backtop


Print 48 comment(s) - last by masher2.. on Mar 22 at 9:37 AM

Two US senators are once again making a push for an official .xxx domain

Two Senate Democrats, Max Baucus of Montana and Mark Pryor of Arkansas, officially introduced the "Cyber Safety for Kids Act of 2006."  The new bill would push for the Bush administration to create an ".xxx" domain, which would be reserved specifically for pornographic web sites.  The ultimate goal would be for parents to be able to easily filter and eliminate what their kids can and cannot view on the Internet.  

"While the Internet is an exceptional learning tool, it allows children the same easy access to websites about space shuttles as it does for pornography," said Senator Baucus, adding that violators would be subject to a hefty fine.

The two senators hope that the U.S. Department of Commerce and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) can work together to make sure that minors are shielded from adult content.  The legislation will have a hard road, especially with many public interest groups ready to rally against the creation of the virtual red-light district.  During last summer, ICANN initially went along with an .xxx domain, but was met with heavy criticism that forced the organization to hold off any decisions since last December.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

XXX = Red light district
By johnsaw on 3/18/2006 10:27:43 PM , Rating: 2
Creating XXX is analogous to creating red light districts. Now hookers are everywhere (.com/.net/.cc-s), but if created .xxx then hookers would be in the reg light distric and elsewhere. You accomplish 0.

But there's also a problem of multiple domain pointers. With .xxx we just affirm that obsession with peeking at other people's genitals is something normal.




RE: XXX = Red light district
By Decaydence on 3/19/2006 12:43:19 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
But there's also a problem of multiple domain pointers. With .xxx we just affirm that obsession with peeking at other people's genitals is something normal.


What a rediculously stupid comment. Whenever someone wants to claim the moral high ground in a matter involving pornography they have to elevate it to the level of obsession. Do you really believe that everyone viewing internet pornography is "obsessed" with it? What a pathetic lack of reasoning you exhibit when the only two camps are the people offended by porn and the people who are horribly addicted and obsessed with it.

Furthermore, we must address the meaning of "normal". If normal refers to what the majority of people do, then it is extremely ABnormal for a man to be condemning porn. The majority of men with working genitals view porn of some sort. So if we incorrectly assume, as you do, that being "normal" (using the horrid definition mentioned above) is inherently superior to the alternative, then you are a horrible person.

Finally, you reveal yourself as lacking any understanding of the function of government as it pertains to American society. It's not up to the government to affirm or negate activity or material that doesn't directly effect in a measurable, negative way anyone who doesn't wish to be effected.

Get your head out of your high horse's ass.


RE: XXX = Red light district
By masher2 (blog) on 3/19/2006 1:45:00 AM , Rating: 2
> "Get your head out of your high horse's ass..."

If you're going to be an insulting, pedantic twerp, you should take care to at least be accurate. First of all, it was obvious the previous poster pretty much shares your viewpoint; you misinterpreted his remarks painfully.

However, that's simply the first of your many errors. Let's address a few others, shall we?

>What a pathetic lack of reasoning you exhibit when the only two camps are the people offended by porn and the people who are horribly addicted and obsessed with it.
Oops, he made no such distinction. He didn't even imply it. He merely indicated those classes of people exist, and not that they excluded any and all other possible classes.

> "you reveal yourself as lacking any understanding of the function of government as it pertains to American society...It's not up to the government to affirm or negate activity "

According to centuries of US law, case history, and legal tradition, this statement is false. You may have a belief that the proper function of government should be more limited (a view I share myself) but the statement as it stands is incorrect.

> "Do you really believe that everyone viewing internet pornography is "obsessed" with it?"

You've gotten your terms confused. His original statement on obsession didn't refer to pornography...it referred to viewing the genitals of others. You can do that directly or by proxy, using pornography.

Any person motivated enough to regularly seek out pictoral representations of genitalia fits the textbook definition of obsession, even if it doesn't necessarily rise to the clinical one.

> "If normal refers to what the majority of people do...The majority of men with working genitals view porn of some sort."

According to every study I've seen, this is false-- the majority of men around the world do *not* view porn on a regular basis. If you incorrectly define "men" as "men in the US" and define "view" as "having viewed at least once in your life", then you reach majority status.

But even in the US, most men do not view pornography on a regular basis, and thus someone who does is outside (if ever so slightly) the norm.

I'm ignoring the even more basic fallacy of substituting "men with working genitals" for the more generic "people". The former term is, say, only 49% of the population at large. If 51% of that set engage in an activity, that translates into only 25% of the entire populace.



RE: XXX = Red light district
By mindless1 on 3/19/2006 2:28:06 AM , Rating: 2
But, you do need to get your head out of your high horse's ass. Being verbose won't change that.


RE: XXX = Red light district
By Decaydence on 3/19/2006 4:39:17 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
If you're going to be an insulting, pedantic twerp, you should take care to at least be accurate. First of all, it was obvious the previous poster pretty much shares your viewpoint; you misinterpreted his remarks painfully.


Your claim that I have misinterpreted his remarks is contingent upon his justification of .xxx domains in the first part of his post. His opening remarks, however, do not indicate a stance on the subject of pornography or its worth, therefore one can not assume that simply because he supports a .xxx domain that he has a favorable stance towards pornography and then by extension further assume his follow-up comment is made with some sarcasm at its core. The structure and nature of the comment indicates either a serious comment meant to be taken at face value or a poorly constructed attempt at sarcasm. If the latter is true, then I apologize to the poster.

quote:
Oops, he made no such distinction. He didn't even imply it. He merely indicated those classes of people exist, and not that they excluded any and all other possible classes.


While this distinction isn't clearly stated, those of us with any adherance to logic understand that the distinction is implicit in the comment. If he implies that establishment of .xxx domains only affirms an obsession with "peeking at other people's genitals" then that intentional lack of true perspective can only lead to the conclusion that he believes any inclination to view pornography to be an obsession. If that isn't what he meant, then he didn't phrase the comment properly. Just because your assumptions, arbitrary as they are, indicate otherwise doesn't mean my interperatation isn't accurate.

quote:
According to centuries of US law, case history, and legal tradition, this statement is false. You may have a belief that the proper function of government should be more limited (a view I share myself) but the statement as it stands is incorrect.


The only source for my comments, as it should be for anyone interpereting legal matters in this country, is the constitution and the intentions of those that founded it. Just because you can sight examples in which people have gotten it completely wrong, does not make it not wrong. If you share my view on such matters, then you admit the statement to be true, even though conventional wisdom today on the matter is incorrect and to the contrary.

quote:
You've gotten your terms confused. His original statement on obsession didn't refer to pornography...it referred to viewing the genitals of others. You can do that directly or by proxy, using pornography.


The fact that the comment was issued in the context of a discussion of internet porn indicates that is exactly what he was referring to. Even if he wasn't, however, my point still stands. He could be talking about strip clubs and it wouldn't change anything. I know this was a powerful rebuttal in your head, just know that it is laughable when read aloud.

quote:
Any person motivated enough to regularly seek out pictoral representations of genitalia fits the textbook definition of obsession, even if it doesn't necessarily rise to the clinical one.


Wrong. Take a look in the dictionary.

Obsession:
Compulsive preoccupation with a fixed idea or an unwanted feeling or emotion, often accompanied by symptoms of anxiety.

This definition serves as its own rebuttal. However, I'll fill in the logical blanks for the less thoughtful amongst us. For you to claim interest in porn to be an obsession, you must also be claiming that a person who harbors this interest thinks about it all day and these thoughts are often accompanied by anxiety. No reasonable person with any perspective on this issue would think that this represents a typical case. So unless you are referring to a textbook that is better at defining words than the dictionary, you are way off on this.

quote:
But even in the US, most men do not view pornography on a regular basis, and thus someone who does is outside (if ever so slightly) the norm.


I was going to simply use anecdotal evidence for this obviously rediculous assertion. However, I decided to do a little digging. This is highly representative of my findings, so I will use it as a stand-in for the mountain of other information that supports it.

When the magazine Psychology Today asked 20,000 readers whether they had ever used erotic material for arousal, 92 percent of the male respondents and 72 percent of the females reported that they had. http://www.bettersex.com/sexencyc/ sex-dictionary/P...

Either the readers of Psychology Today (and all of the other sample groups in the other studies that came to the same conclusions) are "deviants", or you haven't read as many studies as you claim. I know you may be tempted to sight your use of "on a regular basis" to combat the validity of my point. Just realize that this disparity speaks to the heart of my criticism of the author of the post in question. There is no requirement that any regular basis be established for the viewing of online pornography and this fact further damns the original poster. Wallow in the irony as your impulses drive you to argue my point.

quote:
I'm ignoring the even more basic fallacy of substituting "men with working genitals" for the more generic "people". The former term is, say, only 49% of the population at large. If 51% of that set engage in an activity, that translates into only 25% of the entire populace.


This thread of logic just made me realize that your points aren't worth rebutting. It is too bad I didn't realize this until the end of this long post. Might as well finish it off though. The fact that, after any attempt at thought, the percentage of "men with working genitals" you thought to be representative of reality is 49% of the population at large makes me laugh. When I say "working genitals" I am obviously not referring to urination. Using the dictionary's definition of genitals as "sex organs", I was obviously referring to men with the ability to achieve ejaculation and therefore wouldn't use the "more generic "people"". By the way, I love how you ignored imporant terms of a point as fallacy for the purpose of refuting a point made under those terms. Given the ratio of men to women in the US is .97 and that 20.6% are under 14 and 12.4% are above 65, the percentage of "people", as you put it, that are "men with working genitals", as I put it, is well under 49%. Unfortunately for you, I did narrow the focus of my comment and therefore the comment stands.


In conclusion (finally), your logic is faulty and your premises are severely lacking. You called me pedantic in your opening. This is a welcomed criticism when compared to the alternative. Being pedantic depends on an unwavering attention to facts and logic. You have proven that a dependence on assumption and misinformation is hardly a viable alternative. While it is true that both of my posts may come off as ostentatious and insulting, they are hardly unfair or innacurate. Critique my methods, but don't unfairly shout down my sound logic.


RE: XXX = Red light district
By Decaydence on 3/19/2006 4:51:16 AM , Rating: 2
Upon further review, I realize the poster actually doesn't support a creation of a .xxx domain. This adds even more validity to the assumption that the second part of the post, the part in question, is to be taken at face value, and therefore is contrary to my take on the matter. By the way, I know it wasn't explicitly expressed in my post, but I do support a creation of a .xxx domain. I don't, however, support fines for not making use of it.


RE: XXX = Red light district
By masher2 (blog) on 3/19/2006 11:28:04 AM , Rating: 2
> "Upon further review, I realize the poster actually doesn't support a creation of a .xxx domain. "

Lol, you wrote three replies to him-- one of which weighed in at mini-series length-- before you realized you'd wholly misinterpreted him?

I stand vindicated.


RE: XXX = Red light district
By Decaydence on 3/20/2006 1:22:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Lol, you wrote three replies to him-- one of which weighed in at mini-series length-- before you realized you'd wholly misinterpreted him?

I stand vindicated.


Cheap shot that has nothing to do with the overall arc of this discussion. The one part that I admittedly got wrong has nothing to do with the section of his post in question. The fact that he doesn't support the creation of a .xxx domain further damns your interperatation of the second segment of his post. To say i've "wholly misinterpreted" him is rediculous. My original criticism stands.


RE: XXX = Red light district
By masher2 (blog) on 3/20/2006 9:24:35 AM , Rating: 2
> "Cheap shot that has nothing to do with the overall arc of this discussion..."

On the contrary-- my initial post made the point that you had misinterpreted his remarks. You've admitted this to be true, so why belabor the point?

> "The fact that he doesn't support the creation of a .xxx domain further damns your interperatation "

Look, the logic here really isn't that complicated. The simple fact he doesn't support it "damns" nothing. His reasons why might do so...but given he stated specifically it was because it would "accomplish nothing" means it has no bearing whatsoever upon his judgement on pornography.

You were wrong; get it over and move on.




RE: XXX = Red light district
By Lifted on 3/19/2006 6:53:28 AM , Rating: 2
Wow. I didn't read that post, but the effort you clearly put into it makes me cry for you.



RE: XXX = Red light district
By timmiser on 3/19/2006 5:40:33 PM , Rating: 2
LOL!! I agree. I cry for anyone who has the time to read that book.

People!! Flame wars are only fun to follow if they are short jabs. Keep it down please!!!


RE: XXX = Red light district
By masher2 (blog) on 3/19/2006 11:41:23 AM , Rating: 2
> "therefore one can not assume that simply because he supports a .xxx domain that he has a favorable stance towards pornography "

Well you've already admitted you got this one totally wrong, so no need to beat a dead horse.

> "While this distinction isn't clearly stated, those of us with any adherance to logic understand that the distinction is implicit in the comment. If he implies that establishment of .xxx domains only affirms an obsession "

You refuse to face facts. Some people are, indeed, obsessed with pornography. That leads to their spending, cumulatively, several billion dollars per year on it. That in turn leads to an Internet so awash in porn links, popups, and sites that its nearly impossible to keep it away from small children. And THAT is the rationale behind the .xxx domain proposal. A rationale predicated upon the existence of an obsession. If no one was obsessed with porn, the industry would be vastly smaller...and this proposal wouldn't even exist.

So the need to create a separate domain for it does most certainly affirm the fact that SOME (not all) people have an obsession with it. Period.

> The only source for my comments, as it should be for anyone interpereting legal matters in this country, is the constitution and the intentions of those that founded it"

Red herring. It is YOUR interpretation of the Constitution that you base this statement on, and not the overwhelming view of society, nor the views of the US Supreme Court. Now, you are entitled to your opinion...but you are NOT entitled to label someone ignorant of reality, simply because they're affirming the majority belief.

Personally, I share your views here. However, unlike you, I'm wise enough to realize its a viewpoint, and a minority one at that.


RE: XXX = Red light district
By masher2 (blog) on 3/19/2006 11:52:48 AM , Rating: 2
> The fact that the comment was issued in the context of a discussion of internet porn indicates that is exactly what he was referring to. "

Once again, you've missed the primary point. He was referring to the use of internet porn to FULFILL obsessions of "viewing genitals". That doesn't mean the two terms are identical. Seeking "A" to gratify "B" does not imply A=B. Got it now?

Somehow I doubt it.


> "Take a look in the dictionary. Obsession:
Compulsive preoccupation with a fixed idea...."


And the dictionary definition is fulfilled Anyone who regularly views porn has a preoccupation with it, and masturbating to porn certainly qualifies as a "fixed idea".

> "However, I decided to do a little digging...
When the magazine Psychology Today asked 20,000 readers whether they had ever used erotic material for arousal, 92 percent of the male respondents...reported that they had"


What is it with you and reading comprehension. Your "fact" confirms MY statement, not yours. Most men (in the US at least) have viewed porn at least once in their life. My statement...and the magazines.

YOUR positiont was different. That most men do so on a regular and repeated basis...a wholly different thing.

Most men do NOT view porn on a regular basis. Worldwide, and considering the population as a whole (men AND women), the number of such people is far smaller. Certainly small enough to fall outside the norm.

I won't even comment on your laughable use of an opt-in poll as scientific fact. That alone shows your lack of understanding on the matter.


RE: XXX = Red light district
By Decaydence on 3/20/2006 1:59:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You refuse to face facts. Some people are, indeed, obsessed with pornography. That leads to their spending, cumulatively, several billion dollars per year on it. That in turn leads to an Internet so awash in porn links, popups, and sites that its nearly impossible to keep it away from small children. And THAT is the rationale behind the .xxx domain proposal. A rationale predicated upon the existence of an obsession. If no one was obsessed with porn, the industry would be vastly smaller...and this proposal wouldn't even exist.


With this, you are essentially saying porn is marketed agressively in reaction to people being obsessed with it. There is no logical basis for this assumption. Boner pills, antivirus programs, and cell phone service are marketed with the same zeal. Does that mean people are obsessed with those things? Can we assume they are marketed like this simply because of that obsession? Or is it because any segment with diverse competition needs to be marketed in this way? Furthermore, the proposal is not predicated on an obsession because it is predicated on the behavior of the suppliers, not the consumers. The .xxx domain wasn't introduced to curb porn obsession. Stating that it is "predicated upon the existence of an obsession" would require that to be true, and simply adding some rediculous rationale afterwards won't change that fact.

Of course there are people obsessed with porn. To say that there are enough of them to actually drive the industry is rediculous. You claim that the existence of the industry, as it is now, is dependent on people being obsessed. This may be true if we are still using the rediculous definition you put forth earlier. My god, i'm doing it again, I love replying to rediculous people like you and I end up writing these huge stream of consciousness threads. In furthering my point about your definition of obsession I was about to point out this laughable misreading of a basic dictionary definition:

quote:
And the dictionary definition is fulfilled Anyone who regularly views porn has a preoccupation with it, and masturbating to porn certainly qualifies as a "fixed idea".


I was going to go in to how "compulsive preoccupation" is not fulfilled by simply regularly viewing porn, thoughts of it would have to exist on an inapropriate basis. Then I was going to go into the fact that, obviously in a case of porn obsession, masturbating to porn would be a part of the "fixed idea" and that pointing that out meant absolutely nothing. Then I was going to go in and rip apart all of the other rediculous points you made. Then I realized that no one else is reading this horrid exchange. Which means I would be doing it simply to prove a point to you. I further reasoned that such an endeavor would be like getting in a fight with a crippled person just to prove to them that I can win. I'll end the discourse here because half of the people actually reading this (you and I being the total) are correctly assessing the situation and the other half won't be able to see it regardless of how much prodding is done. Good day to you sir.


RE: XXX = Red light district
By masher2 (blog) on 3/20/2006 9:46:06 AM , Rating: 2
> "Boner pills, antivirus programs, and cell phone service are marketed with the same zeal. Does that mean people are obsessed with those things?"

You really struggle with this thing called logic, don't you? You just demonstrated a common logical fallacy known as Commuting the Conditionals. Porn is aggressively marketed due to many people being obsessed with it...that does NOT imply that all things aggresively marketed are due to obsession.

And in any case, your own examples fail. I've never hit a site and gotten 40 simultaneous popups for "cell phone service". I've never seen an email account get several hundred "antivirus" ads per day. These products are marketed zealously...but not on the same level as internet porn. And the rationale for the popularity of either (and hence the reasons for their high-profile marketing) are totally different than for porn.

Want to try again?

> "You claim that the existence of the industry, as it is now, is dependent on people being obsessed"

Good god, your ability to misinterpret plain English is truly astounding. The "very existence" of the industry is not dependent on the obsession. However, the existence of a wide-spread obsession with porn (a fact you've already admitted is true) is responsible for the current SIZE of the industry. And hence, the current degree of marketing for it.

This is pretty basic stuff. I can't believe you're even attempting to argue it.



RE: XXX = Red light district
By kilkennycat on 3/20/2006 12:36:17 PM , Rating: 2
"Given the ratio of men to women in the US is .97 and that 20.6% are under 14 and 12.4% are above 65, the percentage of "people", as you put it, that are "men with working genitals", as I put it, is well under 49%. Unfortunately for you, I did narrow the focus of my comment and therefore the comment stands."

I didn't know that men's genitals stopped 'working' (as you carefully defined previously) at 65. However, I defer to your obviously vastly superior knowledge of this matter. Must be all the books you read when you are not viewing porn.


RE: XXX = Red light district
By masher2 (blog) on 3/20/2006 1:22:54 PM , Rating: 1
> "I didn't know that men's genitals stopped 'working' (as you carefully defined previously) at 65."

Good point. And, of course, many boys hit puberty before 14 or even 13, so his figures are even more suspect.

But what's most amusing is that, had he been correct, it would have done even more to disprove his original claim that "most people" view porn on a regular basis.



RE: XXX = Red light district
By Decaydence on 3/21/2006 12:56:10 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
But what's most amusing is that, had he been correct, it would have done even more to disprove his original claim that "most people" view porn on a regular basis.


My god you are dumb. I never said "most people". I said "most men with working genitals", which is exactly the point you are attempting, without success, to refute. Perhaps if you could keep a thought in your head for more than two sentences you would be more successful in your attempt to inflate your ego as it concerns your minimal intellect.


RE: XXX = Red light district
By masher2 (blog) on 3/21/2006 9:30:56 AM , Rating: 2
> "My god you are dumb. I never said "most people"...

Lol, do you never tire of embarrassing yourself? Let me quote you:

"If normal refers to what the majority of people do ...The majority of men with working genitals view porn of some sort."

So yes, you did say "the majority of people", then incorrectly tried to substitute a subclass of that to prove your point. We then pointed out that your subclass wasn't representative of "most people", and that, even within that subclass, your statement isn't correct.

Your argument is identical to saying, "What? Of COURSE its normal to pray 12 hours a day! The majority of Buddhist Monks do".

And, I notice you conveniently ignored all my primary points, and instead focused on this side issue. Trying to dodge the bullet obviously.




RE: XXX = Red light district
By Decaydence on 3/21/2006 12:53:20 AM , Rating: 2
Kil, you are obviously incredibly stupid. In order for my statement to be true, as little as 10 percent of the demographics I mentioned would have to be unable to achieve ejaculation. If you don't think that 10 percent of males under 14 and over 65 cannot achieve ejaculation, then you need to talk to your parents about whether or not they are related. I also love the fact that this genius that I have been responding to agrees with your complete lack of any sense, common or otherwise.


RE: XXX = Red light district
By VVolf on 3/21/2006 10:22:47 AM , Rating: 2
I'm repling to Decaydence's post but this is directed at Masher2 as well.


In one sentance, each of you express your point and be done, because frankly, both of you are soooo far OT that this has gone beyond being amusing anymore.

IMO neither of you is arguing anything other than symantics which is totally pointless on the net because nobody ever posts anything on the net with the intention of it getting ripped into the literal meaning of each word.
This is a CONVERSATION and as such, each participant needs to read other peoples comments IN CONTEXT.

Whatever it is that you think you are arguing, nobody cares which of you is "right" because (to deflate both of you) whether viewing porn is normal, obsessive, or any other adjective you want to throw at it, there is no denying the FACT that it is everywhere on the net.
The only point of this thread is whether it should be organized in such a way, to help control WHERE that content should be put.

Here's something I read quite a while ago. I find it amusing and true. You both have proved it nicely.

Arguing on the internet is like 2 retards getting into a schoolyard fight.
It doesn't matter who wins, because in the end...
They're still 2 retards.


Get over it.

(no flames for the political incorectness, I'm well aware - another case of "take it in context")


RE: XXX = Red light district
By masher2 (blog) on 3/22/2006 9:37:34 AM , Rating: 2
And inevitably, the self-annointed topic police arrive, with much thumping of chests and stamping of feet.

It's an inevitable fact that discussions evolve. This particular thread hasn't wandered nearly as far as most eventually do. It began with Internet porn and evolved to....porn in general. Wow. How dare we stray so far from the path.

Secondly, I have to point out that everyone besides Decaydence and I was through with the thread long ago. So I'm not sure who you're trying to defend...maybe you just like wearing that little tin deputy badge?

In closing, I have to point out our posts are more "on topic" than your own diatribe, so you're displaying hypocrisy as well as officious pedantism.



ok, so long as ...
By mindless1 on 3/19/2006 2:27:07 AM , Rating: 2
That's fine, so long as we selectively label everything else too.

I don't think adult content should be pushed on kids, not at all, BUT, the level of censorship of sex in the US is very disturbing considering other common "sins" that the religious right ignore include: gluttony, greed, violence, lying

Let's just keep our kids in the dark ages by pretending their eyes will bleed if they learn that some people have a different view on sexuality. That way, when they inevitably DO come across such things they will have no coping skill sets at all. It would just make too much sense for parents to instead discuss these things so the child can then understand and put it in the right context.

Legislators have one common goal: Keep the masses ignorant and keep them busy earning $$$$$$$ for the big corporations funding those legislators.




RE: ok, so long as ...
By masher2 (blog) on 3/19/2006 11:58:05 AM , Rating: 1
> "Let's just keep our kids in the dark ages by pretending their eyes will bleed if they learn that some people have a different view on sexuality"

So you have no problem with a five year old girl stumbling across photos of a woman havin sex with a horse? Or of a six year old boy seeing a woman tied up, assraped, and then shit upon by a a large group of men?

I would be horrified...but then I realize you're not far past prepubescence yourself, and therefore can be excused for your silliness.


RE: ok, so long as ...
By Decaydence on 3/20/2006 2:07:51 AM , Rating: 2
Your vivid imagery doesn't make this an apt example. No five year old girl is going to "stumble" upon assraping pictures, scat shows, and women having horse sex. Unless by stumble you mean she enters "horse sex AND assraping shit feast" into google. By the way, any five year old surfing the internet unsupervised has plenty of more severe problems in life than viewing pornography; namely parents that must not give a shit.

The reality is, any sites that could be effected by this legislation would be sites that are already required to have age verification before any of the good stuff can be accessed.

Anyway, how else is this girl going to learn how to properly service a steed? *tongue firmly in cheek*


RE: ok, so long as ...
By masher2 (blog) on 3/20/2006 4:07:20 PM , Rating: 2
> "No five year old girl is going to "stumble" upon assraping pictures, scat shows, and women having horse sex. Unless by stumble you mean she enters "horse sex AND assraping shit feast" into google"

You're new to this whole Internet thing, aren't you? No one but a true beginner could make such a ludicrious statement. You don't need to enter hardcore porn terms in Google to find hardcore sites...they specifically load search engines with irrelevant (and quite often innocent) terms to increase their hit count. They also link to softer sites, which themselves link to ones still softer. In true "six degress of Kevin Bacon" style, one can go from your average G-rated site to hardcore porn with just a few accidental clicks.

Until you learn a little more about the subject, pull up your pants and go home. You're embarrassing yourself.


RE: ok, so long as ...
By VVolf on 3/21/2006 11:05:09 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly one of my previous points.
The internet is permeated with porn whether you are trying to find it or not.

Unfortunately, again, the 2 of you are dancing around symantics.
You both are juggling with "stumbles upon", when I think that's not the key point.

It's simply about how available this content is.

I don't think either of you would argue that it's ok to leave your power tools plugged in and unattended in your kids play room, and believe it's reasonable to say the kids shouldn't be pushing the buttons.

What about booze? I'm sure none of you would bat an eye about someone having a locked liquour cabinet... so why is it so unreasonable to try and lock the "porno cabinet" on the net?

This isn't only about "stumbling" upon content. What about when they go looking. Just because a kid can spell and read, doesn't mean they are mature enough to handle everything they find.
Yes, it's the parents responsibility to ensure they don't have access but there needs to be some societal responsibility to help make sure it's not so easily available.

We don't see porno magazines for sale in grocery store check-out lines and in my opinion, that's become exactly the same thing.


Real Motivation
By TomZ on 3/18/2006 3:36:50 PM , Rating: 2
The real reason for this type of legislation is to make it easier for senators to find adult content. This helps solve the problem they have now that they have to call over one of their assistants to show them again how to use google, which of course is quite embarrasing for them. :o)




RE: Real Motivation
By TomZ on 3/18/2006 3:38:32 PM , Rating: 3
Seriously though, this plan is fundamentally flawed because, as others have pointed out, there will be no way to force all adult web site out of the other domain extensions into the new .xxx domain extension. You can't do it through legislation, because the internet is global.


RE: Real Motivation
By masteraleph on 3/18/2006 8:22:02 PM , Rating: 1
Actually, you can with any websites based in the US or with significant assets in the US (see, for example, France suing Yahoo to pull Holocaust related items from their auctions). All that would be necessary is a lawsuit. So it would effect the big players (magazines and such), but most amateur and pay-for sites are based overseas.


RE: Real Motivation
By timmiser on 3/19/2006 5:32:42 PM , Rating: 2
I think most adult sites are for this too. They don't want underage viewers mainly because they are too young to own a credit card and pay for it! Most of them have advertisments for programs like net nanny and cyberpatrol.



Meh
By goku on 3/18/2006 11:24:53 PM , Rating: 2
I think they should create the .XXX domain but at the same time I wouldn't want them fining everyone who puts porn on non .XXX domains as that would be stupid. People are so obsessed with shielding children from porn it's absolutely ridiculous... Don't people have something better to do than this?




RE: Meh
By theprodigalrebel on 3/19/2006 6:07:22 AM , Rating: 2
We aren't talking about 12-year-olds. I think this is about protecting 6-10-year-olds. Trust me, you don't want kids to watch pr0n from that age...especially considering the fact that "ho", "bitch" and "pussy" are all considered legitmate synonyms for "girls" in Elementary Schools these days.

But yeah, even if this only becomes applicable to the US...attempting to organize a mess, even a tiny bit better, is never a bad thing.


RE: Meh
By VVolf on 3/20/2006 2:47:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
obsessed with shielding children from porn it's absolutely ridiculous


Are you serious?

Let's make this simple.
point 1
I surf porn. I have for years (I guess I must be obsessed, abnormal and miscreant).
I have never paid 1 cent, excluding hardware and connection costs and I have found EVERYTHING I have ever desired to find (and some things I did not).

point 2
I have children who use the internet supervised (3.5 years old). Today I have a very tight reign on what they have access to, but I'm certain that by the time they reach 5+, they will have the smarts and know-how to start their own "searching"...

I'm terribly concerned about how I can ensure nothing comes up by accident. I'm sure that you are well aware that if even one "bad" result appears (even if it is "soft-core"), the ensuing links will eventually lead to EVERYWHERE. I need to ensure that not even the one "bad" link gets through and this has zero bearing on how open I plan on being with my children's understanding of the world. My children's education about sexuality is not the responsibility of an XXX site whose only purpose is $$$. I'm not overly concerned about the odd "nipple" incident (as another poster mentioned), but I would like the opportunity to explain this to them in my own time, the right way. A child should never be exposed to hardcore smut.

If someone sat in a bus shelter and mastubated while waiting for the bus, in front of your kids and grandmother and cousin and boss and neighbor, etc... (I would hope) they would be taken away, fined and even jailed for public indecency. (There's nothing wrong with mastubation per se, but for everything there is an appropriate time and place.) Why is it then, that xxx sites are allowed to fill our searches and email with things 100 times worse?

I am totally against censorship and my comments do not infer any definition of "morality".
I believe that responsible adults are entitled to live however they like, but that also implies that everyone is entitled to NOT be exposed to materials that they find improper or offending.

The current state of the internet does not allow people to say "no".

I'm an IT professional and understand that by design, the internet as we know it will never plunk cleanly into this paradigm BUT if we could get 1/2 the xxx sites into an xxx domain, that would be a start.

To say that "shielding children from porn it's absolutely ridiculous", can only come from a true miscreant.



RE: Meh
By VVolf on 3/20/2006 3:29:34 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, and as for your...
quote:
Don't people have something better to do than this?

I answer...
Utterly and absolutely not!

There is not one thing in this universe that I have better to do, than protect my children. You clearly have no clue.


hmm
By Wwhat on 3/19/2006 10:00:56 AM , Rating: 2
I don't see what the problem is really with an xxx domain in itself.
Also even when a filter is in place an adult person can easily bypass it, in effect it would as previous posters say make the chance that kids from say 6 or 10 stumble upon it smaller.
And I do think that kids of that age should have a chance to not being exposed to what sex degrades to in the hand of the pathetic.
There are issues I can see pop up tho, for instance it seems that in america they think even seeing a nipple is pornographic, so that even normal sites would be forced on an inappropiate xxx domain if this goes too far.
And what if a nipple shows up somewhere by accident? look what they did in the superbowl thing, heavy fines, so then any site would have to freakishly check every pixel to prevent being fined, quite a hopelessly pathetic situation
Then there's the expensive domainnames big sexsite bought, they should in the case of introduction to xxx domains make a free transfer of known sexsites to the xxx domain to be fair.
So I for me say ok for an xxx domain but only for real hardcore stuff.




RE: hmm
By TomZ on 3/19/2006 10:24:43 AM , Rating: 1
Your discussion makes the case for NOT having an .xxx domain - the issue of subjectivity. It will not be possible for a society, much less the entire world, to agree on any objective definition of what is appropriate or not.

The separate domain idea is stupid, and will accomplish nothing except to enrich those that are selling Internet domain names. These legislators are naive if they feel they can make any difference, and they are (again) wasting taxpayer dollars pursuing something of such little practical value.


RE: hmm
By Wwhat on 3/19/2006 11:12:56 AM , Rating: 2
I know what you mean but don't you think that there are non-gray areas? as I said you could use it for clear hard-core pornography, I don't think there's much ambiguity in the hard-core area, at least as far as I know.


....
By alphaaa on 3/18/2006 3:58:25 PM , Rating: 2
seriously, who cares if the plan is flawed. it will at least filter some of the porn sites for kids and organize a lot of the porn sites for our viewing pleasure. no one can lose.

plus there will be a new race for domain names. this time they can get creative with .xxx




RE: ....
By sebastianem on 3/18/2006 8:54:24 PM , Rating: 2
If you type some of the 'kiddie' sites for six year old sally with a common mispelling, she gets to see where babies come from, so it seems to be a step in the right direction. It doesn't seem to me that it will keep people who want it from getting it, just your children from accidentally stumbling onto them, so yeh, no one seems to lose here...


hahaha
By beemercer on 3/18/2006 2:33:01 PM , Rating: 3
hahaa, im over 18 so i dont really care




SE.XXX
By juancferrer on 3/18/2006 4:03:56 PM , Rating: 3
i'm so gonna buy SE.XXX




I agree
By pcbsdusr on 3/18/2006 3:25:24 PM , Rating: 2
I think this is a good move. I dont think the rise of more XXX sites will be a problem if they are on a .XXX domain

The only ones losing are those which are acting in a criminal way right now.

I'd like more specific domais were created so i could let my son have illimited acess to the internet (after i blocked these domains) without worries.

The internet is the greatest tool ever created. If we can block it's dark side better!





Dumb Idea
By gersson on 3/18/2006 4:05:12 PM , Rating: 2
It would basically make foreign porn more popular. Hurting legitimate *snicker* Pr0n businesses.

asian porn will be even MORE popular...

Say no to porn, anyway.




ha
By sprockkets on 3/18/06, Rating: -1
RE: ha
By Lifted on 3/18/2006 3:27:08 PM , Rating: 5
No, they want to MOVE all porn to .xxx making it easy to filter. The problem is, they say violators will face heavy fines, but the US Senate obviously doesn't realize the the US doesn't own the internet . Morons. How are they going to fine someone in another country who feels like violoating this rather ignorant US law.


RE: ha
By BladeVenom on 3/18/2006 5:05:09 PM , Rating: 1
Domain names are still controlled by the US.


RE: ha
By TheWarden on 3/19/2006 12:43:28 AM , Rating: 2
Sprockkets was being sarcastic. He was saying that they can already make all the porn sites they want, so a special domain is not going to create more of them.


"The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki