[PLUG-TALK] Porn on the Net...

Aaron ke7ezt at gmail.com
Tue Oct 27 16:54:42 UTC 2009


I wont respond to every part of this thread.

It's easy to find, yes (porn).  There are lots of things on the internet
that is easy to find--that doesn't make it wrong.  There are also many other
ways to find and get porn other than the internet.  If the internet wasn't
around if someone has a problem/addiction with porn they would find some
other way to get it.

I don't exactly understand what your concern is.  If someone has a
problem/addiction then making the whatever it is illegal doesn't solve your
own personal addiction. It simply means one is forcing their morals and
beliefs on someone else by making the object of their addiction illegal.
Example; if someone has a problem with drinking does it makes sense to make
alcohol illegal for everyone else?  No.  Most people can drink and they
don't end up in the gutter.

I personally am not interested in porn.  I very very very rarely every look
for it.  To say I don't sometimes would be a lie. But I don't actively even
think about it and generally am not interested.

The point is..if someone has an addiction and has to go through some
complicated process to use the internet because they can't restrain
themselves--is this a problem with the internet or with the person?

I personally believe the internet should not be restricted.  Illegal stuff
should of course, be reported and people that are doing illegal things
should be taken care of within the constrains of the legal system.  But if
someone has an addiction I think resolving the addiction or reasons for it
is healthier than saying, "omg why is this stuff so easy to find! I just go
to the google and there it is--we should make this illegal it's bad!"

I'm not going to go into if porn is moral or immoral.  I think that everyone
has to make that judgement for what they believe.  But I do NOT think that
because one person thinks something is immoral that they should force that
belief on anyone else.  It's like people that think being gay is bad..if you
think being gay is bad--how about you just don't be gay?  and let everyone
else live their lives the way they want.  We don't live in Iran or North
Korea. We live in America. and the freedom to live your life how you see fit
is what America is about.

There are some areas where this doesn't apply directly, for example anyone
out to hurt children, or hurt anyone else in doing anything
illegal--anything illegal shouldn't be ok or allowed and should be
restricted within what the law states.  However consenting adults should be
able to make choices about how they want to live their lives.  I also think
that's the parents responsibility to monitor their children's Internet
activities and give their children morals that are consistent with what the
parents believe.  It's not the government's job to raise our children and
restrict the freedoms of grown up adults in what they may choose.

In the end, what I'm saying is that if someone can't use the internet
without looking at porn and they feel they have a problem or addiction it's
up to the person to get help and work on the addiction in a meaningful way
that helps them grow as a person.  Blaming "the porn" for the addiction will
not resolve any addiction.  The problem is within the person and it's up to
the person to get the help to solve the problem.  You can filter the
internet all you want but if you have any skills with computers there is
always a way around it.  I think solving the addiction is better then
covering it up.

A

aaron at kalosaurusrex:~$
Discere docendo - To learn through teaching.
Libera Te Tutemet - You, free yourself.




On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 23:40, Michael Robinson <plug_1 at robinson-west.com>wrote:

> is very easy to find if you aren't filtered.
>
> Why?
>
> I know that people are going to say freedom of speech is why,
> but let's ask some questions first and look at the nature of
> porn a bit.
>
> Well, I shouldn't be using the term porn without a definition.
>
> Porn is anything that is likely to cause the average man or
> woman to be sexually aroused where it is not socially acceptable
> for them to be so.  I hope we can all agree that being aroused
> by your wife is not porn.  Let's leave chance arousal where
> you have no control over it and you don't do anything to
> perpetuate that response out of our definition of porn.
>
> Pornographic sites generally offer free samples without
> doing anything at all to identify who is surfing them.  These
> sites often try to charge for further viewing, though one
> could argue there is nothing missing in the samples.  This
> is a business tactic known of as give a taste of something
> and then charge for it.  Is it a fair business practice?  I
> guess that depends on whether or not you think that
> manipulating the base human impulses is fair.
>
> Let's look at the pornography is harmless camp for a moment
> and test it a bit.  Is pornography satisfying?  Does anybody
> feel satisfied after viewing the sex act reduced to a base
> mechanical act with absolutely no meaning at all?  Does
> anyone look at pornography for an hour or longer and then
> never go back?  Does this cut into other important activities
> that that person could be engaged in?  How hard is it if you
> are one of the people that pays for porn to stop future
> charges?  How many people a day are there that get ripped off
> who are too embarrassed to come forward?  How many of the
> "models" are forced into this business?  I hear in Alaska
> that selling children to the porn industry is a common
> occurrence.  Even in our area, sex rings get busted once in
> a while.
>
> Of all the people that go to porn sites, how many will be
> identified before they are allowed to view porn?  Are there
> very many sites on the Net that make an attempt to warn
> people that their content is porn before they show some?
> What percentage of pornography is literally a mouse click
> away if you are on a normal unfiltered Net connection?
>
> What would happen if anything that fit my definition of porn
> was not accessible via the Net to anyone without a credit card?
> Could such a law be enforced?  I would support a law using
> my definition of porn as the standard that requires identifying
> oneself to see pornography.  I'd like to see porn banned from
> the Net entirely, but that is asking a lot.
>
> The pornography is harmless camp ignores the fact that porn is
> addictive, that there are higher crime rates when you introduce
> porn to a community, and that porn can tear apart families.
> Even if you don't believe in looking at porn, it can show up
> in unusual places and it can be difficult because of the nature
> of it to leave it alone.  There are billions of dollars being
> made by porn producers.  I expect that these people are going
> to fight any attempt to restrict how they do business.  Is porn
> the number one money maker on the Net?  If it is, that is very
> unfortunate.
>
> Procon Latte is not an effective deterrent because anyone can bypass
> it via safe mode.
>
> Dansguardian isn't effective because one needs to be able to download
> stuff sometimes where Dansguardian generally denies that.
>
> A server that provides the Internet connection which blocks between
> certain hours is a good idea, if you aren't the administrator of it.
>
> Sadly, there is no time of day that is safe for a person who is not
> behind a filter of some kind.  At least with television one knows
> to turn it off after 10:00 pm and that's pretty effective.
>
> There will be responses and possibly they will be negative.
> I'm taking a risk talking about this on a public mailing list.
> I only ask that people not go out of their way to make me
> regret raising this topic.
>
> I do not endorse porn in any way.
>
> BTW:  Is there any way to fix firefox so that it can't browse web
>      pages on other hosts?  I want it on a server for reading
>      documentation and using local web based tools.  I might want
>      to be able to access RFC1918 networks.  I want a version of
>      firefox that one can't run in safe-mode to get around the
>      security.
>
> _______________________________________________
> PLUG-talk mailing list
> PLUG-talk at lists.pdxlinux.org
> http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pdxlinux.org/pipermail/plug-talk/attachments/20091027/6b42ace3/attachment.html>


More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list