| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 101939 | 2009-08-01 15:34:00 | This proposed child porn filter... | Kindel (6640) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 797194 | 2009-08-05 01:20:00 | Returning to the fundamental issue, personally I am prepared to accept some inconvenience and difficulty in accessing legitimate sites (should it ever happen) if that acceptance saves just one child from sexual exploitation, torture or death. I think that the majority of 'anti' posters to this thread need to get their heads into a more appropriate space, and preferably one not accessed via a sphincter. Sexual exploitation, abuse and murder of children is a sad and shocking reality, it is happening somewhere right now as you read this, and as you start work on your righteous indignation. Failed access to some borderline site or a mistaken block on a legitimate site that could be removed in fairly short order just doesn't stack up against the realities for those kids. Priorities people, priorities. Self-interest must come, not second, but last!!! Billy |
Billy T (70) | ||
| 797195 | 2009-08-05 01:47:00 | I guess from where you sit that is a valid opinion. If you believe the state will succeed in any of it's (stated) objectives, or that no significant pollution of hard-won liberties will ensue, may I interest you in some foil hats? |
R2x1 (4628) | ||
| 797196 | 2009-08-05 02:52:00 | I guess from where you sit that is a valid opinion. If you believe the state will succeed in any of it's (stated) objectives, or that no significant pollution of hard-won liberties will ensue, may I interest you in some foil hats? Well said K9. |
Cicero (40) | ||
| 797197 | 2009-08-05 03:39:00 | Returning to the fundamental issue, personally I am prepared to accept some inconvenience and difficulty in accessing legitimate sites (should it ever happen) if that acceptance saves just one child from sexual exploitation, torture or death. People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both. How about, instead, we hunt down the bastards who do this and lynch them? It'll end up a lot cheaper, and will be more effective, then the proposed filter. And how can anyone be so naive as to think this will stop anyone "into" it? They'll find other ways to easily bypass the filter. |
Cato (6936) | ||
| 797198 | 2009-08-05 04:14:00 | It truly staggers me to see how many people here are prepared to leap to the defense of the utterly indefensible. This is not a matter of potential loss of liberty to gain security. It is about accepting the risk of temporary inconvenience, or a possible loss of amenity (that might never happen) in support of one of the most basic rights of humanity. That is the right of all children to enjoy a childhood free of sexual abuse. For them to enjoy their right to be a child. It is bad enough that a minority of parents maltreat their children, but to sanction physical and sexual abuse for the gratification of others, then to postulate that sanction as protection of your 'rights' as an adult is as selfish an expression of self-gratification over moral obligation as I have ever seen. Pastor Martin Niemöller's words apply equally well to those children, except that in this instance the threat to their rights and freedom is far greater than any threat to yours. If they came for your child..................But I wasn't a child, so I did nothing, except mouth platitudes about MY rights. If somebody somewhere else in the world wants to screw little kiddies and post their obscene acts on the internet, that's ok, so long as MY rights are not infringed. No Sir! Not in my backyard. There are some very distorted priorities out there. You can judge a Society by how it treats its children, and you can judge equally well our Society by its response to how others treat their children. Shame on those who would put their wants above abused childrens' needs. Billy |
Billy T (70) | ||
| 797199 | 2009-08-05 07:51:00 | Returning to the fundamental issue, personally I am prepared to accept some inconvenience and difficulty in accessing legitimate sites (should it ever happen) if that acceptance saves just one child from sexual exploitation, torture or death . I think that the majority of 'anti' posters to this thread need to get their heads into a more appropriate space, and preferably one not accessed via a sphincter . Sexual exploitation, abuse and murder of children is a sad and shocking reality, it is happening somewhere right now as you read this, and as you start work on your righteous indignation . Failed access to some borderline site or a mistaken block on a legitimate site that could be removed in fairly short order just doesn't stack up against the realities for those kids . Priorities people, priorities . Self-interest must come, not second, but last!!! Billy Yeah I agree (in principal) but in practice, is it actually going to save any kids? And on second thought, wearing shoes made in [insert SE-Asian nation here] probably contributes more to harming exploited kids . At least not buying shoes made in country X is, quantifiably, more likely to help their situation . A filter that is cincumventable and only stops access for people who aren't actually LOOKING for the stuff though? Waste of time . |
Kindel (6640) | ||
| 797200 | 2009-08-05 08:10:00 | Wow, came across this link. Has the DIA's answers on everything. Looks like it won't impact on speed afterall (not that my ISP is implementing it anyway, but still) thomasbeagle.net |
Kindel (6640) | ||
| 797201 | 2009-08-05 09:15:00 | It truly staggers me to see how many people here are prepared to leap to the defense of the utterly indefensible. This is not a matter of potential loss of liberty to gain security. It is about accepting the risk of temporary inconvenience, or a possible loss of amenity (that might never happen) in support of one of the most basic rights of humanity. That is the right of all children to enjoy a childhood free of sexual abuse. For them to enjoy their right to be a child. It is bad enough that a minority of parents maltreat their children, but to sanction physical and sexual abuse for the gratification of others, then to postulate that sanction as protection of your 'rights' as an adult is as selfish an expression of self-gratification over moral obligation as I have ever seen. Pastor Martin Niemöller's words apply equally well to those children, except that in this instance the threat to their rights and freedom is far greater than any threat to yours. If they came for your child..................But I wasn't a child, so I did nothing, except mouth platitudes about MY rights. If somebody somewhere else in the world wants to screw little kiddies and post their obscene acts on the internet, that's ok, so long as MY rights are not infringed. No Sir! Not in my backyard. There are some very distorted priorities out there. You can judge a Society by how it treats its children, and you can judge equally well our Society by its response to how others treat their children. Shame on those who would put their wants above abused childrens' needs. Billy Calm down Billy T no one is leaping to the defence of the utterly indefensible. It is just legitimate sites in Aussie have been caught out with their filter and why the hell don't they close down the web hosts that are hosting this crap. Surely that would be far more practical and effective. |
mikebartnz (21) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 | |||||