Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt14

DS only mentions his assumptions in order to support his arguments ...

Etc. And here was I thinking I was merely replying using the language of the question put to me by [deleted] when asked Why are you assuming the majority of Australians want this plan?

[deleted] asked using the word "assuming" so I responded using the word "assuming" ...

Aside from that, I'm noticing a nasty habit around here of the tending to make (and take) things personally and zone in on the individual than the topic and ideas/views presented, regardless of how carefully impersonal and generic (as per whirlpool forum guidelines) those ideas/views have been expressed.

For example, I suggest that democracy is obvious working and a response comes back that I'm in need of (presumed mental health) help. I make a point that can be distilled down to the commonly understood concept of "internet widow", with an obvious intent for it to serve as an "illustration of" and "appeal to" presumably something every last one of us participating in here can relate to in some way, yet the response is to merely make it somehow about me rather than even give the slightest concession that there may be a sizeable population of females in Oz who not only resent the amount of time their partners and/or family spends online, but would also settle for nearly anything that might make it less of an attractive place for them to click and tap their lives away in.

Such responses are neither warranted nor appreciated ... but moving on, surely the "internet widow" argument can be answered without trying to make things personal ... in fact I don't see how it can be answered properly if all that is going to be presented is along the lines of mere personal anecdote or by fallaciously suggesting that because the person who dared to suggest it isn't of the demographic then they can have no valid opinion. Actually, in certain ways the latter rules most of us out of most of what we've been discussing, yes ?

On any other day and for near any other topic other than that which relates to ILCF, I doubt if there would be all that much disagreement among us in here that there are probably quite a lot of mums, wives, girlfriends, and children out there who not only wish their husbands, boyfriends, and fathers were not nearly so "always online", but also have even come to hate the presence of the "always on" computer in the house in the same way no doubt many of our Grand Folks used to hate the "always on" TV when visiting ... and how even more of us hate the ever present mobile phones that are everywhere we turn these days.

Also, on any other day and for near any other topic other than that which relates to ILCF, I doubt if there would be all that much disagreement among us in here that there are probably quite a lot of mums, wives, girlfriends, and (sadly) children, out there who not only wish that it wasn't so easy and simple for "unwanted" material to be brought into their homes, but also that the very material didn't even exist in the first place.

There is absolutely no doubt that there are folk and families in Oz who wish there was less emphasis or cause for "being online" (along with less negative and more positive to be found online when there anyway) and equally no doubt that when it comes to overall population, there would be proportionally (and traditionally) more females than males who object to specific things such as pr0n and violent activities (especially when it somehow relates to children and entertainment), so it isn't too hard to imagine that a nation who voted in a government perceived to be the friend of families (and "working families" at that ... whatever that mean), would be more inclined to support the efforts of that government to make this country a better place for families.

Which is but one small part of the reason why I suggest that there is more likely to be far more of our population who will support such things as ILCF and the ongoing necessary and lawful catagorisation and control of online information, than not.

regarDS