pornography, we might as well do it to all violent media as well. Any occurrences of someone being shot or hit (or any form of violence present on the internet) must be opt-in (or have a way to verify someone's status as an adult), as that is even more 'traumatizing' than pornography. Imagine all of the children that go out and shoot people because they saw a video on youtube about someone getting shot with a gun! I'm certain that number of staggeringly high.
So, until you actually state what we should protect them from, why we should protect them from it, and give some actual evidence (religious propaganda doesn't count as evidence, just in case) to back up your point, my response will remain the same.
Sex has side effects and needs for responsibilities.
They're not having sex, they're watching pornography.
There are consequences, and some can be avoided, but a ten year old doesn't know that when he tries to dork his sister or the neighborhood kid next door.
Sorry, but what? Do you truly think that children can't separate fiction from reality? That they just believe that all of those pixels on the screen are real? Now, while my experience may not include everyone in the world, I haven't ever seen someone like this.
But, hey, if they don't know it's not real, the parents could just do their jobs and just quickly explain it to them instead of trying to keep them in a bubble for who knows how long.
What about it? You mean the horrible life-ruining effects it has on them? Yeah, those don't exist. This is almost as silly as the "swear words are bad because they were intended to be bad even though no one is obligated to be offended by them, which means that no one should be allowed to use them" arguments. At most, children will likely think that it's gross. It isn't going to ruin their life. It isn't going to hurt them. It's a parents' job to explain the difference between fiction and reality (if they don't already know, which they likely do) and educate them in many aspects, not keep them in a bubble.
All in all, keeping people in bubbles does more harm than good. These people tend to be the oversensitive whiners that want everything they don't like banned, censored, or made harder to access for everyone, even when none of it is harmful in the least. The "think of the children" mentality is never a good thing.
No, I firmly believe that they'll target more things which they are personally offended by, but not because they're harmful. These people just want everyone else to live in their little bubbles.
Oh, please! Experience and education is irrelevant. Everyone knows that it's the pieces of paper and connections that will earn you a job! Who in their right minds would hire someone who actually knows what they were doing, or even test them to see if they know what they are doing? That's just absurd thinking!
There's more solutions than "let the corrupt government take complete control" and "let corrupt, greedy corporations take complete control," you know. It could be balanced, such as merely disallowing this one thing. If the government tries to take more control, then it is the responsibility of the people to stop them, and if the don't, then the people have far more of a problem on their hands than merely the internet.
it can actually make the things better for all the users if implemented correctly.
How?
They have an incentive (your dollars!) to make things as compelling as possible for you to continue doing business with them.
Due to there being only one high-speed ISP almost everywhere (at least in the US, and more specifically where I live), and due to the fact that in quite a few cases people use the internet for business related reasons (and therefore can't simply cancel without hurting themselves), they can pretty much screw people over quite a bit and not have to worry about them canceling. The internet has become far too mainstream and important (in regards to a form of communication) to let these idiots ruin it with things such as this when they're already rich.
Conspiracy theories have convenience. Reality often has coincidence.
Indeed.
What give any particular person/group the right to say what others' rights are?
What gives someone the right to take away someone else's rights? What gives them the right to slaughter in the name of religion or something else completely irrelevant when it doesn't benefit anyone except perhaps themselves in the slightest?
but I don't get the right to control all the natural resources in the world?
Insane example. Freedom of speech (and rights similar to it) have no material cost.
that, hypothetically, fling their dead at relatives' houses
I don't know, but I don't see a problem with flinging a rotting hunk of meat other than the fact that it's just a waste of organs.
finds their opinions "senseless".
They sort of are in regards to the damage it does to society. They don't help anyone by going to war for petty matters (except, again, themselves). Certainly not society. The sooner such primitive mindsets die out (probably never), the less war there will be. Until then... diplomacy is possibly the best course of action, but all I've been doing the entire time is speaking out against war anyway, so that doesn't bother me.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not suggesting it's an invalid request, but I think it's one of those things where 95% of people bitch about a feature being removed that only 5% of them actually ever used.
This isn't removing a feature. It's failing to implement it. Removing Linux compatibility was annoying because it was already there, and they decided to remove it.
Children shouldn't be exposed to explicit sex or violence.
Here's where I disagree. It doesn't harm them to be exposed to either. I think it's best to just leave them alone and be a parent by educating them as needed.
I've got a better idea: just leave things alone.
lacks guaranteed delivery
What kind of argument is that? There doesn't exist perfect solutions to anything, including a nanny state. Education really will eliminate many of the cases that you describe (note: not all of them). That's good enough, and society as a whole doesn't have to suffer as with these proposed solutions.
Civility demands that we become responsible for each other.
Not for every single person in existence regardless of whether or not what they did was intentional.
What's clear is that children need protection from concepts they have no context for.
What you don't seem to be understanding is that education is what will fix this, not ignorance. That's what we need to protect them from, if anything (not just them either: many, many adults are ignorant as well). You've given no facts or evidence that they need to be protected. You just keep repeating it.
How many children do you think can't tell that the pixels on the screen aren't real? To decrease this number even further, how about teenagers? People aren't as naive as you believe, even children and teenagers. The greatest threat is ignorance, lack of intelligence, and lack of self restraint, which are the leading causes of pregnancies and STDs. There is no doubt about that.
Your black and white world
How is arguing that children absolutely need to be protected from images because they'll go insane not a black and white world?
Letting Darwin rule is so terribly expensive.
You're right! Clearly we must make it our initiative to protect all people from themselves at all times, regardless of their intentions. Knifes? Do away with those. Arms? Legs? Cars? They could hurt themselves. Do away with them or make them extremely difficult to obtain. Hey, it's not that difficult to get them! Just a few added annoyances (for the betterment of the nanny state, of course).
It separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom.
Here I thought it was the ability to utilize logic and reason to a greater degree! But, then again, many humans don't seem to be able to do either.
Exercising responsibility ensures better outcomes.
An ignorance-demanding nanny state isn't a better outcome.
Absolute scientific fact..... reminds me of:
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, then? Neither has been done. Regardless, until there's hard evidence, nothing should be done.
You believe there are parents. Sometimes there are not.
You're right. Sometimes there isn't. Everyone else shouldn't have to suffer because of that. It's also an abysmally small chance that a teenager won't know that it's fiction. So, even if there aren't parents, common sense and logic will take hold. For those cases that neither work, well, we can't fix everything. Society shouldn't have to suffer because of a few people. It's just a shame that they exist, but nothing can be done for them. They'll find a way around these so-called "safety nets" either way while the rest of us suffer for no good reason.
Sometimes knifes are used to kill people. Do we ban all knifes or make them extremely hard to get for everyone because of that? Actually, the same could be said about almost every object in existence. It's just absurd to ban something because a very, very select few will abuse them or get hurt.
but there also needs to be a safety net
There is! It's call common sense, education, and parenting. It isn't called ignorance, censorship, or lies.
We're censoring for children, Internet porn. Adults get to move on and view what they will.
Yet, it will be more difficult for everyone to get a hold of it (and for no good reason). That's nonsensical.
No. We need absolute scientific fact here.
You think I don't understand natural urges?
If you did, you'd know that ignorance isn't the cure for preventing pregnancies or STDs.
Did you read the link? Or are you just having fun digging in your heels?
Yes, I read the link. It had fun citing little surveys, stating assumptions (yet again the assumption that teenagers magically don't know the difference between fiction and reality, for some reason), and saying that more research needs to be done (no doubt about that), but it didn't really provide any scientific fact.
If you're going to censor something or make it harder to get (for anyone, not just children), you must have absolute scientific fact to back up your case. If you don't, it just becomes mere assumptions and personal opinions.
Me? I don't believe that people are a movie away from becoming a murderer, rapist, sex addict, etc. I find the very idea to be absurd. It's not a case of "monkey see, monkey do." That's a nice little statement, but most people really aren't that stupid, especially when they know that it's all just works of fiction.
My advice: drop the nanny state, and let parents do their jobs (not the job of censoring everything, but of educating their kids). Actually, if all it is is education, I wouldn't mind others doing it as well.
You don't keep children ignorant.
By censoring everything "for their sake," you do.
You use parenting skills to endow a value system.
In other words, blatant indoctrination. There's enough of this going on as it is. I don't mean of cold, hard facts, I mean parents indoctrinating their children with pointless personal and religious beliefs.
That's for those children that have parents, that care, that take the time to do this.
So is education.
Congruently, read this
That didn't really give any new information or evidence. It just repeated what you've basically been saying the entire time while occasionally citing pointless surveys. Surveying children indoctrinated by their parents about the effects of pornography on people? Really?
Children need to be children;
As I've said time and time again, they can't do that if you keep them in a bubble.
Also, nowhere did I suggest that it should be forced on them. I've been suggesting that for the most part we just leave them alone.
eventually, they express interest.
Yes, they do, but they can't if you keep them in a bubble.
Kids often live in this world not knowing what's real and not.
Where are you getting this? Even five year old children can tell the difference between works of fiction and reality. Perhaps not pornography films, but they wouldn't want to watch those in the first place. But, then again, even I knew movies weren't real at a young age. Oh, and here's a funny word: parenting.
And they can act on information believed to be real to them, but isn't to an adult.
Oh, yes. That magical ability that only rears its head once one turns 18. Only the chosen ones can differentiate between fiction and reality.
Just like all of those children who go out and rape and murder people because they saw it in some form of media! That number is staggeringly high, right? It's not just limited to a very few insane people, right? Certainly not. Bad parenting also has nothing to do with any of this.
As I said before, people have natural urges. They won't go away by them not viewing pornography, and STDs and pregnancies won't go down (they'll go up, most likely) by keeping people ignorant. These are teenagers. These aren't five year old kids who may be more likely to think a realistic movie is real, but teenagers who for the most part know better. The amount who don't is likely again, abysmally small.
people like you by not linking you with the first result on Google, then.... lol?
What first result in Google? You mean the one that isn't scientific in the least and is mere propaganda? I need scientific fact here, not garbage.
Most of them make assumption after assumption that a large majority of people can't differentiate between what is obviously fiction and reality. Even small children can do this.
But, as I said, even if they can't, education is key. Parents, schools, etcetera. Keeping them ignorant will only make the problems worse due to them not knowing how to act upon their natural urges.
Having two accounts to mod yourself up is also pretty pathetic.
I never modded myself up. I mean, you can already tell.
You go to jail to exposing children to porn.
Citing laws as evidence doesn't work.
IF you really want to start a flame war, talk about violence game ratings.
What? We're having an argument. Of course I'm going to state my views.
Were it my choice, we'd find an intelligent, graduated methodology of exposing children to violence, rather than letting them think it's normal.
Not surprised, I guess. Where do you get the assumption that any child, regardless of age, is idiotic and downright insane enough to believe that a bunch of pixels on the screen is abysmally small? Even if they do believe that it's real, there's a cure: education (not years of it, but five seconds from the parents). Then they can keep consuming the entertainment and don't have to be trapped in a bubble all of their life.
I believe that children shouldn't be exposed to it
You've offered no real reason why, and I've already responded to your individual points. I'm waiting on you.
they do, and get the wrong ideas.
It's much better to keep them in a bubble where they will remain ignorant about the realities of sexual intercourse, right? That will surely help prevent STDs and pregnancies! Education is bad! Oh, and if they already know about the consequences sexual intercourse can have, the chances of them not knowing that pornography is a work of fiction and unrealistic is abysmally small. But, then again, there's a cure for that, too: parents.
Some take it further and act on sex ideas without suitable context and understanding of consequences.
You mean the amount of people that is so abysmally small that it's not worth worrying about? What about the amount of people who go and shoot a bunch of people because they saw it in a form of media? Also abysmally small. We can't let these people (who would likely already do it in the first place) ruin something for everyone (and for their own kind).
They didn't emerge from the womb knowing about rape, HIV, the nature of consensual conduct, relationships, birth control, and so on.
No, they didn't. But they do have natural urges, and if they don't know the consequences of acting upon them, the situation will only get worse.
Some don't get education.
What do you think we should do about that?
Often, they don't.
That's not my fault. That's not societies fault. But, as I said, even little kids can differentiate between fiction and reality, and if someone is part of the abysmally small group that can't, it is likely they would have already done something in the first place.
I'm not trying to put children in bubbles
What else could you possibly be trying to do? You're suggesting that we censor material for them and keep them ignorant (which will just make matters worse). Sounds like a bubble to me.
to let them be children
Yes, let them be. Don't keep them in bubbles, and don't keep them ignorant.
It's not a kind world out there.
Please tell me how keeping them ignorant until the last minute is going to help them with this.
I agree. All videos of murder and violence and such should also be hindered from children.
Somehow, I'm not surprised.
Pornography gives children a false idea about sexuality.
Which ones? Probably not little kids, as they likely won't even want to watch it in the first place (or at least, I didn't). If you mean teenagers, then no, I'm will to bet that a large percentage of them are intelligent enough to differentiate between fiction and reality. This isn't some magical trait that you acquire at age 18. Even little children can tell the difference. But, hey, if they can't, the parents can merely do their job and tell them.
Ignorance isn't a cure. Many will act on their natural urges sooner or later and be completely unaware of the consequences due to the little bubble they've been kept in.
And no, I still am not your Google boy, you do your own research (where would I be if I needed to provide proof of all generally accepted facts?).
Sorry, but if you go around saying that your statements are facts and then fail to give any citations, the burden of proof is on you. I mean, what do you think citations are for? Imagine if every article just told people to stop being lazy and go search Google for some article or paper of which they don't even know its name when they're the ones who claimed that the contents of the article were facts in the first place!
No, I'm not your Google boy. Back up your claims. I don't even know the name of the papers you want to cite, and there's far too much religious propaganda on the internet to weed through it all.
But I don't understand how you can fail to see how exposing children to porn at a young age might have similar effects to sexual molestation.
What? Really? I seen pornography as a child (alone, I might add). I wasn't traumatized. I just thought it was gross. I wasn't idiotic enough to believe it was real or go try it (why would I do that if I thought it was gross). It's merely a bunch of images. They aren't being harmed in any way, shape, or form as in the case of sexual molestation.
The amount of intelligent, informed people, children or not, who replicate things that they see in works of fiction is abysmally small. It's the ignorant people who never had real parents who we need to be afraid of, as they don't even know what they're doing.
You've known no child. Maybe you've *seen* one, but you've understood none.
You must be able to read my mind and magically know what I am! Assumptions, assumptions.
I didn't. I answered your points.
Ask how many pregnancies among students there were in the past 24 months.
My response: "Due to pornography or natural urges combined with ignorance and a lack of self-restraint?"
I don't see where this was mentioned before.
get hormones
"They don't get hormones. They already have them. They don't suddenly turn into sex-craving children after watching pornography. They'll either think it's gross or they won't."
Nor this.
and experiment
"Education does wonders!"
I've mentioned this, but it goes along with my point. Keeping people ignorant isn't going to solve anything. They'll end up being unprepared and not know what to do.
You have to catch, as a civil society, the ones that don't as a responsible act for the general good.
"Blaming pornography for ignorance isn't going to solve anything. Neither is purposefully keeping people ignorant. In fact, the latter will just make the situations you described even worse."
Sorry, but it's the people who are keeping children in little bubbles that are holding us back. They wish to keep them ignorant for an indefinite amount of time, and when they finally choose to let them learn, they have no idea what to do. You mentioned pregnancies, STDs, and other things. In reality, it is intelligence and education that will fix these problems, not ignorance. Many will still act upon their urges even if they don't know the consequences it will bring them (most likely because they don't know the consequences it will bring them).
You also never addressed the issue about violence a few posts back. I'd say that acting upon natural urges is better than murdering someone or hurting them. So, why aren't we trying to do away with that, as well? I don't understand this mentality.
You're wrong and I'm right! End of discussion.
That's not a very good argument.
Ask how many pregnancies among students there were in the past 24 months.
Due to pornography or natural urges combined with ignorance and a lack of self-restraint?
get hormones
They don't get hormones. They already have them. They don't suddenly turn into sex-craving children after watching pornography. They'll either think it's gross or they won't.
and experiment
Education does wonders!
You have to catch, as a civil society, the ones that don't as a responsible act for the general good.
Blaming pornography for ignorance isn't going to solve anything. Neither is purposefully keeping people ignorant. In fact, the latter will just make the situations you described even worse.
1) Monkey see, monkey do. Or worse.
Not likely. Let me ask you this: how many children go out and shoot someone because they saw it in a movie? Actually, for that matter, how many of them experiment with actual sexual intercourse because they viewed pornography and happened to think it wasn't completely nasty? How is violence any less worse than consensual sexual intercourse between two adults? Why shouldn't that be opt-in like they think pornography should be?
Besides that, again, I mention parental guidance. Not the type that keeps them in a bubble, but actual guidance.
2) Re-examine your sentence and think about what you said. Then imagine the typical household where two parents work, or one works two jobs, and so on. Get out of your box and consider the context of people unlike yourself, and their needs.
It doesn't exactly take huge periods of time to tell someone whether or not something is real and if it's dangerous. That's like saying you didn't have time to tell your child not to wander in the middle of the street.
3) Curiosity is great. Sex at age 11 is not, etc.
We're talking about pornography. Stop mentioning actual sex.
I refuse to offer any explanation other than "it scars children". If you want studies, you go find them yourself. To me, it's self-explanatory.
What kind of response is that? "I'm going to make a statement and say that there exists studies which prove it, but then I'm not even going to link to them! Oh, and then maybe I'll say that anyone who disagrees lacks common sense!"
I'm sorry, but what harm can this possibly have on them? In my actual experience, no child I've known has not been able to differentiate between fiction and reality. I mean, it might not have been pornography that they were viewing, but it was movies (and fairly realistic ones, too). This isn't some magical ability that people acquire when they turn eighteen. Even children can tell the difference. At most, the child will likely think that pornography is nasty, but I highly, highly doubt that anyone would ever be traumatized for life. That's just absurd. But, hey, if they are unable to tell the difference, their parents could do their jobs and merely tell them that it's not real. Keeping them in a little bubble is just going to make life harder down the road.
Furthermore, if we're going to do this to pornography, we might as well do it to all violent media as well. Any occurrences of someone being shot or hit (or any form of violence present on the internet) must be opt-in (or have a way to verify someone's status as an adult), as that is even more 'traumatizing' than pornography. Imagine all of the children that go out and shoot people because they saw a video on youtube about someone getting shot with a gun! I'm certain that number of staggeringly high.
So, until you actually state what we should protect them from, why we should protect them from it, and give some actual evidence (religious propaganda doesn't count as evidence, just in case) to back up your point, my response will remain the same.
Sex has side effects and needs for responsibilities.
They're not having sex, they're watching pornography.
There are consequences, and some can be avoided, but a ten year old doesn't know that when he tries to dork his sister or the neighborhood kid next door.
Sorry, but what? Do you truly think that children can't separate fiction from reality? That they just believe that all of those pixels on the screen are real? Now, while my experience may not include everyone in the world, I haven't ever seen someone like this.
But, hey, if they don't know it's not real, the parents could just do their jobs and just quickly explain it to them instead of trying to keep them in a bubble for who knows how long.
allowing children to be children
Such as allowing them to be curious? To learn?
Too many suffer.
Who? From what? Naked bodies? Please, explain.
I talked about the exposure to children.
What about it? You mean the horrible life-ruining effects it has on them? Yeah, those don't exist. This is almost as silly as the "swear words are bad because they were intended to be bad even though no one is obligated to be offended by them, which means that no one should be allowed to use them" arguments. At most, children will likely think that it's gross. It isn't going to ruin their life. It isn't going to hurt them. It's a parents' job to explain the difference between fiction and reality (if they don't already know, which they likely do) and educate them in many aspects, not keep them in a bubble.
All in all, keeping people in bubbles does more harm than good. These people tend to be the oversensitive whiners that want everything they don't like banned, censored, or made harder to access for everyone, even when none of it is harmful in the least. The "think of the children" mentality is never a good thing.
After porn, it will be other harmful content
No, I firmly believe that they'll target more things which they are personally offended by, but not because they're harmful. These people just want everyone else to live in their little bubbles.
Oh, please! Experience and education is irrelevant. Everyone knows that it's the pieces of paper and connections that will earn you a job! Who in their right minds would hire someone who actually knows what they were doing, or even test them to see if they know what they are doing? That's just absurd thinking!
There's more solutions than "let the corrupt government take complete control" and "let corrupt, greedy corporations take complete control," you know. It could be balanced, such as merely disallowing this one thing. If the government tries to take more control, then it is the responsibility of the people to stop them, and if the don't, then the people have far more of a problem on their hands than merely the internet.
it can actually make the things better for all the users if implemented correctly.
How?
They have an incentive (your dollars!) to make things as compelling as possible for you to continue doing business with them.
Due to there being only one high-speed ISP almost everywhere (at least in the US, and more specifically where I live), and due to the fact that in quite a few cases people use the internet for business related reasons (and therefore can't simply cancel without hurting themselves), they can pretty much screw people over quite a bit and not have to worry about them canceling. The internet has become far too mainstream and important (in regards to a form of communication) to let these idiots ruin it with things such as this when they're already rich.
I'd like to think my opinion matters at least as much as someone who barely scraped by at a third rate school and got a PHD in art history.
You're wrong! That paper instantly proves that someone is a genius. No questions asked.
Conspiracy theories have convenience. Reality often has coincidence.
Indeed.
What give any particular person/group the right to say what others' rights are?
What gives someone the right to take away someone else's rights? What gives them the right to slaughter in the name of religion or something else completely irrelevant when it doesn't benefit anyone except perhaps themselves in the slightest?
but I don't get the right to control all the natural resources in the world?
Insane example. Freedom of speech (and rights similar to it) have no material cost.
that, hypothetically, fling their dead at relatives' houses
I don't know, but I don't see a problem with flinging a rotting hunk of meat other than the fact that it's just a waste of organs.
finds their opinions "senseless".
They sort of are in regards to the damage it does to society. They don't help anyone by going to war for petty matters (except, again, themselves). Certainly not society. The sooner such primitive mindsets die out (probably never), the less war there will be. Until then... diplomacy is possibly the best course of action, but all I've been doing the entire time is speaking out against war anyway, so that doesn't bother me.