Quote Originally Posted by shutterman
in this case they are looking for better ways to protect children from porn. Are you against that?
Wow, I really hope that you don't think it's that simple. If you do, then I am sorry.

Porn is not stalking the streets looking for ten-year old boys. Porn does not pull up in sedans and offer kids candy. Porn is not a threat. The real threat is the systematic breakdown of our society's ability, and more importantly, DESIRE to be a parent.

People think that having a baby means taking nine months off of work, playing with them for a bit, and then letting TV and the public education system do what they're supposed to. Porn, violent video games, explicit language in music are not threats. The real threat is that poeple think that by giving a child a computer and leaving them alone with it they are doing something good. All that happens is that the kid figures out how to use Google, finds passwords for x-rated sites, and does what comes naturally to any 13-year old adolescent male.

If the parents actually got of their middle-class career-driven asses and did what their supposed to do, you wouldn't have to "protect" the "poor children." Same thing with explicit music and other media that are deemed "improper." If they are watching it, you are not doing your job, or the people they are with are not doing theirs. Expecting the government to pass laws to make parenting easier for yoou is lazy and arrogant at best.

Does porn add anything to society? Uhm, NO. But that doesn't mean anyone needs to be "protected" from it. Ploease, enlighten me, is "protecting" children from porn more important than providing local police departments with more money to patrol more areas and actually DOING something?

Is it more important than cutting education funds? Because the current administration sure thinks so. Apparently it's also more important that providing healthcare.