also, as a follow up to the above, a bit of the snacks thing is ok, even if the last bit is a bile of shit.
Kids Still Lying to Parents About the 'Net
- Thread starter The_root_of_all_evil
- Start date
WolfLordAndy said:
i still think your making a mountain out of a molehill with your fractured logic. also why the fudge would you think the guild wars thing is a great idea? your kids are never going to grow up if you always want to keep them safe. (and no i dont want a million posts quoting me saying how they're going to go hurtling through the windshield at 100kmph if i dont strap them in [even tho i do])
Just as a minor point in the middle of full blown war.
It's positive in that parents believe that it's their responsibility to look after their children rather than leave it to someone else.The_root_of_all_evil said:
And therefore you insulted him. You resulted his argument which was derived from his logic which is one of the central parts of 'what it is to be human'. Therefore you insulted him.Baby Tea said:
This is fair, he was being emotive and using rhetoric which rarely works well in ascertaining truths in my opinion and can only really be used to attempt to force people to overlook flaws in one's argument through subversive means.Baby Tea said:
No, this wasn't his argument. The statistic of 'likelihood of survival in a car crash in a seatbelt is worn' would not be judged on *your* experiences of wearing seatbelts, it comes from the global statistic. So under his logic yes you would have to make your child wear a seatbelt because the relevant statistic shows that car crashes those wearing seatbelts tremendously raise their probability of serious injury. It's got nothing to do with "since I've never". Furthermore there is little to no disadvantage to wearing a seatbelt. There is, however, a disadvantage to smothering your kids with protection.Baby Tea said:
I understand that you want to ensure that your children are safe but seriously, just making sure you chat to them regularly and help them grow their own moral structure will protect them far more effectively than watching over their every move ever could. Kids need to learn what they do and don't think is wrong for themselves and the internet is a brilliant tool for this since there's little to no repercussions for almost all actions. Of course this applies to mature kids who are no longer in need of constant protection. I reached that age at about 10, but all kids are different so I'm not going to say "at age x" start letting your kid find their own moral system.
Ok, for the record, I completely agree with everything you posted there.BGH122 said:
I'm not talking about 'smothering' my kids. When did I say that? I'm talking about monitoring my kids internet use! That doesn't mean hovering over their shoulder (Not to me, at least)! That means walking over to the PC every now and again and saying 'Hey son/daughter! What you up to? Oh, talking with your friend from school? Cool! Have fun!' I'm not going to sit in a chair behind them and write down every mouse click.
However, I will take precautions to make sure they don't sneak around on me to places I told them not to go. Things like: Have the computer in a central part of the house, facing the room. Having parental software. Etc.
I would be lenient on those things if my child proved they were mature enough to be trusted, but they've got to earn that trust just like everyone else. And, like you said, that time can happen at different ages for different kids.
And I still stand by that I didn't insult him.
Even smart people can have dumb ideas.
Reading some of these posts, I am wondering why many of the arguments are so "One way or the other" orientated.
Of course parents shouldnt look over their kids shoulders 24/7 and steal their privacy.
Neither should parents let their child do what the hell they want and hope for the best.
Parents should be there to set boundaries and keep their child safe, occasionally check what your child is looking at online by asking them, make sure your child knows not to talk to people that they dont know etc.
I've had net access since I was 12, in my bedroom. My Mom knows roughly what I got up to, gaming, chatting with friends and all that stuff. Now I'm nearly 19, I realise that not once did I doubt my privacy, but not once did I question my safety.
So parents need to take a leaf out of my Mom's book
Of course parents shouldnt look over their kids shoulders 24/7 and steal their privacy.
Neither should parents let their child do what the hell they want and hope for the best.
Parents should be there to set boundaries and keep their child safe, occasionally check what your child is looking at online by asking them, make sure your child knows not to talk to people that they dont know etc.
I've had net access since I was 12, in my bedroom. My Mom knows roughly what I got up to, gaming, chatting with friends and all that stuff. Now I'm nearly 19, I realise that not once did I doubt my privacy, but not once did I question my safety.
So parents need to take a leaf out of my Mom's book
Nowhere did I say the government should be watching, it's entirely the parents' responsibility, but the parents need to be there.
Fred the Child Molesting Clown is out there, and statistically your child is less likely to get shot as school than to have Fred the Child Molesting Clown snag them from the internet, and I'm sure you believe that they should be protected from THAT.
Fred the Child Molesting Clown usually rapes and then KILLS his victims, so instead of the quick release of a bullet, they have them pain and mental anguish that comes with the rape and THEN a slow painful death of some kind (strangulation, beating.)
You don't have to hover over the keyboard (since you apparently chose to ignore when I said that before and focus on them needing some kind of supervision) but you do need to know what they are doing, and making sure they aren't putting themselves in danger.
The best way to prevent Fred the Child Molesting Clown from hurting someone, is to not let those someones meet Fred the Child Molesting Clown. This can be done by randomly popping your head into the room while your child is on the internet.
People that think all children are deserving or responsible enough (and this was a study on children 7-14, so they don't and aren't) to have total privacy are the reason for school shootings, the reason governments try to (and in many cases actually do) censor the internet, and that Fred the Child Molesting Clown has a plentiful supply of easy targets. I'm also going to guess that MOST people that are opposed to an occasional check on the kids are themselves kids.
Fred the Child Molesting Clown is out there, and statistically your child is less likely to get shot as school than to have Fred the Child Molesting Clown snag them from the internet, and I'm sure you believe that they should be protected from THAT.
Fred the Child Molesting Clown usually rapes and then KILLS his victims, so instead of the quick release of a bullet, they have them pain and mental anguish that comes with the rape and THEN a slow painful death of some kind (strangulation, beating.)
You don't have to hover over the keyboard (since you apparently chose to ignore when I said that before and focus on them needing some kind of supervision) but you do need to know what they are doing, and making sure they aren't putting themselves in danger.
The best way to prevent Fred the Child Molesting Clown from hurting someone, is to not let those someones meet Fred the Child Molesting Clown. This can be done by randomly popping your head into the room while your child is on the internet.
People that think all children are deserving or responsible enough (and this was a study on children 7-14, so they don't and aren't) to have total privacy are the reason for school shootings, the reason governments try to (and in many cases actually do) censor the internet, and that Fred the Child Molesting Clown has a plentiful supply of easy targets. I'm also going to guess that MOST people that are opposed to an occasional check on the kids are themselves kids.
Oh fair enough! I guess I saw what I deemed to be an insult a saw red. Apologies.Baby Tea said:
But see this is where I start to quibble. What IS trusted? Do you mean that you trust them not to go on porn? Because I strongly believe that porn is a positive thing in many respects: it answers a lot of questions about the anatomy that a child would be too embarrassed to ask, it keeps your kid from getting girls pregnant (always a plus) and it helps an individual to decide a little better what exactly they like without having to go through a lot of rather awkward first hand experimentation. However if you're going to allow porn you'd obviously have to negate its negatives by ensuring that your child knows that the people in porn are not lovers and behave in a far more carnal manner, that men's penises do not look like they do in porn and it's not right to compare one's own body to that of a pornstar and that part of having the ability to watch porn at one's leisure comes the level of decorum that it requires and an understanding that it is impolite and unsettling to make pornography a casual topic for discussion with all but best friends. Those rules are obviously imperfect but hey, they're just the prima facie rules!Baby Tea said:
Of course if the material you seek to protect your kids from are things like shock videos then good on you, I'm in full support. Considering the wide variety of foul sadistic acts of torture and mutilation available to watch on the internet it's unwise to watch these before one's mind has properly matured to a level where one understands that such acts are very wrong. I make this the rule because it seems to me that if one understands such acts are wrong and genuinely believes it then they'll not want to watch the videos at all. I personally find people watching such videos hideously immoral as they're directly benefiting from the suffering of others.
But overall you seem like a level headed guy and from what you've said I don't doubt you're a great father.
This isn't really a valid defense, you wouldn't point it out to a very good looking friend that he's looking ugly 'today' and then claim that it's not insulting because even good looking people can be ugly sometimes.Baby Tea said:
Also, on a separate note, RE this Fred the Child Molesting Clown bullshit: start citing material or I'm going to presume you a troll.
They should do what my mother did when she said things like, "Its OK for you to look at pornography, but just remember, when you see it, its in your head forever."
That makes it all my choice, and makes me the only one who stands to suffer by doing so. Safe to say, I have never sought such things.
That makes it all my choice, and makes me the only one who stands to suffer by doing so. Safe to say, I have never sought such things.
Hi, you seem to be new. This is just a few helpful suggestions for you coming into the escapist community. 1) Don't double post, edit your previous posts. 2) Try not to be such a douchebag in your first few posts, this tends to be a tight community and you won't win any friends like that. 3) Express your views in a thought out and well explained way. Simply going "Your wrong you stupid prick" at the end of your arguements does not make them any more correct. 4) For all future thread making ideas you have, the quote "The search button is your friend, use it" is appropriate.hortez the champion of the frozen wastes said:
This was written as a friendly bit of advice so I hope you accept it. Also you can usually ignore some of the bullshit topics that you mentioned above like the tree falling in the forest. Hope you enjoy your stay with the escapist.
That, and the line "As long as it's not drugs or anything that gets you arrested, you can do whatever the hell you want" is prolly among the best parental advice I've ever read...Erana said:
And the crap about Fred the Child Molesting Clown... Everyone who seems to think that 99% of all people you can find on the internet is a pedophile is an idiot, clean and simple... if anything, the one percent is the potential pedophile, if at all, most people you'll ever meet on the internet is most assuredly not a pedophile.
The internet can be a great place to get to know people, granted, of course, that they are who they give themselves out to be. I've gotten to know most of the best people I've ever talked to over the internet, and don't regret a single second of it. Besides, it's nice to have international acquaintances! A reason to travel, and visit them.
Just like to add my opinion that legal adult status should be determined independent from age, based on a person's maturity, but until then it should be a guardian's responsibility to parent the kid. I like to think of it as both anti-ageist and accommodating to those who need looking after.
I know a way for this to not go any further.Nomadic said:
Look at the sentence;
"A positive item comes across in that 90% of the parents believe it's their responsibility to look after their kids online."
Now replace a few certain words (these will be bolded);
"A positive item comes across in that 90% of the parents believe it's their responsibility to participate and learn with their kids online."
Looking after doesn't automatically mean that the parents have to get up in the kid's business, it can mean just keeping an eye on them and knowing what they do online whether it be just playing some innocent flash games or jacking off to hardcore porn. Granted, some parents will go all gung-ho on their child's safety, but making sure that they don't stumble upon anything inapropriate for their age or purposfully doing that isn't an invasion of privacy.