(July 22, 2013 at 6:38 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Ok I'll put my head in the mincer and play devils advocate.
I have young kids, 10 (F) and 12 (M)
The ban talk, I think, is largely a result of a high profile case in my neighbourhood where a young girl was abducted and murdered and the guy was found to have porno of kids on his PC, which was said to have motivated him to go out that day and satisfy his need.
There's pressure on politicians to do something. I think an opt out for parents would be better.
I feel that porn is way too accessible on the web. I work in IT, and I know what a huge problem it's been over the past 10 years. It's a lot better now than it used to be. Still, kids on the web get confronted with the vilest garbage imaginable, are de-sensitised to that shit, and made to feel by peer pressure that this depravity is normal.
Yeah you should control kids. In an ideal world, parents would care, and schools would be wealthy enough to have enough teachers to control kids (I have worked in a school IT situation). Even with caring parents, general ignorance prevails and those little brats get as much saturation as anyone else.
I could go into detail on all of that, but suffice to say, I think some sort of control is necessary, and healthy. I'm a great believer in liberty, but liberty to expose your kids to harm isn't desirable to any reasonable person.
Could you exactly define "vile" in this context?
My ignore list
"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence."
-- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103).
"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence."
-- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103).
