 
Lumberjack
Premium
join:2003-01-18
Newport News, VA
 ·Cox HSI
| In the home parents, not government , is the filter. When will governments and society learn that parents are the key holders to content their child sees while at home? Poor parenting already causes enough problems and for the governments of the world to believe they can 'help' just makes it worse.
--
»www.fairtax.org | |
|
 | jc100
join:2002-04-10
·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | Re: In the home parents, not government , is the filter. Parental responsibility? HAHAHAHAH... That's similar to asking people with 10 kids and on welfare to use contraceptives. It won't happen. Still, IT IS NOT the government's job to regulate what parents deem acceptable. Only if the child is in mortal danger or being harmed should the government step in and assist. That's my opinion anyway. | |
|
| |
Lumberjack
Premium
join:2003-01-18
Newport News, VA
·Cox HSI
| Re: In the home parents, not government , is the filter. I agree with you and most of the responses.
Instead of the government attempting a parenting role because parenting sucks, the government should instead parent the parents by competent legislation. I believe some governments already do this but at least in the US parents are not held accountable enough. Instead like somebody else had posted, the government rewards dumb parents by allowing tax breaks for not using birth control along with welfare, etc...
So instead of the message being "don't worry we'll raise them for you" it really should be "if you can't raise them, we won't and instead we'll give em to somebody else that can." And come on, cap the damn welfare and tax credits at 2 or 3 kids!
--
»www.fairtax.org | |
|
| | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| Re: In the home parents, not government , is the filter. said by Lumberjack  :And come on, cap the damn welfare and tax credits at 2 or 3 kids! | |
|
| 
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| said by Lumberjack :When will governments and society learn that parents are the key holders to content their child sees while at home? Poor parenting already causes enough problems and for the governments of the world to believe they can 'help' just makes it worse. Hey why do the actual parenting when you can get the government to do it for you? I mean they do everyhting else so well, let them raise our kids too. | |
|
| | jc100
join:2002-04-10
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: In the home parents, not government , is the filter. Yep why not. We should go back to that model they used in the 16th century. Give away your kids until they are older and take them back then. The wealthy would have others raise their kids or ship them off. Hell, lets just have the government set up parental centers. This way they can do whatever the bleep they want, and parents can just continue to pop them out with no remorse. Now back to reality, this is sarcasm, but it's quite sad that a government feels the need to dictate stuff like this. Then again, it happens in the U.S too. | |
|
| | nevtxjustin
join:2006-04-18
Dallas, TX
| Reminds me of a cartoon many years ago. Lady was entertaining a visiting couple and her kids were racing around the living room, swinging on the lampshades and climbing the drapes. She was saying, "I'm just going to let the government raise my children..." | |
|
| | | jc100
join:2002-04-10
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: In the home parents, not government , is the filter. Yep sounds about right. My opinion welfare should exist, but should be something people have to WORK to stay on, NOT work to get off of. IE. If you are on welfare you must go to school or hold a job. Sort of like it is now, but without the ten million loopholes to get of it such. Personally, there's nothing wrong with a boost, its a problem when people think they can live off it.
As per the kids tax breaks, I guess this would be good idea. Either reward parents with three or less kids with the most breaks and base any additional breaks based upon income. IE if you got 5 kids, you must make the federal minimal guidelines to support those kids in order to claim them. If you don't, then you are only allowed to claim the max your income supports. I'm sure that'd clamp down on a lot of this baby popping. Too bad it won't happen though. | |
|
| | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| Re: In the home parents, not government , is the filter. Just make a "no [or less then X number of] dependent children credit" on tax returns. Poor people get taxed higher. A couple $K each year per extra child should really clamp down. Otherwise you goto jail for 1 year. And your kids goto foster care obviously.
quote:
shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $25,000 ($100,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.
»www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/7203.html | |
|
| | | | | jc100
join:2002-04-10
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: In the home parents, not government , is the filter. Well if I had it my way it'd be like such.
(see link for my math) - Federal Poverty Guidelines.
»aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/07poverty.shtml
Everyone should be allowed to claim up to three kids. Have more than three Kids, then you MUST make the minimum amount (federally accepted) in order to claim the fourth or above. Otherwise, you are allowed ONLY three kids to claim. For instance. A family of six (Mother + Father + Four Kids) MUST MAKE 27,610 within the 48 states to be considered above the poverty line. If this family MAKES less.. then Mother + Father should only be allowed 3 kids on their taxes. The fourth kid DOESNT count for ANY SORT of write off. It should go by age, too. So parents can't pick and choose which one will give them the most back. I bet such a system would stop people, too. Being it doesn't provide jail time but it also doesn't REWARD them for bad behavior. | |
|
| 
Stupid Parenting
@rwoodbroadband.com
 from:
LiamJunket
| said by Lumberjack :When will governments and society learn that parents are the key holders to content their child sees while at home? You're assuming that the government is actually happy about good parenting practices; they aren't.
The thing to realize here is that lazy/stupid parenting gives the government (any government) an excuse to step in and act as a parent because they can claim that the "adults" that are supposed to be teaching their kids right from wrong are simply "not up to the task."
What's worse is that lazy and stupid people actually look forward to that happening. Because when the government takes responsibility for raising your children, it means that you don't have to spare them another thought.
Which frees up your time for other, more "important" things.
Don't get me wrong: I wish that every parent felt as you do. I'm just saying that lazy and stupid parenting works to the advantage of the government because it gives them an excuse to:
A) Run the lives of parents and their children (because they aren't capable of running their own lives).
B) Take more money away from people because, let's face it, running peoples' lives for them gets expensive.
...that's all.
Sorry to sound so cynical, but it just seems that everywhere I go in the US, I see parents who seem delighted to have other people raise their children for them.
And they are getting their wish. | |
|
| | jc100
join:2002-04-10
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: In the home parents, not government , is the filter. You forgot one key argument in your response, lazy parents can always fall back on the, it's not my problem and fault argument. If this fails and it's a government mandate, they can wash themselves of blame, and then scream and moan about it. Hence are the ways of the crap parents. Whine when it doesn't work, but all other times sit back and do nothing. Either way, it's not the government's place to dictate what should be done as long as no physical harm is coming to a child. Yet, these stupid parents as you said, give them the ammunition to do so on that very argument it's for the good of the child. | |
|
| | 
SLD
join:2002-04-17
Los Angeles, CA | Don't forget that lazy parenting can lead lead to lazy, stupid children that are easy to manipulate. Also, lazy parents are more likely to be stupid as well. Both pluses for Gov't. Educated citizens are harder to fool and control. | |
|
| | | jc100
join:2002-04-10 | Re: In the home parents, not government , is the filter. Gov. educated children will be less likely to question their masters =). Win win for all, if you want sheep and yes men no doubt. | |
|
| 
jeffster1970
Whatta Ya Think About Dat?
Premium
join:2004-04-01
Kitchener, ON
clubs: 
 ·magicjack.com
·Vonage
 ·Acanac
·Bell Sympatico
| Problem is, babysitting costs money-and, at that, not always reliable, keeping the kids occupied takes a lot of energy from the parents.
However, TV, Internet and Game Consoles are cheap and is something parents seem to prefer, and they wonder why the kids have issue.
It's a shame that parents today just don't "get" it.
--
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943 | |
|
member
@rr.com
| What did you expect? This is the wrong kind of plan, and it's proven by a teenager in a half an hour.
I still think that domain registrars and ISP's should work together to implement a categorized port based system to make it easier to filter traffic for parents and IT departments (or anyone who wants to filter traffic).
Kind of like the v-chip. The technology is there and it works pretty well. People simply need to learn how and use it. | |
|
ib50MbSoon
Formerly TwoKDialup
Premium
join:2002-06-07
Coloma, MI
| This porn stuff has to stop... even our pets are becoming warped.
--
Comcast has spoiled me rotten! | |
|
| patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY | Re: This porn stuff has to stop... interracial porn? | |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
Albany, NY
| Force Filtering? They thought that 25 million homes would use the system, only 29,000 did. (And I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt that some of those 29,000 weren't multiple computers in the same house.) That means that only 0.116% of the target audience wound up actually interested enough to use the filter. So if only a tenth of one percent of your target audience actually is interested in porn filtering the logical step is to force filtering on 100% of users, right? 
--
-Jason Levine
Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar. Shooting For A Cause
Jason's Toolbox | PCQandA.com | |
|
| 
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
| Re: Force Filtering? said by Jason Levine :They thought that 25 million homes would use the system, only 29,000 did. (And I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt that some of those 29,000 weren't multiple computers in the same house.) That means that only 0.116% of the target audience wound up actually interested enough to use the filter. So if only a tenth of one percent of your target audience actually is interested in porn filtering the logical step is to force filtering on 100% of users, right? We've got the tyranny of the minority in the U.S. as well. Stupidity knows no limits.
--
The Toll
Let's Go Flyers!
| |
|
| redleaf
join:2000-09-12 | Considering that Australia's population doesn't even reach 25 million people I don't know how they thought they'd reach 25 million homes. Maybe they thought people would install it in their vacation homes too? | |
|
| | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
1 edit | Re: Force Filtering? wrong post replied to | |
|
| |
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
Albany, NY
| Good point. Australia has an estimated population of 21.2 million people. Even giving them the benefit of the doubt that they meant that 25 million *PEOPLE* would be using this and not 25 million *HOMES* (two very different things), that's still about 118% expected usage. I've heard of some pretty optimistic usage expectations, but this takes the cake! | |
|
spamd
Premium
join:2001-04-22
Rockford, IL
·Insight Communicat..
| Let's stop it at the source! Why waste our time with filters. It would be much more effective if we just introduce anti-hormone drugs or genital surgery to our children, all we need to do is take the urge away, what's wrong with that. After all, all the scientist say that the world has too many people anyway.
My vote goes to hysterectomy, castration, and or anti-hormone drugs. NIP it in the bud!!!
--
When everything is coming your way, you are in the wrong lane. | |
|
|
idjk
@sprintlink.net
| Re: Let's stop it at the source! said by spamd :Why waste our time with filters. It would be much more effective if we just introduce anti-hormone drugs or genital surgery to our children, all we need to do is take the urge away, what's wrong with that. After all, all the scientist say that the world has too many people anyway. My vote goes to hysterectomy, castration, and or anti-hormone drugs. NIP it in the bud!!! This would actually work and in 1 generation the problem would be fixed for all times! | |
|
| 
TScheisskopf
World News Trust
join:2005-02-13
Belvidere, NJ
 ·Sprint Broadband D..
| I am sure that if you were a fly on the wall during some conversations and meetings, what you described was discussed. Seriously discussed.
Some people's brains turn into tiny raisins when they ponder teenage sexuality. It's like they want to keep the kids in amber. And they were never teenagers.
They seem to forget that there is no more powerful natural force on earth than the teenage sexual drive. Earthquakes and hurricanes are mere bagatelles in comparison. | |
|
| | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| Re: Let's stop it at the source! said by TScheisskopf :It's like they want to keep the kids in amber. And they were never teenagers. I love that part. Parents who say they have had sex only the number of times that they have kids. Sure........ | |
|
| dentman42
join:2001-10-02
Columbus, OH
·AT&T Midwest
| said by spamd :Why waste our time with filters. It would be much more effective if we just introduce anti-hormone drugs or genital surgery to our children, all we need to do is take the urge away, what's wrong with that. After all, all the scientist say that the world has too many people anyway. My vote goes to hysterectomy, castration, and or anti-hormone drugs. NIP it in the bud!!! Welcome to the monkey house. | |
|
| patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| Egh, Hitler copied doing that from the USA, but after the war it was associated with Nazism, and everyone and mass media in the USA forgot that that the USA did it first. Its not coming back either to the USA because that would be a case that our activist SCOTUS would take and kill the law. Also all the citizens will disagree with it because of all the anti-racism/anti-nazi crap they've been taught in school. I haven't seen school history books that were printed since 9/11 but I wonder how evil they make arabs by this point. | |
|
|
| AquaBlaze
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| Re: It's for the children though said by axelrose :It's for the children. Who is against the children? Me personally. They're small, annoying, and get in my way in amusement parks. Kids need more porn IMHO.
I kid. Though, damn if my attitude towards kids didn't nearly change while attending Disneyland's New Year Eve 2007. God that was an ocean of kids, literally. I couldn't take two steps without almost stepping on one. | |
|
| | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| Re: It's for the children though I agree, they walk around like they own the world and you trip on them, you scream at them to move and they don't. Same thing with kids who cross the road. My parents never held my hand after I was like 4. Heck at 9 I could navigate public transit systems. If you can read english you can do it. If a kid can't learn to look both ways and tell if something is coming at them, then God needs to take that child back. Tell the kid once, "that [cars] will never stop if you run into the road", then time for some hands on examples, take a watermelon and drive over while your kid watches, will teach them for life, or go show them some nice gory photos of smashed apart brains from accidents (thank you uncensored internet). Too many over babied sensitive kids nowadays, and guess what happens when they turn 18 and mommy and daddy isn't there anymore and they have no clue how to be adults or do even the simplest things.
Darwin rules! | |
|
Corydon
Cultivant son jardin
Premium
join:2008-02-18
Denver, CO
clubs:
·Comcast
| My worry.... Is that cases like this, the Finnish experience with child porn filters, and the Danish experience against the Pirate Bay will lead to attempts to regulate OpenDNS and similar non-regulated DNS providers as "enablers" of kiddie porn, piracy or what have you.
Please note that this is not a defense of child abuse or piracy. I'm just tired of having my legitimate rights infringed because someone else might be abusing them (case in point that's really sticking in my craw right now is SafeDisc).
I wish that governments would go after the people who are actually breaking the law rather than mass-punishing everyone in an orgy of save-the-children paranoia.
But that's all, like, hard and stuff, you know? Much easier to punish everybody. | |
|
Edward1978
join:2007-07-23
De Soto, IL | Wow 89 mil. Just make a porn blacklist & offer software to interact with it. God give me 1 mil. I might come up with one that works. | |
|
| patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY | Re: Wow 89 mil. Here is the solution. Disconnect Australia from the internet, making it one big walled garden. That way any porn sites are only a police car's trip away to fetch the server. | |
|
Logan 5
A Sense Of Loss On Friday's
Premium,MVM
join:2001-05-25
The WasteLAN | If you cant beat em......... force em.
Ohhhh I feel so dirty for thinking that but in this case it's true.
Can't beat em with filters so force 'em with regulations. | |
|
Loadofjunkk
@comcast.net
| What a waste of time and money! I have no clue what the idiots in Canberra are doing!
A country that has topless beaches, naked shows on TV in the evenings, legal prostitution(this is true!), wants to force the ISP's to filter???
I think they have been drinking a few too many VB stubies.
I understand what they are trying to do, but aussie kids are exposed to sooo much alreay in their own homes and neighborhoods, they don't need it filtered from their PC's they need it filtered from everywhere else.
They need to be spending that money on saving the Reefs and Rainforests... not on forcing ISP's to be content police! | |
|
| 
TheToro
Premium
join:2003-06-05
London, UK
·Comcast
·Jazztel
| Re: What a waste of time and money! said by Loadofjunkk :
I have no clue what the idiots in Canberra are doing!
A country that has topless beaches, naked shows on TV in the evenings, legal prostitution(this is true!), wants to force the ISP's to filter???
I think they have been drinking a few too many VB stubies.
I understand what they are trying to do, but aussie kids are exposed to sooo much alreay in their own homes and neighborhoods, they don't need it filtered from their PC's they need it filtered from everywhere else.
They need to be spending that money on saving the Reefs and Rainforests... not on forcing ISP's to be content police!
lol. Dude, every single developed country is like this but the USA. | |
|
gower2352
join:2005-06-08
Weston, WV | whats wrong with a little portn glad we don't live there | |
|
NJxxxJon
something good. or your mom.
Premium
join:2005-10-22
00000
| Parents THEMSelves. Yeah when when people are having babies at 19, and their own parents smoke so much HASH and Drink every night no wonder we have a corrupt world.  I am glad I am better than half the people I graduated with in high school -now in 2008. Filters......sesh.
--
___________Post a VIDEO...or it DIDN'T HAPPEN_____ | |
|
Stunatra
join:2006-02-08
Phoenix, AZ
| Porn is harmless I don't know what the big deal is about porn anyway. Why it is that we will let children watch these violent movies where two people kill each other, but then edit it when two people decide to make love? This makes no sense whatsoever, why is sex so much worse than death? Porn is harmless, giving someone an orgasm can't be the worst thing in the world. | |
|
| 
koolman2
Premium
join:2002-10-01
Anchorage, AK | Re: Porn is harmless The parents letting their kids see violent movies probably don't care if their kids watch porn.
--
There's no place like ::1. | |
|
ultracooldave
@verizon.net
|  internet-our last freedom!
| |
|
nydwarf1
@teksavvy.com
| Why Bother?` The fact that so few people downloaded the crapware should be a good enough indication to the government that the people don't want filtering of the internet. Now they want to force ISP's to do it talk about an insult to the people of that poor imprisoned isle. | |
|
rob_in_chatt
Premium
join:2004-09-17
Chattanooga, TN
·Comcast
1 edit | $89 mil i would have loved to see the look on the face of the government when the news was told to them about a teenager bypassing that filter. hahahaha that shit is funny.
yes the porn is a problem so dont think im taking that lightly by any means. i just think its hilarious that a kid bypassed 89 million bucks worth of work in half an hour. | |
|
|
|
|
Australia's $89 Million Porn Filter a Failure
filters [it's for the children 
]