Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sandman on November 03, 2003, 01:29:18 PM
-
This is just too rich...
Symantec Says No To Pro-Gun Sites
Posted by timothy on Sunday November 02, @02:17PM
from the manufacturing-antipathy dept.
cluge writes "A recent American Rifleman contained small column that said that Symantec's new Internet Security 2004 would block pro gun rights sites (i.e. NRA sites), while not blocking similar anti-gun rights web sites. Being the eternal skeptic, this claim was tested by downloading the trial version and running some tests against it. To my surprise I found the every NRA site was blocked and was in the category 'weapons.' This even included the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action. Some sites that were not blocked were notable anti-gun rights sites such as The Brady Campaign, and Good Bye Guns. The only anti-gun rights site that was blocked that I could find was Hand Gun Control's web site." Read on for more.
cluge continues: "My rather informal test still raises the spectre that a large corporate entity may be clandestinely trying to sway you or your child's political views by censoring content from one side of a political debate. This is indeed chilling, especially considering that such software is required to be used in libraries to protect children. Is this political slant common in censorware? Have slashdotters found similar glitches in other 'parental control' software?"
Slashdot has certainly covered censorware before, but reports like this are still valuable as the world evolves.
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/11/02/1729239&mode=nested&tid=103&tid=153&tid=99
Maybe it's just my perception but it seemed that the pro-gun types around here also favored the laws requiring public libraries to use filtering software similar to Symantec's Internet Securtity 2004.
How do you like it now?
-
I don't think anyone rational believes in mandatory filters at libraries. Laws like that pass because the vast majority of the country are idiots, ignorant of the impossibility of blocking 'inappropriate' sites.
-
They are on the NRA *****list now for sure.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Maybe it's just my perception but it seemed that the pro-gun types around here also favored the laws requiring public libraries to use filtering software similar to Symantec's Internet Securtity 2004.
I'd prefer that libraries not have internet access to anything other than book related resources.
In leu of that, I fail to see how allowing access to any of the sites listed should be banned... unless you can think of a really good reason?
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
This is just too rich...
Maybe it's just my perception but it seemed that the pro-gun types around here also favored the laws requiring public libraries to use filtering software similar to Symantec's Internet Securtity 2004.
How do you like it now?
Not this pro-gun type. I think it was just your perception, and a wrong one at that.
-
must just be your perception. I'm pro-gun, anti-censorship.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Maybe it's just my perception but it seemed that the pro-gun types around here also favored the laws requiring public libraries to use filtering software similar to Symantec's Internet Securtity 2004.
It's just your perception. I don't think computers belong in public libraries.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
must just be your perception. I'm pro-gun, anti-censorship.
Yeah I'm not sure how equates support of 2nd Amendment rights with being in favor of censorship.
-
Innominate: I don't think anyone rational believes in mandatory filters at libraries. Laws like that pass because the vast majority of the country are idiots, ignorant of the impossibility of blocking 'inappropriate' sites.
You are wrong. Things are only impossible in public (read - government-run) facilities. Private organiations would have no problem blocking any inappropriate sites if they cared.
Such service would have been easy to provide by a private company and probably exists already.
miko
-
I am anti censorship... it seems tho that liberal "free speech" types are the first to ban anything that doesn't agree with them..
In this particular case.... they are banning sites that are proven to be factual while allowing sites that are proven to be less than truthful.... but.... even taking away the fact that they are banning sites that are proven to be factual....they are banning one side of an arguement. This would seem to be the real spirit of free speech and I would think that liberals would be appaled.
lazs
-
Waiting for the ACLU to step forward on this issue.
*sound of leaves rustling*
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I am anti censorship... it seems tho that liberal "free speech" types are the first to ban anything that doesn't agree with them..
That quote should be carved in marble....but they'd find a way to ban that statue...
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
It's just your perception. I don't think computers belong in public libraries.
I can just picture your great great great great great grandfather railing against using that darned papyrus instead of the tried and true stone tablet.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
must just be your perception. I'm pro-gun, anti-censorship.
Me too, I need a gun to keep my porn safe.
-Sik
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Innominate: I don't think anyone rational believes in mandatory filters at libraries. Laws like that pass because the vast majority of the country are idiots, ignorant of the impossibility of blocking 'inappropriate' sites.
You are wrong. Things are only impossible in public (read - government-run) facilities. Private organiations would have no problem blocking any inappropriate sites if they cared.
Such service would have been easy to provide by a private company and probably exists already.
miko
Private organizations should be able to do whatever they want in that regard.
-
the problem is that most of the Dems (me included) are always looking over our shoulder for some republican who wants to take away your freedoms. (free speach,freedom of information, right of DRs to perscribe what they think will heal you, assisted suicide)
and the republicans are looking out for dems trying to take their freedoms (guns, uhm as far as I can see thats the only personal freedom they seem to care about).
anyway what I propose is this. we just call an open season for the next few months. both parties stop protecting the mama's boys in their party and get rid of them.
the thing is we keep acting like it's a 2 party system, when there's actually a secret 3rd party. the know it all POS who think they know what kind of guns I need to own, what meds my dr should perscribe, when I've lived long enough(while terminaly ill), what books I need to read, and who's opinions I need access to.
these types seem to have enough time on their hands to have taken control of both political parties.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
I'd prefer that libraries not have internet access to anything other than book related resources.
In leu of that, I fail to see how allowing access to any of the sites listed should be banned... unless you can think of a really good reason?
MiniD
That really was the point for being against the mandated use of filters. The companies that develop filtering software protect their lists with encryption and don't share. If you're using the software you almost certainly can't know what it is that you're blocking or why.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
the problem is that most of the Dems (me included) are always looking over our shoulder for some republican who wants to take away your freedoms. (free speach,freedom of information, right of DRs to perscribe what they think will heal you, assisted suicide)
and the republicans are looking out for dems trying to take their freedoms (guns, uhm as far as I can see thats the only personal freedom they seem to care about).
At last... someone saw the irony.
-
You need to read the balance of his post. The real irony is that there are still people who think that either party has a consistent viewpoint regarding personal liberties.
-
BTW do a Google search for "PMRC" and "Gore".
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
BTW do a Google search for "PMRC" and "Gore".
Don't have to do a search... I know all about that one. Tipper is a harpy.
-
Just curious here. I am not familiar with what PMRC stands for. :confused:
-
The real irony is that there are still people who think that either party has a consistent viewpoint regarding personal liberties.
there ya go.
regardless of your personal opinion on an issue, tell me which party has a consistent line of thought on the following issues.
1. assisted suicide-
dems are for it. you should have a right end your life when it no longer has value to you(assuming teminal illness and a reasonable state of mind)
republicans are against it, life is sacred and you should not be allowed to decide for yourself.
2. death penalty-
dems are against it, life is sacred and you don't have the right to take it.
republicans are for it, some lifes aparently aren't sacred. and we should 'kill them back'
3. abortion-
dems are for it, babies aparently aren't some of the sacred lives. I guess in this instance they see it as ok to kill sombody else if it will help you avoid taking responsability for your own actions.
republicans are against it, life is sacred again.
4. the right to own guns-
dems are aginst it, it's an outdated amendment and we can't be trusted with this freedom.
republicans for it, it's a right guarenteed by the constitution and should be fought for.
5. free speach-
dems are for it, it's a constitutional right and should be fought for. (unless you want to say things that are politicly incorect)
republicans are against it (unless you are saying what they want to hear), it's an outdated amendment and we cant be trusted with this freedom.
6. personal freedom-
the dems are for it as long as you want to talk about the things they find ok. don't want to use any of the rights they don't aprove of.
republicans claim to want personal freedom but then take the stances above. how can anyone say they are pro-deathpenalty, anti-abortion, anti-assisted suicide. to me that says "dying is ok as long as the gov't has given their ok."
7. taxation-
dems want to take the working mans money and give it to the poor.
republicans want to take the working mans money.
the answer to me is clear, and no suprise to most of you. neither party gives a damn about the voter. they have no real agenda other than to take our money and spend it as they like.
they have no logical platform, the only logic is that they align themselves with whatever special interest group there is that can get organised well enough to do some decent fund raising.
the more I think about it I like the idea that a friend of mine had 15 or 20 years ago.
here's his premise-
there is a large percentage of our society who strongly stand behind personal freedom. the problem is that while their intrest in getting the gov't out of our lives is the same, they don't really worry about each other.
if we could get these 2 groups together we would have the largest political lobby in the united states, and on pricipal our causes are aligned.
handgun owners belive our rights are being trampled and the gov't needs to get out of our private lives.
pot smokers also see it as a personal choice and want the gov't out of our private lives.
I' talking about
The American Pot & Pistol Assoc.-
We're Armed, In A Laid-back Sort of Way
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
Me too, I need a gun to keep my porn safe.
-Sik
Thank you, Sik. I needed a laugh :)
-
Y'all want a brush with greatness? The product this article talks about is the one I manage. Go team!
Since I'm a card carrying member of the NRA, you can probably draw your own conclusions about the supposed anti-gun slant suggested. The fact of the matter is the list is encrypted so they have no idea whether there's a slant one way or another.
I'm posting this as a private citizen, not as an employee, and I'm not an official spokesman for the company.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
It's just your perception. I don't think computers belong in public libraries.
I'm actually quite amazed Computers are in public libraries...(and agree with you)
-
so chairboy... are you saying that there are legitimate reasons why NRA sites would be censored but not the rabid anti gun ones? If so... what would those reasons be?
I realize that censorship is such a dumb thing that it is impossible to justify or set standards but.... what was the "reasoning" in your opinion. what set off the ban?
lazs
-
There's no ban. The team that makes the list finds the URLs for the list by hand and adds them one by one. They started on it years ago, so obviously high profile sites like NRA.ORG that have been around long would have a better chance of making it onto the list then a newer site.
There's no bias, it's just a matter of time until those other sites are added.
-
ok, here is a different way of asking the same question. why would the NRA sight be on there at all, if there where no sort of bias?
-
Would anyone post a link to any NRA page that would even remotely look like it promotes gun violence or aggression?
miko
-
Ah, I see the misunderstanding here. The category is not 'Gun violence' or 'Shooting people', it's just general 'Weapons'.
Look, this is a simple tool for parents to use in moderating where their children can browse. It's not a political brainwashing device, it's not something that scheming liberals use for their evil deeds, it's a tool. When I first joined the group, something about the parental controls feature irritated me, but then I realized that if software companies didn't offer that functionality, then pro-censorship groups would be able to effectively make their cases for banning 'offensive' or 'touchy' or 'mature' subjects from the internet.
Who do you want raising your kids, you or some legislator?
Once again, I'm a gun-toting, red necked, 4x4 driving (Well, it's a Yukon, but it's still 4x4) son of a goat and as y'all know, I'm constantly spoiling for a fight. If there was anything insidious about this, I'd either be yelling louder then any of you or unemployed because I got fired for the aforementioned yelling.
-
again though, it's not a 'weapons sight' it is a 2nd amendment political opinion sight. to the best of my knowledge the nra doesn't sell firearms, or any other type of weapons.
wal-mart.com would be more of a 'weapons sight' than the nra.
the software itself obviously doesn't have a agenda, but whoever put that sight on the list of those to be banned sure did.
while the purpose of the software may not be 'brain washing', that is the end result.
aside from that I sure wouldn't want filtering software that blocked certain ideas or opinions from being read. something that blocked certain language, or images, even sights that match people up for random chat these are things I may have wanted for my kids when they where younger. but a filter that blocks out whatever the list makers decide is not PC wouldn't go on my computer, or any computer I had any say in.
btw- you may want to mention this thread at work. I've been very satisfied with my symantec products over the years(have never really considered using anything but norton AV since switching from mcafee in '97), but this is the kind of thing that could have me changing software companies. I'm fairly sure I'm not the only one.
-
banning both sides in this case i think.
no one seems to behave themselves on this one.
misuse of a firearm should be summary hanging tho
i truely believe.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Once again, I'm a gun-toting, red necked, 4x4 driving (Well, it's a Yukon, but it's still 4x4) son of a goat
From LA? Hey Jed, you mind if I come over to see ellie may?:D
-
got to go with apathy on this one.... how is the NRA doing anything but promoting firearms safety? the NRA offers safety classes for children trains instructors... It has an "Eddy Eagle" program for children to promote gun safety... it is obvious that the person making the list is biased.
lazs
-
Here's some stats: There are over 20,000 sites categorized as weapons. I just glanced at the list and saw these anti-gun sites categorized right alongside the NRA:
nomoreguns.com
nonlethal.com
proguncontrol.com
handguncontrol.com
stopgunsnow.com
There's not any intentional bias. If there are sites missing, then submit them at the following URL:
http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/cgi-bin/nisurl.cgi?lang=EN&unblock=http://nra.org/
-
public librarys are just that...public...if they didnt use blocker software anyone could come in and open up a porn site...and because little kids use the library...
also people could look up stuff about building a bomb...and because there anonymous (sp) noone could pin it down o them
the good outweighs the bad when it comes to blocker software ( i know there are ways around it [im using one to veiw this site at school...stupid websense] but there designed to stop the average child from accidently getting to sites they shouldent...) anyway people really shouldent be using the library for that anyway...you wanna look at information about guns at the library spend 2 seconds getting a MUCH more accurate source of information...a book...
-
There's not any intentional bias. If there are sites missing, then submit them at the following URL:
I don't think there are sites missing, I think there are sites blocked that have no bussiness being blocked.
this isn't about obsinity or dangerouse material. it's about PC. I don't want anyones political opinion censored in a public library. the debate over gun control, which ever side you take, (be it reasonable gun owner or lunatic, anti gun nut :D ) is a political or civil rights issue.
just because it's controversial shouldn't justify it being censored. the more contreversial a subject is the more access people need to all sides of the issue so they can make informed decissions for themselves.
-
Right, but it's not being censored. This is a tool that PARENTS can use to control where their kids go.
Whether or not you personally agree or disagree with gun issues, do you think that you as the parent have the right to monitor/control where your kids go? That's all this is. Saying this is about censorship is a straw man argument.
-
Kids will find porn, here, there, home, library, hidden in dads’ underwear drawer, etc.
Put a filter on a computer in a library where people go to find information is idiotic.
You do not want you kids to look up porn in the library? Watch what they do over there shoulder you tool of a ****ing bad parent!"
Also what the hell is wrong with me looking up a how to make a bomb? That’s freedom, I should be able to, and the government or anyone else can **** off, I am free to do it tell I break a law.
What the hell, what if a kid wants to do a report on gun control!
Capt Apathy,
I am pro gun, pro gay, pro choice, pro suicide, pro free speech and also a registered republican.
I laughed at everything you posted tell you hit the free speech part. Reps want it just as much as dems....
I think people really in many cases do not understand free speech. I am all for anyone saying anything they want, hate speech and all. Yes the KKK, ACLU, NAACP, dixiepotatos, Al Franken, the blonde rep dip**** that he loves to hate and Reps love to love, all the Hollywood tools etc have the right to say anything they want.
I also have the right to despise them for what they say and do, I have the right to boycott them and burn their CDs, or movies or books if I want, that’s my right, the same one they have.
What I do not have the right to do is STOP them from speaking. Boycotting them or burning their crappy CDs is not stopping them.
-
BTW, just to avoid any misconceptions, my product is for use at home, not in libraries. I think filters at libraries are stupid too.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Kids will find porn, here, there, home, library, hidden in dads’ underwear drawer, etc.
Put a filter on a computer in a library where people go to find information is idiotic.
You do not want you kids to look up porn in the library? Watch what they do over there shoulder you tool of a ****ing bad parent!"
Also what the hell is wrong with me looking up a how to make a bomb? That’s freedom, I should be able to, and the government or anyone else can **** off, I am free to do it tell I break a law.
What the hell, what if a kid wants to do a report on gun control!
1. kids will find porn...but this keeps the younger ones who arnt looking for it out of it...and it slows down the stupid one...
2. see my earlier post
3. guess what...the parents arnt always going to be around...and the ones that are most likely to veiw the porn are most likely not to have there parents around...
4. err last time i checked building a bomb was illegal...and 90% of the time if your looking up that information your gonna want to use it
5. if the kid wants to do a report then he can talk to the librarian and they will set him up...pure and simple
when was the last time any of you were in a library???
-
BTW, just to avoid any misconceptions, my product is for use at home, not in libraries. I think filters at libraries are stupid too.
kids use libraries
kids can see what people are doing on the computer in a library...
-
vorticon
I should not be punished or stopped from doing something until I break the law. I own books on making bombs, I find it interesting. I have never done it. I know WAY too much about the subject to even try. It is dangerous and stupid. That does not mean I do not have the right to know or learn how to do it. I have never, not one time in my life ever thought of making a bomb, for any reason though I played with firecrackers.
My father was never concerned with me reading the black book of munitions either, he trusted me, and I was worthy of the trust.
I do not use libraries often because I do not like being around other peoples annoying kids, nor do I like giving books back. If I read it I want to own it.
Oh and for kids using libraries, yes they do, and parents should either supervise them or they should be old enough to be trusted. The porn on the computer is not an issue.
-
gtora2 you might know enough not to do anything stupid but that doesnt mean the next guy isnt...and i agree that you shouldent be punished until you break the law...i was just pointing out that people usually want that information for a reason...
-
Right and you pointing that out is meaningless.
You want thought police? You want restricted freedoms based on what we MIGHT do?
-
since you cant have a thought police isnt it better to be safe than sorry...libraries would rather not be a tool to aid criminal behaviour(sp)...
please explain to me how freedoms are being restricted??? are freedoms being restricted by a library not having a copy of mein kamph or the communist manifesto???
-
Are you saying that mein kamph or the communist manifesto are bad?
I own Mein Kamph, hell it is in the car right now, and the manifesto. They are books, simply books and I think they belong in Every library.
Libraries are about info, not PC bull****. How is some poor kid going to do a report on hitler is he can't get Mein Kamph from the library.
No not better safe then sorry. Better free.
I am sure there thousands of people like me who have a thirst for knowledge, and will never use said knowledge in a bad way for every tool who will use it for bad.
You want to punish thousands of people for the wrongs of a few. I hate that. It is so ****ing wrong, that same argument is used in gun controll all the time and it is no more valid there, less even considering how few legal gun owners ever use there guns in a crime.
Freedom is about being free to read, write, see, do and own what the ever the hell I want, be it a gas gussling Yukon, to a evil looking Ar-15, to a book on bomb making.
-
Vort
You sound like you WANT thought police?
-
im not saying there bad...im saying that the information contained in them may be harmfull to children who are likely to read them and beleive that jews are evil and should be dead...once your a adult do what you want...
as for better free than safe...just how free can you be if your dead...or afraid that some psycho CAN get ahold of information on how to build things like guns and bombs
how are you being punished by not being able to look it up in a library???
you have a right to read that information...the libraries have a right to keep the SECURITY OF THE STATE by not letting any psycho come in off the street and leave knowing enough to blow something up
-
I am not being punished; I have the money to purchase the books I want. Others have to depend on libraries.
The odds of me being blown up by a guy who read how to make a bomb in a library are so low I will never worry about it. Contrary to the spin many of the antigun jokers on this board try and use, I do not live my life in fear, I own guns cause I like them not out of fear of being killed. I feel safe 99.9% of the time.
Libraries do no have the right to secure the state through censorship. That is violating the right to free speech.
Have you read Mein Kamph? Find me a kid under 15 who could read past the first few pages and I would be amazed!
Answer my question about the thought police.
Libraries are not a line of defense. They are store houses for knowledge. Do you think internet sites with hate speech and bomb making instructions should be banned?
-
Actually the ingretients for "black powder" is in your average dictionary. Some kid can blow himself up or someone else for that matter. Its probably happened before.
-
1. good...i think if someone wants to learn about something like that they SHOULD buy it themselves...because for some odd reason most libraries dont keep that kind of book
2. im glad to hear that...
3. they dont...but they do have the right to do what they want on there property...they just prefer to keep kids safe from accidental veiwing of harmfullby using blocking software...
4. you highly underestimate children...i know at least 1 who probably could (hell he read and understood the foundation trilogy when he was 9!!!)
5.no i dont...but i do think that keeping the safety of the many is more important than the want of knowledge by people who are going to use that knowledge to harm the many (if you want the info for legit matters all the more power to you...see 1)
6. true...most people look up that information at home if they want to do something stupid...but they still have the right to keep children from breaking the law (if they do the library is responsible...blocking software is about protecting kids...even the most hardcore legit pornsite agrees)...i think ive made myself clear on bomb making sites...as for hate speach well they should only be accessible by adults...and only for reasearch purposes...we are trying to stop racism you know
-
please explain to me how freedoms are being restricted??? are freedoms being restricted by a library not having a copy of mein kamph or the communist manifesto???
they are being restricted by control of what info is being allowed gov't suport.
and if mein kamph or the communist manifesto aren't allowed in your library freedoms are being restricted. not all libraries can afford all books (obviously), but to leave out certain titles as a way to control their info is restricting the free flow of info.
and I know it's been way over quoted recently but I gotta say it again. "any man who would trade freedom for safety deserves neither"
chairboy, if the software is only available for private home use and clearly states that it is censoring out sites for reasons other than obsenity (and what subjects it's sensoring) then I was wrong and it's a fine product. parents deffinatly have a right to control information into their own kids. but if it is able to be licensed for use by schools, libraries and the like (gov't money)then it needs to be 'cleaner' and only filter obscene material and not restricting thoughts and ideas. (and by obscene I mean media that is already restricted in it's non-electronic form and a child would not be able to purchase it in 'hard' format)
-
Trying to stop racism through restricting freedom of speech is stupid.
You are willing to restrict what people can read because you fear what a few can do with the information. Think about that for a second. Think of how that can be perverted, think how that same idea can be aplied in other places.
I would rather be free. Even more so when people are trying to protect me from something that is not a real threat anyway.
-
Oh and any library that does not have mein kamph or the communist manifesto is a sad disgrace of a library. I mean that.
Both are VERY significant books.
I would rather see ten copies of Mein Kamph then 20 of Harry potter or Daniel steel books.
-
You are willing to restrict what people can read because you fear what a few can do with the information. Think about that for a second. Think of how that can be perverted, think how that same idea can be aplied in other places.
your right...but i still stand by what i said...read what you want when your a adult until then you will be kept from material deemed harmfull to you
and I know it's been way over quoted recently but I gotta say it again. "any man who would trade freedom for safety deserves neither"
i agree...if it was a full trade
i wouldent go for a full trade...but if i was completly free i would trade some freedoms for safety (to about the point we're at right now in canada...)
Oh and any library that does not have mein kamph or the communist manifesto is a sad disgrace of a library. I mean that.
i agree
but would you want a child (under 18 years old) to read either and take it VERY seriously (as kids do) and do something stupid...
for the most part we agree with each other...
-
so who's to decide what are 'safe ideas' for kids to have access to?
I find it interesting that the 2 books you mentioned as bad and dangerouse happened to be fairly important to societies that believed much as you do.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Trying to stop racism through restricting freedom of speech is stupid.
Please, not "stupid" I believe the proper term is "intellectually challenged."
-
I would let my kids, (I will have step kids when I get around to marrying my girl) read either if they could get through them. I would make sure and discuss the material with them in depth though. Make them understand one of the writers was insane, and the other a VERY naive person with no clue about human nature.
As for other parents? Well I would hope they would do the same, but some will not. I am sure some parents would not even know what either book was! Though I bet most kids under 18 have no idea either.
I really do not think the government should protect kids more then they do adults. That is the parents job.
There is one freedom I would be happy to restrict. The right to have children. Kids are the biggest responsibility any human short of national leaders a person is going to have yet anyone can have as many as they want. No mater who it hurts, no mater if the kid is bound and destined to be a loser or criminal because he parent/parents are fools.
-
Holden McGroin
LOL
It is stupid.
just like it is janitor, not bathroom maintenance or whatever PC bull**** term the PC police come up with!
If there is one thing I hate more then Stupid gun laws and the stupid politicians that pass them, it is PC BS.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
so who's to decide what are 'safe ideas' for kids to have access to?
I find it interesting that the 2 books you mentioned as bad and dangerouse happened to be fairly important to societies that believed much as you do.
the government seems to have that undercontrol so far (and some people on this board by there reactions to that noodle hatted sculpture of a bishop)...the 2 books i mentioned were examples of things that could have harmfull effects on kids...of course GToRA2 seems to know what hes doing...so im not to worried about him or his family
I really do not think the government should protect kids more then they do adults. That is the parents job.
kids are more likely to be affected by what they read...(hell my veiws have been slightly changed thanks to you...) wich means that more precautions (like the porno thingy) have to be taken to make sure that kids dont end up being losers or criminals...
-
Vorticon,
Perhaps you should read some books before this conversation goes any further. I think you'll find that this is a battle in which you are unarmed:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0451526341/qid=1068003386/sr=8-7/ref=sr_8_7/103-8275615-0524656?v=glance&n=507846
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0451524934/qid=1068003447/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/103-8275615-0524656?v=glance&n=507846
Allowing someone else to tell you what is and isn't acceptable thought is awful dangerous.
-
good call chairboy,
may I also add-
'Brave New World' by Aldous Huxley
vorticon,
I know it probably comes off as condescending to sugest that you 'read up' before a conversation. but these books would deffinately make the point better than I could. not just by their content but I'm sure you could find some people who really didn't like the msg of these books and thought them dangerous.
often the more important ideas are considered the most dangerous.
you wouldn't have to go far back to find people who where considered 'enlightened' at the time, but believed strongly that the thought of a country being run by 'the unwashed masses', and not people who earned their right to rule by luck of birth, was a 'dangerous idea'.
one of my basic 'rules of thumb' is that if you're not pissing someone off then it probably doesn't need said, anything worth saying will bring change and change anoys people.
through out your life you should always be alarmed when someone offers to do your thinking for you.
BTW- in those 2 societies we talked about, in both of them it was also widely believed that-
the government seems to have that undercontrol so far
-
thank you for the info chairboy... I agree that parents should have the right to censor their childrens content.
I also appreciate the site to send anti gun sites to in order that they may be censored equally.
I believe tho that guns are a legal, constitutional part of our society and..... like sex.... are out there waiting to be discovered... I believe that talking about sex safety is no more important than talking about gun safety...
If your child gets aids because you hid sex safety from them then it is your fault.... if your child is killed in a gun accident because he didn't have the faintest idea of gun safety then that is also your fault.
lazs
-
Nazis had a real nice security in their country, I wonder did the people like that kind of a security?
Would you?
lets address it better; this was to someone who said libraries has the right to give information about what people read when needed..
-
nazi's had the strictest gun control in the world. All the axis powers had very strict gun control during WWII. The first thing they did when they occupied a country was to disarm the populace..
lazs
-
Hmmmmm Nazi's loved gun control....It was the National socialist party.
Dems love gun control.... and they are almost a National socialist party.....
:D
-
Anybody have a local library that stocks Hustler in the magazine racks?
The filters have always been in effect in libraries, and filters on the library's computers are no different.
-
"one of my basic 'rules of thumb' is that if you're not pissing someone off then it probably doesn't need said, anything worth saying will bring change and change anoys people.
through out your life you should always be alarmed when someone offers to do your thinking for you. "
you didnt really notice my point...as far as im concerned once your an adult you can read what you want...until then for the most part your thinking is done by adults because you cant make good decisions and certain material is harmfull...just because its a written idea doesnt mean its not as harmfull as pornography. would YOU want a bunch of kids growing up thinking that stalin or hitler were right???
-
Vort
Your right in a sense, info should be filtered to kids, their are things they just wont understand.
Still there are kids who grow up loving Hitler, and it aint the library at fault, it is some jerk of a parent who only has 5 brain cells.
-
you didnt really notice my point...as far as im concerned once your an adult you can read what you want...until then for the most part your thinking is done by adults because you cant make good decisions and certain material is harmfull...just because its a written idea doesnt mean its not as harmfull as pornography. would YOU want a bunch of kids growing up thinking that stalin or hitler were right???
adults should have free access to ideas. parents should control what kids are exposed to not the gov't.
have you ever met someone who was raised by the gov't? decent, and well adjusted, are not the norm?
but the point still remains, other than parents making decisions for there kids, who is to decide what is harmful?
how do they decide?
can they do it without exposing themselves to the harmful idea?
if they do expose themselves to the material in an effort to decide if it's dangerouse, can we really trust the judgment of these now damaged people?
do we set up a system where one person decides for everyone?(that way if it's dangerous we've limited societies exposure)
and should everybody have to do a turn at deciding, I mean these ideas could be dangerouse, is it reasonable to expect someone to risk their sanity more than once before everybody has taken their turn.
plus if we let people decide more than once we increase the risk of a bad decision, not only could this material be dangerous but they may have residual damaged from the other material they checked out for us.
do we breed a race of superminds who are impervious to this sort of filth?
who's idea was that, did someone check to see if that was a safe/healthy thought
really it's all very complicated. you'd have to outline the whole plan before I could sign off on it.
but then I'm not sure if I could even check out your idea, has anyone checked to see if it is dangerous?