M51
Choose or be told ?
July 24 2013
Comments
-
RHP User
11 years ago
I agree.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
It makes you a libertarian. The far right and the far left have a few things in common, one of which is they both love to tell the rest of us what to do. The left because they know what's better for us, the right because their God told them what's better for us.There are few justifications for censorship for adults. The only arguments that stack up are related to stopping production that hurts people in the process. As a parent, I would prefer that porn, swearing, violence etc were not freely available to my kids until they are old enough to understand it properly. That never requires blanket restrictions for adults.Saving the children is an excuse to enforce someone else's morality on the rest of us, nothing more.Mr C
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Its pretty off putting when Fetlife removes all groups associated with certain kinks.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
I don't agree with the concept of censorship and like the OP, feel it is the parents responsibility to either shield or expose their children to the perils of the net. But unfortunately, too many parents are foregoing this responsibility and expecting everyone else to raise and educate their children, and then of course blame everyone else when something goes wrong. I definitely don't agree with the government telling me what I can and cannot view online but I do think something needs to be done to filter some of the crap that is online (child porn etc). I do like the idea being discussed in the UK by the British PM. He is proposing an "Opt In" method where basically all porn is blocked at the ISP for everyone but you can opt in to bypass the filters and view as much porn as you want to. At least that will solve the problem for those who don't want to view anything sexual on the net or have the chance of their children seeing something that might scare little Jimmy. I think it is a foregone conclusion that there will be some form of censorship simply because the vocal minority who scream "won't you think of the children" or blame porn for every evil on earth. I just hope those in charge realise that the majority are smart enough to know what they can view, and actually enjoy the experience. Mooka
-
RHP User
11 years ago
The roast has a really funny skit about this very topic. I like how people come up with unenforceable laws and think it will solve problems. While I do not have any children of my own, a number of my friends instill good values in their kids. Hopefully they will be good people once they grow up, irrespective on whether they watch a violent movie or see porn freely available online.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Quoting 'EuropianBliss'Maybe its Already Happening
-
RHP User
11 years ago
I've read and reread your post OP, and would probably say i disagree with parts of it. I do think the Govt has to step in and moderate what is allowed to be seen/heard, there are just too many variables and to not have a governing body to oversee such things would mean an "anything goes" approach to what is shown.Whilst you say that raising a child is the sole responsibility of the parents, again there are too many variables....single parent families, raising children with special needs and or disabilities that may require extra help, children in foster care, children being neglected, abused, if the parents don't look after them, and as you're saying the Govt shouldn't interfere-then what happens to them??? and to say you'd rather your child watch porn than play video games??? really??? I don't even know where to start with THAT one!!!!As a parent am I happy that there is censorship of some type??....yes!
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Your credit card company have already taken moral action. I have a certain porn I like to watch. Which cant be paid by my regular. Im not ashamed of what I watch and fill out the required fields with honesty and submit my cash. For a government to deny me my access is socially incomprehensible.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
far as access :Doesn't it just mean everyone will download the torrents rather than streaming? (shrugs) orhaving to tell my ISP that I want to opt it is no different to telling Foxtel what channels I want to watch= People who want access will always get access.As far as censorship/protection/responsibility:I have kids that have always had (a) every device capable of accessing the internet and (b)always had access to the internet via a networked house. As they were growing up, there was no way I was able to monitor everything they were searching for or stumbling across. We have all Googled something and accidentally been taken to porn at some point and God knows it happened to my kids. I found family filters more of a pain than a help and there are plenty of rooms that the kids could hide out in without me knowing where they were. My point being, whilst it "may" have been my responsibility to protect what to kids accessed - realistically no matter how diligent I was, I couldn't do it successfully. Therefore (if I had my time over again) I would welcome the filter knowing that Porn was one area I didn't have to be concerned with....until they find my stash of course.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Controlled media Miss Poppens. You pay when you watch Foxtel. Not something Im interested in. So I dont buy their product.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Found our porn videos and watched them before the Internet existed! Obviously we didn't hide them well enough for sure, but if they want to view they will find a way. Does not mean I agree though.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
No Democratic Government has the right to sensor anything for me to "protect me"I in my opinion think that we are heading much more towards a state of stranglehold for everything, then a free thinking society.Is a Democratic society " free" more free then a communistic society or is it all smokescreen?Look at the media. In a democratic state no media should be monopolized , and what is happening? Its in the hand of a few which sensor everything.The government has to leave their dirty hands of my freedom to get information and watch what ever I feel fit to watch.We are even censored what will be shown in the cinemas. Me as the people have no say in it.....thats not freedom anymore, thats a communistic approach.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Quoting 'ding26' I've read and reread your post OP, and would probably say i disagree with parts of it. I do think the Govt has to step in and moderate what is allowed to be seen/heard, there are just too many variables and to not have a governing body to oversee such things would mean an "anything goes" approach to what is shown.Whilst you say that raising a child is the sole responsibility of the parents, again there are too many variables....single parent families, raising children with special needs and or disabilities that may require extra help, children in foster care, children being neglected, abused, if the parents don't look after them, and as you're saying the Govt shouldn't interfere-then what happens to them??? and to say you'd rather your child watch porn than play video games??? really??? I don't even know where to start with THAT one!!!!As a parent am I happy that there is censorship of some type??....yes! It's a little mischievous to condense and misquote for dramatic effect ?? The clear tone of my quote was that unfettered violence is ubiquitous on free to air TV, Movies and Video games while great effort and resource is being directed at censoring sexual content. Sex is a natural element of every living creatures existence ... gratuitous violence for entertainment is a purely human construct.This fear of accepting full responsibility for yourself and your dependents bewilders me ... abdicating authority over yourself to a faceless bureaucracy amounts to voluntary subjugation .. I consider myself a citizen not a subject to be ruled.No one is arguing that the government shouldn't provide support to those who ask for it where it can ... there is a big difference between providing support on request and forcing it on everyone - regardless of their wishes.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Quoting 'MissPoppins' far as access :Doesn't it just mean everyone will download the torrents rather than streaming? (shrugs) orhaving to tell my ISP that I want to opt it is no different to telling Foxtel what channels I want to watch= People who want access will always get access.As far as censorship/protection/responsibility:I have kids that have always had (a) every device capable of accessing the internet and (b)always had access to the internet via a networked house. As they were growing up, there was no way I was able to monitor everything they were searching for or stumbling across. We have all Googled something and accidentally been taken to porn at some point and God knows it happened to my kids. I found family filters more of a pain than a help and there are plenty of rooms that the kids could hide out in without me knowing where they were. My point being, whilst it "may" have been my responsibility to protect what to kids accessed - realistically no matter how diligent I was, I couldn't do it successfully. Therefore (if I had my time over again) I would welcome the filter knowing that Porn was one area I didn't have to be concerned with....until they find my stash of course. Why should I / We have to use torrents, VPN's and Proxy Servers etc ... it should be the other way around? You can purchase many different VPN based internet services that offer filters of varying kinds if you decide you want to - this has no effect on anyone else and is the proper solution.All you really needed was an IT professional - not an authoritarian governmental intrusion into every single persons life.The main point here is their agenda is to make it mandatory and completely at their discretion .. that failed so now it is "opt out" .. the whole time the proper approach was an "opt in" option which has effectively always been available anyway ?
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Quoting 'Litonya' No Democratic Government has the right to sensor anything for me to "protect me"I in my opinion think that we are heading much more towards a state of stranglehold for everything, then a free thinking society.Is a Democratic society " free" more free then a communistic society or is it all smokescreen?Look at the media. In a democratic state no media should be monopolized , and what is happening? Its in the hand of a few which sensor everything.The government has to leave their dirty hands of my freedom to get information and watch what ever I feel fit to watch.We are even censored what will be shown in the cinemas. Me as the people have no say in it.....thats not freedom anymore, thats a communistic approach. Democracy is two wolves and lamb voting on what's for dinner.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
we're with you on this. So sick of governments and do gooders trying to tell us how to live OUR lives! If we all go blind then so be it, lol.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
agree with chickcara, what bothers me is the "thin end of the wedge" idea, they start with porn and then expand from there, no thank you.I have house wireless but the kids mac is in the main lounge area not in there rooms, and to date I have found the mac filter pretty damn good.I believe it's the parents responsibility and the education system, our local primary school has done some brilliant work in educating the kids in not only the hazards but in exercising discernment over the information they take in, further, they have run some excellent parent nights regarding net safety and supervision in the home.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Quoting 'slm114' we're with you on this. So sick of governments and do gooders trying to tell us how to live OUR lives! If we all go blind then so be it, lol. they have a known effect on your freedom appreciation capabilities ;-)
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Quoting 'Copernikiss' Quoting 'ding26' I've read and reread your post OP, and would probably say i disagree with parts of it. I do think the Govt has to step in and moderate what is allowed to be seen/heard, there are just too many variables and to not have a governing body to oversee such things would mean an "anything goes" approach to what is shown.Whilst you say that raising a child is the sole responsibility of the parents, again there are too many variables....single parent families, raising children with special needs and or disabilities that may require extra help, children in foster care, children being neglected, abused, if the parents don't look after them, and as you're saying the Govt shouldn't interfere-then what happens to them??? and to say you'd rather your child watch porn than play video games??? really??? I don't even know where to start with THAT one!!!!As a parent am I happy that there is censorship of some type??....yes! It's a little mischievous to condense and misquote for dramatic effect ?? The clear tone of my quote was that unfettered violence is ubiquitous on free to air TV, Movies and Video games while great effort and resource is being directed at censoring sexual content. Sex is a natural element of every living creatures existence ... gratuitous violence for entertainment is a purely human construct.This fear of accepting full responsibility for yourself and your dependents bewilders me ... abdicating authority over yourself to a faceless bureaucracy amounts to voluntary subjugation .. I consider myself a citizen not a subject to be ruled.No one is arguing that the government shouldn't provide support to those who ask for it where it can ... there is a big difference between providing support on request and forcing it on everyone - regardless of their wishes. Obedience is Suicide.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
There are some things where there needs to be a filter, but more socially than anywhere else. I will support everyone's right to not only have an opinion but to voice it as well. As long as it is not using violence to get the message out, or inciting violence against a person, people generally or classes of people. For me that is the limit.As for the parenting part, absolutely we have to take responsibility for the values we teach our children and what we expose them to. It should not be for the government to institute wholesale censorship to protect our vulnerable children, it should be us as a society taking some personal responsibility.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Quoting 'Copernikiss' Quoting 'ding26' I've read and reread your post OP, and would probably say i disagree with parts of it. I do think the Govt has to step in and moderate what is allowed to be seen/heard, there are just too many variables and to not have a governing body to oversee such things would mean an "anything goes" approach to what is shown.Whilst you say that raising a child is the sole responsibility of the parents, again there are too many variables....single parent families, raising children with special needs and or disabilities that may require extra help, children in foster care, children being neglected, abused, if the parents don't look after them, and as you're saying the Govt shouldn't interfere-then what happens to them??? and to say you'd rather your child watch porn than play video games??? really??? I don't even know where to start with THAT one!!!!As a parent am I happy that there is censorship of some type??....yes! It's a little mischievous to condense and misquote for dramatic effect ?? The clear tone of my quote was that unfettered violence is ubiquitous on free to air TV, Movies and Video games while great effort and resource is being directed at censoring sexual content. Sex is a natural element of every living creatures existence ... gratuitous violence for entertainment is a purely human construct.This fear of accepting full responsibility for yourself and your dependents bewilders me ... abdicating authority over yourself to a faceless bureaucracy amounts to voluntary subjugation .. I consider myself a citizen not a subject to be ruled.No one is arguing that the government shouldn't provide support to those who ask for it where it can ... there is a big difference between providing support on request and forcing it on everyone - regardless of their wishes. lol "dramatic effect'???? was attempting nothing of the sort.. ... I too cannot understand those who do not accept responsibility for themselves and their children, don't quite know where that came from....whilst i do my best to have some control over what my children view, i am not naive to think that they cant resource it if they tried hard enough! Not sure if you have children, and what you consider suitable for them to watch, don't really care, but i still think for the good of the Nation as a whole, taking into consideration those whose parents who aren't as diligent as they should be, there should be some restrictions in place.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Censorship should begin at home, and end there
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Quoting 'ding26' lol "dramatic effect'???? was attempting nothing of the sort.. ... I too cannot understand those who do not accept responsibility for themselves and their children, don't quite know where that came from....whilst i do my best to have some control over what my children view, i am not naive to think that they cant resource it if they tried hard enough! Not sure if you have children, and what you consider suitable for them to watch, don't really care, but i still think for the good of the Nation as a whole, taking into consideration those whose parents who aren't as diligent as they should be, there should be some restrictions in place. Ding.. I was referring to the point you have repeated above .. "taking into consideration those whose parents who aren't as diligent as they should be, there should be some restrictions in place."Who decides if you are diligent or worthy of deciding for yourself or raising your children properly ? I don't care to forfeit ANY of my independence because someone else is deemed to require supervision and restriction. You will find many and varying views on what people think should be restricted (for the good of everyone else) .. there will never be any genuine consensus ... and even if there is it won't be 100%The point is really that the only solution that is fair, reasonable and works for everybody (I.e. best for the Nation as a whole) is that each person / family make their own decisions and stop trying to enforce their views / conditions on others.No-one here is advocating complete free reign for children .. it is a grey area that is best monitored and enforced by the respective parents.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Similar things can be said regarding sale of alcohol or gambling. There are people who will abuse it due to lack of self control. I guess the same thing with regards to online pornography. It is a tough choice really, good intentions leading to a lot of unexpected consequences. Unfortunately, moderation seems to be a bad word in this age of mass consumption.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Quoting 'zu7bcv' Similar things can be said regarding sale of alcohol or gambling. There are people who will abuse it due to lack of self control. I guess the same thing with regards to online pornography. It is a tough choice really, good intentions leading to a lot of unexpected consequences. Unfortunately, moderation seems to be a bad word in this age of mass consumption. and they absolutely should be in a society where freedom and individual choice are valued. Anything you want to do that has no direct negative impact on others should remain a personal choice. As an example, people who don't use drugs have made a personal choice - they choose not to participate and they would not instantly become drug users / addicts if the practice were decriminalized .. this applies to everything IMV.Ultimately we are aiming for the theoretical utopia where each individual chooses to do the right thing .. not a "prison farm" where the minute the guards turn their back all hell breaks loose because the only reason people are behaving nicely is out of fear of the "authorities"
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Let me take two of the OPs statements.First statement"The raising of and responsibility for children belongs with parents not the state"Well, does this mean that events such as the recent tragic events in NSW where very young children had been allowed starve to death, been beaten to death and the body burnt, and others are fine, because they are an expression of parental rights? Of course not, and the OP was not suggesting that they are. Nor, I suspect, was the OP suggesting that attendance at schools should not be compulsory, and that there should be a syllabus for all students in the state, subject of course to some flexibility. And nor was the OP suggesting that parents should dictate whether Macbeth or Arms and the Man should be the set play for the year.I could multiply examples, but the point is that there are all sorts of reasons for having state control over and, if necessary, intevention into families. The experience with DOCs in NSW seems to have been that they have neglected warning signs on too many occasions, not been overly interventionist.Don't get me wrong on this point; our son went to a primary school with no uniforms, teachers by first names, a student assembly which met and voted on rules, and wonderful loving libertarian teachers who did not regard it as wrong for the kids to climb up on the roof. There are always risks, and we have to learn how to manage risk.But my point is that sweeping statements do not usually increase our knowledge.Second statement: "Our individual freedom to choose and access to uncensored / filtered information is not an others to give away or the states to take."This looks fine if all we are talking about is the old chestnut of pornography, and most people would agree, I suspect, that except for horrors like child pornography and snuff movies there should be free access to all adults to view what they like. And the 'all adults' thing is open to some fine tuning; inevitably children will see some porn along the way, and it is up to parents to explain to the child how to think about that material.But the argument about open access to anything, which (of course) transmutes into phrases like 'nanny state', falls dead flat dead once you consider the types of communication that should be regulated. When you go into Coles to buy some lime cordial, do you carry a spectrosopic super duper analysing ray to see how much sugar is in the cordial, or do you want the vendors and suppliers to be compelled to observe rules about accurate labelling? If you have a child who suffers from severe and possibly deadly reactions to things like peanuts, do you want to rely on your esp to decide if there are nuts in the cake in the shop, or should there be a disclosure requirement? Do you want companies to issue wildly misleading statements about gold strikes or new inventions just to drive the share price up, with no remedy? It is easy to make blanket statements. Less easy to back them up.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Never again will I try a coloured font for contrast. It leaked all over the second part of my post. Hell.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Quoting 'Copernikiss' As an example, people who don't use drugs have made a personal choice - they choose not to participate and they would not instantly become drug users / addicts if the practice were decriminalized .. this applies to everything IMV.Ultimately we are aiming for the theoretical utopia where each individual chooses to do the right thing .. not a "prison farm" where the minute the guards turn their back all hell breaks loose because the only reason people are behaving nicely is out of fear of the "authorities"People seem to forget that it is supposed to be punish and rehabilitation. They remember the punish part but don't do enough about rehabilitation. The joke is, you put a small time crook in prison and he comes out a professional crook. The point with censorship is it can be easily abused. They start out with one thing and then doing other things, all for protecting the children or citizens. John Locke said that governments are required to maintain law and order but should not press into people's personal lives. Once they start doing that, they become tyrants. King of the road - there was an interesting article in theconversation yesterday about how manufacturers change food ingredients to reduce costs. I think Australia has a pretty good food labeling system, might not be easy to read at times but it is all there. It could be better but companies are resistant. Worth a read if you have the time.Should drugs be decriminalised? I guess it should be regulated to make sure the current users do not harm themselves and others. The problem with something like drugs - be it natural, synthetic, tobacco or alcohol, is that it is habit forming. Some people with low dopomine levels in their brains will require those substances to function. I know a lot of smokers and they know it is bad for them and what the effects are. They just can't stop. You can say they made the choice to start but when they make the choice to stop, their body doesn't allow them to stop. However, making it difficult to start would help people not to get into the habit. That was why I agreed with the government's alcopop tax. The news reported that people were mixing drinks on their own but no one mentioned that the purchase of alcopops reduced drastically for the young teen group - those who are likely to try alcohol for the first time through alcopops. The same thing with plain packaging, the youngsters who would start smoking get turned off by the packaging and never start.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
There are some interventions that can be rationally justified, and some that cannot.Regulation of the products we buy, including requirements for truthful labelling and advertising, make sense on from a harm minimisation point of view. Regulations of dangerous activities like skydiving minimise risk while still allowing us to do stupid things like jump out of planes. Speed limits and drink driving laws protect us from idiots in dangerous machines.There is an obvious case to ban child pornography due to the harm caused to the victims (who are underage and without a choice). Unfortunately banning it does not make it go away completely.These things all make sense, and are enforceable because there is widespread agreement and effective methods of control.On the other hand, criminalisation instead of regulation of drugs and prostitution are great examples where the state causes significant harm enforcing morality based laws. There is no rational basis for banning rather than regulating, and the laws are unenforceable.Similarly, there is no rational argument for banning porn made by consenting adults for consenting adults. Some have tried by linking porn to sexual violence, but there simply is no evidence to support it. Yes it should be restricted from children where possible, but that does not require blanket bans.Not only is a ban impossible to justify based on any rational grounds, just like the moral bans on some drugs, it simply doesn't work.It's a wonderful thing the human spirit. People don't like being told what to do with their own bodies and minds, and any State who tries is fighting a losing battle.Mr C
-
RHP User
11 years ago
It is great to see many people appear to agree with my general sentiments ... It would have been comforting to see some agreement from the younger generation who represent the future? The fact that you can ask 100 people at a party and get near unanimous agreement YET translated through our so called "Democratic" system we get the opposite - tells you that either the system is not democratic at all or that generally speaking people will say (and do) anything to conform to those around them ... sad state of affairs either way.Kingoftheroad ... for clarification and honesty I have to say that I do not think there should be ANY exceptions when we are talking about the legislation and enforcement of a law which violates the principle of fee choice for individuals.Provide schools and set a moderate curriculum = good, encourage people via education and advertising = good, Remove entitlement to government benefits if they choose not to participate = "iffy but if taxes were paid voluntarily as they were originally then perfectly OK " however imprisoning or punishing someone who chooses to go their own way and home school for instance is not OK IMO. The crossing of the line and guaranteed "creep" is what got us where we are today.It is difficult for many people to understand the power they have individually because they have been dependent on the state their whole lives in one way or another. If people all responded individually by withdrawing their custom from a business that didn't operate the way they wanted it to the business would go broke and as a result business would actually self regulate - in the current environment people say "why doesn't the government force XYZ supermarket to do ABC ... and then they get in the car and go straight to XYZ and support them financially which reinforces their behaviour.You can't save everyone all the time and to do so would circumnavigate the evolutionary forces (both genetic and social) that we rely on to improve the species as a whole over time. The biggest issue we have at the moment is an ever increasing population that is already beyond the sustainable level ... bad dies off while good prospers is what we want and what we need ... so why do we fight it so ?The most prosperous periods of our history have been when Libertarian principles were held sacred .. the darkest days were all at the hand of governments and other large institutions like the church.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
The main issue with schools, any where around the world, is they teach people to be workers and to succeed in life. They do not teach students to be good people. I don't mean religious good but people who do what they know to be the decent thing. Yes, you can take a horse to water but can't make them drink it. We say that often but perhaps we should sometimes think whether the horse knows something we don't, like say the water is actually poisoned. I read an interesting article about rule of law vs rule by law. I think a lot of governments come up with rules to make it easier for them to govern rather than ensure people are protected, without fear or favour.Rule by law is very different, despite some superficial similarities. Rule by law is prudential: one rules by law (properly speaking) not because the law is higher than oneself but because it is convenient to do so and inconvenient not to do so. In rule of law, the law is something the government serves; in rule by law, the government uses law as the most convenient way to govern.Rule by law can be either ad hoc (which is genuine despotism) or principled. Principled rule by law theory shares with rule of law theory the arguments that a stable, generally recognized law is needed in order to maintain generality, impersonality, and effectiveness of government. I think a lot of people prefer to be dealt with as adults rather than children. The full weight of the law is useful at times but use it too often and you get a resentful public. The problem is basically a small group of rotten apples who rort the system. There will always be such people and they cause the laws to be harsher and impacts everybody.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
If all porn were censored, what would the internet be used for???
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Quoting 'jensman1903' If all porn were censored, what would the internet be used for??? We can all switch to online strip poker. Well, at least until they have a war on online gambling. The Internet is really really greatFor pornI've got a fast connection, so I don't have to waitFor pornBut, there's always some new siteFor pornI browse all day and nightFor pornIt's like I'm surfing at the speed of lightFor pornTrekkie!The Internet is for pornTrekkie!The Internet is for pornWhat are you doing?Why you think the net was born?Porn, porn, porn!-- Lyrics from "The Internet is for Porn" by Avenue Q
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Apologies Copernikiss, I couldn't help myself.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Quoting 'jensman1903' If all porn were censored, what would the internet be used for??? It's a little known fact that Gutenberg only invented the printing press so he could share erotic stories with the masses.Niepce and Daguerre invented photography so they could share some pics of their hot wives.Alexander Graham Bell was frustrated by a long distance relationship, so he invented phone sex.Tim Berners-Lee may have invented the internet, but it was Marc Andreesson that made it accessible by creating the first web browser - because porn was much better with text and pictures.Porn has driven every major communication innovation since dirty rock paintings. We'd still be in the caves without it!
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Quoting 'chickcara' Quoting 'jensman1903' If all porn were censored, what would the internet be used for??? It's a little known fact that Gutenberg only invented the printing press so he could share erotic stories with the masses.Niepce and Daguerre invented photography so they could share some pics of their hot wives.Alexander Graham Bell was frustrated by a long distance relationship, so he invented phone sex.Tim Berners-Lee may have invented the internet, but it was Marc Andreesson that made it accessible by creating the first web browser - because porn was much better with text and pictures.Porn has driven every major communication innovation since dirty rock paintings. We'd still be in the caves without it! If you make a strong enough case for that they'll turn the internet off "In the name of the children" and to protect us from ourselves.necessity is indeed the mother of all invention :)
-
RHP User
11 years ago
They might talk about doing all sorts of things but as long as money can be made, and a lot of it too, any action taken will be around the edges. I think all of us here knows that the filters will not be effective. Guess what, most probably the children will be the first ones to figure out how to circumvent them. For some reason, people seem to underestimate children. Chickara you made a good point. A fun yet informative read would be "Sex, Bombs and Burgers: How War, Pornography and Fast Food Have Shaped Modern Technology" by Peter Nowak. For example, it seems the automated paying systems through the phone was first used for people paying for phone sex. Punch in your credit card number, expiry date, etc and you can listen to phone sex. Once it was shown to work and perfected by the porn industry, other businesses started to use it.
-
RHP User
11 years ago
Quoting 'zu7bcv' Apologies Copernikiss, I couldn't help myself. The day we can't laugh at it anymore is the day we will finally be compelled to draw our swords ... bit like an orgasm in some sense ... the longer it takes to get there the better it usually is :P
-
madotara69
11 years ago
Porn has overthrown production in Hollywood, Billy Ray Cyrus must have an Achy Breaky Heart, as Miley is being gobbled up. Linda Lovelace was a freak of nature and John Holmes was the biggest looser for the cause. Mac is an identity, may he rest in peace.If you use the internet, you are using the porn industry.The person taking the picture has copy write, not the person in the picture.You cannot in any law, stop something being published on the internet if it already has been."If you can't trust your government Who can you trust" (Yahoo Serious as Young Einstein).What sensory body has enough power to control something with the most power?Cytheria is so nice for the education she has documented.Best to develop a healthy and honest relationship with the kids, it is better that they feel comfortable to speak openly along the path with growing into adulthood and on.Sex education was established at least twenty five years ago in the high schools.It is a reality, Quote; "Having it and not needing it, over needing it and not having it". (?)If we all told the government we wanted bubble gum they would give us, Quote; "bubble wrap" (Miss Freya from RHP)Ned Kelly was Ned KellyMado
Boards
-
Hot Topics
Topics: 14361 Comments: 120840
-
Girls Ask
Topics: 1355 Comments: 14709
-
Guys Ask
Topics: 2425 Comments: 17234
-
Couples' Corner
Topics: 2405 Comments: 12737
-
Swingers Lifestyle
Topics: 794 Comments: 5154
-
Fetish & Fantasy
Topics: 1148 Comments: 6957
-
Hot Travel
Topics: 622 Comments: 2145
-
LGBT
Topics: 156 Comments: 1150
Forum help
-
Something related with that
-
Going somewhere & want to hook up?
-
Hasn't that topic been posted before?
RHP's popular dating tool
-
Where the heck did that topic go?
Discover what RHP is doing offline
-
RHP member's RL secrets
reply
like
Share