I agree a referendum on a bill of rights has to happen!
1+ providing it goes hand in hand with a "bill of responsibilities".
TANSTAAFL. ("There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch")
regarDS
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt15
I can't quite understand why you are supporting the filtering. If you were really a purely religious nutter as some people have suggested that wouldn't explain your past history on LTUAE, because that wouldn't have been the sort of forum you would have wanted to be on. And in the early threads you pushed the Gibsonesque or whatever free net with no government controls - the opposite of what you are pushing for with filtering. Is the filter a means to an end for you?
If you're asking if I have personal selfish reasons as well as community welfare reasons and a lot more besides for supporting ILCF and/or greater/easier control of online content then my answer is yes on all counts.
I think it is both near-sighted and foolish to only view this issue in terms of black and white, us and them (etc) when in fact it is quite a complex multi-faceted broad spectrumed many layered issue that similarly can be viewed/debated from far more angles than the typical dualistic "one or the other"/"if it ain't xmas, it must be easter" seemingly preferred by most around here.
I also think it is somewhat silly if not counter productive to be basically in support of static treatment of a dynamic medium (yup, I realise that is a knife that cuts both ways, dualistically speaking), and I am really not interested that much in pointless preservation of something just the way it is when there is clearly room for much improvement and much that should not be preserved at all ... with as many differing opinions on that as there are people using it or are affected by it.
As many layers, facets, spectra there are to this issue and regardless of my truly selfish attitudes regarding it, the percentages and check sheet I'm judging it by still oblige me to say "yes, this or something like this needs to be done".
I'm not in the least offended and threatened by the fact that at least in here there are many who choose to disagree and disapprove of my view, for as you well know, due to the beliefs that have sustained me for well over half my life, I've been made no stranger to being of the relative minority view when it comes to quite a list of issues and controversies. It all goes with the territory.
A territory which can't help but include the attempt to censor that which increasing demeans and by doing so is destructive to our society.
Perhaps if you chose to see my efforts in here more akin to "lighthouse warning ships of the rocks and reef" than "oh, he is being contrary, he is wrong because I am right so therefore he must be trolling", a better understanding of where I am coming from may be achieved.
I have no disagreement that unjust forms of censorship should nearly always be resisted, but I am no where near being convinced that ILCF is one of them, or even of much concern to Oz as a nation even if it was reduced to the level of "governet" (credit to whoever it was who first coined the term in these forums) only showing/allowing "safe for Oz" ala "safe for work" information.
regarDS
PS: To prove another point, unmoderated comments have now been enabled at derblatz.
If you're asking if I have personal selfish reasons as well as community welfare reasons and a lot more besides for supporting ILCF and/or greater/easier control of online content then my answer is yes on all counts.
I think it is both near-sighted and foolish to only view this issue in terms of black and white, us and them (etc) when in fact it is quite a complex multi-faceted broad spectrumed many layered issue that similarly can be viewed/debated from far more angles than the typical dualistic "one or the other"/"if it ain't xmas, it must be easter" seemingly preferred by most around here.
I also think it is somewhat silly if not counter productive to be basically in support of static treatment of a dynamic medium (yup, I realise that is a knife that cuts both ways, dualistically speaking), and I am really not interested that much in pointless preservation of something just the way it is when there is clearly room for much improvement and much that should not be preserved at all ... with as many differing opinions on that as there are people using it or are affected by it.
As many layers, facets, spectra there are to this issue and regardless of my truly selfish attitudes regarding it, the percentages and check sheet I'm judging it by still oblige me to say "yes, this or something like this needs to be done".
I'm not in the least offended and threatened by the fact that at least in here there are many who choose to disagree and disapprove of my view, for as you well know, due to the beliefs that have sustained me for well over half my life, I've been made no stranger to being of the relative minority view when it comes to quite a list of issues and controversies. It all goes with the territory.
A territory which can't help but include the attempt to censor that which increasing demeans and by doing so is destructive to our society.
Perhaps if you chose to see my efforts in here more akin to "lighthouse warning ships of the rocks and reef" than "oh, he is being contrary, he is wrong because I am right so therefore he must be trolling", a better understanding of where I am coming from may be achieved.
I have no disagreement that unjust forms of censorship should nearly always be resisted, but I am no where near being convinced that ILCF is one of them, or even of much concern to Oz as a nation even if it was reduced to the level of "governet" (credit to whoever it was who first coined the term in these forums) only showing/allowing "safe for Oz" ala "safe for work" information.
regarDS
PS: To prove another point, unmoderated comments have now been enabled at derblatz.
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt15
There are way too many Sunrise viewers in Australia to risk putting it to a referendum.
An admission that the majority of Oz are more likely to be either for ILCF or so ambivalent about it that they are more likely accept it than be bothered resisting it let alone trying to circumvent it ?
Tis refreshing to see such a realistic admission made in here despite the likely smack-down to come from localised majority/unity enforced/approved party line on the topic.
regarDS
An admission that the majority of Oz are more likely to be either for ILCF or so ambivalent about it that they are more likely accept it than be bothered resisting it let alone trying to circumvent it ?
Tis refreshing to see such a realistic admission made in here despite the likely smack-down to come from localised majority/unity enforced/approved party line on the topic.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt15
derspatz writes...So as not to enable or give undue oxygen to any vocal/militant minorities ?
60K signatures on a petition in less than a week would seem to suggest that this scheme is not popular with the general public.
Who of us in here really thinks that 60k hits to a presumed online petition (happy to be corrected on that) can be deemed either indicative or representative of what may or may not be popular with the overall "general public" ?
Ah well, you can at least be greatful for the enabling/oxygen I'm affording this topic, if even just for the practice ?
Strength through diversity and progress through conflict, and all that. :)
regarDS
60K signatures on a petition in less than a week would seem to suggest that this scheme is not popular with the general public.
Who of us in here really thinks that 60k hits to a presumed online petition (happy to be corrected on that) can be deemed either indicative or representative of what may or may not be popular with the overall "general public" ?
Ah well, you can at least be greatful for the enabling/oxygen I'm affording this topic, if even just for the practice ?
Strength through diversity and progress through conflict, and all that. :)
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt15
I was brought up with the understanding that democracy was based on the belief that "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
I've got no problem with that at all ... which is also why I reckon that if not ILCF then something like it will become the norm sooner or later.
Necessity re: "the needs of the many" will make it so.
regarDS
I've got no problem with that at all ... which is also why I reckon that if not ILCF then something like it will become the norm sooner or later.
Necessity re: "the needs of the many" will make it so.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt15
DS, If the filter has such a mass following and support, why does the senator consistently refuse comment and interviews?
So as not to enable or give undue oxygen to any vocal/militant minorities ?
regarDS
So as not to enable or give undue oxygen to any vocal/militant minorities ?
regarDS
Monday, December 01, 2008
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt14
... remembered that even Jesus Christ had a soft spot in his heart for a prostitute:)
Whom He allegedly not only had compassion for but also advised to "go and sin no more", yes ?
Seriously, don't we all, especially those of us who deem and herald what I prefer to call "the internut" (and have been saying so for a long time) so high in Oz (if not the whole globe) have a responsibility if not duty to help create and keep it as a tool and facility that is something to be proud of rather than ashamed of, especially when it comes to the presentation and respect of our mothers, wives, girlfriends, sisters, and daughters, etc ?
Doesn't even common decency oblige us to promote it and encourage it in a way that edifys and demonstrates love and care for both our neighbour and ourselves and shouldn't near any method (not merely limited to ILCF) that can help make the net a better place for us all as a nation be worthy of promotion ?
How does it help us as a nation to have one rule for some and no rule for others ... surely we should all be adopting a beneficial common ground that benefits us all as a society rather than continuing with a flawed system that favours questionable individualistic and selfish (and obviously unhealthy) wants over majority community needs ?
I'm happy to support the "go and sin no more" angle in that regard - tis hardly any kind of price to pay at all AFAIC (so I guess no great sacrifice), but I do find it both disturbing and distressing to realise that there may be many among us who deem the price to be unacceptably high.
All the more reason that something like ILCF is not only well and truly warranted, but also well over-due, AFAIC.
regarDS
Whom He allegedly not only had compassion for but also advised to "go and sin no more", yes ?
Seriously, don't we all, especially those of us who deem and herald what I prefer to call "the internut" (and have been saying so for a long time) so high in Oz (if not the whole globe) have a responsibility if not duty to help create and keep it as a tool and facility that is something to be proud of rather than ashamed of, especially when it comes to the presentation and respect of our mothers, wives, girlfriends, sisters, and daughters, etc ?
Doesn't even common decency oblige us to promote it and encourage it in a way that edifys and demonstrates love and care for both our neighbour and ourselves and shouldn't near any method (not merely limited to ILCF) that can help make the net a better place for us all as a nation be worthy of promotion ?
How does it help us as a nation to have one rule for some and no rule for others ... surely we should all be adopting a beneficial common ground that benefits us all as a society rather than continuing with a flawed system that favours questionable individualistic and selfish (and obviously unhealthy) wants over majority community needs ?
I'm happy to support the "go and sin no more" angle in that regard - tis hardly any kind of price to pay at all AFAIC (so I guess no great sacrifice), but I do find it both disturbing and distressing to realise that there may be many among us who deem the price to be unacceptably high.
All the more reason that something like ILCF is not only well and truly warranted, but also well over-due, AFAIC.
regarDS
Posted here in response to - ILCF pt14 @ WP
"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." - derspatz
[deleted] writes ...
Yep, the language of confidence there.
Heh. I learned that style from reading the original literature put out by the Cult of Darwin and Dawkins. :)
regarDS
[deleted] writes ...
Yep, the language of confidence there.
Heh. I learned that style from reading the original literature put out by the Cult of Darwin and Dawkins. :)
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt14
invoking the "mothers, Wives and daughters" to justify your opinion. Yet we have women who clearly disagree, including women on this forum, my daughter and her friends (adult and teen), and even Holly from "Save the Children" organization. I can speak for them because I have personally talked to them or read their public comments.
I don't see how any of that could be deemed representative, especially considering if I too trotted out a list of names and anecdotal references to match, it similarly would be rejected out of hand.
Surely there are husbands, fathers, brothers, boyfriends in this forum who would at very least shudder at the thought of their wives, children, sisters, and girlfriends selling themselves to be the subject matter of pr0n and the various forms of prostitution ranging from telephone conversations through to skimpy/strip work through to lap-dancing, spiraling inwards and downwards towards being the drugged-up diseased dying by degrees kurb-side hooker who is fed and clothed and truly loved by the likes of Salvo's donations and the similarly compassionate ?
Surely there are parents in here who are doing everything in their parental power and influence to ensure their children don't grow up to be seduced or fooled or coerced into making such bad decisions ... all the while having to fight off the never ending influences pouring out of nearly every publicly available mass-media technology possible ?
Surely those parents and those who shudder at the thought of their own blood and loved ones being seduced into making such bad choices, or even just being regularly confronted with it in various ways, would welcome any measure that might help make being a family easier and simpler while keeping the developing minds entrusted to their temporary care safer and beautiful in their innocence for as long as possible ?
Surely most family minded women don't want their husbands and boyfriends lusting over other women ? Surely most charity minded regular non-specific-denomination-or-faith community orientated church/temple/mosque (etc) attending souls of either gender or family or relationship status would prefer a society that encourages and promotes the respect and protection of womenfolk and the young over degredation and corruption ?
Yes, obviously I am personally of the view that Oz would do well to deem illegal all pr0n, but I accept that I'll have to wait for Kingdom Come for that one. In the mean time, it isn't all that unreasonable nor hard to imagine that all those "surely"s just mentioned (and a lot more that could be mentioned) add up to quite the majority, and a majority who will support and continue to support the development of ILCF or whatever it takes (and we seem to be forgetting the other aspects of Senator Conroy's proposals, with the ILCF only being one part of it) to help keep our society, culture, and nation on a better path.
If no one else around here thinks that majority exists in Oz in those terms, then I reckon we have come to a very sad place in our history.
Sad enough already to think that as a nation we have become so irresponsible and untrustworthy that such measures as ILCF is deemed necessary by way of Intervention.
Another personal opinion for you. I reckon tolerance for the sake of tolerance is a far greater evil and destroyer of civilised society than censorship, and that there are degrees of censorship that are virtually mandatory in order to create a healthy, safe, just, and worthwhile culture.
regarDS
I don't see how any of that could be deemed representative, especially considering if I too trotted out a list of names and anecdotal references to match, it similarly would be rejected out of hand.
Surely there are husbands, fathers, brothers, boyfriends in this forum who would at very least shudder at the thought of their wives, children, sisters, and girlfriends selling themselves to be the subject matter of pr0n and the various forms of prostitution ranging from telephone conversations through to skimpy/strip work through to lap-dancing, spiraling inwards and downwards towards being the drugged-up diseased dying by degrees kurb-side hooker who is fed and clothed and truly loved by the likes of Salvo's donations and the similarly compassionate ?
Surely there are parents in here who are doing everything in their parental power and influence to ensure their children don't grow up to be seduced or fooled or coerced into making such bad decisions ... all the while having to fight off the never ending influences pouring out of nearly every publicly available mass-media technology possible ?
Surely those parents and those who shudder at the thought of their own blood and loved ones being seduced into making such bad choices, or even just being regularly confronted with it in various ways, would welcome any measure that might help make being a family easier and simpler while keeping the developing minds entrusted to their temporary care safer and beautiful in their innocence for as long as possible ?
Surely most family minded women don't want their husbands and boyfriends lusting over other women ? Surely most charity minded regular non-specific-denomination-or-faith community orientated church/temple/mosque (etc) attending souls of either gender or family or relationship status would prefer a society that encourages and promotes the respect and protection of womenfolk and the young over degredation and corruption ?
Yes, obviously I am personally of the view that Oz would do well to deem illegal all pr0n, but I accept that I'll have to wait for Kingdom Come for that one. In the mean time, it isn't all that unreasonable nor hard to imagine that all those "surely"s just mentioned (and a lot more that could be mentioned) add up to quite the majority, and a majority who will support and continue to support the development of ILCF or whatever it takes (and we seem to be forgetting the other aspects of Senator Conroy's proposals, with the ILCF only being one part of it) to help keep our society, culture, and nation on a better path.
If no one else around here thinks that majority exists in Oz in those terms, then I reckon we have come to a very sad place in our history.
Sad enough already to think that as a nation we have become so irresponsible and untrustworthy that such measures as ILCF is deemed necessary by way of Intervention.
Another personal opinion for you. I reckon tolerance for the sake of tolerance is a far greater evil and destroyer of civilised society than censorship, and that there are degrees of censorship that are virtually mandatory in order to create a healthy, safe, just, and worthwhile culture.
regarDS
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
