Basically it says, "Don't believe me. Ask anyone who agrees with me." Hmm.. nice. By your reasoning I could say that censorship is good, but don't believe me. Ask anyone. If they are sane and reasonably intelligent, they will agree with me. There. I totally countered your arguments.
Seriously though, I'm not actually disagreeing with everything you said, I just think you didn't make a very good argument there at the end.
I did not state that as well as I might have. Let me restate that argument, and then you can pick it apart again (if you want). It is my understanding that most child psychologists believe that explicitly violent and sexual material is harmful to young children. Those that disagree with this (as I understand things) are a small minority, and the fringe of current thought. I believe that this is the responsible view of things.
Probably sometime around 5th or 6th grade would be best. Anytime before that, they should either be supervised by a parent or closely supervised by a teacher. Even at the 5th or 6th grade levels, they should probably have teacher supervision if they are accessing the net from school. The rest is up to the parents.
I think everything should be up to parents until the child reaches adulthood (age eighteen), and the schools should not undermine this by allowing "unfettered access" to content that would be considered objectionable to many or most parents.
Everything you said is (IMHO) completely correct. The reason that schools should limit access to objectional material is so parents are free to decide to disallow access. I am not advocating the government to compel parents to limit access to this or that for their children. I am sorry if I did not make this clear.
(shrug), I don't see how calling me names supports your case.
> Schools are for brainwashing, not for learning.
Give me a specific example of how schools brainwash children. And also explain, please, how graduates from the same public schools often have radically different political philosophies, religions, and beliefs. If they really were being brainwashed, they'd all agree.
> What's so bad about porn that kids shouldn't see it?
Sexually explicit material is psychologically harmful to young children. Pornography (which is a subset of sexually explicit material) objectifies people (usually women) and leads people to think of them only as objects. Look how the rape crime rates have risen since the 1950's. I'm not advocating censorship for adults, but it is completely reasonable to prevent children from seeing this material. In the long run, such a policy would result in fewer rape victims and cause more men to think of women as human beings rather than as slabs of meat.
> And why should kids go to school?
To learn how to read, write, and do simple math. Hopefully, to learn a bit more than that. To be a useful member of society in the 20th century, you need to have at least these basic skills.
> PS You are an idiot
In the Socratic sense, you are correct (let me know if you need for me to explain who Socrates was for you).
> As for graphic violence, I think it could do > TV-watching kids a world of good if they > occasionally got a dose of just how horrifying > real murders, gun fights, and car wrecks can be.
Violence as depicted on TV and in movies is plenty graphic, but not realistic. The "heroes" of the worst of these pieces go around, killing indescriminately all of the "bad guys" in creative and "cool" ways. It teaches children that violence and murder are solutions to problems and, surprise surprise, violent crime rates have skyrocketed since this sort of material became accessable to children. Graphic violence and sexual material is not appropriate for all ages, it can cause psychological harm. Don't believe me, ask a psychologist, a responsible one will agree with me.
As for countering bad speech with good speech, I'm all for that, but that doesn't solve every problem. Many children have not yet developed intellectually to the point that they can separate good arguments from bad.
R-rated action movies and many TV shows don't teach children (and others) that violence is bad. It teaches them that it is not only a valid way to deal with problems but also "cool". The so-called heroes of these shows go around and blow away dozens of "bad guys" outside of the law, often killing them in creative and exciting ways. Also, exposing children to graphic violence from a young age desensitizes them to it. Look how the violent crime rates have increased since the 50's and 60's, in my mind increased availibility of violent TV & movie content to children has had no small impact in this.
Teachers are not Nazi Prison Guards. If you think they are, I suggest you look at some photographs from the Holocaust and see exactly what Nazi Prison Guards did.
"re-education camps"??? How can children be re-educated if they haven't been educated in the first place? Let me be perfectly clear on this, I support the government regulations requiring children to be taught how to read and write and do basic math, and if that makes me a nazi, so be it.
I also support school vouchers to give parents more choice about where to send their kids, but that's another topic...
And I realize my opinion is in the minority here. But in my defense, I should mention that my URL of "turbont" has nothing to do with Windows NT, my ISP is called "Turbo Net", and the domain name turbonet.net must already have beed taken. If it were up to me, I would be at "turbolinux.net" or somesuch.
> However, I will certainly argue with that. Who > decides these "certain things"? I certainly > wouldn't be comfortable with your choices for > what my kids should see, because I have no idea > what your beliefs are - your religious > convictions, your morals, even your taste in > art. > Can't have you deciding things for my kids.
We agree, I think, parents should decide what their children may or may not see. And the schools should facilitate your role as a parent by not exposing your kids to material (or allowing kids to expose themselves to material) that most parents find objectionable, including hate sites, graphic depictions of violence, and explicit sexual content. Now, if you as a parent decide that it's okay for little Billy to browse around at www.playboy.com or www.whitepower.org on your home machine, that's your business.
...and you'll see that I mentioned two other examples: hate sites (anti-black, anti-jewish, anti-gay, anti-christian, etc) and recruitment sites for cult-like organizations (like Heaven's Gate).
To those examples I would also add graphic depictions of violence.
...in certain circumstances. Thirteen-year-olds should not be allowed to use school resources to look at porn. We can argue about how to best restrict access (adult supervision is probably the best way), but what is inarguable is that children should simply not be allowed to view certain things (porn, nazi-propaganda, heaven's gate style religious fanatics recruitment page).
Adults using libraries is another issue. Personally, I would have the monitors be facing in such a way so that a number of people would be able to see what someone was looking at, so hopefully the shame factor would prevent library resources being used for less-than erudite purposes. Also, library resources are limited, and some people are trying to research papers and such, so there is every reason to discourage and even disallow web browsing for entertainment (this would include less objectionable content, too, not just porn and hate sites).
That's funny, but it looks like you got your score knocked down, too (which I don't have a problem with as long as Dan Quayle jokes are treated the same way).
It's no less fair than making fun of Dan Quayle for his spelling. Al Gore may have mispoke, he may not have meant what he said, but what he said was inaccurate. I'm not calling him names or a lier, but I am kidding about his mistake in the same way all public figures get kidded about when they make mistakes. I've made fun of Dan Quayle, Al Gore, George Bush, Bill Clinton, Pat Buchanon, Steve Forbes, Ross Perot, and a bunch of other politicians of all philosophies when I feel the situation warrants it. I am at least consistant.
Are you telling me that you've never made fun of Dan Quayle? Maybe you haven't, I don't know, but I see a bunch of Democrats complaining about how Al Gore is being unfairly made fun of after ruthelessly making fun of Dan Quayle for years. Lighten up, politicians are _supposed_ to be made fun of; what would the late night talk shows do without political humor?
If the Moderators believed my post to be off-topic and so lowered its score, that's fine. I don't have a problem with that.
--BUT-- if they're going to lower the score of my good-natured quip, they should also lower the score of all of the racist, sexist, anti-religion, or otherwise bigotted or vulgar posts that make their way on to these comment boards. I've seen posts that didn't have their scores lowered that were FAR WORSE than my little joke. I just was kidding about the VP's faux pas, people have expressed HATRED on this site and not been censored.
...but the ubiquitousness of this sort of sleaze just gets to me sometimes. Sometimes it seems to me like human dignity went out with sideburns and black and white TV's.
Isn't Jenicam that sleazy site where a bunch of perverts and recluses can fulfill their petty and depraved desires by watching some excentric exhibitionist get dressed in the morning and occasionally have sex? Come on, isn't slashdot a little bit better than that? Between this and some of the recent articles (the on on sexbots comes to mind), and some of the vulgar/racist/sexist AC posts, Slashdot is fastly becoming part of the red light district of the net. Can't we be a little bit better than this?
I probably should post this anonymously, I but think it's time that someone was willing to stand up and say something about this disturbing trend (and I'm too lazy to log out). If this keeps up, I may have to find a different site on the net where I can commune with my fellow geeks.
Can anyone explain to me who that cute girl with the face paint is? At one point in the trailer she says something like "this is not what the people elected me to do". So, she's the Prez or what? How does an 18-year-old girl become president of the Republic anyway? Does anyone know what the deal is?
The trailer confused me, but I still thought it was soooo cooool.
George Carlin says a lot of things, mostly centered around vulgarities and four-lettered words. Some of his stuff would actually be funny if he didn't try to be kewl by using the F word as punctuation. I wouldn't credit him with any great insight about religion, though...
Slashdot Mirror
Basically it says, "Don't believe me. Ask anyone who agrees with me." Hmm.. nice. By your reasoning I could say that censorship is good, but don't believe me. Ask anyone. If they are sane and reasonably intelligent, they will agree with me. There. I totally countered your arguments.
Seriously though, I'm not actually disagreeing with everything you said, I just think you didn't make a very good argument there at the end.
I did not state that as well as I might have. Let me restate that argument, and then you can pick it apart again (if you want). It is my understanding that most child psychologists believe that explicitly violent and sexual material is harmful to young children. Those that disagree with this (as I understand things) are a small minority, and the fringe of current thought. I believe that this is the responsible view of things.
Probably sometime around 5th or 6th grade would be best. Anytime before that, they should either be supervised by a parent or closely supervised by a teacher. Even at the 5th or 6th grade levels, they should probably have teacher supervision if they are accessing the net from school. The rest is up to the parents.
I think everything should be up to parents until the child reaches adulthood (age eighteen), and the schools should not undermine this by allowing "unfettered access" to content that would be considered objectionable to many or most parents.
-Eric
Everything you said is (IMHO) completely correct. The reason that schools should limit access to objectional material is so parents are free to decide to disallow access. I am not advocating the government to compel parents to limit access to this or that for their children. I am sorry if I did not make this clear.
-Eric
> You are an idiot.
(shrug), I don't see how calling me names supports your case.
> Schools are for brainwashing, not for learning.
Give me a specific example of how schools brainwash children. And also explain, please, how graduates from the same public schools often have radically different political philosophies, religions, and beliefs. If they really were being brainwashed, they'd all agree.
-Eric
> What's so bad about porn that kids shouldn't see it?
Sexually explicit material is psychologically harmful to young children. Pornography (which is a subset of sexually explicit material) objectifies people (usually women) and leads people to think of them only as objects. Look how the rape crime rates have risen since the 1950's. I'm not advocating censorship for adults, but it is completely reasonable to prevent children from seeing this material. In the long run, such a policy would result in fewer rape victims and cause more men to think of women as human beings rather than as slabs of meat.
> And why should kids go to school?
To learn how to read, write, and do simple math. Hopefully, to learn a bit more than that. To be a useful member of society in the 20th century, you need to have at least these basic skills.
> PS You are an idiot
In the Socratic sense, you are correct (let me know if you need for me to explain who Socrates was for you).
-Eric
> As for graphic violence, I think it could do
> TV-watching kids a world of good if they
> occasionally got a dose of just how horrifying
> real murders, gun fights, and car wrecks can be.
Violence as depicted on TV and in movies is plenty graphic, but not realistic. The "heroes" of the worst of these pieces go around, killing indescriminately all of the "bad guys" in creative and "cool" ways. It teaches children that violence and murder are solutions to problems and, surprise surprise, violent crime rates have skyrocketed since this sort of material became accessable to children. Graphic violence and sexual material is not appropriate for all ages, it can cause psychological harm. Don't believe me, ask a psychologist, a responsible one will agree with me.
As for countering bad speech with good speech, I'm all for that, but that doesn't solve every problem. Many children have not yet developed intellectually to the point that they can separate good arguments from bad.
-Eric
> Kids should be allowed to look at porn and shouldn't go to school.
Please, tell me that's sarcasm. If that isn't sarcasm, then I'm very afraid for the future...
-Eric
R-rated action movies and many TV shows don't teach children (and others) that violence is bad. It teaches them that it is not only a valid way to deal with problems but also "cool". The so-called heroes of these shows go around and blow away dozens of "bad guys" outside of the law, often killing them in creative and exciting ways. Also, exposing children to graphic violence from a young age desensitizes them to it. Look how the violent crime rates have increased since the 50's and 60's, in my mind increased availibility of violent TV & movie content to children has had no small impact in this.
-Eric
Teachers are not Nazi Prison Guards. If you think they are, I suggest you look at some photographs from the Holocaust and see exactly what Nazi Prison Guards did.
-Eric
"re-education camps"??? How can children be re-educated if they haven't been educated in the first place? Let me be perfectly clear on this, I support the government regulations requiring children to be taught how to read and write and do basic math, and if that makes me a nazi, so be it.
I also support school vouchers to give parents more choice about where to send their kids, but that's another topic...
-Eric
And I realize my opinion is in the minority here. But in my defense, I should mention that my URL of "turbont" has nothing to do with Windows NT, my ISP is called "Turbo Net", and the domain name turbonet.net must already have beed taken. If it were up to me, I would be at "turbolinux.net" or somesuch.
-Eric
> However, I will certainly argue with that. Who
> decides these "certain things"? I certainly
> wouldn't be comfortable with your choices for
> what my kids should see, because I have no idea
> what your beliefs are - your religious
> convictions, your morals, even your taste in
> art.
> Can't have you deciding things for my kids.
We agree, I think, parents should decide what their children may or may not see. And the schools should facilitate your role as a parent by not exposing your kids to material (or allowing kids to expose themselves to material) that most parents find objectionable, including hate sites, graphic depictions of violence, and explicit sexual content. Now, if you as a parent decide that it's okay for little Billy to browse around at www.playboy.com or www.whitepower.org on your home machine, that's your business.
-Eric
...and you'll see that I mentioned two other examples: hate sites (anti-black, anti-jewish, anti-gay, anti-christian, etc) and recruitment sites for cult-like organizations (like Heaven's Gate).
To those examples I would also add graphic depictions of violence.
-Eric
...you'll noticed from my post that I only advocated censorship for children. Still, very intelligent slam and quite funny (if inaccurate).
-Eric
...in certain circumstances. Thirteen-year-olds should not be allowed to use school resources to look at porn. We can argue about how to best restrict access (adult supervision is probably the best way), but what is inarguable is that children should simply not be allowed to view certain things (porn, nazi-propaganda, heaven's gate style religious fanatics recruitment page).
Adults using libraries is another issue. Personally, I would have the monitors be facing in such a way so that a number of people would be able to see what someone was looking at, so hopefully the shame factor would prevent library resources being used for less-than erudite purposes. Also, library resources are limited, and some people are trying to research papers and such, so there is every reason to discourage and even disallow web browsing for entertainment (this would include less objectionable content, too, not just porn and hate sites).
-Eric
That's funny, but it looks like you got your score knocked down, too (which I don't have a problem with as long as Dan Quayle jokes are treated the same way).
-Eric
It's no less fair than making fun of Dan Quayle for his spelling. Al Gore may have mispoke, he may not have meant what he said, but what he said was inaccurate. I'm not calling him names or a lier, but I am kidding about his mistake in the same way all public figures get kidded about when they make mistakes. I've made fun of Dan Quayle, Al Gore, George Bush, Bill Clinton, Pat Buchanon, Steve Forbes, Ross Perot, and a bunch of other politicians of all philosophies when I feel the situation warrants it. I am at least consistant.
Are you telling me that you've never made fun of Dan Quayle? Maybe you haven't, I don't know, but I see a bunch of Democrats complaining about how Al Gore is being unfairly made fun of after ruthelessly making fun of Dan Quayle for years. Lighten up, politicians are _supposed_ to be made fun of; what would the late night talk shows do without political humor?
-Eric
If the Moderators believed my post to be off-topic and so lowered its score, that's fine. I don't have a problem with that.
--BUT-- if they're going to lower the score of my good-natured quip, they should also lower the score of all of the racist, sexist, anti-religion, or otherwise bigotted or vulgar posts that make their way on to these comment boards. I've seen posts that didn't have their scores lowered that were FAR WORSE than my little joke. I just was kidding about the VP's faux pas, people have expressed HATRED on this site and not been censored.
-Eric
If the Moderators believed my post to be off-topic and so lowered its score, that's fine. I don't have a problem with that.
>>BUT
-Eric
Everyone knows that Al Gore invented the Internet, but most people don't know that Al Gore invented Fire and the Printing Press, too! He's my hero!
-Eric
...but the ubiquitousness of this sort of sleaze just gets to me sometimes. Sometimes it seems to me like human dignity went out with sideburns and black and white TV's.
-Eric (a disgruntled moralist)
Isn't Jenicam that sleazy site where a bunch of perverts and recluses can fulfill their petty and depraved desires by watching some excentric exhibitionist get dressed in the morning and occasionally have sex? Come on, isn't slashdot a little bit better than that? Between this and some of the recent articles (the on on sexbots comes to mind), and some of the vulgar/racist/sexist AC posts, Slashdot is fastly becoming part of the red light district of the net. Can't we be a little bit better than this?
I probably should post this anonymously, I but think it's time that someone was willing to stand up and say something about this disturbing trend (and I'm too lazy to log out). If this keeps up, I may have to find a different site on the net where I can commune with my fellow geeks.
-Eric
...of course my version was square. A rival inventor stole my idea, tweaked it a little, and made a fortune. And I never get any credit.
-Grog
Can anyone explain to me who that cute girl
with the face paint is? At one point in the
trailer she says something like "this is not
what the people elected me to do". So, she's
the Prez or what? How does an 18-year-old
girl become president of the Republic anyway?
Does anyone know what the deal is?
The trailer confused me, but I still thought it
was soooo cooool.
-Eric
George Carlin says a lot of things, mostly centered around vulgarities and four-lettered words. Some of his stuff would actually be funny if he didn't try to be kewl by using the F word as punctuation. I wouldn't credit him with any great insight about religion, though...
-Eric
I have no idea which side is right, but that was really funny.
-Eric