If parents are too stupid to protect their own children from dangers in the home, then they don't deserve to be parents.
No argument there. Which is why our elected government is obliged to step in as best can be managed.
As in "intervention", etc.
regarDS
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt15
Perhaps if you chose to see my efforts in here more akin to "lighthouse warning ships of the rocks and reef - derspatz
Perhaps that is what the filter should do. Warn you that are you about to view something that the government doesn't want you to see and ask you if you want to continue. Think of your well known Perth band The Waifs.
Lighthouse man can’t help us all
Some he’ll save and some will fall
He’ll show you where the danger lies
But he can’t help it if you capsize
He’ll light your way but that is all
Steer your own ship back to shore
The "skull and cross-bones" and "warning, danger Will Robinson" audio-visual pop-up could be part of the solution, along with the SMSing of a responsible Adult if you like. There are going to be many ways of approaching this required to get the job done properly.
I like the lyrics you provided (which are somewhat topical ... I certainly get your gist) but never heard of the band nor could actually name anything they have done mind you.
No radio on the motor-bike, no radio antenna on the 4x4.
How is that for an example for filtering at the user end of things rather than at the provider side ? :)
regarDS
Perhaps that is what the filter should do. Warn you that are you about to view something that the government doesn't want you to see and ask you if you want to continue. Think of your well known Perth band The Waifs.
Lighthouse man can’t help us all
Some he’ll save and some will fall
He’ll show you where the danger lies
But he can’t help it if you capsize
He’ll light your way but that is all
Steer your own ship back to shore
The "skull and cross-bones" and "warning, danger Will Robinson" audio-visual pop-up could be part of the solution, along with the SMSing of a responsible Adult if you like. There are going to be many ways of approaching this required to get the job done properly.
I like the lyrics you provided (which are somewhat topical ... I certainly get your gist) but never heard of the band nor could actually name anything they have done mind you.
No radio on the motor-bike, no radio antenna on the 4x4.
How is that for an example for filtering at the user end of things rather than at the provider side ? :)
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt15
The government is elected by us, for us. They work for us. If they aren't working for us, there is no point having them, we may as well fire them.
No problem with that, except you missed the bit where "they ARE us".
IE, just a bunch of public servants who prolly get into the job because they aren't much good at anything else and also because they enjoy trying to tell people what to do a bit more than the next bloke, but still not all that different from the next bloke.
regarDS
No problem with that, except you missed the bit where "they ARE us".
IE, just a bunch of public servants who prolly get into the job because they aren't much good at anything else and also because they enjoy trying to tell people what to do a bit more than the next bloke, but still not all that different from the next bloke.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt15
Are you part of the conspiracy or merely an innocent chump who has been taken in by misleading promises of child protection?
Which reads as "Have you stopped beating your wife yet ?"
Rest assured that my motivations and views have nothing to do with popular conspiracies and go way beyond mere child protection.
As I'm sure both Mark and Richary can confirm.
Heck, they could also confirm that when it comes to proving a point and how serious I am with my views, I'm also known to spend my own coin in very Real World (ala "offline") ways.
regarDS
Which reads as "Have you stopped beating your wife yet ?"
Rest assured that my motivations and views have nothing to do with popular conspiracies and go way beyond mere child protection.
As I'm sure both Mark and Richary can confirm.
Heck, they could also confirm that when it comes to proving a point and how serious I am with my views, I'm also known to spend my own coin in very Real World (ala "offline") ways.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt15
he was preaching the monumental failure of NetAlert because noone adopted it, yet he claims that there is public desire for this mandatory filtering.
He makes no sense.
I reckon it makes perfect sense in the context of a high probability that many folk who do want filtering for their kids/families/etc found/find it all too hard to actually figure out how to do it themselves and would much prefer a system where it is all done for them much like how their ISP takes care of spam filtering for them.
regarDS
He makes no sense.
I reckon it makes perfect sense in the context of a high probability that many folk who do want filtering for their kids/families/etc found/find it all too hard to actually figure out how to do it themselves and would much prefer a system where it is all done for them much like how their ISP takes care of spam filtering for them.
regarDS
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt15
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
1+ providing it goes hand in hand with a "bill of responsibilities".
TANSTAAFL. ("There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch")
regarDS
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
