e petition asking for internet constrols on !!!!!! etc

adouglasmhor

surfsister wrote: »

totally agree!! that's why I started the thread!

Because rather than make people responsible for their own actions YOU want a big brother state where failure is pandered to at the expense of the majority.

scheming_gypsy

I'm not going to read all the thread but it's clearly a silly idea thought up by somebody who thinks that dad's don't look at !!!!!!.

Dad opts in,
!!!!!! available,
the end.

RubyRue

adouglasmhor wrote: »

Because rather than make people responsible for their own actions YOU want a big brother state where failure is pandered to at the expense of the majority.

Completely agree, yes there are some terrible parents who really should not have children, however they do and there isn't anything that can be done about it short of social services becoming involved or we become more like China.

Parents should be held responsible and we as a society should not be taking what some may consider an easier option and just putting bans or ever more draconian measures in place when there are perfectly reasonable solutions already available. To some extent these draconian measures absolve parents from taking that responsbility. I don't need to filter the internet because someone else will do it for me!

Where does it end? Some parents only feed their children junk food which can be equally damaging so do we ban all junk food? No you try to educate people and where that fails there are services and authorities in place that exist purely to deal with these sort of issues and parents.

surfsister

adouglasmhor wrote: »

Because rather than make people responsible for their own actions YOU want a big brother state where failure is pandered to at the expense of the majority.

Agree in a different world where people took responsibility for their actions and looked after their kids etc no control would be necessary but we have speed limits and look how many people break them , no drinking whilst driving, etc etc So some controls are needed if not society will break down even more.

But in the world we do have, some controls are needed as not all people are prepared to do the right thing as others are sadly.

adouglasmhor

surfsister wrote: »

Agree in a different world where people took responsibility for their actions and looked after their kids etc no control would be necessary but we have speed limits and look how many people break them , no drinking whilst driving, etc etc So some controls are needed if not society will break down even more.

But in the world we do have, some controls are needed as not all people are prepared to do the right thing as others are sadly.

Then they should pay the price and not everyone else. Don't you get it. you are being an enabler for lazy stupid parents.

BitterAndTwisted

surfsister wrote: »

Agree in a different world where people took responsibility for their actions and looked after their kids etc no control would be necessary but we have speed limits and look how many people break them , no drinking whilst driving, etc etc So some controls are needed if not society will break down even more.

But in the world we do have, some controls are needed as not all people are prepared to do the right thing as others are sadly.

The kind of societies where people voted for "controls" ended up with something altogether different from what they thought they were voting for.

Society is not "breaking down" you daffy cow. I suggest you seek advice from a professional about what appears to be your paranoia.

You monitor your kids' access to the internet and I'll monitor mine. I need people who think like you to stay out of my life and not try to interfere with it, thanks.

RubyRue

surfsister wrote: »

Agree in a different world where people took responsibility for their actions and looked after their kids etc no control would be necessary but we have speed limits and look how many people break them , no drinking whilst driving, etc etc So some controls are needed if not society will break down even more.

But in the world we do have, some controls are needed as not all people are prepared to do the right thing as others are sadly.

But there are already controls in place, that's the point. Both drinking and driving and speeding are illegal... yes people still do them but no matter how far you drop the speed limit or how low the drink driving limit goes there will still be people who break both laws... so how far do you go to stop it more than what is already being done? Ban driving? Ban alcohol?

Putting ever more draconian measures in place you run the risk of driving something, which again I add is perfectly legal, underground into the DarkNet making ever more hard to monitor and control access. Then how can you control what you children are accessing when it wouldn't even be indexed by standard search engines?

check

janninew wrote: »

I work in a large secondary school and have had many conversations with teenagers regarding body image in Class lessons. Many girls feel like boys won't be interested in them if they don't have big boobs or they aren't willing to have sex. I asked why they thought this and one girl said 'boys are only interested in girls that look like !!!!!! stars.' I found this quite sad really, that normal teen girls are feeling like this and have these worries and pressures.
.

Haven't such views always existed to an extent "I must I must improve my bust" ? Regardless I think most children/tweens will feel that way not from watching pornography but because of the media. You only need to look at the Daily Mail's side column and the countless references to "curves" and their derogatory opinions on Womens looks.

This petition is silly, pornography has existed long before the internet and was accessed by children/teenagers. It's up to parents to monitor their own children's online activity. We are outraged by the Government's policing of the internet in some parts of the world but think this could be acceptable? Whatever happened to personal responsibillity? When you outlaw things or put restrictions on them then they go underground and into the hands of criminals to state the obvious, it would seem more reasonable to remove page three type images from tabloids .

adouglasmhor

MissMitch wrote: »

I'm 41, there was that same pressure when I was that age, my first boyfriend split with me after 2 weeks because I wouldn't sleep with him, another went off with my best friend for the same reason...it's really nothing new and has multifarious causes.

Boys want girls like that because their idols are generally over-paid footballers with beautiful girls falling over themselves to get to them whether they look like David Beckham or John Terry. Pick me one days newspaper that doesn't have stories like that in it?

So that's why I don't think ADULTS who enjoy watching !!!!!! should have to inconvenience themselves to stem the flow of what is already an ocean of shallow, misguided 'culture'!

Over paid footballers and pretty girls is not a new phenomenon.

scheming_gypsy

MissMitch wrote: »

Boys want girls like that because their idols are generally over-paid footballers with beautiful girls falling over themselves to get to them whether they look like David Beckham or John Terry. Pick me one days newspaper that doesn't have stories like that in it?

!

not entirely true. We don't look at our footballing idols and decide that we want a girlfriend like that. We just prefer slim fit birds over fat rotters; it's not exactly science.
women just struggle to understand that concept because they're shallow and are quite happy to marry men who have money - unless of course Mick Jagger, Jack Nicholson, Mick Hucknell, Rod Stewart, Peter Stringfellow, Gene Simmons, Lemmy, Stephen Hawkin etc etc are fine figures of manliness with looks to die for.