Hi. On Thu, 26 Mar 2015 16:48:00 +0100 Peter Viskup <skupko...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Reco, > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Reco <recovery...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi. > > And just as well child can see a naughty picture on TV. Or a phone ad. > > Or a magazine/newspaper. Anywhere, once you start thinking about it. > > > > And that's just sad, disturbingly and one of the main reasons of so many > people facing porn addiction. No. The only possibly depressing thing about it are the ones who abuse basic human instincts to sell goods. Or rather the fact that said ones do not face consequences of their actions. Whenever an arbitrary picture is a 'porn' or not is in the eye of the beholder. > Whatever damage is done depends on child's state of mind, which is > > influenced by his/her prior education. Which, for the most part, should > > be (IMO) provided by parents first, and society (friends, school, > > whatever) - second. > > > > First would recommend you to read something about the psychology of > children. I have two children, so I speak from my own experience with them. Now, how many children do you have? > And internet censorship is not a substitute of education. The only > > thing that censorship can teach is how to workaround it. Or that one's > > parents are complete <insert_some_profanity_here>. Is that how you want > > your children to perceive you? > > > > From this point of view all aspects of parenting are censorship. It's not > about the government internet censorship - differentiate between parenting > and freedom protection and well - I didn't tell the education is not needed. No, this is there you've got it wrong. It's one thing if parent explicitly forbids child to do something as it implies human interaction. It's another thing if parent relies on some inanimate object (say, Squid proxy server) to force an arbitrary restriction. And forcing the child to accept surveillance or censorship in such early age may cause an actual damage as in turn it may cause child to accept surveillance or censorship (provided by government or employer) as a normal thing in the future. Of course, there're worse things that can be done with children, such as introducing them to the social networks ;) > > Besides, what's up with this 15 years mark? > > > > Just as an example - no other meaning, everybody can choose its own number. > ;-) Last time they choose a number in China - they build The Great Chineese Firewall for everyone. Every time they choose a number on a Middle East - they usually ban everything short of a couple of 'approved' sites. Last time they choose a number in England they effectively banned 3/4 of Internet. Unless you opt out and mark yourself as a CP consumer, or so I heard. On a bright side of things, last time they choose a number in Russia - a number had choosen them :) So, careful with the numbers, as they carry power. > My last sentence to this thread - read "The Little Prince" a lot and once > you will understand what's all this about probably and then you will be > ready for reading Citadelle. Yes - I know - too much pathetic for > somebody... Read first one about 20 years ago as a part of my school education actually. I don't feel the need to re-read it yet. I don't recall reading a second one though. But, in return I'd like to recommend reading '1984' novel by George Orwell. Reco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150326194704.0e5b8dcf4690b42a010a5...@gmail.com
