Abortion

[TheLeviathan]

 

Don't let 7 year olds use the Internet? Don't let them do web searches?

 

I don't know if you're being serious or not, kids need this kind of exposure to the internet at those ages.  

 

The problem is that porn sites and soft porn sites are overreaching for clicks.  It'd be akin to 20 years ago having Hustler deliberately inserting a few of its pages into a Highlight magazine in every dentist office.  The solution isn't to have kids stop going to the dentist.

[DaveW]

I don't know if you're being serious or not, kids need this kind of exposure to the internet at those ages.

 

The problem is that porn sites and soft porn sites are overreaching for clicks. It'd be akin to 20 years ago having Hustler deliberately inserting a few of its pages into a Highlight magazine in every dentist office. The solution isn't to have kids stop going to the dentist.

then monitor their internet activity or don't even let them use a web search. If they want to "look something up" they can have an adult do it for them.

[Craig Arko]

I suppose you could force them to be born, but then put out their eyes and ears to eliminate the possibility of being exposed to what the world is actually like.

 

Alternatively, you could quit trying to legislate morality.

[twinsnorth49]

 

I suppose you could force them to be born, but then put out their eyes and ears to eliminate the possibility of being exposed to what the world is actually like.

Alternatively, you could quit trying to legislate morality.

Anarchy!! That's it!

[Craig Arko]

Anarchy!! That's it!

I feel badly that's the only outcome you see. Not really surprised, just badly.

[TheLeviathan]

then monitor their internet activity or don't even let them use a web search. If they want to "look something up" they can have an adult do it for them.

I love solutions that say "let's throw our hands in the air" and abdicate our duty to do right by other people. We have sites and companies deliberately making themselves more accessible to all with only the barest attempt to show responsibility and the solution is to ban the internet to kids?

 

We wouldn't let two people start having sex in a park, but when it comes to the internet anything goes?

 

We legislate morality all the time, the difference is where people draw the lines. Then some pretend they don't have or want lines. That's the most preposterous stance of all.

[formerly33]

 

Alternatively, you could quit trying to legislate morality.

I hate to jump into this discussion, especially since you're bound to disagree with what I have to say, but for goodness' sake, there's a fine line between legislating morality and protecting young children from internet pornography. It's bad enough that kids can easily find it if they want, but what's abominable is that it comes up in completely unrelated searches. I am an adult, but I still use a moderate content protection for my web browser, and it seems like I run into soft porn on an almost daily basis and it's not all that rare for me to see hard porn. It seems like the more innocent the search, the more likely it's going to come up. I don't like to see it for myself, but I've made the decision to use the internet and I know what's out there, so basically I'm proceeding at my own risks. However, it's a different story when kids are involved. Something has to be done ... I don't know what, but I certainly know that the solution isn't turning your faces the other way any  more than it's to ban kids from using the internet. I find it mildly interesting that you have to be 18 to join a dating website but if you're 5 years old and want to view pornography, so be it.

[twinsnorth49]

 

I feel badly that's the only outcome you see. Not really surprised, just badly.

I feel badly you missed the point, not surprised, just badly.

 

Levi, fortunately did not.

[Craig Arko]

I feel badly you missed the point, not surprised, just badly.

 

Levi, fortunately did not.

Too subtle for me, I guess.

[DaveW]

I love solutions that say "let's throw our hands in the air" and abdicate our duty to do right by other people. We have sites and companies deliberately making themselves more accessible to all with only the barest attempt to show responsibility and the solution is to ban the internet to kids?

 

We wouldn't let two people start having sex in a park, but when it comes to the internet anything goes?

 

We legislate morality all the time, the difference is where people draw the lines. Then some pretend they don't have or want lines. That's the most preposterous stance of all.

90% of this companies are located outside the U.S., and in places like Cyprus where the U.S. Has no jurisdiction etc you aren't going to "fix" them or even have a shot at fixing them to be less "easy to find"

 

It's the reality of the situation Lev, the responsibility has to be on the parents and teachers in this case. Monitor your children's internet activity, it's not difficult. Just block them from every visiting Google.com or any adult site directly, problem solved.

[DaveW]

I hate to jump into this discussion, especially since you're bound to disagree with what I have to say, but for goodness' sake, there's a fine line between legislating morality and protecting young children from internet pornography. It's bad enough that kids can easily find it if they want, but what's abominable is that it comes up in completely unrelated searches. I am an adult, but I still use a moderate content protection for my web browser, and it seems like I run into soft porn on an almost daily basis and it's not all that rare for me to see hard porn. It seems like the more innocent the search, the more likely it's going to come up. I don't like to see it for myself, but I've made the decision to use the internet and I know what's out there, so basically I'm proceeding at my own risks. However, it's a different story when kids are involved. Something has to be done ... I don't know what, but I certainly know that the solution isn't turning your faces the other way any more than it's to ban kids from using the internet. I find it mildly interesting that you have to be 18 to join a dating website but if you're 5 years old and want to view pornography, so be it.

what on earth are you searching for that porn suddenly pops up out of no where? The only adults I have heard say that are people who get caught looking at porn by their spouse, significant other etc "honey! I was trying to look up financial advice and this site popped up out of nowhere!"

[TheLeviathan]

 

90% of this companies are located outside the U.S., and in places like Cyprus where the U.S. Has no jurisdiction etc you aren't going to "fix" them or even have a shot at fixing them to be less "easy to find"

It's the reality of the situation Lev, the responsibility has to be on the parents and teachers in this case. Monitor your children's internet activity, it's not difficult. Just block them from every visiting Google.com or any adult site directly, problem solved.

 

Block them from ever visiting Google? 

 

You're right, that plan is not in any way stupid.  Good talk.

[Bark's Lounge]

I know I am going to regret putting this post out there. I have observed a few slight things that are forcing my hand. Very minor things, not pertaining to anyone's posts.

 

The bottom line of morality is this: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

 

I think the term morality has been high-jacked by the religious communities. It has nothing to do with religion from where I stand.

 

Freedom of Religion is a part of the First Amendment of the United States, I wish "Freedom from Religion" was also a part of that.

 

To me, it is very important for the future of our country to fully embrace secularity.

 

I believe it to be very dangerous to have laws passed that are influenced by the sword of religion. It is very disturbing to see what is happening in the middle east and religious extremism being blended together with fascism. It's a nightmare and a human crisis.

 

Certainly, I do not have the same concern for our country as of yet, for the most part, we seem to be meek, when it comes to militant religious activism for the most part... that is a great thing.

 

I was raised a Christian and left it behind because it did not add up for me. The majority of my family are believers, and I respect their beliefs and I am under the impression they respect mine and I certainly respect all other peoples who believe in a religion as long as it is not a detriment to our society.

 

Being a person of morality is far beyond religion - it is or should be the code of humanity.

 

The world is changing, and it is very important to eliminate religion from the discussion of law making. DIscussing Morals is greatly important... that is all we have.

 

I have great doubts that the selected people we get to choose from when election time comes around have anything to do about morals or our overall well being. It is strictly about $$$ and continuing this grotesque system and using the weaknesses of their constituency to succeed.

[DaveW]

Block them from ever visiting Google?

 

You're right, that plan is not in any way stupid. Good talk.

again we are talking about 7 year olds, aka 1st graders. Why on earth do they need to be surfing the web on their own with zero supervision? None of the parents I know let their kids do that at that age.

Why does a 7 year old need to be surfing the web blindly? Plenty of non internet programs they can use on a computer to learn, or I dunno, maybe they can learn from a book or their teachers, parents, etc directly?

 

 

You could give a sincere answer or just call me stupid and dismiss me again of course. Or you could give some ideas on how the U.S. And company "blocks" these off shore porn companies.

[formerly33]

 

what on earth are you searching for that porn suddenly pops up out of no where? The only adults I have heard say that are people who get caught looking at porn by their spouse, significant other etc "honey! I was trying to look up financial advice and this site popped up out of nowhere!"

It's probably unreasonable for me to take offense at this, but I do. Let me assure you that I have never voluntarily looked at porn, nor have I been caught with it up on my screen and resorted to that dumbass excuse. And, for what it's worth, I do not have a significant other, least of all you, yet it was for you I posted that comment. So unless I'm a moron, you have now heard a legal adult say that.

 

And maybe I exaggerated a bit, but it's still annoying. Not something I like to see ... lot's of people wouldn't mind it, I know, but I do. It's not just searches that pull this up ... it comes up in social media feeds and I'm constantly blocking/unfollowing people because I'm just sick and tired of it. I've cut back from social media because of it. It gets really old ... but it still comes up in searches. Just look up a lesser-known baseball prospect and scroll through the images. It won't take long to hit something ... at least I think so ... I'm pretty sure that that's one of the ways I've seen this stuff. Or look up the word "photography" or something ... I don't know if I've actually made that search, but I can guarantee you that if I did I'd see some porn. There are other things ... all it really takes is to be trying to find a picture for a research project and get beyond the point where everything's related, and voila. And then of course there's the searches where you don't go to images but click on a link, and there it is. Or you click on a link and then see what looks like a really good article on the side, click on that ... and then of course you're locked into the site and can't scroll back or close the window and have to reset your browser. Sheesh.

 

But I am in agreement with you that it's the parents' responsibility to protect their kids. I mean, have children and expect the government to raise them for you? Lol ... but if (who is it - Iran? Iraq? Afghanistan?) can ban YouTube, why can't the US ban sites ... at least for certain audiences?

[DaveW]

You really need to stop taking things so personally. Especially things I say about a topic in general... But back to the topic at hand:

 

If it's coming up in social media feeds, the person has only have the people/brands etc the person follows to blame.

 

I'm not really for censorship , so it's hard to block "something" just for a segment of the population, there are plenty of good blockers etc in place to limit the porn exposure overall. But if you are going to let a kid or anyone go on google.com with no oversight and no real blocks "safe search is not a real block" then I don't know what to say. It seems to me that if you have a young child at home, set up an Internet browser for them that can only visit specific websites that are more than safe. If for whatever reason they need to get on Google to search something, the parent or adult should be there to monitor.

 

As far as an adult stumbling across something on accident: oh well, things happen. Such is the world and such is life.

 

On a side note: I don't think there is any reason kids under the age of 15-16 should be on any form of social media, literally nothing good can come of it.

[formerly33]

Dave, for once I'm in agreement with you. I'm not sure if it's a point of sadness or not.

 

But there would be nothing wrong with increased internet moderation. For instance, we have it at a private level here on TD. If I were to suddenly start plastering pornography all over the forums, I'm pretty sure I'd get a free and permanent leave of absence from the site. I see no reason why there should be no effort made to make the whole internet a safer place for minors. Yes, parents/teachers should be responsible, but the fact of the matter is they aren't. If something could be done to help those kids in areas their parents did not, why would anyone be against that?

 

But we have strayed somewhat from the original subject.

[Craig Arko]

Damn Americans! They can't handle freedom so we better crack down on them.That'll keep our country safe for Democracy.

[TheLeviathan]

 

again we are talking about 7 year olds, aka 1st graders. Why on earth do they need to be surfing the web on their own with zero supervision? None of the parents I know let their kids do that at that age.
Why does a 7 year old need to be surfing the web blindly? Plenty of non internet programs they can use on a computer to learn, or I dunno, maybe they can learn from a book or their teachers, parents, etc directly?


You could give a sincere answer or just call me stupid and dismiss me again of course. Or you could give some ideas on how the U.S. And company "blocks" these off shore porn companies.

 

Supervision is irrelevant, that's the whole point.  Safe searches are being deliberately circumvented.  Just last year we had a kid, through two layers of safe searching, manage to get to a full blown porn site.  (That was intentional on the kids part)  We had a number of children accidently get nude images on generic search terms.

 

They can be doing everything right and still walk into these things because websites are overstepping to get clicks.  They are making it easier and easier to find them with generic search terms.

 

I don't want these things unavailable to adults, what people choose to do is on them.  The problem is trying to wedge themselves into areas we don't allow them in any other media.  Porn can't advertise on bill boards in a graphic manner.  You don't find nude ads in magazines or newspapers that are meant to be mainstream.  We have basic laws of decency that we can enforce against companies abusing them.  It's holding them to the same level of legal accountability that we do in every other form of advertising/marketing.

[TheLeviathan]

 

 

The world is changing, and it is very important to eliminate religion from the discussion of law making. DIscussing Morals is greatly important... that is all we have.

 

 

Saying "we shouldn't legislate religion" is a VERY different thing than "we shouldn't legislate morality".  The first statement is excellent advice, the second is unbelievably misguided or naive or stupid.  Take your pick.

[Craig Arko]

Saying "we shouldn't legislate religion" is a VERY different thing than "we shouldn't legislate morality".  The first statement is excellent advice, the second is unbelievably misguided or naive or stupid.  Take your pick.

I love you too.

[DaveW]

Supervision is irrelevant, that's the whole point. Safe searches are being deliberately circumvented. Just last year we had a kid, through two layers of safe searching, manage to get to a full blown porn site. (That was intentional on the kids part) We had a number of children accidently get nude images on generic search terms.

 

They can be doing everything right and still walk into these things because websites are overstepping to get clicks. They are making it easier and easier to find them with generic search terms.

 

I don't want these things unavailable to adults, what people choose to do is on them. The problem is trying to wedge themselves into areas we don't allow them in any other media. Porn can't advertise on bill boards in a graphic manner. You don't find nude ads in magazines or newspapers that are meant to be mainstream. We have basic laws of decency that we can enforce against companies abusing them. It's holding them to the same level of legal accountability that we do in every other form of advertising/marketing.

Again, those are all non U.S. companies basically. There is only so much you can do. I didn't realize it was that bad to be honest.

[twinsnorth49]

All legislation is guided by morality in one form or the other, that's the point.

[Bark's Lounge]

 

Saying "we shouldn't legislate religion" is a VERY different thing than "we shouldn't legislate morality".  The first statement is excellent advice, the second is unbelievably misguided or naive or stupid.  Take your pick.

It's unfortunate you resorted to using the words towards me that you have. I have always been respectful towards you. I actually have grown to like you over the last three years.

 

You are a great debater. For all intents and purposes that seems to be your role on this site, and because you are good at that, I have seen some tremendous debates, but unfortunately, I have seen you take a **** on people and squash them for no good reason.

 

If I said something something that was disagreeable with you, so be it. The fact that you would call me out as being misguided, naive, or stupid is disrespectful. I would not treat you in this same fashion.

 

I believe there to be definite flaws in your code of morality, now and in the past, because humans that are right in their head don't treat people like that.

[Craig Arko]

All legislation is guided by morality in one form or the other, that's the point.

This must be the other.

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26

[TheLeviathan]

It's unfortunate you resorted to using the words towards me that you have. I have always been respectful towards you. I actually have grown to like you over the last three years.

 

You are a great debater. For all intents and purposes that seems to be your role on this site, and because you are good at that, I have seen some tremendous debates, but unfortunately, I have seen you take a **** on people and squash them for no good reason.

 

If I said something something that was disagreeable with you, so be it. The fact that you would call me out as being misguided, naive, or stupid is disrespectful. I would not treat you in this same fashion.

 

I believe there to be definite flaws in your code of morality, now and in the past, because humans that are right in their head don't treat people like that.

 

I was speaking generally to the crowd of "don't legislate morality" folks, my apologies if that wasn't clear and if it came off poorly.

 

In fact, I was highlighting that you made the rare step of outlining your real opposition (religion), which is a good point. What gets lost in the other phrasing is that many of our laws are moral pronouncements. If we didn't legislate morality, we wouldn't have laws against theft, rape, and murder.

 

What makes your point a good one is that these moral pronouncements transcend religion and become social contract. But they are still legislated morality. Where things get sticky is specific religious ideas, which you are right to push to debate and not just automatically codify. I just bristle at the buzzy phrase of "don't legislate morality" because I can't imagine anyone truly wanting that.

 

(My apologies again though, sometimes my zeal gets in the way of my better qualities, I'll continue to try and clean that up)

[twinsnorth49]

This must be the other.

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26

Nope, same thing.

[Craig Arko]

I have no further contributions to this discussion; and apologize to the OP for the wild digression.

 

It will be interesting to see what solution(s), if any, emerge from this.

[Shane Wahl]

Ugh. This was good and I missed it.