Well, a) and b) are an entirely different issue and if the state were to mandate that ISPs had to inform new customers about the child-unfriendly material available online and how to prevent access to it then that sounds like a fairly sensible thing to me.
(Original post by dreiviergrenadier)
Well, that's not a matter of principle - so at the very least people need to qualify their comments about parental responsibility.
Even so, there is no reason why the state should expect each and every parent to a) be technically aware enough to know how to deal with the problem; b) be adequately aware of the problem; or c) to devote their individual resources to the solution. Given that the issue is about the common good, I have no problems with childless parents contributing.
With regards to c), I have just explained to you that childless parents already contribute generously to parents' childcare costs in the form of child benefit. The purpose of this handout is to cover costs like this. Why is this so special that it deserves extra funding?
Last edited by electriic_ink; 04-05-2012 at 19:19.
Completely disagree with it, the notion that viewing porn is detrimental to a persons psyche is wrong in my opinion. Although it is anecdotal, I have been watching "soft" porn relatively frequently since i was 13. Am I some overly sexualised, callous monster? no. The video's I, and the overwhelming majority of teen's watch involve consenting adults. The vast majority of teenagers I think should be able to understand that the content they are viewing, does not happen in "the real world".
I mean, it is legal to have sex in the UK at 16 but the media and the supporters of this bill seem to think that watching porn at this age is damaging?
The Government should not have the power to stick their nose into what anyone is watching, legally online.
Last edited by phonk7; 04-05-2012 at 20:53.
Reason: Semantical error
Too important not to be left to the parents? What a ridiculous assertion. The government mandates that it is ultimately the parents' responsibility to ensure that children are adequately clothed, housed and fed, all of which are important things. But there aren't great numbers of hungry homeless children begging naked in the street.
(Original post by dreiviergrenadier)
Presumably because, like education, this is deemed to be important enough not to be left to the individual parents. As for child benefits - a) I don't think they're as generous as you make out and b) they're not for the sake of enforcing aspects of the common good; they're mainly about helping individual children/families by redistributing money for discretionary spending on children, or providing for the essentials that children need.
Every parent, regardless of wealth gets their child's education paid for them (£6000/yr), £1000/yr child benefit and most parents receive further benefits in the form of "child tax credits". There are also various other perks including VAT-free children's clothes. It's a lot.
All of us do things everyday that are for the "common good", without the government's involvement. A good example can be found in the supply of food. Supermarkets play a very important role in ensuring that we have fresh food to eat. But I don't see why they need government incentive to do this. Besides, what makes you think ensuring children don't watch porn is for the common good? I have not seen any proper evidence that children watching pornography is as damaging as people are making out.
Last edited by electriic_ink; 04-05-2012 at 20:54.
Why don't they try to hunt down the founders of these child pornographic and brutal porn sites?
And its normal for a kid over 11 to think about these things, and look at them, why does the government insist on taking away adolescent freedom?
Also everything we see has got something to do with sex, especially advertisement. There may be restrictions but there are still loads of adverts which appeal to someone's sex side
Last edited by Joeyboy 12; 04-05-2012 at 21:00.
Because four monkey spankers don't want the computer in the front room with mummy or daddy
(Original post by Scienceisgood)
I know this may sound daft, but, why is my initial post being thumbed down so much? =(
PS your OP is bias. You need some against links.
Last edited by SubAtomic; 04-05-2012 at 21:47.
How do you know?[/QUOTE]
I suppose the word 'consensual' is quite ambiguous, clearly none of these people 99% of the time are being forced, physically to appear in these videos, but there are obviously countless other methods a person can use to pressurise a person into pornography, the chief one of course being pecuniary. However, I do maintain that the vast majority of people appearing in pornography do it by their own consent, the reason being, that they are grown adults and can make their own decisions. Besides, a non consensual sex act are already illegal both to perform and watch, banning normal "soft" porn is not going to affect to prevalence of that.
Last edited by phonk7; 04-05-2012 at 22:37.