I Have A Serious Question...

[Guest]

boy, that sure shut kidcock up didn't it

 

[sexy-girl]

thats the difference of someone knowing what they are talking about and someone not

 

[Guest]

bump for kidcock

 

[KR1troll]

thank you, madam Laurel. well said. i wish i could do that.

 

[Debbie]

And the crowd goes wild as Laurel wins the game! Her offensive play was superb.

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

It IS the parent's responsibility to monitor their children. Totally. And to raise them to be trustworthy and not NEED constant supervision. I think it's just about time we quit expecting others to raise our children for us.

I take it then that you're not a huge fan of Hillary Clinton's "It takes a village to raise a child" idea then? LOL

The idea the children grow up in an environment created entirely by the parents is extremely simplistic and I think naive. The FCC regulates the content of what's aired on our nation's TV and radio broadcasts largely for the purposes of guarding sensitive members of the viewing public (read children) from potential harmful images and/or messages. Should the FCC stop doing this? Should absolutely anything be allowed to be broadcast? If I'm completely responsible for my own children's upbringing what right does the government have to demand compulsory vaccinations? What about public education?

I think you'll agree that there are obviously certain things the government legitimately does in the interest of children.

The idea that the media send out both positive and negative messages isn't unusual. Virtually every other week a thread comes up here about the negative consequences of media images on young people. If I had a nickel for every post here I've read about how the media portrayal of female beauty harms girls' health and psychological well-being, or how media violence affects how we resolve disputes I'd have a nice chunk of change.

Obviously as adults visiting a bulletin board on a erotic stories site, we should all agree on the right of adults to view erotic material. I'm just not sure why it's so imperative that access to porn on the internet should be easy enough that 10 year-olds can access it as easily as adults.

Obviously the credit card idea for age verification is severely flawed, but should we scrap the idea of making porn less easily accessible to young children simply because it's possible to get around it? As far as I'm concerned, any 15 or 16 year-old bright enough to get past a reasonable system for age verification is inetellectually equipped enough to handle some titties. I just cringe at the idea of having an 8 year-old child someday who types "www.poopoo.com" at a neighbor's house and be introduced to the wonderful world of scat.

We're a bright, industrious nation. I'm sure we can come up with a better system than what we have that won't give anyone any particularly sensitive or private information about us and won't subject us to financial risks as with credit cards. I don't know... maybe verification via social security numbers in a system that would simply grant admission but wouldn't record your presence or track your movements? (the idea of our retirement benefits number ensuring us porn rights is a pretty funny one, though).

I don't know what the answer is, but I don't think instituting a system like this necessarily requires limitation of civil rights (again, unless you consider a 10-year-old's right to porn to be a constitutional right).

And Laurel, not everyone who would support this kind of system is a freedom-hating trogladyte. There are lots of people acting in good-faith with the interests of children at heart. I think it's very important to always keep that in mind.

 

[faith]

Laurel...

My hats of to you. Well said.
Thank you for giving us this place.

 

[KID ROCK1]

Silence Me...LOL

Unforntuanatly my weekends or weekdays do not revolve around sitting on a porn board allday talking about your best blowjob ever or your pre-sex ritual...

I think what you people need to realize is that I simply raised a concern that I have about under-aged kids viewing or posting on this website and instead of an intelligent debate most of you decided to go on the defensive and used stupid flaming tactics to make me out to be the bad guy here which shows to me and any other casual dropper by that this board is full of people who are not capable of addressing an issue without being open to another persons views who differ from yours without acting like a baby who's candy was taken away...

~i~

 

[KR1troll]

Yes well

You have a creditably gap about ten million miles long around here. you should have thought about that before you tried to become the worlds biggist asshole.

i would not trust you in a shit house with a muzzle on.

be real for more than a couple of days than try this thread.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Unforntuanatly my weekends or weekdays do not revolve around sitting on a porn board allday talking about your best blowjob ever or your pre-sex ritual...

God you're boring.

 

[Problem Child]

Re: Silence Me...LOL

Unforntuanatly my weekends or weekdays do not revolve around sitting on a porn board allday talking about your best blowjob ever or your pre-sex ritual...

I think what you people need to realize is that I simply raised a concern that I have about under-aged kids viewing or posting on this website and instead of an intelligent debate most of you decided to go on the defensive and used stupid flaming tactics to make me out to be the bad guy here which shows to me and any other casual dropper by that this board is full of people who are not capable of addressing an issue without being open to another persons views who differ from yours without acting like a baby who's candy was taken away...

~i~

This ------> (,) is a fucking comma.

I know it looks scary to a mental infant like you, but give it a try sometime.

 

[Guru]

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

This ------> (,) is a fucking comma.

LOL

 

[Guru]

 

[Debbie]

quote
that this board is full of people who are not capable of addressing an issue without being open to another persons views who differ from yours without acting like a baby who's candy was taken away...


I wouldn't give candy to a baby

Or is this an issue for you? Someone stole your candy and this is why you are so sad, angry and antagonistical ?

Damnit you guys give Kid Rock 1 his candy back!!!

 

[KR1troll]

lol

i'm realy going to have to improve my trolling. i don't stand a chance around here.

 

[Debbie]

KR1troll

quote
"i'm realy going to have to improve my trolling. i don't stand a chance around here."

But your classes, "How to distinguish an asshole from a Troll" and the "Twenty best ways to troll an asshole or Troll" are so imformative. We humbly bow our heads in respect to our teacher, we are humble in your midst, you have so much more to show us, O Wise One of Many talents.

 

[Guest]

Re: Silence Me...LOL

ha ha, he's speechless. thats a first.

Unforntuanatly my weekends or weekdays do not revolve around sitting on a porn board allday talking about your best blowjob ever or your pre-sex ritual...

I think what you people need to realize is that I simply raised a concern that I have about under-aged kids viewing or posting on this website and instead of an intelligent debate most of you decided to go on the defensive and used stupid flaming tactics to make me out to be the bad guy here which shows to me and any other casual dropper by that this board is full of people who are not capable of addressing an issue without being open to another persons views who differ from yours without acting like a baby who's candy was taken away...

~i~

 

[RisiaSkye]

Warning, long reply ahead...

<<snip>>
The idea the children grow up in an environment created entirely by the parents is extremely simplistic and I think naive. The FCC regulates the content of what's aired on our nation's TV and radio broadcasts largely for the purposes of guarding sensitive members of the viewing public (read children) from potential harmful images and/or messages. Should the FCC stop doing this? Should absolutely anything be allowed to be broadcast? If I'm completely responsible for my own children's upbringing what right does the government have to demand compulsory vaccinations? What about public education?

I don't think anyone's claiming that children live in an environment completely created by the parents. Rather, it is the responsibility of parents to filter that environment in the manner that best fits their family's beliefs and priorities.

Yes, the FCC regulates content on public broadcast stations. However, cable stations, because paid for, don't face the same restrictions. In my view, internet access is comparable to cable television--it doesn't come free, and it isn't available to just anyone who has a computer. It must be sought, chosen, and paid for. Similarly, monitoring/blocking software is available--just like the V Chip.

I might not be the best person to address the end of this, as I don't think that mandatory vaccinations or education make sense. I think it's necessary to guarantee access to those things, but not to make use compulsory. Of course, one can avoid these things, too--through vaccination waivers (available, for example, to Christian Scientists) and home schooling options.

<<snip>>

Obviously as adults visiting a bulletin board on a erotic stories site, we should all agree on the right of adults to view erotic material. I'm just not sure why it's so imperative that access to porn on the internet should be easy enough that 10 year-olds can access it as easily as adults.

And, there's the question: is it that easy? Public outlets like libraries and schools routinely use blocking/monitoring software, to protect the children who use the computers. Private computers are the responsibility of the private owner.

<<snip>> Obviously the credit card idea for age verification is severely flawed, but should we scrap the idea of making porn less easily accessible to young children simply because it's possible to get around it? <<snip>>

It's not that we should scrap the idea, it's that we shouldn't make the mistake of having the government intervene and regulate what is essentially a question of individual morality and parenting methods. Age verification systems which rely on credit card numbers are not only easily subverted, they require releasing private financial information into the void--a serious security risk under even the best of circumstances.

Other verification systems (like the photocopied i.d. system used by ISCA) still require disclosing one's identity, address, social security number and/or other sensitive information to an unknown party. Unlike showing your driver's license at the liquor store, the host retains copies, with no accountability for what happens to them or who sees them. Also, this information is still easily used by minors--it's not too difficult to obtain a photocopied i.d. of a friend or relative that's over 18. There's no guarantee that the identity which verifies age actually applies to the person accessing the account.

We're a bright, industrious nation. I'm sure we can come up with a better system than what we have that won't give anyone any particularly sensitive or private information about us and won't subject us to financial risks as with credit cards. I don't know... maybe verification via social security numbers in a system that would simply grant admission but wouldn't record your presence or track your movements?<<snip>>

The problem is, at the present time, there's no way to ensure that the information doesn't get hacked or otherwise stored and re-used. Even data-dumping servers doesn't truly eliminate the info. As anyone who's worked on hard drives knows, information is never truly gone from the system--at least, not for someone who knows how to retrieve it.

I don't know what the answer is, but I don't think instituting a system like this necessarily requires limitation of civil rights (again, unless you consider a 10-year-old's right to porn to be a constitutional right).

Instituting a system which either seriously curtails the rights and access of adults (say, those who don't have a cc#), or which gives the government censorship powers, does harm everyone.

And, yes, the right to porn is a constitutional question. Websites (even free ones) are legally (and most would say, ethically) compelled to provide a warning--letting the audience know that the content is not meant for children. Beyond that, we open a quicksand pit of censorship and government interference. If you don't want 10 year olds to see this page or others like it, heed the front page's warning and install filtering software, use adult-guard options on your internet server and monitor your own children.

I don't understand the controversy over this, to be honest. Why are we so willing to have the government or some other paternalistic organization step in to filter our world for us? Do you need the government to keep your child away from your old Navy buddy with the gutter mouth and propensity for explicitly detailing his sexual exploits? If you do, there's something bigger than a webpage at issue here.

Just like the television, the internet is not a babysitter. That's the duty of the parent(s).

Oliver, I understand where you're coming from, and it's clear that your heart's in the right place. But for now, there just isn't a viable option that doesn't require curtailing the rights of adults and risking the security of confidential information. And, personally, I put the rights of adults first.

I feel no particular compulsion to protect the children, but I fully support your desire (and right) to do so, as an individual, in whatever way works best for you and your family. But, it is neither ethical nor constitutional to ask the entire nation of adults to sacrifice their First Amendment rights, even under the guise of "protecting the children."

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

Did ya see that?

I just got my ass kicked in that debate.

Nicely argued, Risia.

 

[Chelsea_Rose]

Under agers

What's to stop a child running in front of a car?
Sticking its hand in a fire?
Going away with a stranger?
Stripping in public?
Jumping into a pool when unable to swim?
Sticking a pencil up its nose ?
Drinking drain cleaner?

Porn is MUCH harder to access and easier for parents to block than almost every other danger. Literotica is rated with RASCI, so every PC running Internet Explorer can block it.

Of course parents are responsible for what their children access, anyone who says otherwise is having a bit of a cop out.

 

[Cntrycop]

ARGH

I have 2 things to say...

1) Kid Rock1, you state that you have better things to do then search the web for porn or sit on a "Porn site" all day, however you keep replying to these posts on a regular basis, which... and bear with me now, as it may be difficult to get into your fascist head, leads me to believe that you monitor this site regularly, which i assume means you are actively spending time on a *shocked look on my face* "porn site"

2) Riddle me this, if you are so "concerned with the welfare of children, shouldnt we perhaps edit, ban, or censor the lyrics of say, your namesakes music... i dunno maybe i am losing it, but i think it is much more logistically possible for an under 18 yr old child to get his hands on a Kid Rock album, which is not exactly filled with good old fashioned WASP morals...


PS: dont misunderstand me lit readers i enjoy both this site and Kid Rock's music, am completely against Censorship, and i frankly think that Kid Rock would be insulted and /or appalled that this man/boy/monkey is using his moniker as his name on this site and sullying his pristine reputation as a fun loving rock and roll star....


My two cents take or leave it... i dont care


OUTLAW CENSORSHIP

Remove idiots from the gene pool

 

[SexyThang]

It's not about freedom of speech. It's about protecting underage children from being able to access sites where the content is not suitable for viewing.

While it is the parents responsibility to monitor their children, it's also the responsibility of board/site owners to try and ensure that all precautions are taken.

Using the freedom of speech attitude doesn't apply, no matter how much you want to justify it.

The original post was not, as you stated Laurel, in order to drum up business for our site. We have the business and the posters that we want, and quite frankly, when it comes to discussing anything besides porn and sex, none of the members here would fit in, since a debate of any kind about issues that matter are unimportant. That is what this board is about and that's fine. Ours isn't and that's fine too.

Oh..and the kiddie block systems have been proven time and time again that they are easily bypassed, so no, I don't think that saying parents have the option to download it is a good argument. It's a cop out because the points hit home.

 

[Svedish_Chef]

We have the business and the posters that we want, and quite frankly, when it comes to discussing anything besides porn and sex, none of the members here would fit in, since a debate of any kind about issues that matter are unimportant. That is what this board is about and that's fine. Ours isn't and that's fine too.

We dont debate anything here?

What fucking drugs ARE you on again.

That and remind me what you are doing here, cause if this aint debating I dont know what it is.

 

[Guest]

An intelligent reply! Damn...I stand corrected.

Anytime a debate starts here, no matter the author, it always ends up in a flaming. It is possible to argue ANY issue, in an intelligent manner.

But of course, because it hits home here, it becomes a flame topic.

I totally agree with all the points that Oliver has made and while he's saying the same thing as KR, he doesn't get flamed because he is "okay".

Oh and why do I come here, SC? The entertainment value and absolute ignorance of a lot of the posters here reminds me of the proverbial car wreck...you just have to look.