4 ms·

Shouldn't a government, govern ? If so, what is their remit, and if not, what's the answer... anarchy ? For reference, 18 is the legal 'adult' age in the UK,

Shouldn't a government, govern ? If so, what is their remit, and if not, what's the answer... anarchy ? For reference, 18 is the legal 'adult' age in the UK, hence the age in this proposal.

Kenji 10y ago
>Shouldn't a government, govern? With this argument, I could argue for any fascist dictatorship I want. A government should serve its people, first and foremost. Remember, a law always has to be kept with the threat of force, or actual force if it is broken. This is a classic example of a regulation that cuts deeply into personal freedom and causes much more harm than good. Ironically, the burden of proof is now suddenly upon us, the people, to argue against it. Can you tell me, what is the justification of the government's power over us to decide when we are ready to watch porn? How dare they interfere with deeply private matters like this one? How about them showing first, without a doubt, that porn without ID is harmful, and that enforcing such an ID helps at all?
- mobiuscog 10y ago
  I assume you voted them into government. Or your society did.
darklajid 10y ago
Where do you draw the line though? I understand the point you're trying to make, but don't you agree that I can counter your 'else .. anarchy' point with 'govern, like in Brave New World'? People that argue that the government doesn't need to track people's porn habits and decide at which age porn is acceptable aren't automatically against governing/governments. I understand what 18 years represent in the UK (and here as well), but the reasoning between 'porn' -> 'has to be an adult' is .. unclear. I see no connection here. I assume most people in the UK have sex before the age of 18 for example. Why is that unrestricted? Are you allowed to drive motorized vehicles below the age of 18? Why? That completely ignores that porn is undefined and porn != porn. You might consider something as pornographic that I consider natural or vice versa? Why would you really want to throw a couple having sex on tape in the same bucket as - say two girls, one cup? What about content that is brutal and gory? I know there are rules in place for movies or games, but random websites? I don't think they're required to ask for a proof of adulthood, are they? What about questionable ideological content? Why aren't forums required to make sure that the visitors are adults as soon as the topics are too far off to the left or right? You can expand this argument ("Think of the children, seeing porn") again and again. Anyway: In the end I see no way, none, that this proposal can help parents. You, we, have to judge any content for ourselves and our kids - be it a simple comic, a Hollywood movie, random mp4s or .. written text on the internet.
- mobiuscog 10y ago
  Fair points. Would the age being 16 change that, as it's the age of consent. Would that then be seen that the age of consent should be removed ? Unfortunately, I believe it probably would help many parents as there are still a vast amount of people who are unaware of what the internet offers, even though their children already see it. You could suggest educating parents, but then many don't care. It's certainly been interesting seeing the differing viewpoints on this discussion.
  - darklajid 10y ago
    I think any law is bound to be wrong in too many cases: If you lower the bar to 16 I'll certainly find a 17 year old that isn't ~stable~ enough for some content and the problem persists: Parents, individuals, have to protect their kids based on intimate knowledge about the persons, on a case to case basis. About the clueless parents: I don't feel that there's a pressing need either. First: Lots of parents of small kids (a growing number, the majority soon if not already) probably already grew up with the internet. There's a gap, I agree that a generation of parents that didn't use the internet as a kid exists. But I reason that protecting your kid is first and foremost media agnostic. You talk about stuff you might see on tv, you don't just give them the remote and hope that your receiver blocks content and asks for a pin whenever something scary comes up - or you're lazy. The same applies for the internet: You talk to your kids, about the very same things. Violence, sexuality, consensus, morality. And try to make them feel safe so that they'll talk with you about anything disturbing they encounter. Parents don't need to understand the internet (but it might help). The internet has nothing new to offer - porn isn't a new thing. You didn't need to understand how your kid got access to these filthy VHS tapes 30 years ago and still were responsible for your child. I feel that technology cannot be used as an excuse here, a la "I don't understand this newfangled gadget, someone else tell my kids how to live this life".

Shouldn't a government, govern ? If so, what is their remit, and if not, what's the answer... anarchy ? For reference, 18 is the legal 'adult' age in the UK, hence the age in this proposal.

Kenji 10y ago

>Shouldn't a government, govern? With this argument, I could argue for any fascist dictatorship I want. A government should serve its people, first and foremost. Remember, a law always has to be kept with the threat of force, or actual force if it is broken. This is a classic example of a regulation that cuts deeply into personal freedom and causes much more harm than good. Ironically, the burden of proof is now suddenly upon us, the people, to argue against it. Can you tell me, what is the justification of the government's power over us to decide when we are ready to watch porn? How dare they interfere with deeply private matters like this one? How about them showing first, without a doubt, that porn without ID is harmful, and that enforcing such an ID helps at all?

mobiuscog 10y ago
I assume you voted them into government. Or your society did.

darklajid 10y ago

Where do you draw the line though? I understand the point you're trying to make, but don't you agree that I can counter your 'else .. anarchy' point with 'govern, like in Brave New World'? People that argue that the government doesn't need to track people's porn habits and decide at which age porn is acceptable aren't automatically against governing/governments. I understand what 18 years represent in the UK (and here as well), but the reasoning between 'porn' -> 'has to be an adult' is .. unclear. I see no connection here. I assume most people in the UK have sex before the age of 18 for example. Why is that unrestricted? Are you allowed to drive motorized vehicles below the age of 18? Why? That completely ignores that porn is undefined and porn != porn. You might consider something as pornographic that I consider natural or vice versa? Why would you really want to throw a couple having sex on tape in the same bucket as - say two girls, one cup? What about content that is brutal and gory? I know there are rules in place for movies or games, but random websites? I don't think they're required to ask for a proof of adulthood, are they? What about questionable ideological content? Why aren't forums required to make sure that the visitors are adults as soon as the topics are too far off to the left or right? You can expand this argument ("Think of the children, seeing porn") again and again. Anyway: In the end I see no way, none, that this proposal can help parents. You, we, have to judge any content for ourselves and our kids - be it a simple comic, a Hollywood movie, random mp4s or .. written text on the internet.

mobiuscog 10y ago
Fair points. Would the age being 16 change that, as it's the age of consent. Would that then be seen that the age of consent should be removed ? Unfortunately, I believe it probably would help many parents as there are still a vast amount of people who are unaware of what the internet offers, even though their children already see it. You could suggest educating parents, but then many don't care. It's certainly been interesting seeing the differing viewpoints on this discussion.
- darklajid 10y ago
  I think any law is bound to be wrong in too many cases: If you lower the bar to 16 I'll certainly find a 17 year old that isn't ~stable~ enough for some content and the problem persists: Parents, individuals, have to protect their kids based on intimate knowledge about the persons, on a case to case basis. About the clueless parents: I don't feel that there's a pressing need either. First: Lots of parents of small kids (a growing number, the majority soon if not already) probably already grew up with the internet. There's a gap, I agree that a generation of parents that didn't use the internet as a kid exists. But I reason that protecting your kid is first and foremost media agnostic. You talk about stuff you might see on tv, you don't just give them the remote and hope that your receiver blocks content and asks for a pin whenever something scary comes up - or you're lazy. The same applies for the internet: You talk to your kids, about the very same things. Violence, sexuality, consensus, morality. And try to make them feel safe so that they'll talk with you about anything disturbing they encounter. Parents don't need to understand the internet (but it might help). The internet has nothing new to offer - porn isn't a new thing. You didn't need to understand how your kid got access to these filthy VHS tapes 30 years ago and still were responsible for your child. I feel that technology cannot be used as an excuse here, a la "I don't understand this newfangled gadget, someone else tell my kids how to live this life".