PDA

View Full Version : The GOP and their ridiculous war on Porn!



JustAlex
08-29-2012, 03:10 AM
We all know just how clownish the GOP really is, but if there was something that could finally destroy them it's their very Anti-porn stance!


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/27/gop-anti-porn-plank-platform_n_1833840.html



The new language replaces previous platform wording, which only opposed child pornography. It will now read, "Current laws on all forms of pornography and obscenity need to be vigorously enforced." Trueman noted that current federal obscenity laws not only prohibit distribution of hardcore pornography on the Internet but also on hotel/motel TV, on cable/satellite TV, and in retail shops.
The GOP continues to be the national embarrassment and their HIGH HORSE morality is so shamefully stupid, ignorant and indicative of people who are constricted by made up rules which the world does NOT adhere to.

LOL.....Go right ahead GOP, you will soon notice that NO ONE will be on your side in this ridiculous crusade against porn.

JustAlex
08-29-2012, 03:22 AM
What does MITTENS want to do if he becomes president?

"I wanna make sure that every new computer sold in this country after I'm president has installed on it a filter to block all pornography and that parents can click that filter to make sure their kids don't see that kinda stuff coming in on their computer,"

^Classic Censorship, the GOP and their Fascist agenda is quite laughable!

shrewsbury
08-29-2012, 08:30 AM
so enforcing the existing laws and providing parents a way to stop kids from viewing porn is bad?

JustAlex
08-29-2012, 09:15 AM
so enforcing the existing laws and providing parents a way to stop kids from viewing porn is bad?
You mean installing an unnecessary filter on every single computer?

You mean trying to ban any and ALL porn not just to kids but to adults as well?

The GOP has always been very anti-porn, since they are so far right on every single issue nowadays, why not add this as well.

Star_Cards
08-29-2012, 09:21 AM
don't parents have ways to block kids form porn already. Can't they easily install a blocking software? Why would we require companies to but a blocker on all computers? Besides, if you're going to do that then what about smart phones and tablets? It's ironic that the Republican party keeps bashing the Dems about how we need a smaller less invasive government and then they want to make things like this a priority. It's kind of hypocritical in my opinion.

I understand their are laws limiting the consumption of pornography to minors and agree with those. I also know the policing of the internet is a very slippery slope (although this isn't really policing). I don;t have kids, but this just seems like something that's not a major concern. It's kind of up to the parents. As I said before, if a parent wants to block sites it should be pretty easy to do so. I've never had to do that but from my understanding there are plenty of free or affordable parental control software available. I will ad that I don't have kids so maybe I'm missing something.

Wickabee
08-29-2012, 12:01 PM
The mandatory chip isn't a bad idea, so long as it can be turned on and off. I don't think the government has the right to tell people they can't watch porn.

shrewsbury
08-29-2012, 12:04 PM
does it not say enforcing current laws? so if they are already laws, what is wrong with enforcing them. also a lot of parents are not computer savy, so putting some software on a computer is not big deal.

or is it that kids should be allowed to watch porn?

Wickabee
08-29-2012, 12:05 PM
Are you talking to starcards, alex or me?

mrveggieman
08-29-2012, 12:10 PM
does it not say enforcing current laws? so if they are already laws, what is wrong with enforcing them. also a lot of parents are not computer savy, so putting some software on a computer is not big deal.

or is it that kids should be allowed to watch porn?


Do you really think some 15 year old computer geek who wants to watch porn couldn't find away around the filter especially if his parents are not that computer savy.

duwal
08-29-2012, 12:35 PM
Do you really think some 15 year old computer geek who wants to watch porn couldn't find away around the filter especially if his parents are not that computer savy.


doesn't even really have to be a 15 year old 'computer geek'. If people are going to want to see adult movies they will find a way. There will be no way to stop them. If it is not the internet then it is on DVD, if not on DVD then its on TV On Demand listings, there is also the old standby magazines, etc...

shrewsbury
08-29-2012, 01:28 PM
wickabee, whoever wants to jump in.

this is to everyone,

so you should just let them? if this is the case, why have any rules?

so as a parent you should allow any child to do anything, because they can find a way to do it if they want to?

and again, our they not saying we should enforce the laws in place?

habsheaven
08-29-2012, 01:28 PM
I wonder when the Republicans are going to go after all the COD video games? I would almost support heavier restrictions on those.

duwal
08-29-2012, 01:49 PM
wickabee, whoever wants to jump in.

this is to everyone,

so you should just let them? if this is the case, why have any rules?

so as a parent you should allow any child to do anything, because they can find a way to do it if they want to?

and again, our they not saying we should enforce the laws in place?


people can do their best to prevent it but it is still going to happen. As great as a parent as you might be to try and block it your kids still have have plenty of other venues to access porn and they absolute do whether its by their own efforts or with hanging out with friends

Wickabee
08-29-2012, 01:52 PM
Okay

does it not say enforcing current laws? so if they are already laws, what is wrong with enforcing them. also a lot of parents are not computer savy, so putting some software on a computer is not big deal.
Like I said, a mandatory chip is not a bad idea, so long as it can be turned off. Although, regulating the computer industry to force them to spend money placing that chip in every computer, knowing full well it will only be used by a very small percentage (and is therefor useless to the vast majority) sounds like a huge waste of other peoples' money by the Republican party.


or is it that kids should be allowed to watch porn?
No one here has said that. If I didn't know better, I'd say you were insulting those who disagree with you (Oh, but it's a question so it can't be a veiled insult calling those who disagree depraved perverts...)



so you should just let them? if this is the case, why have any rules?
No, but a largely useless chip doesn't sound like much of an answer. In fact, weren't conservatives and Republicans the ones who were against the government telling them how to parent by telling them what they can feed their kids at school? But they're okay with the government parenting for them on the subject of pornography. Hmmm...



so as a parent you should allow any child to do anything, because they can find a way to do it if they want to?
So as a parent we should just let the government raise our kids for us? Anything to get out of a little work, I guess. Better to have a chip in every computer than to actually parent...



and again, our they not saying we should enforce the laws in place?

Yes, but is a mandatory chip enforcing existing laws or bringing in new ones?
That's what I thought.

shrewsbury
08-29-2012, 01:53 PM
duwal, so no parent should do anything, just let them run wild and hope for the best?

and guys, again, did they not say they wanted to enforce the laws already in place?

Wickabee
08-29-2012, 01:55 PM
and guys, again, did they not say they wanted to enforce the laws already in place?

Answer above. You can stop repeating yourself.

shrewsbury
08-29-2012, 02:02 PM
wickabee, where does it say the governement is educating anyone? they want people to have access to software that can help prevent children from viewing undesirable material on the net.

wickabee, you always think someone is insulting you, but the world, nor this forum revolves around you and if you take a question of whether a child should be allowed to watch porn or not as an insult to you, then i am guessing you do think it is ok.

and again where does this or i say anyone should allow the government to raise anyone? you are stretching it, but be careful you may strain something.

and why would it be a chip, that makes no sense, a piece of hardware would need to run from software and you can just install the software, no chip needed.

habsheaven
08-29-2012, 02:04 PM
wickabee, where does it say the governement is educating anyone? they want people to have access to software that can help prevent children from viewing undesirable material on the net.

wickabee, you always think someone is insulting you, but the world, nor this forum revolves around you and if you take a question of whether a child should be allowed to watch porn or not as an insult to you, then i am guessing you do think it is ok.

and again where does this or i say anyone should allow the government to raise anyone? you are stretching it, but be careful you may strain something.

and why would it be a chip, that makes no sense, a piece of hardware would need to run from software and you can just install the software, no chip needed.

When did this become the question?

Wickabee
08-29-2012, 02:27 PM
wickabee, where does it say the governement is educating anyone? they want people to have access to software that can help prevent children from viewing undesirable material on the net.
I'm still trying to figure out where I said anything about educating. I spoke of parenting, not educating.


wickabee, you always think someone is insulting you, but the world, nor this forum revolves around you and if you take a question of whether a child should be allowed to watch porn or not as an insult to you, then i am guessing you do think it is ok.
I am not insulted by your words. I saw what appeared to be an attempt at insult and called you on it. You made it sound as if everyone who disagrees with you would want or force children to watch pornography and you don't think it's an insult?
Not to mention it is NOT the issue at hand whatsoever.
And I don't think anything revolves around me (another beautifully veiled insult, by the way). You have a way of insulting everyone who disagrees with you without using insulting words. It's a clever tactic and you are very, very good at it. I'm just getting sick of it. I'm starting to think it's difficult for you to post without this tactic, as about 90% of your posts seem to use it.


and again where does this or i say anyone should allow the government to raise anyone? you are stretching it, but be careful you may strain something.
You want a government regulated control chip so you don't have to watch your kids to know they7 aren't accessing porn on your computer. That is allowing the government to raise your children, as I'm sure THEY would be the ones to determine what is pornography and what is not, and would be the one enforcing it through the chip. It's not a bad idea, but it is lazy parenting.


and why would it be a chip, that makes no sense, a piece of hardware would need to run from software and you can just install the software, no chip needed.
Sorry for my poor choice of words. Chip, software, whatever. It can be anything you want it's still asking the government to parent for you. This one confuses me, as I figured you to be smart enough to get past what actual technology it is. You know what I'm talking about, you know Romney wants every computer sold to have something on it to block porn (sounds like the old v-CHIP to me). The technology involved isn't the issue and I'm saddened by the fact you would get stuck on that. I genuinely thought you were smarter than that.

shrewsbury
08-29-2012, 02:31 PM
habs, a couple of posts ago

Wickabee
08-29-2012, 02:35 PM
When did this become the question?

He brought it up as a way to shame people into agreeing with him.

habsheaven
08-29-2012, 02:56 PM
habs, a couple of posts ago

Are you referring to post #7 where YOU brought it up as being the equivalent to us being opposing the idea of a filter in general. Our opposition to the filter somehow implies that we want our children viewing porn? Why do you insist on making such ridiculous comparisons?

Wickabee
08-29-2012, 03:01 PM
Are you referring to post #7 where YOU brought it up as being the equivalent to us being opposing the idea of a filter in general. Our opposition to the filter somehow implies that we want our children viewing porn?
Yes he is.

Why do you insist on making such ridiculous comparisons?
Like I said, he's trying to shame people into agreeing with him.

shrewsbury
08-29-2012, 03:56 PM
habs, i am saying that someone wanting to install software to stop kids from watching porn is a great idea, but there are some opposed to it. why would someone be opposed to such a thing?

wickaee, i hardly need you to speak for me, you cannot speak for yourself, you have nothing to say but negative things and always think someone is after you. as I stated earlier, the world nor this forum revolves around you.

and again, if i shamed anyone because they think it is ok for children to watch porn, then good, they should be ashamed.

mrveggieman
08-29-2012, 04:04 PM
habs, i am saying that someone wanting to install software to stop kids from watching porn is a great idea, but there are some opposed to it. why would someone be opposed to such a thing?

wickaee, i hardly need you to speak for me, you cannot speak for yourself, you have nothing to say but negative things and always think someone is after you. as I stated earlier, the world nor this forum revolves around you.

and again, if i shamed anyone because they think it is ok for children to watch porn, then good, they should be ashamed.

I doubt that any of us would want our kids to watch porn but this isn't about the republicans wanting to block kids from watching porn it's about controlling what consenting adults watch for pleasure over their own personal computers. If you let them come after porn where do they stop. Eventually they will come after people on forums like this one for disagreeing with the gov't.

Wickabee
08-29-2012, 04:51 PM
wickaee, i hardly need you to speak for me, you cannot speak for yourself, you have nothing to say but negative things and always think someone is after you. as I stated earlier, the world nor this forum revolves around you.
1 - You weren't speaking
2 - I can speak for myself just fine. It's laughable you think otherwise, especially since you cherrypick what questions you answer.
3 - Where have I ever said anything revolves around me? You wouldn't be making up lies to try and make me look bad, would you? Tsk tsk
4 - I have plenty to say that isn't negative. Unfortunately, you rarely ever see what I've written, what you do see you only see half and that half you do see gets twisted into something completely different than it actually is somewhere between your reading it and responding.


and again, if i shamed anyone because they think it is ok for children to watch porn, then good, they should be ashamed.

Just because you ATTEMPTED to shame people into agreeing with you by insinuating something was said when it clearly wasn't doesn't mean you were successful. Truly the idea of wanting children to watch porn comes from a sick mind, I agree wholeheartedly there. I must point out, though, that idea came from you, no one else.

Wickabee
08-29-2012, 04:52 PM
i am saying that someone wanting to install software to stop kids from watching porn is a great idea, but there are some opposed to it. why would someone be opposed to such a thing?
My only reason for opposition would be wasting someone else's (computer companies) money on something that isn't going to work anyway. But somehow you see that as wanting kids to watch porn.

Tivo32
08-29-2012, 05:07 PM
What does MITTENS want to do if he becomes president?

"I wanna make sure that every new computer sold in this country after I'm president has installed on it a filter to block all pornography and that parents can click that filter to make sure their kids don't see that kinda stuff coming in on their computer,"

^Classic Censorship, the GOP and their Fascist agenda is quite laughable!

I won't speak for Romney's intentions, but I do know from doing research projects on pornography and teenagers (and kids), that many search results for things like "Disney," "Pokemon," etc can be flooded with links to pornography. I don't know if that's censorship or it's protecting young children from seeing pornographic images. 13 year old kids and up are going to make their own decisions, but a 5 or 6 year old on the internet doesn't know what they're clicking. And most parents aren't actively with their young children when they're on the internet. Even though they probably should be.

shrewsbury
08-29-2012, 05:07 PM
veggie, i must have missed that part, i never heard or read they were trying to stop adults, if that is the case i am in somewhat of agreement with you (of course i can't be in total agreement!!!)

wickabee, why would this not work? have you ever used parental control software? also there is plenty of companies that will monitor your internet activity and send a monthly report, to make sure they haven't gotten past the filters. i see no issue with this at all.

and if you want to talk cherrypicking, how about the fact you some how do not understand about how the part of your brain that controls decision making does not fully develop until your early twenties, thus making consensual sex for someone who is a teenager impossible. some one who is drunk or on drugs cannot have consensual sex because their decision making is altered, but a teen who does not have a fully developed frontal lobe, which is the part that controls decision making, can have consensual sex with an adult?

i think you and I are both guilty of filtering things out the other has said, which is good in some ways.

you and a few others make the appearance you are on a "witch hunt" for any conservative, but i don't have a problem being hunted.

Wickabee
08-29-2012, 05:12 PM
wickabee, why would this not work? have you ever used parental control software? also there is plenty of companies that will monitor your internet activity and send a monthly report, to make sure they haven't gotten past the filters. i see no issue with this at all.
I'm talking about the 95% of people who will not use it. That's wasted money.
How about all the people with no kids who buy computers and will never use it. Wasted money.
This is nothing but "I can spend a computer company's money better than them." Flat out.


and if you want to talk cherrypicking, how about the fact you some how do not understand about how the part of your brain that controls decision making does not fully develop until your early twenties, thus making consensual sex for someone who is a teenager impossible.
I understand the first part, I don't think it's impossible. But yes, let's talk about that.
I asked you how you would write a law reflecting that. You ignored the question. Thoughts?


some one who is drunk or on drugs cannot have consensual sex because their decision making is altered, but a teen who does not have a fully developed frontal lobe, which is the part that controls decision making, can have consensual sex with an adult?
Are you saying everybody who's ever had drunk sex was raped?


i think you and I are both guilty of filtering things out the other has said, which is good in some ways.

you and a few others make the appearance you are on a "witch hunt" for any conservative, but i don't have a problem being hunted.
You make that appearance, not me. I'm just trying to get rid of the smell. There's a lot of crap floating around

Wickabee
08-29-2012, 05:37 PM
I'll put it this way.
You want to put a chip or some software (don't want to get bogged down again) in every computer in America and you want the companies to pay for it, so we'll assume they "pass the savings" onto the consumer. So now you've made computers more expensive for everyone, not just parents (so it's not a matter of it being their choice not to use it, it will be completely unnecessary in most cases)
But hey, let's say 100% of parents actually use it (which would be about 90-95% more than I think would). Do you think this is going to keep kids from seeing porn?
Ok, now let's be realistic. For the sake of argument and so it doesn't look like I'm being ridiculous or anything, let's say 50% actually use it. That means YOU know YOUR kids aren't watching porn ON YOUR COMPUTER, but what about when they go to a friend's house? What if your kid is friends with a mostly good kid with terrible parents, or parents who couldn't figure out the software?
Now, I'm not an, "if they're gonna do it anyway, let them do it," kind of guy, as you've insinuated several times in this thread. I believe that some things are worth fighting if if you know you're losing, like childhood obesity. The problem with this plan is it's extra cost for very little gain. Let's face it, the parents who are going to use this software are likely to buy an after market program anyway, so what's the real point?
It's false security.

Then this brings us to the touchy subject of What's the Harm? Now, I don't think kids should be watching porn any more than I think they should be smoking. The thing is, though, I can see the definite harm done by kids smoking, but porn?
Okay, you could argue that porn can give kids some weird ideas about sex. But if a kid sees a porno and thinks that is normal, then you as a parent have done a terrible, terrible job and the damage isn't from the movie, but from the parenting.

You see, the point of being a parent is not to shield your child from everything like sex, drugs, violence, etc. Far from it. Your job is to direct them so they learn how to deal with it.
Does that mean I think kids should watch porn? NO
Does this mean I think kids should do drugs? NO
Does this mean I think kids should be taught to be violent? NO
(just pre-empting stupid questions)
When I was a kid, sneaking away to the treehouse and flipping through a Playboy or Hustler was almost a rite of passage. So was smoking a cigarette, drinking a beer, smoking a joint, etc, etc. My parents knew of none of that, would have punished me pretty harshly if they did, but taught me well enough to deal with it.
My grandfather was a complete alcoholic. My parents used him to teach me what alcohol can do to you if you're not careful. It wasn't hidden from me.
My uncle was a drug addict. My parents used him to teach me the effects of drug use. It wasn't hidden from me.
N9ow, many kids go through life and don't do some of these things ever. Some go through and don't do a single one. Most do most, though and most little boys are going to go looking for boobies. I don't see this chip as being effective because I think it will go largely unused. You can't mandate use, you just can't. That doesn't mean I think kids should watch porn. It also doesn't mean I'm a pedophile, have a sick mind, or don't care about my daughter, so please don't twist it around as such.

shrewsbury
08-29-2012, 05:42 PM
wickabee, i agree with the first part, and how about a medium of having the choice to get the software installed, free of charge? would that be an option? <br />
<br />
the law, i did kind of, yeah kind of, say...

Wickabee
08-29-2012, 07:07 PM
Actually yes. Now you're supporting software companies without costing the computer manufacturers (and, in turn, the customers) extra. You're also not mandating that anyone who owns a computer must...

mrveggieman
08-30-2012, 08:24 AM
Also another reason why the chips will be a failure is easy access to dvds. I don't know if ya'll remember but back in 2002 when R&B singer R Kelly was supposedly in that video showing him having sex with a someone who was under "21", that type of video was illegal in every state in the union but you could have bought it on any street corner in america just as easy as you could go in the corner store for a soda or a candy bar. So chips in the computer will be an epic failure and the costs will passed on the the consumer. If you don't want porn watched on your computer for any reason use blocking software but you have no right to tell another adult what he can or cannot watch in the privacy and comfort of his own home.

shrewsbury
08-30-2012, 08:34 AM
veggie, the blocking is for kids not adults.

and it is the effort that counts, results will always vary.

mrveggieman
08-30-2012, 08:38 AM
veggie, the blocking is for kids not adults.

and it is the effort that counts, results will always vary.

Understood but do you really think that the guys who sell dvds on the street corner are going to check IDs?

Star_Cards
08-30-2012, 09:17 AM
habs, i am saying that someone wanting to install software to stop kids from watching porn is a great idea, but there are some opposed to it. why would someone be opposed to such a thing?

wickaee, i hardly need you to speak for me, you cannot speak for yourself, you have nothing to say but negative things and always think someone is after you. as I stated earlier, the world nor this forum revolves around you.

and again, if i shamed anyone because they think it is ok for children to watch porn, then good, they should be ashamed.

I just did a google search for free parental blocking software and there are a ton of them. I didn't research them to see if they were effective or anything, but I also searched for pay software as well and there are plenty. Seems to me that a parent could find for free or for a fairly low price put parental controls on their computer to block their kids from certain types of sites. I don't know why the government would try to force companies to spend the money to include this in every computer when it will be used by a very small amount of people. All it would do is increase the cost of the computers because the companies will pass the expense on to the consumer.

With so many types of parental controls out there I'd think a parent would rather have the option of which one to choose through their own research rather than have the one forced onto the computer by the government.

habsheaven
08-30-2012, 09:26 AM
This whole discussion is rather pointless. Romney isn't going to do anything about porn IF he becomes President. As shown above, the software to do what he wants to accomplish is plentiful already. He is just pandering to the conservative base who ironically would support such a move at the same time telling the government to get out of their business in regards to other things.

It's one of the funniest things about conservatives; they want to get rid of government regulations restricting them but are all in favour of regulations restricting others.

Star_Cards
08-30-2012, 09:28 AM
wickabee, why would this not work? have you ever used parental control software? also there is plenty of companies that will monitor your internet activity and send a monthly report, to make sure they haven't gotten past the filters. i see no issue with this at all.


this is exactly why I don't see the need. There are companies that provide the proper tools for parents to block their kids from certain sites. I'd assume that this blocker that he wants to include on every computer would have to be activated by a parent. There are so many affordable if not free parents control software out there if a parent isn't using one now they probably wouldn't activate this one that would be mandatory.

Star_Cards
08-30-2012, 09:31 AM
Understood but do you really think that the guys who sell dvds on the street corner are going to check IDs?

As far a DVDs, porn is so much more readily available online through a phone, tablet, or computer than watching on a DVD. Plus DVDs are on their way to becoming obsolete over the next few years in my opinion.

shrewsbury
08-30-2012, 10:12 AM
so we should provide entitlements for everyone except those wanting to protect their kids from the crazy internet? which some want to include internet access in these entitlements.

we should pay for a woman to get an abortion but not help a parent who wants to block smut on their computer.

i did some googling myself and see there are jobs out there for those on welfare, why should we supply welfare to those that can work?

veggie, how is this a government restriction, at least they would be spending our money on something useful.

mrveggieman
08-30-2012, 10:17 AM
This whole discussion is rather pointless. Romney isn't going to do anything about porn IF he becomes President. As shown above, the software to do what he wants to accomplish is plentiful already. He is just pandering to the conservative base who ironically would support such a move at the same time telling the government to get out of their business in regards to other things.

It's one of the funniest things about conservatives; they want to get rid of government regulations restricting them but are all in favour of regulations restricting others.


CHURCH!! :love0030::love0030::love0030:

mrveggieman
08-30-2012, 10:20 AM
so we should provide entitlements for everyone except those wanting to protect their kids from the crazy internet? which some want to include internet access in these entitlements.

we should pay for a woman to get an abortion but not help a parent who wants to block smut on their computer.

i did some googling myself and see there are jobs out there for those on welfare, why should we supply welfare to those that can work?

veggie, how is this a government restriction, at least they would be spending our money on something useful.


Why should the gov't spend money forcing something on everyone when the people who need it have easy access to get it w/o a gov't mandate? If the gov't really is concerned about the best intrest of what goes on he people's bedrooms they should provide free access to contraception and manditory sex ed in schools.

ensbergcollector
08-30-2012, 10:58 AM
Why should the gov't spend money forcing something on everyone when the people who need it have easy access to get it w/o a gov't mandate? If the gov't really is concerned about the best intrest of what goes on he people's bedrooms they should provide free access to contraception and manditory sex ed in schools.

so the government should provide free condoms to anyone who wants them even though there is easy access w/o a government mandate but you are against this because it has easy access for those that want it? i know I didn't sleep well last night but i'm a little confused.

mrveggieman
08-30-2012, 11:14 AM
so the government should provide free condoms to anyone who wants them even though there is easy access w/o a government mandate but you are against this because it has easy access for those that want it? i know I didn't sleep well last night but i'm a little confused.


The republicans love speaking with a split tounge. On one hand they cry about less gov't interference but then turn around and want to install chips in everyone's computers to block porn. They then turn around and refuse to finance anything that has to do with free condom distribution or sex ed. You can't have it both ways. If you want less gov't stay off of people's computers. If you are really interested in helping families you should do whatever it takes to prevent unwanted pregnancies and for those who are pregnant reach out and offer assistance. And please none of this nonsense about marrying your child's father just for the sake of the child.

ensbergcollector
08-30-2012, 11:17 AM
The republicans love speaking with a split tounge. On one hand they cry about less gov't interference but then turn around and want to install chips in everyone's computers to block porn. They then turn around and refuse to finance anything that has to do with free condom distribution or sex ed. You can't have it both ways. If you want less gov't stay off of people's computers. If you are really interested in helping families you should do whatever it takes to prevent unwanted pregnancies and for those who are pregnant reach out and offer assistance. And please none of this nonsense about marrying your child's father just for the sake of the child.

so basically you just didn't want to answer my question?

mrveggieman
08-30-2012, 11:21 AM
so the government should provide free condoms to anyone who wants them even though there is easy access w/o a government mandate but you are against this because it has easy access for those that want it? i know I didn't sleep well last night but i'm a little confused.


Let me break this down nice and simple so everyone on here can understand. Sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies are public health hazzards and a drain on taxpayer recources. The gov't is supposedly here to protect the best intrests of all of its citizens. Providing free condoms and manditory sex ed will help reduce unwanted pregnancies and STDs. So yes I want the gov't to provide those services instead of wasting my tax payer money on forcing computer manufactures to install chips that will not serve a purpose or wasting school recources on an abstinence only sex ed policy which has proven to be an epic failure.

shrewsbury
08-30-2012, 11:25 AM
local health centers provide free condoms already and I remember taking sex ed in my health class, sure that was nearly 30 years ago.

Star_Cards
08-30-2012, 12:09 PM
so we should provide entitlements for everyone except those wanting to protect their kids from the crazy internet? which some want to include internet access in these entitlements.

we should pay for a woman to get an abortion but not help a parent who wants to block smut on their computer.

i did some googling myself and see there are jobs out there for those on welfare, why should we supply welfare to those that can work?

veggie, how is this a government restriction, at least they would be spending our money on something useful.

I don't really know why you are bringing up welfare and abortion issues.

If parents really need help from the government to block content on their computers they can offer a place to download software for free rather than forcing computer makers to place it on every computer. Doesn't seem like you need to have someone spend money placing software on every single computer when the vast majority won't be using it.

shrewsbury
08-30-2012, 12:15 PM
because it is ok for us to pay for that, but paying for something that would benefit a child is not needed?

i think your idea of a site to download the software for free is a good idea. but it should not have built in advertising or anything else attached to it.

Wickabee
08-30-2012, 12:43 PM
because it is ok for us to pay for that, but paying for something that would benefit a child is not needed?

i think your idea of a site to download the software for free is a good idea. but it should not have built in advertising or anything else attached to it.

Why no advertising? Sounds like an okay way for the government to recoup some of the losses this would create?
And ensberg, veggie answered your question just fine. Not his fault if you ignore it.

mrveggieman
08-30-2012, 12:47 PM
Why can't the gov't offer it's own site or mail out cds upon request to anyone who wants to block porn? That we they can pat themselves on the back for blocking porn without creating more interference and buracracy.

Biggtyme
08-30-2012, 12:54 PM
This is a mute point. The porn industry will lobby so hard and fill the pockets of so many politicians that this will never ever happen in our lifetime.

Wickabee
08-30-2012, 12:56 PM
This is a mute point. The porn industry will lobby so hard and fill the pockets of so many politicians that this will never ever happen in our lifetime.

I don't know. Tobacco companies have a few bucks...

Biggtyme
08-30-2012, 12:58 PM
Wickabee - Agreed they do have money but Tobacco is proven to kill you and others around you. Porn on the other hand not so much. At least no documentation that it will that I am aware of lol.

Wickabee
08-30-2012, 01:00 PM
Wickabee - Agreed they do have money but Tobacco is proven to kill you and others around you. Porn on the other hand not so much. At least no documentation that it will that I am aware of lol.

True, but money is money.

Star_Cards
08-30-2012, 01:09 PM
because it is ok for us to pay for that, but paying for something that would benefit a child is not needed?

i think your idea of a site to download the software for free is a good idea. but it should not have built in advertising or anything else attached to it.

to me there are definite issues with welfare loopholes that aren't okay with everyone who is for some sort of welfare system. I get what you are saying but most people i know aren't okay with welfare fraud no matter if they are for welfare or not.

I can actually get behind a place where the software would be available. I still am not sure the government needs to provide that but hopefully it wouldn't cost that much. I feel that there are so many options out there that parents can use if they are in the market for parental control locks for their children. If a parent has the funds to pay for internet service every month they should have the means to purchase some parental controls if they don't like the free options that are out there.

Star_Cards
08-30-2012, 01:10 PM
no need to mail CDs or even have CDs. Software like that could be downloaded directly from a site.

Star_Cards
08-30-2012, 01:15 PM
I'd think that the majority of the companies that make up the porn industry are all for keeping porn out of the hands of minors. They'll have decades to get their money after the turn 18.

JustAlex
08-30-2012, 03:01 PM
The problem is (which has yet to be discussed in this thread) the SICK obsession the GOP has with Sex.

Seriously, these guys (when I say this, I'm talking about elected GOP members) remind me of the CREEPY old man with with a perverted look on his face.

The GOP is all about wanting to tell you how you should have sex, who you should have sex with, and if you're not having sex then they sure as hell don't want you looking at porn or pleasuring yourself.


I'm sorry but the GOP is just about the most stuck up, buzz kill, constricting, all work and no play, hypocritical group of people EVER!

These guys need to seriously loosen up......they're like the awkward kids at school that can't get a girlfriend so they're jealous at everyone else.

mrveggieman
08-30-2012, 03:17 PM
The problem is (which has yet to be discussed in this thread) the SICK obsession the GOP has with Sex.

Seriously, these guys (when I say this, I'm talking about elected GOP members) remind me of the CREEPY old man with with a perverted look on his face.

The GOP is all about wanting to tell you how you should have sex, who you should have sex with, and if you're not having sex then they sure as hell don't want you looking at porn or pleasuring yourself.


I'm sorry but the GOP is just about the most stuck up, buzz kill, constricting, all work and no play, hypocritical group of people EVER!

These guys need to seriously loosen up......they're like the awkward kids at school that can't get a girlfriend so they're jealous at everyone else.


CHURCH!! :love0030::love0030::love0030:

Wickabee
08-30-2012, 03:19 PM
The problem is (which has yet to be discussed in this thread) the SICK obsession the GOP has with Sex.

Seriously, these guys (when I say this, I'm talking about elected GOP members) remind me of the CREEPY old man with with a perverted look on his face.

The GOP is all about wanting to tell you how you should have sex, who you should have sex with, and if you're not having sex then they sure as hell don't want you looking at porn or pleasuring yourself.


I'm sorry but the GOP is just about the most stuck up, buzz kill, constricting, all work and no play, hypocritical group of people EVER!

These guys need to seriously loosen up......they're like the awkward kids at school that can't get a girlfriend so they're jealous at everyone else.

I think they figure if they protest enough then no one will think they're perverts.
It's just that no one has told them what protesting too much usually means.

shrewsbury
08-31-2012, 12:27 AM
it is weird that woman who are married vote conservative more than those not married, and yet you pull out a comparison of a highschool kid. if that is your idea of being cool or being right, i will stick to my morals and be the uncool kid. being a ™™™™ or sleeping with married people is not "cool", unwanted pregnancy comes from more unmarried woman than married, wonder why?

creepy old men that want children to not be exposed to porn, or do not want babies to be killed, are cool with me. better than the ones meeting teens in a rest stop bathroom for sex.

having a buzz and sex is not everything nor anything cool.

duane1969
08-31-2012, 09:33 AM
I gotta be honest. I am surprised that after a vacation from P&R I return to find that the most active thread is the one where people are concerned about their right to watch porn.

The economy sucks, unemployment is rising, gas prices are rising, we are still sending troops to the Middle East, more people than ever are on welfare, the national debt is still rising every minute...but they better not try to take away my porn!!!!

shrewsbury
08-31-2012, 09:53 AM
great post duane

Wickabee
08-31-2012, 11:17 AM
And here I thought I was simply pointing out that people want to spend a bunch of money that isn't theirs to fix a problem that isn'y a huge problem, like the economy. Turns out I'm just a sick, perverted liberal who thinks this will somehow affect Canada. Thanks for straightening me out!

duane1969
08-31-2012, 11:32 AM
And here I thought I was simply pointing out that people want to spend a bunch of money that isn't theirs to fix a problem that isn'y a huge problem, like the economy. Turns out I'm just a sick, perverted liberal who thinks this will somehow affect Canada. Thanks for straightening me out!

That is amazingly funny. When the Republicans want to waste taxpayer dollars it is suddenly an issue...kind of ironic considering the sitting president has been the biggest spender in US history to the tune of $5 trillion tax payer dollars (aka money that isn't his).

Where were you when the city of Hartselle, AL got $250k of tax payer money via the Obama stimulus to install city-wide wif-fi? Did you take issue with the $4.8 million in stimulus that went towards wood utilization research? What about the $2.5 billion that was earmarked for 10 more military C-17 aircraft that the military says it didn't request or need?

Yup, those darn Republicans are the wantonly out-of-control spenders of money that isn't theirs alright!

Wickabee
08-31-2012, 11:35 AM
That is amazingly funny. When the Republicans want to waste taxpayer dollars it is suddenly an issue...kind of ironic considering the sitting president has been the biggest spender in US history to the tune of $5 trillion tax payer dollars (aka money that isn't his).
No this is REALLY funny. Republicans are against "spending other peoples' money" in the form of taxes, (which the government is supposed to spend) but have no problem with them spending non-tax money that belongs to others, such as computer companies' money, to put in a chip that will be about as effective as a bag of M&M's.
Hilarious.


Where were you when the city of Hartselle, AL got $250k of tax payer money via the Obama stimulus to install city-wide wif-fi? Did you take issue with the $4.8 million in stimulus that went towards wood utilization research? What about the $2.5 billion that was earmarked for 10 more military C-17 aircraft that the military says it didn't request or need?
I was in Canada praying the President of another country wouldn 't take away my porn because I'm a depraved, sick, perverted liberal!


Yup, those darn Republicans are the wantonly out-of-control spenders of money that isn't theirs alright!
When you want to force computer companies to spend money on ineffective crap, yes they are.


And this is all on top of the fact that, while all the other problems you mentioned are going out of control, THIS is what Mitt Romney is worried about. The economy is in the toilet and he's going to fix it by making pron exactly 0% harder to obtain. Talk about a non-issue.

shrewsbury
08-31-2012, 12:15 PM
what makes you think parental control software is useless? i bet if i had your computer for a day i could restrict it so you couldn't watch porn or go to hate sites (not saying you do) and you couldn't reverse it.

Wickabee
08-31-2012, 12:23 PM
what makes you think parental control software is useless? i bet if i had your computer for a day i could restrict it so you couldn't watch porn or go to hate sites (not saying you do) and you couldn't reverse it.
Shrew, you know we already went through this. Reread the thread and your question will be answered again. I don't really feel like typing it out in this thread for a 5th or 6th time.

duane1969
08-31-2012, 01:29 PM
No this is REALLY funny. Republicans are against "spending other peoples' money" in the form of taxes, (which the government is supposed to spend) but have no problem with them spending non-tax money that belongs to others, such as computer companies' money, to put in a chip that will be about as effective as a bag of M&M's.
Hilarious.

The government forces me to buy a helmet to ride my motorcycle. The government forces me to pay for classes and a permit to carry my handgun. These things are deemed acceptable because they protect me and others. Why not force children to be protected from porn?

I was in Canada praying the President of another country wouldn 't take away my porn because I'm a depraved, sick, perverted liberal!

I never called anyone sick or perverted. I just think it is funny (and a bit stupid) that of all of the issues that people should be concerned about, this is the one getting the most attention.

When you want to force computer companies to spend money on ineffective crap, yes they are.

The computer manufacturers put Norton Antivirus on every computer and try to force me to buy the service and Norton is one of the most ineffective antivirus programs out there. I have no issue with the computer manufacturers having a little something forced back on them.

And this is all on top of the fact that, while all the other problems you mentioned are going out of control, THIS is what Mitt Romney is worried about. The economy is in the toilet and he's going to fix it by making pron exactly 0% harder to obtain. Talk about a non-issue.

Romney said back in Febuary that he would be for “strict enforcement of our nation’s obscenity laws, as well as the promotion of parental software controls that guard our children from Internet pornography.” If you think that the man who wants to be president is wasting his time supporting the enforcement of laws and protecting kids from accessing porn then I don't know what to say.

Oh wait, yes I do. Anti-porn is not part of Romney's platform.


responses in bold

Wickabee
08-31-2012, 01:37 PM
responses in bold

1 - Do you really think the government has a chance in Satan's kitchen at enforcing the use of a computer program? How?
2 - You think the issue is people having their porn taken away. It isn't. It's the idea that forcing computer companies to add programs to every computer that any parent can already buy themselves is going to do anything but cost someone else some money. It won't stop any kids from seeing porn. Also, as you said, there are MUCH bigger problems than porn.
3 - Yes it is, but it's also a trial version you get. Are you arguing for a trial anti-porn program? That would work for a week...
4 - You're putting words in my mouth. It is a noble cause, but that doesn't mean that putting software on every computer is actually going to do anything. It won't.
And if it's not in his platform, why is it in his speeches? Why is everything he says not a part of his platform? What is his platform? I've heard nothing from him but vague pseudo-answers that basically say, "You'll find out when I'm President."
He's great at not answering questions.

duane1969
08-31-2012, 01:58 PM
Where is it in his speeches? Admittedly I don't watch political speeches much, but I can find no reference to him saying anything about the government forcing PC companies to put software or chips in their product. The only thing I have found is that he was asked a question and he responded by saying that he supported the enforcement of laws and wanted to keep porn away from kids.

Wickabee
08-31-2012, 02:00 PM
Look, Duane, I'm tired of repeating myself in this thread. Most of the thread is me and shrew going back and forth, so go read that and pretend you made shrew's posts instead of him. The outcome will be the same as if you started making untrue statements (like this thread is just people whining about their porn being taken away. It's actually people saying the plan as set forth would be a giant waste of non-taxpayer money by the government to solve a problem that parents can already be solved with software by parents using their own money) and I took the bait.

That's where you called everyone who is against this "plan" depraved and perverted. You think we're whining about not being able to get porn. That's stupid. It wouldn't affect adults, so what would we have to whine about?
Nothing.

duane1969
08-31-2012, 02:01 PM
You want to know where Romney stads on porn.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/344484

duane1969
08-31-2012, 02:03 PM
Look, Duane, I'm tired of repeating myself in this thread. Most of the thread is me and shrew going back and forth, so go read that and pretend you made shrew's posts instead of him. The outcome will be the same as if you started making untrue statements (like this thread is just people whining about their porn being taken away. It's actually people saying the plan as set forth would be a giant waste of non-taxpayer money by the government to solve a problem that parents can already be solved with software by parents using their own money) and I took the bait.

That's where you called everyone who is against this "plan" depraved and perverted. You think we're whining about not being able to get porn. That's stupid. It wouldn't affect adults, so what would we have to whine about?
Nothing.

I guess if you say it then it must be fact and I must have called everyone depraved and perverted...I just can't find it. Please show me where I said that or anything remotely close to that.

Wickabee
08-31-2012, 02:10 PM
I guess if you say it then it must be fact and I must have called everyone depraved and perverted...I just can't find it. Please show me where I said that or anything remotely close to that.

I told you where and how you said it. Why don't you try actually READING for a change? Lord knows you haven't read any of this thread, or you would realize that you're just rehashing shrew and my conversation, right down to very slyly calling those who disagree porn addicted perverts without actually saying those exact words, and then claiming that's not what you meant in an attempt (much like shrew's earlier one) to shame others into agreeing.

Just read the thread, realize you're late to the party and now beating a dead horse.

shrewsbury
08-31-2012, 03:37 PM
wickabee, it is amazing how people call you so many things but never say it.

most therapists would consider this a reflection of how one feels about themselves.

Wickabee
08-31-2012, 03:43 PM
wickabee, it is amazing how people call you so many things but never say it.
It's amazing how you continue to do it.


most therapists would consider this a reflection of how one feels about themselves.

Yeah, just like that.

But hey, for the sake of argument, what were the two of you saying? If I am reading too much into you insinuating those who disagree must want kids to watch porn, tell me what you actually meant?
How about Duane saying we're all "concerned about their right to watch porn."? Especially when:
1 - Nothing the President can do will take away MY right to watch porn, since I live in a different country and
2 - All I've been talking about is how ineffective and expensive the "plan" mentioned is. Not whether or not I want to watch porn or whether kids should be watching it (I've said outright they shouldn't).

So please, tell me, when both your statements are completely false and have nothing to do with what's actually been said, except for the word "porn", how am I supposed to take these statements? It seems to me they serve only to shame and insult. But if I'm wrong, what purpose do these have?

shrewsbury
08-31-2012, 04:13 PM
wickabee, that is the other way around, your posts were false, not mine. i won't speak for duane, he is a big boy and can take care of himself.

tag, you're it

Wickabee
08-31-2012, 04:24 PM
wickabee, that is the other way around, your posts were false, not mine. i won't speak for duane, he is a big boy and can take care of himself.


Going with "if you say it enough it will be true" are we?
Cute.

shrewsbury
08-31-2012, 04:53 PM
trying it, don't seem to work though!!!

Wickabee
08-31-2012, 05:09 PM
I can tell you from experience, no matter how many times you say it ain't so, you're still going to need the shampoo and special comb...er, uh, I mean...um...

duane1969
08-31-2012, 05:28 PM
I have reread my posts several times...still don't see where I called anyone a pervert. If you assumed that I said something and then want to claim that it is fact...well, good luck.

I also find it interesting that the video of Romney plainly stating that the issue is not porn was ignored. I guess a little truth from his own mouth is too much to handle and liberals would rather buy into the lies and deception from HuffPost. I believe the term is "status quo".

JustAlex
08-31-2012, 05:46 PM
I gotta be honest. I am surprised that after a vacation from P&R I return to find that the most active thread is the one where people are concerned about their right to watch porn.

The economy sucks, unemployment is rising, gas prices are rising, we are still sending troops to the Middle East, more people than ever are on welfare, the national debt is still rising every minute...but they better not try to take away my porn!!!!

LOL, YES!

It's the principle.....I was just as outraged if not MORE when the congress clowns tried to pass SOPA.

And you don't seem to get the huge irony that the party YOU support are the biggest hypocrites of them all.

They are all for small government.....EXCEPT on everything that is inconvenient for them.

Small government for abortion?

NOPE....we need to make sure women abide by OUR rules, because OUR beliefs are worth more than yours!

Small government for gay marriage?

NOPE.....we need to make sure that gays NEVER get married and thus we are prepared to try to change the constitution to deny them the rights they deserve...

Small government for the internet?

NOPE.....we need to make sure that the internet is regulated (LOL, good luck with that) and porn should be illegal!

JustAlex
08-31-2012, 05:55 PM
BTW....YEAH, I personally like porn, I'm not ashamed to say it and I'm willing to bet that everyone on here at some point in their lives (most likely when they were still in their teens/early 20s) liked it as well.

There's nothing wrong with porn or watching porn, or masturbating on porn or anything of the sort.

In fact porn is a very healthy way for humans to release sexual tension, it's a great way to STOP potential sexual predators by allowing them a medium on which they can enjoy their fetishes without having to violate the law to get their "fix". (I just noticed this comment might be misinterpreted.....I DO NOT MEAN Pedophilia or anything similar to that!) (Obviously I don't support that.....I meant legal porn and ONLY legal porn which has consensual adult actors)

Furthermore, the porn business is big bucks for the United States, and I find it hilarious that the GOP preach about less regulations and letting big business "do their thing"......UNLESS it's inconvenient for them.


Again....GOP = HUGE hypocrites!

Wickabee
08-31-2012, 06:07 PM
I have reread my posts several times...still don't see where I called anyone a pervert. If you assumed that I said something and then want to claim that it is fact...well, good luck.
Again, you're very adept at saying things without using the words and then saying you didn't say it. I applaud you. Seriously, it must take a lot of practice to get this good. Do you practice with Shrew?
"Everyone is just concerned about losing their porn"
As I asked before, what does that mean, if not depraved perverts?


I also find it interesting that the video of Romney plainly stating that the issue is not porn was ignored. I guess a little truth from his own mouth is too much to handle and liberals would rather buy into the lies and deception from HuffPost. I believe the term is "status quo".

Forgive me if Romney wanting to "enforce obscenity laws" means "get tough on porn" please, tell me what it means. Apparently I can't comprehend the written word...at least, not when written by you guys.

shrewsbury
08-31-2012, 10:43 PM
don't drag duane down by comparing him or associating him with me.
wickabee, it means restricting access to children. it mean making websites and search engines accountable for hidden porn links.
i remember when the fcc started to require parental blocks on cable company provided set top boxes, it was a big uproar, but guess what, people got over it and they are in place. so why not make pc manufacturers have to do the same?

Wickabee
08-31-2012, 10:49 PM
don't drag duane down by comparing him or associating him with me.
wickabee, it means restricting access to children. it mean making websites and search engines accountable for hidden porn links.
i remember when the fcc started to require parental blocks on cable company provided set top boxes, it was a big uproar, but guess what, people got over it and they are in place. so why not make pc manufacturers have to do the same?

If Romney or the Republicans want to personally fund it, then I'm all for it, though I still think it won't actually change anything. Those parents who will use it are likely already using one they bought on their own anyway. I'm not against keeping porn out of the hands of children, as has been suggested, but I don't like plans that don't work. To me it is ultimately comparable to putting smoke detectors in every child's room to keep them from smoking cigarettes. It keeps them from porn on the computer, but nowhere else and that's just in the homes it actually gets used.

shrewsbury
08-31-2012, 11:47 PM
the cost of the mandatory parental controls in set top boxes are still in effect to this day, the cost is initially absorbed by the manufacturer, and they still make plenty of money and are not laying off anyone soon.

the best way to do this would be to require the big 2 OS manufacturers, microsoft and apple, to integrate this in all OS systems. they both should be wiling to absorb the costs of this, and not raise any costs to the manufacturers, thus not passing any costs onto the consumer.

the consumer can choose to use the feature or not.

this is not fail safe but is a great start.

shrewsbury
08-31-2012, 11:48 PM
i should also add google, bing, and yahoo should also have these features built into their sites.

Wickabee
08-31-2012, 11:55 PM
the cost of the mandatory parental controls in set top boxes are still in effect to this day, the cost is initially absorbed by the manufacturer, and they still make plenty of money and are not laying off anyone soon.

the best way to do this would be to require the big 2 OS manufacturers, microsoft and apple, to integrate this in all OS systems. they both should be wiling to absorb the costs of this, and not raise any costs to the manufacturers, thus not passing any costs onto the consumer.

the consumer can choose to use the feature or not.

this is not fail safe but is a great start.

Maybe. I do think you have a lot of faith in those companies to just willingly absorb extra cost for no gain on their part. Anything is possible though.


i should also add google, bing, and yahoo should also have these features built into their sites.

I don't use Yahoo or Bing, but Google does have it's SafeSearch feature...not that it's hard to turn off. Then again, I don't know, it may lock somehow, I've never tried.

shrewsbury
09-01-2012, 12:01 AM
well being that they are certainly the wealthy americans that are not paying their fair share, i would not see why they wouldn't. great publicity is always a driving factor and this certainly would make them look like they were doing their share and helping out.

Wickabee
09-01-2012, 12:03 AM
well being that they are certainly the wealthy americans that are not paying their fair share, i would not see why they wouldn't.
The wealthy do not become so by spending money on others.


great publicity is always a driving factor and this certainly would make them look like they were doing their share and helping out.
This has potential, though.

habsheaven
09-01-2012, 08:15 AM
Isn't it ironic we have a whole thread about Republicans supporting/defending an initiative that would place a mandatory government regulation on big business. Where are you guys when it comes time to defend the EPA and the FDA, or the much needed regulations on the banking system? Oh, that's right. We can find you shouting from the rooftops that such regulations would be ineffective and costly. lol

shrewsbury
09-02-2012, 01:46 AM
protecting our children should be our first priority, and having a software program installed on an OS is neither costly nor ineffective.

habsheaven
09-02-2012, 05:57 AM
protecting our children should be our first priority, and having a software program installed on an OS is neither costly nor ineffective.

It has to cost something and we have a whole thread detailing how ineffective it would be. Where is your concern for our children when you want to gut the EPA?

shrewsbury
09-02-2012, 11:25 AM
where does this thread or any post show it would be ineffective? and as i stated earlier, i would bet if i installed the software on everyone's computer in this thread, the vast majority would not be able to bypass it.

also did not gates and jobs both support obama's idea that the rich doesn't pay enough? here is their chance to give back a tiny bit.

habsheaven
09-02-2012, 11:40 AM
where does this thread or any post show it would be ineffective? and as i stated earlier, i would bet if i installed the software on everyone's computer in this thread, the vast majority would not be able to bypass it.

also did not gates and jobs both support obama's idea that the rich doesn't pay enough? here is their chance to give back a tiny bit.

I thought it was going to be software/chip that had to be activated by the consumer. If so, if I could turn it on there's a good chance my child could turn it off.

And back to my point. The RIGHT wants government out of their business. This flies in the face of that, doesn't it?

JustAlex
09-02-2012, 11:36 PM
i should also add google, bing, and yahoo should also have these features built into their sites.
So, punish the companies because lazy parents don't know how to handle their kids?

For once I'm actually PRO-Big business.

The porn business is a multi-billion dollar industry and what they do is no different than any other company, it is NOT up to them to babysit kids.

They do their job.....before you can access most porn sites it will ask you if you are 18 years or older, that is all they need to do.

If parents don't buy the necessary software to properly protect their kids, that is THEIR fault, not the porn industry.

JustAlex
09-02-2012, 11:39 PM
It has to cost something and we have a whole thread detailing how ineffective it would be. Where is your concern for our children when you want to gut the EPA?
You could add the FDA, OSHA, and other government agencies that regulate business so they're not out of control.

The reason the GOP wants to gut those agencies is because they're the ones being affected.

The porn industry on the other hand is something the GOP stays very far away from (they have to, to protect their "family values" nonsense).

However, they don't seem to see the huge irony behind all of this.

JustAlex
09-02-2012, 11:57 PM
I want to share a quick personal story.

Three years ago I worked at a small business company at a lead melting factory, (I worked in the accounting department).

The owner (my boss) was a very corrupt individual.

He violated multiple laws including:

Hiring illegal immigrants and paying them BELOW minimum wage

He didn't properly train his field employees on handling lead (A VERY TOXIC METAL!)

Multiple employees had above average blood lead levels

Overall, the entire job site was unsafe, did not have proper fire exits, nor was there a trained safety officer anywhere in site!

He had his wife on the payroll even though she was NOT an employee and hardly ever came to the job site, typical unethical behavior!

He would take out money from petty cash to buy personal NON-business items for himself and his family such as a nintendo wii for his son!


So finally, a disgruntled employee (Who later told some of us that he was threatened with DEPORTATION if he ever said anything) finally told OSHA all the illegal practices that were going on.

Naturally, he reacted with the typical GOP sentiment: "The government is always looking to close down small businesses"

I, for one, am VERY THANKFUL for government agencies such as EPA and OSHA!

I was eventually fired because he wanted to give his wife's brother a job and I was an "expandable" employee.

Since I was sick and tired of working in that place (of course for a low wage) I told him that I wanted 2 months severance pay and signed a non-disclosure agreement.

theonedru
09-02-2012, 11:59 PM
protecting our children should be our first priority, and having a software program installed on an OS is neither costly nor ineffective.

If a parent wants to 'protect" their kids from stuff like this why can't they can take the initiative and purchase the software to do so instead of relying on others to do the pseudo parenting. Arguing for others to do it just looks like lazy parenting to me.

shrewsbury
09-03-2012, 10:17 AM
so we can give entitlements, free wireless service, free computers to low income people, free school meals, free after school programs, but not help with protecting children from porn?

so i am guessing all parents who are low income and receive some form of entitlements, even free school lunches, are pseudo parents who are lazy?

andrewhoya
09-03-2012, 12:36 PM
If a parent wants to 'protect" their kids from stuff like this why can't they can take the initiative and purchase the software to do so instead of relying on others to do the pseudo parenting. Arguing for others to do it just looks like lazy parenting to me.
It doesn't matter if they purchase it or not, there are ways to get around it.

Wickabee
09-03-2012, 01:05 PM
so we can give entitlements, free wireless service, free computers to low income people, free school meals, free after school programs, but not help with protecting children from porn?

so i am guessing all parents who are low income and receive some form of entitlements, even free school lunches, are pseudo parents who are lazy?
What part of "it won't be useful" makes you think we are in favour of kids watching porn?

I also think this protects parents more thab kids.
And finally to your last line there, I have never known anyone who was too poor to escape porn. This is lazy.

JustAlex
09-03-2012, 01:41 PM
so we can give entitlements, free wireless service, free computers to low income people, free school meals, free after school programs, but not help with protecting children from porn?

so i am guessing all parents who are low income and receive some form of entitlements, even free school lunches, are pseudo parents who are lazy?
Ok, I'm going to ask only because I really don't know....

Who is giving away free computers?

Also, free wireless service?

Where?

Do you mean wi-fi free zones like in McDonalds?

ISPs are not cheap you know (well, at least the good ones).

I'm sure poor people don't have a computer in every single room the way middle class families do.

theonedru
09-03-2012, 03:06 PM
its just funny how many parents look towards others to do their jobs. anyone ever think of properly educating your kids on the subject from an early age? To actually sit down and have an actual conversation about the "ills" they see of it? No it's all "lets just block it and be done with it" and that is not the way to go. We wonder why kids there days are so messed up, we just have to look not at the schools, or communities or their friends, or the internet, we just need to look at the parenting. And this goes far beyond just sex but most everything in life.

andrewhoya
09-03-2012, 03:08 PM
t.o.d.- are you a parent?

Wickabee
09-03-2012, 03:17 PM
t.o.d.- are you a parent?

I am and he's right. Blocking your kids just shelters them. Sheltering is lazy parenting. Parents who shelter just don't want to teach anything, they're just avoiding.

habsheaven
09-03-2012, 03:46 PM
I am and he's right. Blocking your kids just shelters them. Sheltering is lazy parenting. Parents who shelter just don't want to teach anything, they're just avoiding.

Sorry, but this is false. Sheltering may not be the right approach to parenting, but there is no indication that it is lazy. I have known many parents that I find way too over-protective of their kids. I wouldn't call any of them lazy. A lazy parent IMO is one that doesn't pay any attention to what their kids are up to.

andrewhoya
09-03-2012, 03:58 PM
Sorry, but this is false. Sheltering may not be the right approach to parenting, but there is no indication that it is lazy. I have known many parents that I find way too over-protective of their kids. I wouldn't call any of them lazy. A lazy parent IMO is one that doesn't pay any attention to what their kids are up to.
Church!!!!!!!!!

(the more-than-enough exclamation points are because my last church was apparently too un-energetic.)

Wickabee
09-03-2012, 04:49 PM
Sorry, but this is false. Sheltering may not be the right approach to parenting, but there is no indication that it is lazy. I have known many parents that I find way too over-protective of their kids. I wouldn't call any of them lazy. A lazy parent IMO is one that doesn't pay any attention to what their kids are up to.

I think sheltering is easier than teaching. Lazy. Difference of opinion I guess.

JustAlex
09-03-2012, 04:54 PM
I'm not a parent so I can't say anything on that subject.

But I have lived with my parents for 20 years (4 away while in college) and during those years I learned a lot on this subject.

#1 I first watched Porn online when I was about 12 or 13 I don't really remember exactly but it didn't mess me up, it didn't make me into a pervert, it didn't make me into a sexual deviant or anything. I was curious and I saw something which I didn't fully understand but nothing bad happened.

#2 My parents didn't have any filter on the internet (then again, from the time I was 13 I was already more knowledgeable then them on computers) therefore there was no "Forbidden fruit" for me, I could watch porn whenever I wanted (as long as they weren't there of course).

#3 My parents DID have that awkward talk with me about sex and porn and many other things, it was weird, I don't really want to remember it, but I believe it was indeed useful, it let me know they cared about me and wanted to protect me from things which I was not ready for.

#4 Regardless, I still wanted to have sex from the moment I understood what it meant, no amount of talk was going to change the way my hormones felt, no amount of "scary stories" were going to stop me from that irresistible urge. However, I did know that if I did have sex I was going to use a condom and if I couldn't control myself, then self pleasure was a good way to relief stress.


And guess what, I graduated high school, I went to the University of Florida and Florida International University, I graduated with a 3.5 GPA with a Management Degree.

I think I turned out OK.

habsheaven
09-03-2012, 05:06 PM
I think sheltering is easier than teaching. Lazy. Difference of opinion I guess.

It may be easier, but I have known it to be the way some people choose to raise their children because they think it is the RIGHT way, not easier.

andrewhoya
09-03-2012, 05:15 PM
I actually think it is harder to shelter kids. Think of all of the effort they must put in to make sure their children are never exposed to the 'evils' of the world.

shrewsbury
09-03-2012, 06:33 PM
educating your kids and protecting them is not lazy. i cannot believe someone would attacks parents that protect their kids from porn. do you realize there are hidden links to porn even within a disney search? having a filter to block out any hidden links is not sheltering anyone, but protecting them. you are not locking them in the house you are just making sure they are protected from people or things that could harm them. making sure they have a hat and gloves during winter is not sheltering or lazy, but protecting them from the elements.

habs,


Sorry, but this is false. Sheltering may not be the right approach to parenting, but there is no indication that it is lazy. I have known many parents that I find way too over-protective of their kids. I wouldn't call any of them lazy. A lazy parent IMO is one that doesn't pay any attention to what their kids are up to.

you desrve more than 1 church for this,

Church!!!!! :love0030: :love0030: :love0030:

Wickabee
09-03-2012, 11:14 PM
It may be easier, but I have known it to be the way some people choose to raise their children because they think it is the RIGHT way, not easier.

Choosing option A (shelter) over option B (teach) because you don't want to do option B is lazy. Just because it ends up being more doesn't mean that's not the product of laziness.

Wickabee
09-03-2012, 11:15 PM
educating your kids and protecting them is not lazy.

I'm talking about doing one and not the other. How hard is that to understand? Don't start attacking me because you can't figure out what was actually said, please. It's getting really old being told I've said things I have not.

shrewsbury
09-03-2012, 11:24 PM
wickabee, what what is your idea of sheltering? when i think of sheltering i think of protecting them, which would include passing on knowledge, which is often the the est for of protection.

sheltering a child from porn is a good idea, denying there is such a thing as porn, well, that's just kind of weird. parental software obviously recognizes there is porn and other things on the web, it just doesn't want kids to be exposed to it.

habsheaven
09-04-2012, 08:01 AM
Choosing option A (shelter) over option B (teach) because you don't want to do option B is lazy. Just because it ends up being more doesn't mean that's not the product of laziness.

I will say it again because it is obviously not sinking in. Some people choose option A over option B because they think option A is the RIGHT way to raise their children. Effort expended doesn't even figure in the decision so for you to call them lazy is ignorant.

What's next? Are you going to try and tell me that the the parents that do not attend church as a family are just lazy because they do not want to get out of bed on Sunday morning? SMH!!

mrveggieman
09-04-2012, 10:30 AM
I don't think that sheltering is lazy parenting but I do believe that parents who shelter their kids are living in a fantasy world.

habsheaven
09-04-2012, 10:59 AM
The whole topic of sheltering kids vs talking openly/teaching them is way too complicated to simply call parents lazy. Here's another example; death. In my family growing up we were taken to funerals and included in the grief process from the earliest of ages. It was just another part of life. For my wife, her parents sheltered their kids from death. They did not take them to funerals. When we experienced our first family death, my girls were 7 and 4. Despite my wife's misgivings on the issue our girls attended their first funeral. Imagine that, I never accused my wife of being lazy once.

mrveggieman
09-04-2012, 11:06 AM
I remember when I was about 7 years old an older cousin of mines passed away. I knew that I wasn't going to see her any more but I couldn't appreciate the gravity of the situation at that age. My family still did the right thing by taking me to her funeral and trying to answer my questions.

shrewsbury
09-04-2012, 11:12 AM
so parents should let their kids view porn? i understand the all will say no, but it seems like sheltering and protecting them can be looked at differently.

i would say that not taking a kid to a funeral is not sheltering, sheltering would be denying that death exists. just like parental control does not say porn is not available, just not available to kids.

the same could be said for sex, you want your kids to know about sex, but not by letting them have sex or saying sex is ok for children.

mrveggieman
09-04-2012, 11:28 AM
so parents should let their kids view porn? i understand the all will say no, but it seems like sheltering and protecting them can be looked at differently.

i would say that not taking a kid to a funeral is not sheltering, sheltering would be denying that death exists. just like parental control does not say porn is not available, just not available to kids.

the same could be said for sex, you want your kids to know about sex, but not by letting them have sex or saying sex is ok for children.


What the conservatives want us to belive that sex does not exist outside of a male/female marriage hence abstinence only sex ed which in all honesty is an epic failure and I would even want my child exposed to that type of right wing propaganda.

shrewsbury
09-04-2012, 11:35 AM
what conservatives want you or anyone to believe that.

again, there is a difference in wanting someone to have a healthy sexual relationship, than wanting people to think sex is cool and fun. a healthy sexual relationship is monogamous, which is what a marriage should be. if people only had monogamous sex, within a relationship, there would be less abortions, and less STD's. no, it would not end them, but would be less, which is a good thing.

teaching morals and forcing morals are two different things, conservatives want to teach not force morals.

habsheaven
09-04-2012, 11:42 AM
so parents should let their kids view porn? i understand the all will say no, but it seems like sheltering and protecting them can be looked at differently.

i would say that not taking a kid to a funeral is not sheltering, sheltering would be denying that death exists. just like parental control does not say porn is not available, just not available to kids.

the same could be said for sex, you want your kids to know about sex, but not by letting them have sex or saying sex is ok for children.

You really need to re-think your definition of sheltering. Sheltering has nothing to do with denying the existence of something. People that do not want their kids to attend a funeral are worried about the feelings and emotions they may see or experience themselves. And they are trying to "shelter" them from what can feel like a bad experience. Something they may not be able to handle. Which is a very similar parental reaction to pornography.

habsheaven
09-04-2012, 11:48 AM
what conservatives want you or anyone to believe that.

again, there is a difference in wanting someone to have a healthy sexual relationship, than wanting people to think sex is cool and fun. a healthy sexual relationship is monogamous, which is what a marriage should be. if people only had monogamous sex, within a relationship, there would be less abortions, and less STD's. no, it would not end them, but would be less, which is a good thing.

teaching morals and forcing morals are two different things, conservatives want to teach not force morals.

FWIW, healthy sexual relationships are COOL and FUN too, and not all monogamous sexual relationships are healthy. The conservatives shouldn't be forcing or teaching morals. Leave my children's morals to me, the parent, to teach thank you.

mrveggieman
09-04-2012, 11:49 AM
what conservatives want you or anyone to believe that.

again, there is a difference in wanting someone to have a healthy sexual relationship, than wanting people to think sex is cool and fun. a healthy sexual relationship is monogamous, which is what a marriage should be. if people only had monogamous sex, within a relationship, there would be less abortions, and less STD's. no, it would not end them, but would be less, which is a good thing.

You are right but that is not the world that we live in. Adults should be free to have sex with other consenting adults without a 3rd party sticking their nose up at them.

teaching morals and forcing morals are two different things, conservatives want to teach not force morals.

As far as sex one could only offer their "morals" as their opinion and not as scientific fact nor should those morals be provided as the only option available as what abstience only teaches. Not everyone has nor should they have the same set of morals.



Respones in bold.

Star_Cards
09-04-2012, 01:11 PM
what conservatives want you or anyone to believe that.

again, there is a difference in wanting someone to have a healthy sexual relationship, than wanting people to think sex is cool and fun. a healthy sexual relationship is monogamous, which is what a marriage should be. if people only had monogamous sex, within a relationship, there would be less abortions, and less STD's. no, it would not end them, but would be less, which is a good thing.

teaching morals and forcing morals are two different things, conservatives want to teach not force morals.

I'd agree that monogamous sex leads to fewer STDs. Abortions, I'm not sure. The times that I've had unprotected sex has all been in monogamous relationships. I still think that it's possible that more people than not who hook up with various people tend to use condoms more so than people who are in monogamous relationships. When you are monogamous it's a lot easier to end up having sex without protection. That said, people can have healthy non monogamous sexual relationships that don't include unwanted pregnancies or STDs. It's more about knowing how to be safe within those encounters.

Wickabee
09-04-2012, 01:16 PM
There would be less abortions by virtue of less people having any sex at all. He's not incorrect, but misleading might be another story.

shrewsbury
09-04-2012, 01:23 PM
most women who get abortions are unmarried, most people who have none monogamous sex or sex without a relationship are unmarried, thus sex outside of marriage results in more abortions, but not all.

getting back to topic, how is installing a porn filter on a child's computer sheltering?

people who have a cable box do you just allow no filters, so a child can scroll through the guide and see all the porn titles? for those that own porn, do you leave it out where the a child could view it or watch it? for those that have sex, do you have sex in front of a child?
i would guess all the answers will be no, so how is a filter on a computer any different?

habsheaven
09-04-2012, 01:36 PM
most women who get abortions are unmarried, most people who have none monogamous sex or sex without a relationship are unmarried, thus sex outside of marriage results in more abortions, but not all.

getting back to topic, how is installing a porn filter on a child's computer sheltering?

people who have a cable box do you just allow no filters, so a child can scroll through the guide and see all the porn titles? for those that own porn, do you leave it out where the a child could view it or watch it? for those that have sex, do you have sex in front of a child?
i would guess all the answers will be no, so how is a filter on a computer any different?

I feel like I entered bizarro world or something. Of course a filter is sheltering. The filter shelters your child from seeing porn. Just like a parent physically shelters their child from seeing their own porn dvds and sexual acts. As I said earlier, sheltering your children is a complicated issue. In this case it is a good thing. That doesn't mean we need the government mandating it to computer manufacturers. Not all consumers need or want a filter.

mrveggieman
09-04-2012, 01:54 PM
most women who get abortions are unmarried, most people who have none monogamous sex or sex without a relationship are unmarried, thus sex outside of marriage results in more abortions, but not all.

getting back to topic, how is installing a porn filter on a child's computer sheltering?

people who have a cable box do you just allow no filters, so a child can scroll through the guide and see all the porn titles? for those that own porn, do you leave it out where the a child could view it or watch it? for those that have sex, do you have sex in front of a child?
i would guess all the answers will be no, so how is a filter on a computer any different?


I have ATT U-verse for cable tv. They offer the OPTION to put a parental lock passcode to block kids from viewing certian channels/shows. If there was a way for this to be optional from the ISP or have an optional gov't website to go to block porn I wouldn't have a problem with it. I don't have a problem with parents raising their kids. I do have a problem with the gov't trying to raise my kids.

Star_Cards
09-04-2012, 03:01 PM
most women who get abortions are unmarried, most people who have none monogamous sex or sex without a relationship are unmarried, thus sex outside of marriage results in more abortions, but not all.

getting back to topic, how is installing a porn filter on a child's computer sheltering?

people who have a cable box do you just allow no filters, so a child can scroll through the guide and see all the porn titles? for those that own porn, do you leave it out where the a child could view it or watch it? for those that have sex, do you have sex in front of a child?
i would guess all the answers will be no, so how is a filter on a computer any different?

Ah, I didn't know you were defining monogamous relationships as being marriage. I didn't think marriage at all when referring to monogamous relationships. I'd agree that married couples probably have fewer abortions than non married couples and single women.

I don't think having a content filter on a computer is sheltering. I do think that age has a lot to play in when a parent brings up certain topics. However even if a teenager going through puberty gets a sex talk from a parent doesn't mean they'd introduce them to pornography. Odds are that they'd find it on their own or through friends. I did when I was younger and not yet 18.

Star_Cards
09-04-2012, 03:04 PM
I feel like I entered bizarro world or something. Of course a filter is sheltering. The filter shelters your child from seeing porn. Just like a parent physically shelters their child from seeing their own porn dvds and sexual acts. As I said earlier, sheltering your children is a complicated issue. In this case it is a good thing. That doesn't mean we need the government mandating it to computer manufacturers. Not all consumers need or want a filter.

I guess it depends on what you consider sheltering. Sheltering typically has a connotation of an extreme sheltering from typical things that a child would experience. I wouldn't call an app to filter porn from a childs computer as the negative form of sheltering that most people think of when they hear that term. By definition it would be sheltering just not a negative type.

shrewsbury
09-04-2012, 03:18 PM
veggie, so having an option to use parental control on a computer is not the same?

i also think it would be better to have the OS maker put it in the OS, this would give a chance for apple and microsoft to give back and not pass a cost on to the manufacturer.

habs, i though we were in bizorro world, I must have gotten off at the wrong stop again!!!

mrveggieman
09-04-2012, 03:22 PM
veggie, so having an option to use parental control on a computer is not the same?

i also think it would be better to have the OS maker put it in the OS, this would give a chance for apple and microsoft to give back and not pass a cost on to the manufacturer.

habs, i though we were in bizorro world, I must have gotten off at the wrong stop again!!!

You and I both know that whenever the gov't mandates that business do anything the costs is always passed on to the consumer. Again if computer hardware and or software manufactures want to include an optional feature to block porn that is a business decision that they will have to make and the consumer will decide if it's a good one. Why do republicans want the gov't to raise our kids? It's hyprocracy on the republicans part because they are always the ones crying for a smaller gov't but then have no problem with bigger gov't when it suits their agenda.

theonedru
09-04-2012, 03:50 PM
veggie, so having an option to use parental control on a computer is not the same?

i also think it would be better to have the OS maker put it in the OS, this would give a chance for apple and microsoft to give back and not pass a cost on to the manufacturer.

habs, i though we were in bizorro world, I must have gotten off at the wrong stop again!!!

So what is so wrong with the parent paying for the device and installing it? Its simple and those that want it have it, those that do not require it are content. a lot better than forcing ones views across the gambit upon everyone.

shrewsbury
09-04-2012, 10:58 PM
if we can pay for someone to have an air conditioner, or internet service, why can't we pay to protect a child from porn?

we are worried about someone having to buy a $8 ID to vote, but not concerned about making someone buy software to protect kids from porn?

i think if was going to be done right, a child advocate group should step up and ask microsoft and apple, they may be surprised by their answer.

theonedru
09-04-2012, 11:24 PM
if we can pay for someone to have an air conditioner, or internet service, why can't we pay to protect a child from porn?

we are worried about someone having to buy a $8 ID to vote, but not concerned about making someone buy software to protect kids from porn?

i think if was going to be done right, a child advocate group should step up and ask microsoft and apple, they may be surprised by their answer.

There are enough free and low cost programs, as well as some already built to your computer programs in that parents can access so there is no need for this added feature

shrewsbury
09-05-2012, 12:03 AM
I disagree and working in the industry and working in a small community, i can tell you this would be a simple and nice addition for any parent. sure the computer savvy will use other methods, but so many parents are unable to download and set up the free software. most will get stuck will trial versions, virus infected, or junk ware.

but there are more important things to worry about.

this started as showing that the GOP was not out to get rid of porn, just improve methods for parents to keep kids and porn separated on the internet.

Wickabee
09-05-2012, 02:33 AM
I disagree and working in the industry and working in a small community, i can tell you this would be a simple and nice addition for any parent. sure the computer savvy will use other methods, but so many parents are unable to download and set up the free software. most will get stuck will trial versions, virus infected, or junk ware.

but there are more important things to worry about.

this started as showing that the GOP was not out to get rid of porn, just improve methods for parents to keep kids and porn separated on the internet.

Then how can anyone be scared of losing porn, as it's been pointed out many in this thread apparently are?

JustAlex
09-05-2012, 03:34 AM
Then how can anyone be scared of losing porn, as it's been pointed out many in this thread apparently are?
The GOP has ALWAYS been against all porn, their hypocritical "family values" nonsense demands them to be "holier than thou" and thus they can't act like normal human beings.

They've been trying to strictly regulate porn for years under the disguise that it's to protect children....it's all a huge smoke screen.

shrewsbury
09-05-2012, 08:41 AM
wickabee, you tell me. i have not seen, read, or heard anything to make me think the GOP is out to limit or take away porn.

Wickabee
09-05-2012, 01:12 PM
wickabee, you tell me. i have not seen, read, or heard anything to make me think the GOP is out to limit or take away porn.

Read the thread. We're all scared of losing our precious porno.

Star_Cards
09-05-2012, 02:55 PM
I don't think people are scared they would be able to outlaw pornography. It would never go away. If the US somehow banned it, the companies would just leave the country and produce it elsewhere and publish it on the web where people in the US would view it.

I just think requiring and paying for software to put on every machine produced is a poor idea and something that would increase costs and have very little use. Just because people think it's not the place of the government to force companies to provide this software on all computers doesn't mean we are all for children being exposed to pornography.

shrewsbury
09-05-2012, 03:13 PM
it's amazing what people think the government should and shouldn't force people to do.

don't pray at school, allow homosexual marriage, accept abortion for any reason, pay for the poor, pay for government employees to have better jobs than you have,

but heaven forbid if we want them to do something to protect children from the porn industry

if you want it buy it yourself, the government shouldn't do it for you

hello????!!!!! why is this not being said about the important stuff that is costing us our economy? healthcare, welfare, grants, bail outs

15 pages on porn????

mrveggieman
09-05-2012, 03:31 PM
it's amazing what people think the government should and shouldn't force people to do.

don't pray at school, allow homosexual marriage, accept abortion for any reason, pay for the poor, pay for government employees to have better jobs than you have,

Manditory school prayer is illegal and violates the second amendment. Discrimination against anyone becaue of sexual orientation is also illegal, I am against abortion so I will not argue that point, why can't the rich do more to help out they can't take the money with them when they die, we already are paying politicians to have a better life not to mention health care so what is your problem with paying civil service workers a livable wage?

but heaven forbid if we want them to do something to protect children from the porn industry

if you want it buy it yourself, the government shouldn't do it for you

hello????!!!!! why is this not being said about the important stuff that is costing us our economy? healthcare, welfare, grants, bail outs

15 pages on porn????

Response in bold.

shrewsbury
09-05-2012, 03:51 PM
veggie, i said this earlier, why not have the OS providers provide one? last time i checked microsoft and apple are some of the riches business' out there

theonedru
09-05-2012, 04:12 PM
veggie, i said this earlier, why not have the OS providers provide one? last time i checked microsoft and apple are some of the riches business' out there

And its been said why should they do what you refuse to do yourself. Its not that hard to turn on something or buy something if you think it is needed. There was just a yahoo article a few days ago that showed how to tun on all the parental features in all the different browsers and other things you can do. So why you are so adamant on making someone pay for something you want is just silly

mrveggieman
09-05-2012, 04:23 PM
and its been said why should they do what you refuse to do yourself. Its not that hard to turn on something or buy something if you think it is needed. There was just a yahoo article a few days ago that showed how to tun on all the parental features in all the different browsers and other things you can do. So why you are so adamant on making someone pay for something you want is just silly

this ^^^^

duwal
09-05-2012, 04:49 PM
veggie, i said this earlier, why not have the OS providers provide one? last time i checked microsoft and apple are some of the riches business' out there


and they are some of the richest businesses out there because they do not feel the need to spend that kind of frivolous money in order to do something like that

Wickabee
09-05-2012, 06:01 PM
it's amazing what people think the government should and shouldn't force people to do.

don't pray at school, allow homosexual marriage, accept abortion for any reason, pay for the poor, pay for government employees to have better jobs than you have,

but heaven forbid if we want them to do something to protect children from the porn industry

if you want it buy it yourself, the government shouldn't do it for you

hello????!!!!! why is this not being said about the important stuff that is costing us our economy? healthcare, welfare, grants, bail outs

15 pages on porn????

It's not our fault that it's taken you this long...

theonedru
09-05-2012, 06:17 PM
if you want it buy it yourself, the government shouldn't do it for you

He admitted it right here folks, you want to protect your kids from porn buy the programs yourself. End of argument.

Wickabee
09-05-2012, 07:53 PM
He admitted it right here folks, you want to protect your kids from porn buy the programs yourself. End of argument.

What do you want to bet it's not. What do you want to bet this has all been an excercize to get liberals to say "That's wasteful spending" so that later on we can all be horrible people for wanting to keep social and medical programs but being against a redundant and costly program, wait, I forgot, Apple and IBM are going to pay out of pocket for it!

/rolleyes.

shrewsbury
09-05-2012, 08:54 PM
the thread started by accusing the GOP wants to get rid of porn. it was shown they didn't, so the argument has changed into something else. when the accusations are proven wrong, try to change the subject, sound familiar.

16 pages devoted to protecting your rights to porn, nothing wrong with that!

wickabee, nice to see you are in a good mood tonight. after the rest of the bunch left, i am glad i am here for you to pick with.

Wickabee
09-05-2012, 09:29 PM
16 pages devoted to protecting your rights to porn, nothing wrong with that!


And here I thought you had figured out what people have been saying for days, but I see you're still ignoring what's being said and attaching your own meaning to others' posts.
NO ONE IS SCARED OF LOSING PORN, FOR THE LAST TIME!

Case in point, it's not the discussion. We're talking about a useless, costly program paid for by the gov...I mean the compa...I mean the consumers. There are already products out there that do what you want. But no, we have to add MORE regulation and spend the money of other people to "save the children" whom everyone has already admitted will find pornography anyway if they want to. You want the program, go buy it yourself. Don't spend Apple's money for them, don't spend tax dollars on such a waste and actually parent your children. If you want to shelter your own kids, that's fine, but don't make me (in this instance representative of "the People") or some company pay for it. It's what, $30-$60 for a program? Maybe a little more for top of the line? Are your so not worth the cost you need someone else to pay for it?

Wickabee
09-05-2012, 09:30 PM
wickabee, nice to see you are in a good mood tonight. after the rest of the bunch left, i am glad i am here for you to pick with.

I'm always in a great mood :D

I notice I was pretty much right, though...

mrveggieman
09-06-2012, 09:04 AM
He admitted it right here folks, you want to protect your kids from porn buy the programs yourself. End of argument.


CHURCH!! :love0030::love0030::love0030:

Star_Cards
09-06-2012, 10:29 AM
it's amazing what people think the government should and shouldn't force people to do.

don't pray at school, allow homosexual marriage, accept abortion for any reason, pay for the poor, pay for government employees to have better jobs than you have,

but heaven forbid if we want them to do something to protect children from the porn industry

if you want it buy it yourself, the government shouldn't do it for you

hello????!!!!! why is this not being said about the important stuff that is costing us our economy? healthcare, welfare, grants, bail outs

15 pages on porn????



the government doesn't force people not to pray at school. It keeps the school from forcing people who don't want to pray from having group lead prayers in public schools that are tax funded and include children of various types of religious backgrounds. I'm sure individuals pray at school everyday. People also don't want the government to force people to marry people of the same sex. People want the government to recognize same sex marriages if a person wants to marry a person of the same sex. You're perception of people wanting the government to force someone into those two things is a bit skewed.

as for topics like the economy, healthcare, welfare, and bailouts... there's plenty being said about those topics in the proper forums. Plus if they are so much more important then why would Romney even bring up forcing every computer to include parental control software. It's really not that big of an issue as far as the nation is concerned. Parents have lots of options when it comes to keeping there kids away from porn. I agree that it's a lot more accessible these days than when I was younger, but parental controls should be very easily found if a parent can afford to pay for internet access at their home.

shrewsbury
09-06-2012, 12:30 PM
when God is removed from everything, it is by force, not choice for us who believe. when a statue or painting that is of any christian religious aspect is removed, it is by force, not choice. when towns want to remove the name easter and christmas to replace with other words it is by force.

and what about the low income parents who get free internet access?

theonedru
09-06-2012, 01:47 PM
when God is removed from everything, it is by force, not choice for us who believe. when a statue or painting that is of any christian religious aspect is removed, it is by force, not choice. when towns want to remove the name easter and christmas to replace with other words it is by force.

and what about the low income parents who get free internet access?

Now your just babbling this has little to nothing to do with the original topic. Seems after your slip up telling everyone if they want something they should buy it themselves your just grasping at straws....

shrewsbury
09-06-2012, 01:52 PM
You're perception of people wanting the government to force someone into those two things is a bit skewed.

that is what my last post had to do with this thread, and if you read the other post you are referring to, you would be able to tell i was mocking those that say parents should pay to protect children from porn, but they should get paid for everything else from the government, housing, food, day care, after school programs, clothes, internet, computers, and so on.

no slip or abling just dealing with those that only can see out of one eye.

theonedru
09-06-2012, 02:17 PM
that is what my last post had to do with this thread, and if you read the other post you are referring to, you would be able to tell i was mocking those that say parents should pay to protect children from porn, but they should get paid for everything else from the government, housing, food, day care, after school programs, clothes, internet, computers, and so on.

no slip or abling just dealing with those that only can see out of one eye.

You just throw out every excuse as to why it cannot be done by the parent, your the parent its your children so do your parenting. Its not the governments or companies position to parent your child. By all your same arguments it must suck not being able to have marital relations with ones spouse because the child may hear or walk in? Do you give up on that til they are of legal age or out of the house?

Star_Cards
09-06-2012, 02:39 PM
when God is removed from everything, it is by force, not choice for us who believe. when a statue or painting that is of any christian religious aspect is removed, it is by force, not choice. when towns want to remove the name easter and christmas to replace with other words it is by force.

and what about the low income parents who get free internet access?

god is not and will never be removed from everything. No one is closing churches, mosques, religious events, religious conventions,, or any other religious based activities. There's just no need for any religion to be represented within public school or other government organizations. We live in a society that is free to believe whatever religious idea that we want. One does not need to be prioritized over another within socially funded organizations.

well, I have never looked at parental controls so I have no clue how good the free version of these types of software are. I guess I'd refer back to my post a few pages ago discussing a possible website where the government can offer a very of software that give parental controls. People could then download and install from there if it's found that free or low cost controls are not all that great.

Star_Cards
09-06-2012, 02:41 PM
that is what my last post had to do with this thread, and if you read the other post you are referring to, you would be able to tell i was mocking those that say parents should pay to protect children from porn, but they should get paid for everything else from the government, housing, food, day care, after school programs, clothes, internet, computers, and so on.

no slip or abling just dealing with those that only can see out of one eye.

ah. sarcasm is hard to read on message boards.

I don't think parents should typically get free housing, food, day care, and so on from the government.

Wickabee
09-06-2012, 02:42 PM
that is what my last post had to do with this thread, and if you read the other post you are referring to, you would be able to tell i was mocking those that say parents should pay to protect children from porn, but they should get paid for everything else from the government, housing, food, day care, after school programs, clothes, internet, computers, and so on.

no slip or abling just dealing with those that only can see out of one eye.

Umm, parents shouldn't get help from the government with those things unless it's an absolute necessity they can't get. Anti porn software isn't, and it's pretty inexpensive. There are some things that are, and should be, completely up to the parents. Many people who would be in favour of this are also against feeding these kids at school, saying THAT is the parents job.
Let me ask you this. Which is more important to a child's growth; not seeing porn on the home computer, or eating?

mrveggieman
09-06-2012, 02:57 PM
Umm, parents shouldn't get help from the government with those things unless it's an absolute necessity they can't get. Anti porn software isn't, and it's pretty inexpensive. There are some things that are, and should be, completely up to the parents. Many people who would be in favour of this are also against feeding these kids at school, saying THAT is the parents job.
Let me ask you this. Which is more important to a child's growth; not seeing porn on the home computer, or eating?


I choose eating. :thumb: