What is the strangest thing you've found inside your PC when you cleaned it?

[gsbtech]

We've moved from small reptiles and rodents to drugs to sx. What more could you ask from a thread? It's amazing how the contents of a computer case can branch to such topics.

It's also one of the longest threads I've seen so obviously, users are reading, participating, and perhaps (oh my god) even enjoying the discussion. Since it was moved to "off topic disussion" long ago, I see no reason to close it. It is definetly "off topic".

What Shoobi, no lecture on how pOrn desensitizes us from enjoying a good relationship?

 

[ShoobieRat]

Sorry, gsbtech. I've been reading this all, but I don't really have the time right now to respond properly.

The only things I can say about pron vs drugs is that you need to first examine the key differences between the nature of pron and the nature of drugs. I think you'll find some very clear differences.

To be aroused by beauty is a natural and instinctual response we are supposed to have. It is not an artificial sensation gained. Like any good thing, our attractions can become addictions. You can have a pyschologically "unhealthy" addiction to just about anything. When you pass over the line from where it's your instincts causing your arousement, to where you require the porn to become aroused (or to the point when a fetish must go to the extreme) then you've run into a problem.

You can't really stop something like porn, because it's simple human desire. The nature of pron can be controlled (such as banning child pronography), but the only way to put up a front against pron all together would be to protest for the sterilization of our kind...a novel idea, with merit...but probably not what we want to accomplish.

The risks for looking at pron on the non-extreme end lend really only to moral and social-ethical standpoints. To a mild degree, sex is just part of life. To a moderate degree, the pron is an indication of a social problem which most would agree should be replaced with something real (like an actual girlfriend instead of playboy mags). To an extreme degree, aside from psychological aid available, we have laws protecting us.

We have much stricter laws and bans on drugs vs pron, because the risk from someone carrying a wallet of breast pics around is far less than the risk of someone carrying drugs around. There's nothing to prevent you from carrying a nekked pic around in your wallet (and some, bachellors included, would probably say that is almost required). However, if you take that picture out in public, you have broken the law...for obvious ethical and social reasons (based on our society).

Alright, back to work.

 

[gsbtech]

That was quite a thesis from someone who doesn't have time

More off topic stuff: Access to Pron has "improved" dramatically with technology. The issue that concerns me the most is the availability of the material to children through file sharing. I know a thirteen-year-old convicted of an adult felony for possessing child pron. I kid looking at other kids with a record that may effect the rest of his life - a little excessive on the application of the law IMHO. What child going through puberty wouldn't hit the download button when they search for "rap" and get titles containing the world "rape". It's a social issue that cannot be ignored and we, the developers of that technology cannot ignore our role and responsibility. Before the technology, a kid may steal a playboy or take a quick peak behind the barn. The complete access they have now to distored sx is bound to have an dramatic impact.

 

[ShoobieRat]

Put it this way...Even if I didn't really have the time...I would have gladly postponed the other thing for as long as possible.

The access to pron has become easier, that's true. However, I don't think the level of its effect has increased. There's simply more of it.

As for the kids getting nailed for sending child pron...that's a two edged sword. On one hand, this is similar to the people on medicinal marijuana who get busted by the cops for having it (considering they're within the laws allowing them to have it). What you have is a messed-up enforcement system. The laws are fine, it's the enforcement that can sometimes go askew.

On the other hand, you have to wonder why the child was only punished, when a 13'yrold is under the guardianship of a parent who is responsible for that child and that child's upbringing. Letting them surf through the internet unguided at that age, and letting them send around enough naked pics of kids to get picked up by the police, is cause for concern. Personally, I would think that should be cause for the parents to be put on trial for neglect and unethical behavior.

 

[gsbtech]

My understanding is that the kid was caught when the computer was taken to a repair shop for virus removal. The parents had never even heard of file sharing - much less that they should monitor it.

 

[ShoobieRat]

So what you do is parent the child (ie - tell him what is wrong, maybe even scold him a bit) then you come after the parents (probably with a fine) for their neglect. This is the computer age, and parenting must extend to the computer as well. Fear-of/neglect-for/disregard-of the computer, is not an excuse.

 

[gsbtech]

Thats a tough one. Parents want to provide opportunity and resources to their children even if they know absolutely nothing about the technology. It may be obvious to us, but I've given technical support to people who still have to be told that programs can be excessed by clicking "start". My own parents are still baffled when their toolbar on Outlook dissapears because they accidentally drag it to the desktop. Dropping a $1000 on a computer and $50/month on broadband is hardly what I would call neglect.

We've covered two addictions in this thread (drugs and sx) but there is a third - power. The judge and technically ignorant DA blew this case.

 

[ShoobieRat]

Dropping a $1000 on a computer and $50/month on broadband is hardly what I would call neglect.

Assuming I ever have kids (going hypothetical here) and say I have a son. I'd want him to go hunting with me some day. I don't just buy him a $1200 shotgun, push him out the front door, and go back to watching TV.

I'll go milder...

Say I want him to enjoy the outdoors. I don't buy him $3000 worth of camping gear, chuck him into Yosemite and walk off.

The point being, giving them a computer and not learning anything about it themselves is not an excuse for bad parenting. This isn't the same as giving a kid a soccer ball and saying "go have fun." This is a sophysticated machine and a doorway into an unbriddled realm well beyond anything the child could imagine. Ignorance is never an excuse (and is not upholding in court).

If the parents are unknowledgeable, they should seek knowledge about something they're giving to their kid. If they are unwilling to learn (or are having extreme difficulty operating and understanding the concepts of a computer and the Internet) they should seek help. A neighbor, a relative, a teacher at school.

This aside, the child doesn't know that he's sending pron around. At most, he thinks its funny. And you can't tell me its not the responsibility of the parent to know what their child is doing during the day. Didn't they ever stop to say "Hey, Billy, what you doing?" Watching them play video games, write a book report, chat to unknown strangers on the web, trade pron...

Need I say more...?

 

[gsbtech]

There is enough resposibility to go around but bulk of the responsibility does NOT rest with the child. I have children and you can't watch them all of the time. One of them is an early teen (14) and the last thing he wants to do is hang out with his parents and he isn't always all that honest. Of course, they don't stray on the internet because I'm aware of the hazard, I know how to look, and I'm very protective.

The parents of the charged kid, were completely unaware of the issue. You can't protect a child from a hazard if you don't know it exists. I know about this case because an associate asked me to demonstrate the technology to the kid's attorney - who was also unaware of the danger. You and I are neck deep in the information age but most people just don't get it.

 

[ShoobieRat]

Sorry, gotta go, but...

So the case gets argued and, if intelligent, the court decides that it's less severe a case than claimed and is handled accordingly.

Either way, I have the ability to buy many things I know nothing about. Not knowing anything about them doesn't excuse me from breaking a law associated with it. It might lay grounds for a case being deemed minor and penalties reduced or removed...but it's not a license to be overlooked by an enforcement system that doesn't know there's a lack-of-knowledge before the arrest. Those kinds of things have to be settled in court. If a cop sees a man running down the street with a tank of gasoline, the cop doesn't know that that man may not understand what gasoline is and that it explodes. The cop reacts as he should, arresting the person and preventing disaster. Now, if the cop freaks out and does the arrest in a manner against his own rules and training, that's another matter. The cop is only human and prone to the same faults in character and behavior as anyone. The law (in this case, don't run around with gasoline in public) is not wrong. The law is doing what it's supposed to be doing.

Alright, I have to go home to my connection-less house. BB-tomorrow.