This isn't limited to pr0n. I wouldn't want a six-year old to see Saving Private Ryan, either. Kids should etain some measure of innocence during their formative years.
How old are you? I'm guessing early teens. Do you have kids? I'm guessing no. Most parents will understand this point instinctively: innocence lost is a harm in and of itself. I don't think that most kids will be turned into promiscuous sociopaths by seeing sex and violence on television, but they do lose a measure of innocence when they are exposed to such material before they are emotionally mature enough to handle it, and that loss is reason enough for a parent to restrict what his or her child sees.
Reading the comments hre on the V-chip. And i find this one about a parent how is bashing slash dot readers saying we are young and don't know anything. Will granted I am 20 years old, and don't have children of my own. So my opinion will not mean much to this person. But then maby I should use the opinion of several parents I know including my own. My parents and several other parents thinkk the V-chip is for parents who are "lazzey". My parents in pitular beleave there is no sence trying t hide your kids from violence, sex and all that other stough out thee. But tht you should teach your kids what is right and wrong. So to who ever wrote the "lazy parents everywhere " (Score:5, Insightful), i think its greatt hat you want to teach your kids what is rigth and wrong, but realize that a v chip is a waste of time. and again i state "V chip is for lazy parents" my 2 cents plus 2 more
Do your parents also "beleave" in teaching proper grammar and spelling?
However, as he gets older and more independent, he'll have access to the TV while I'm still at work, while mom's making dinner or doing the laundry, while mom's out but dad's cutting the grass, whatever.
Why is Dad cutting the grass when there's an able-bodied teen in the house? Tell Junior to get off his can and start up the mower!
I know I shouldn't try to explain common-sense propositions to those who lack common sense, but here goes: Kids are, virtually by definition, immature. Period. Anyone who tells you otherwise hasn't spent an appreciable amount of his adult life around kids (or, of course, is a kid himself).
(1) I can't believe I'd actually have to explain such a thing. A 9-year old isn't mature enough to deal with explicit sex, because 9-year olds are by and large immature. Most people grasp this kind of thing intuitively.
(2) Surgery at 9 may be worse than goatse.cx at 41, but I guarantee that goatse.cx is worse if you hold the age constant.
I agree, also: I have difficulty envisioning a child falling on hardcore porn by mistake as negative to the child's development, unless the parent, at a loss or righteous, gets emotional and leaves the child with the impression that they caused the adults discomfort.
I'm sorry, but I hardly think that's true. Kids below a certain age/maturity level should NOT be viewing pornographic materials. They just aren't equipped to deal with it.
I was shocked at 9 years old when i fell on open heart surgery, your intellectual motor generates emotional feedback, not always a pleasant experience.
Ahem...have you actually seen goatse.cx? I've seen brain surgery on cable before...I don't think you can compare the two.
The only "not appropriate" is teaching beyond the childs abilities to understand, if a child is exposed to information that he cannot assimilate then it is ignored, if he is exposed to information he cannot assimilate and is dowsed in fear, prejudice, badness etc etc he will hold a general picture of the unassimilated info surrounded by emotional pain/curiosity/guilt etc etc
Seeing naked people doing it is never inappropriate at any age, possibly boring but not wrong; its the authority figures emotional state in relation to "the situation at hand" that can cause structural damage later in the childs growing up.
Spoken like someone with no children (or someone who is still a child himself).
I have a difficult time envisioning a scenario where a parent who gives a damn about his kid would find allowing a 9-year old to watch hard-core porn to be a positive for his or her child's development.
Hell, I have a difficult time envisioning any age where seeing goatse.cx could be construed as healthy. I'm 27, and I'm still emotionally scarred from that hidden link...
SAIL magazine does this every issue. The cover of the newsstand edition is covered with text describing that month's comments, but the cover of the subscriber edition only contains the magazine logo.
Sure! To raise your kids, hide the part of reality you don't think is appropriate for them and it will magically go away. They will grow in a world where no bad things exist and everything will be for the better. Don't you think about educating them about the facts of life and how everything isn't always the way it should be and that they have to learn to deal with those things. It's useless. Kids are too stupid to understand.
After that, people wonder why teens are lost and try to escape reality...
That is ridiculous. What is appropriate for a 21-year old may not be appropriate for a 14-year old, what is appropriate for a 14-year old may not be appropriate for a 9-year old, and what is appropriate for a 9-year old may not be appropriate for a 5-year old. Most people understand this intuitively. Good parents do censor materials based on their child's age and maturity.
What's wrong with NAMBLA? Just because people are gay doesn't mean they give up their rights to be treated like a human being...
Ahem...NAMBLA is the North American Man-Boy Love Association. Y'know, they were created to defend pedophilia as a lifestyle.
I don't have any problem with gays. If I have to explain to you the difference between consenting adult homosexuals engaging in a sexual act and a pedophile molesting a child, then your moral compass is waaaaaaaaaaay off.
I did some security work on a project deployed at the Whitehouse during the days when they still counted the votes in elections. First thing that Clinton did was to put out every press release on the Internet - this was back in 1992. First thing the Bush crew did was to shut the server down. They want to control the flow of information.
What are you talking about? Press releases and press briefings are still available at the White House site; see this link.
As for Thomas, his name should be dragged through the mud. Everything he's done since then has proved that he's nowhere near the calibre required of a supreme court justice. The man never asks a question and never writes an opinion. He always votes with Scalia. Basically, his job is to be a proxy vote for Scalia. He's a lightweight. And he's also one of Bush's often-stated models of what a supreme court justice should be.
Actually, Thomas frequently writes opinions; anyone who follows Supreme Court jurisprudence would know that. It is true that he rarely asks questions during oral arguments, but that hardly matters: the real "meat" of appellate advocacy is in the written briefs submitted by both sides. Oral argument is mostly for show.
I would like to address this "Scalia proxy" issue, because people say it all the time and it simply isn't true. Granted, if you take a "scorecard" view of Supreme Court opinions, Scalia and Thomas are almost always on the same side of the issue. But if you take the time to read their opinions, you'll find that the reasoning they use to reach their conclusions are quite different. In other words, Thomas often concurs with Scalia's result, but not with his reasoning. That is hardly the mark of an intellectual lightweight.
The following has my vote for shortest time to an internal contradiction in a Slashdot post:
Clarence Thomas should have been dragged through the mud. He is the stupidest Supreme Court justice to serve in our lifetimes. His behavior around women is very germane to whether he is fit to judge on such "women's" issues as sexual harassment, abortion, etc. Whether Clinton slept around [READ: HIS "BEHAVIOR AROUND WOMEN"] has nothing to do with his fitness for duty as President.
So which is it? Is "behavior around women" an important characteristic for those holding high office, or isn't it?
Not to mention that tasteless pubic hair jokes are, to most people, less worrisome than actual requests for sexual acts.
Slashdot Mirror
How old are you? I'm guessing early teens. Do you have kids? I'm guessing no. Most parents will understand this point instinctively: innocence lost is a harm in and of itself. I don't think that most kids will be turned into promiscuous sociopaths by seeing sex and violence on television, but they do lose a measure of innocence when they are exposed to such material before they are emotionally mature enough to handle it, and that loss is reason enough for a parent to restrict what his or her child sees.
Do your parents also "beleave" in teaching proper grammar and spelling?
Why is Dad cutting the grass when there's an able-bodied teen in the house? Tell Junior to get off his can and start up the mower!
I know I shouldn't try to explain common-sense propositions to those who lack common sense, but here goes: Kids are, virtually by definition, immature. Period. Anyone who tells you otherwise hasn't spent an appreciable amount of his adult life around kids (or, of course, is a kid himself).
(2) Surgery at 9 may be worse than goatse.cx at 41, but I guarantee that goatse.cx is worse if you hold the age constant.
I'm sorry, but I hardly think that's true. Kids below a certain age/maturity level should NOT be viewing pornographic materials. They just aren't equipped to deal with it.
I was shocked at 9 years old when i fell on open heart surgery, your intellectual motor generates emotional feedback, not always a pleasant experience.
Ahem...have you actually seen goatse.cx? I've seen brain surgery on cable before...I don't think you can compare the two.
Seeing naked people doing it is never inappropriate at any age, possibly boring but not wrong; its the authority figures emotional state in relation to "the situation at hand" that can cause structural damage later in the childs growing up.
Spoken like someone with no children (or someone who is still a child himself).
I have a difficult time envisioning a scenario where a parent who gives a damn about his kid would find allowing a 9-year old to watch hard-core porn to be a positive for his or her child's development.
Hell, I have a difficult time envisioning any age where seeing goatse.cx could be construed as healthy. I'm 27, and I'm still emotionally scarred from that hidden link...
SAIL magazine does this every issue. The cover of the newsstand edition is covered with text describing that month's comments, but the cover of the subscriber edition only contains the magazine logo.
After that, people wonder why teens are lost and try to escape reality...
That is ridiculous. What is appropriate for a 21-year old may not be appropriate for a 14-year old, what is appropriate for a 14-year old may not be appropriate for a 9-year old, and what is appropriate for a 9-year old may not be appropriate for a 5-year old. Most people understand this intuitively. Good parents do censor materials based on their child's age and maturity.
Ahem...NAMBLA is the North American Man-Boy Love Association. Y'know, they were created to defend pedophilia as a lifestyle.
I don't have any problem with gays. If I have to explain to you the difference between consenting adult homosexuals engaging in a sexual act and a pedophile molesting a child, then your moral compass is waaaaaaaaaaay off.
What are you talking about? Press releases and press briefings are still available at the White House site; see this link.
Actually, Thomas frequently writes opinions; anyone who follows Supreme Court jurisprudence would know that. It is true that he rarely asks questions during oral arguments, but that hardly matters: the real "meat" of appellate advocacy is in the written briefs submitted by both sides. Oral argument is mostly for show.
I would like to address this "Scalia proxy" issue, because people say it all the time and it simply isn't true. Granted, if you take a "scorecard" view of Supreme Court opinions, Scalia and Thomas are almost always on the same side of the issue. But if you take the time to read their opinions, you'll find that the reasoning they use to reach their conclusions are quite different. In other words, Thomas often concurs with Scalia's result, but not with his reasoning. That is hardly the mark of an intellectual lightweight.
So which is it? Is "behavior around women" an important characteristic for those holding high office, or isn't it?
Not to mention that tasteless pubic hair jokes are, to most people, less worrisome than actual requests for sexual acts.
Actually, the U.S. Supreme Court recently decided to hear a case on that very issue.
l e/0,2669,SAV-0101230208,FF.html
See
http://chicagotribune.com/news/printedition/artic
(Delete the space in "article" in the link above...I can't seem to remove it).