Essential Research: 58-42

westpollgraphic141209

The latest Essential Research survey has Labor’s lead at 58-42 for the third successive week. Also included are leadership approval ratings (Kevin Rudd predictably little changed on a fortnight ago; Tony Abbott with mediocre ratings, which is much better than Turnbull had been doing); Copenhagen (important, but unlikely to reach agreement); and “Christmas spending”. We’ve also had a 400-sample of Western Australian voters from Westpoll (see right) which has federal Labor’s lead in the state at 53-47 (compared with 53-47 against in 2007). The West Australian takes this to mean Abbott “has largely proved a turn-off for WA voters”, but it might equally be to do with Westpoll’s low-sample volatility, which has seen the score go from 55-45 in February to 50-50 in May to 53-47 in December.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

2,339 comments on “Essential Research: 58-42”

Comments Page 43 of 47
1 42 43 44 47
  1. Now that gusface and my say seem to be trotting out the “won’t somebody please think of the children” argument, generally the last argument of resort before denouncing everyone that disagrees with them as a child pornographer (which gusface seems to be edging towards in #2087), let’s actually look at what this argument means.

    Assuming that some pure, innocent little child, or even an adult was to accidentally “stumble upon” an image of child pornography, however extraordinarily unlikely this may be, what would actually happen?

    1. The child/adult in question would immediately become a paedophile and start abusing children?

    No, shouldn’t think so.

    2. The child/adult in question would be permanently psychologically damaged beyond all hope of treatment, ending up an alcoholic/drug addict/suicide.

    Probably a little melodramatic I would say.

    3. The person would be shocked, horrified, greatly upset and disturbed. The person, knowing this kind of thing to be already completely illegal and unacceptable, would immediately contact the police or their parents to inform them of the site.

    You would hope that if people are decent and raise their children to be decent, that this is exactly what would happen. Dr Good, did you inform the police when you stumbled upon that iffy Russian site?

    So what does the clean feed actually prevent?

    It seems like a whole lot of not very much at all actually.

    Will the clean feed stop a single child from being abused? No. Will the clean feed stop a single sexual predator from seeking child abuse material on the internet? No. Will the clean feed stop a single sexual predator from obtaining child abuse material? No.

    That the pro-censorship brigade are demanding a clean feed, that will cost at least $130 million that could, and should, be redirected to child protection and apprehending sexual predators, is baffling. It seems that the pro-censorship brigade, in demanding that *they* need protection seem to see themselves as more a victim than a child who is being abused. Sickening, absolutely sickening.

    Since the clean feed will not prevent any child from being abused, will not prevent sickos from getting their hands on this kind of material and will not even prevent an innocent from stumbling across this material (unless the clean feed can monitor 1 trillion web pages and block every single offending item as soon as it is created or posted), then what the hell is it good for? Why do people even want it – if its so incredibly useless?

  2. Z@2098:

    [I want kids to use any source of information they can. I don’t want parents using dubious excuses to ban them from the net, and I don’t want parents to feel that they have to hover over junior every second they’re on the computer (I mean, really).]

    I agree. If you haven’t instilled the sense of right and wrong in your children by age 12, you have no hope after that time. I trusted my children pretty much from age six to do the right thing, and was never let down. (that I know of!)

    At some point, you have to cut the strings.

  3. 2099

    The bank might tell you off if they found out that you had allowed the card to leave your sight because they say not to do that.

  4. [Now that gusface and my say seem to be trotting out the “won’t somebody please think of the children” argument, generally the last argument of resort before denouncing everyone that disagrees with them as a child pornographer (which gusface seems to be edging towards in #2087), ]

    please dont ascribe to me or anyone else your twisted logic.

    I stopped reading as soon as you said this.

  5. z

    You fail to mention that the Conroy filter will do NOTHING to stop kids from looking at 99% of porn sites, presumably because that would refute your entire “Conroy will protect the kiddies” argument.

  6. Meanwhile while we waste money on Conroys and Fildings pet project,the real crims are buying nightclubs ect importing Cocaine,and any other sort of drugs,people are getting ripped off with housing scams,rebirthing Companys ect,along with the AFP being incompetent along with ASIC.
    The hospitals stagger along with lack nursers doctors ect,along with a lot of other services that the money this Filter is going to waste,when it is the PARENTS responsibility to monitor what their kids are watching.
    But then what this is all about is the Feds getting onside with Fielding and the Christian lobby,screw both of them

  7. [Blather,posture,pout and pissantry.

    To the No filter brigade,you paint this utopian ideal of the internet and its sacrosanct nature,whilst hiding behind the other laws of the land

    Why is that?

    Your puerile and juvenille defence of your “toy” provides evidence aplenty of selfcentredness but an apparent disregard for the LAW

    Why is that?

    To the usual suspects the fact that you attack someones desire to enforce commonly held community standards, says volumes for your own.

    Why is that?]

    I forgot to add gross misrepresentation and verballing to the blather… bit

    Thanks 3zebras for reminding me!

  8. Tom@2103:

    [The bank might tell you off if they found out that you had allowed the card to leave your sight because they say not to do that.]

    I doubt it. It is not reasonable in many restaurants to go with the waiter to hover over them. If it is fraud, you should get your money back.

    We had a debit card stolen from the car when parked at a beach site. They cleaned out the account, and the bank paid up.

  9. Zoomster, Gusface, Dario, Frank, MySay et al.

    Roll up roll up buy some of Conroy’s You Beaut SNAKE OIL brand web filter! Only 128 Million dollars! Guaranteed to stop child pornography and all other nasties from appearing on your web browser*! Forget all the Net Nannies and free filters you can install yourself! They’re Free, so the’re obviously useless. And they’re complex! Who knows how to operate this internetty thingo ANYWAY??? Best to spend 128 Million Dollars on Senator Conroy’s SNAKE OIL brand web filter!

    *Not guaranteed to work.

  10. [And characterising your interlocutors as “excrement” is not an example of verballing? lol]

    Actually just some of your statements,
    As for your good? self,I always presume the best until evidence proves otherwise.

    😉

  11. Zoomster, you doth protest too much.

    If mysay allows is responsible for her grandchildren and allows them to use the internet unfiltered and does not monitor their browsing history (its not necessary to “hover,” just check the browser history regularly) then she IS negligent and/or lazy.

    That anyone would allow a child unfettered access to any form of media is obscene.

    “Many a person who is capable of composing a post is not net savvy enough to install a filter.”

    Now that’s a terrible argument if I ever heard one. If you fail to install a pool fence because you “don’t know how to build one” and a child drowns, are you any less negligent? If a person does not know how to install a net filter, and if they care about their children, then they will either educate themselves or find some friendly nerd to help them. I, being a generally friendly nerd, would be happy to help anyone that asks.

    The Fountaingate example is also telling. The clean feed will not allow parents to let their children “rattle away to their heart’s content.” The clean feed quite simply will not, and could not possibly, censor every piece of offensive material on the 1 trillion pages on the internet. It also won’t work on message boards, chat rooms or even the content of emails. The potential “dangers” to the child will not be diminished. Even with this so called clean feed, little whatsername’s internet use must still be monitored by her parents. The clean feed in this instance will actually do more harm than good, being that Kim is lulled into a false sense of security.

    $130 million may be cheap in terms of overall government expenditure, but would you support $130 million of taxpayer money to be spent on elevator to nowhere? Because that’s about as useful as this clean feed will be.

  12. 2105

    Diog

    [presumably because that would refute your entire “Conroy will protect the kiddies” argument.]

    Which wasn’t the point I was making at all. I’m talking about the perceptions parents have about the net. If they THINK it is dangerous for little Jimmy, they won’t let little Jimmy play. If they THINK it is safe, they will.

    How illusory this belief is or not, it is very real.

    Astro:

    I’ve continually said that I don’t necessarily support the filter. I actually only became involved in the argument because of the silliness of some of the points put forward by the anti filter brigade. The continuing silliness of the arguments and the refusal or inability to counter some of the genuine points I’ve made is, if anything, pushing me to supporting something I don’t really want to.

    Whether a filter exists or not is totally irrelevant to me. My two guys have had unlimited internet access for years now (they are 13 and 15). I’m not worried about them. But I do understand that other parents and grandparents do have genuine concerns, and am trying to warn you all (very gently) not to trample over these or imply that these parents and grandparents are in someway insincere (or worse, neglectful).

    OK, the internet thingy is easy for you and me. But parents who are ‘scared’ of the net simply don’t understand it. I well remember my husband’s first forays into the networld. He was resentful and suspicious of it – thought emails were a waste of time, too difficult to use, etc. Took a lot of time and patience coaxing him through the net’s little pitfalls and even now when he’s on the computer the whole family is on edge, waiting for the ‘what’s the (&(*(& thing doing now?” cry.

    So tell them they can install a filter and monitor it themselves and you’ve lost them – it’s genuinely scary and foreign for them.

    And you’ll lose them even further if you answer their genuine concerns with abuse or sarcasm.

  13. z

    [If they THINK it is dangerous for little Jimmy, they won’t let little Jimmy play. If they THINK it is safe, they will.]

    Gee, that’s a good argument. So grannie thinks little Jimmy is safe because Conroy has made the internet safe and lets him play on it, not realising that Conroy hasn’t blocked 99% of porn sites.

    But grannie feels better about it and votes Labor, despite Jimmy now watching porn non-stop because the internet is “safe” now.

    That’s a good policy.

  14. 3 zebras

    [If mysay allows is responsible for her grandchildren and allows them to use the internet unfiltered and does not monitor their browsing history (its not necessary to “hover,” just check the browser history regularly) then she IS negligent and/or lazy.

    That anyone would allow a child unfettered access to any form of media is obscene.]

    This is rude, disrespectful and unnecessary.

    It is an insult to parents who trust their children. I allow mine unfettered access to all forms of media. I trust them.

    [Now that’s a terrible argument if I ever heard one. If you fail to install a pool fence because you “don’t know how to build one” and a child drowns, are you any less negligent?]

    Gosh, and pool fences are mandatory. You can’t have a pool if you don’t have a fence. So, before the law was introduced, obviously people had pools without fences. So laws to protect children work, don’t they? (Even though I’m sure some children learn how to get around the fence).

    [The clean feed in this instance will actually do more harm than good, being that Kim is lulled into a false sense of security.]

    And at the moment Kim has a false sense of insecurity. You can’t argue on one hand (as many posters here have) that children have more chance of finding gold in the backyard than they have of finding naughtiness on the net, and then argue that a filter would be dangerous because it would enduce a false sense of security.

    Either it’s almost impossible to find evil on the net or it’s not.

  15. A NSW Labor MP agrees with the anti-filterers.

    [Tech-savvy NSW Labor MP Penny Sharpe has broken ranks with her party to dub the policy a “backward step that if adopted will be a triumph of fear and false promise over what works and good sense”.

    In a post on her blog, she called the proposal to filter the internet a waste of time, a waste of money, anti-democratic and a false promise to parents that will not stop children from being exposed to undesirable content online.]

    I like that “false promise to parents” bit. She’s absolutely right. It will NOT stop children being exposed to porn.

  16. Diog, I had a bloody terrific Xmas lunch with my associates and I came back to read this kind of self righteousness rubbish from you as usual:

    [When smart people post disingenuous, poorly thought out arguments, I’m highly suspicious When smart people post disingenuous, poorly thought out arguments, I’m highly suspicious that they don’t actually believe them and that they are misusing the site for political purposes.]

    unless you were describing yourself 👿

  17. z

    [You can’t argue on one hand (as many posters here have) that children have more chance of finding gold in the backyard than they have of finding naughtiness on the net, and then argue that a filter would be dangerous because it would enduce a false sense of security.]

    Completely wrong yet again. I suspect you are doing this deliberately.

    It is almost impossible for a kid to come across a snuff movie or bestiality on the internet without trying incredibly hard.

    It takes 0.5 seconds to come across XXX porn if they want to.

  18. [OK, Frank, I’ll bite.

    What innocent phrase will turn up child p*rnography?

    A child has sat down to do their homework, they type in the phrase.

    What’s the phrase?]

    If a kid was searching forf pussy cats, what do you expect to be included amongst the results ? 🙂 What is the colloquial term for a females genitalia ?

  19. Finns

    As you know, I have no political affiliation so I can have no political purpose.

    PS I watched a film last night which mentioned “Milon” as being a mythological figure who fell in love with a dolphin but I can’t find anything on the intertubes about him. Do you know him? Has he been filtered out by Conroy?

  20. Gusface

    I truly wonder what those complaining about are losing?

    I for one have my suspicions

    Guilt by assertion, eh! Argumentum ad hominem: poisoning the well! Guilt by association!

    Let me repeat, in case it isn’t getting through the barrage of emotional arguments and logical fallacies.

    1. Because of they way in which predators communicate on-line, the filter cannot block the type of pornographic communication which the filter’s being introduced to block; ie predatory child-abusers, perverts who watch it on the web, perverts who might target your children. In plain English, even those who support the policy know it won’t do what it is being introduced to do! Which the government knows, and admits that it knows!

    OTOH, if the A$180 mill or whatever being spent on the filter was spent on the dedicated police who, understanding how the predators do communicate, relentlessly track them down & prosecute them – as happened not long ago (& netted several people in my country area).

    2. I’ll be spending Christmas day with (among others) a schoolkid IT whiz who could get through the filter in nothing flat. Schoolkids, TAFE & uni students are howling with laughter & dying to see who gets the record for cracking it first.

    Why do Mozilla, Mac, Norton, etc etc have security updates on a very regular basis? Because, although their systems are guarded by international hotshot IT geniuses, there are others “out there” who break through every security device the geniuses develop.

    So the filter will have to be upgraded at least as frequently as Norton, Mac, Mozilla whatever, and that will (as they do) affect programmes you use – and you could bet your house that some of those updates are incompatible, and will do bad things to your software or files or whatever (as most of us know), so you’ll get patches, or have to reload the programmes ….

    Why don’t you find a bright young geek who’ll explain what will happen; I’m an OAP of several years standing who, these days, trusts others to keep my Leopard loping along! But even I know what the problems are.

    So (a) the filter won’t stop Bright Young Geeks – I’d bet a majority of school, TAFE Uni etc kids (or even aged non-geeks) – from disabling it;
    (b) it will be expensive to keep up with security breaches,
    (c) it will slow Internet,
    (d) it will block perfectly pure & harmless sites,
    (e) and there’s a high probability that the constant updates & patches will trash at least a few of your programmes, files, data etc.

    All of which the government knows, and admits that it knows!

    3. Anyway, most of what it will filter is available in other media (see my previous post) – legally to some. One can get it on an OS vac, can borrow from those who do, or can buy videos on-line etc (I buy most small items online, I’ve had ONE article customs’ checked in the last three years – and no, at my age, I’m not the slightest bit interested in porn.)

    Again, all of which the government knows, and admits that it knows!

    4. So, leaving emotional & ethical arguments aside, the Filter is, to put it succinctly, an expensive turkey, which won’t – in fact can’t – achieve its stated objectives (which the government knows), but will, at some time or other, seriously annoy every Internet user, do anything from minor to catastrophic damage – hardware &, in some cases, commercial – to some users.

    Note that at no stage in the above argument re the Internet filter have I resorted to emotional argument, ethical argument, or resorted to name calling, guilt by association/ assertion or any illogical technique.

    Can you do the same?

  21. “It is an insult to parents who trust their children. I allow mine unfettered access to all forms of media. I trust them.”

    I am sorry if you find this offensive, but I note you also say your children are 13 and 15. When I say ‘child’ above, I obviously don’t mean teenagers, who I feel can be progressively given a bit more rope. In my opinion, however, the trust should be earned. Though I would be immensely surprised if your teenage boys are not looking at porn (they are, after all, teenage boys), it would be fairly futile to try and stop them from accessing this material anyway.

    It is neither rude, disrespectful nor unnecessary to call people out on not monitoring the internet use of (young) children. It is irresponsible, lazy and negligent to not monitor the internet use of (young) children and if for some unfathomable reason this offends you – tough.

    I have not at any stage argued that it is impossible or even hard to find “naughtiness” on the net. It is actually extremely easy to find this stuff if you are looking, hence why children’s net use should be monitored. I have argued it is very hard to “stumble upon” such content, particularly if the subject matter is illegal, such as child pornography.

    I’d ask you to reconsider my point above. The so called feed will censor a number of websites with what is deemed to be offensive. It will not censor millions of other websites with offensive and illegal content, because it would be impossible to do so. It will NOT have the ability to censor message boards, chat rooms and email, where there exist real dangers, particularly for very young children and where illegal imformation and images can be easily passed around and be stumbled upon by the unwitting.

    The so called clean feed will not stop a single child from being abused, nor will it close the operations of a single child pornographer.
    The so called clean feed will not stop a single child, teenager or adult from accessing offensive or illegal material if that is what they wish to do. If one site is censored, there are literally millions more that won’t be to choose from.
    The so called clean feed will not stop a single child from being unintentionally exposed to inappropriate material when it is not combined with parental supervision.

    It is useless, wasteful exercise and as I have said the money would be far better spent on child protection and the apprehension of child abusers and those that view that kind of material.

  22. [I’m up to 460 google results and there’s not a lick of adult content yet.]

    Keep going, towards the end you will find them 🙂

  23. The only case I came across of children accidentally viewing porn (I think I talked about it earlier) was when a student typed her first name into google.

    The site that popped up had still photos that even I found shocking (as in sick to the stomach shocking).

    Diogs, I’m not talking about issues of right or wrong, I’m talking about parents’ perceptions. A perception can be wrong but still be valid.

    I find the whole psychology of this argument interesting. I’m anti censorship, anti prohibition, completely trust my own children to understand what it appropriate or inappropriate viewing without me hovering over them (if they want to watch an R rated movie, I’m cool with that).

    I followed the debate for a long time without getting involved. When I did, it was to raise some questions/concerns that occured to me, in an effort to seek clarification. I’ve made it perfectly clear all along that I’m open to reasoned debate on this.

    And yet I get these constant sniping attacks.

    I’m fascinated – why are the anti filter people so aggressive? Why is asking them reasonable questions seen as nailing one’s colours to the pro filter mast? Why are reasonable concerns (not just by me) responded to with personal attacks?

    From my experience in local politics, the anti filter people seem to be in a NIMBY mindset – they’re reacting emotionally to an issue rather than intellectually, and the intellectual bits are tacked on at the end. (You can always find arguments to support your viewpoint, however shabby they may be). If someone questions them on one of these arguments, most (not all!) either shift the goalposts or leap into the personal attacks.

    That isn’t the sign of a reasoned and confident position.

    I repeat: a filter will make absolutely no difference to my life, one way or another (unless it slows down internet speeds, in which case I’ll be ringing dear Stephen on his mobile).

    I engaged on this as an intellectual exercise. I have nothing to lose by being convinced either way.

  24. Zoomster

    The arguments against the filter are silly? Like what, that it won’t work? That’s not a silly argument, it’s the crux of the problem.

    [And you’ll lose them even further if you answer their genuine concerns with abuse or sarcasm.]
    I already tried reason, they don’t want reason, they want Nanny Conroy to protect them from the evils of porn… Even though the filter won’t stop porn. There’s a lot of legal porn, so Frank’s example above about a kid looking for pussy cats is dumb. The filter won’t help him.

  25. Something different from internet censorship (I oppose it etc, but cbb talking about it here).

    Do any PBers think the “union bosses” thing is gaining some resonance lately? In the past week, I think we had Australia Post taking action and today in Sydney there was a bus strike. Add in the Christmas rush, such that the disruptions were immediately and especially felt, and suddenly people might start believing in it? O Farrell reported in 7 talking about it just then.

  26. The real Indonesian Solution might just crack it:

    [Earlier, Indonesia’s President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono called for all states, both developed and developing, to be flexible about verification. He indicated the possibility of setting up an international mechanism for monitoring emission cuts. ]

    As always, it will be the G2 that will crack the whip:

    [A deal appears to be in sight for the final day of the UN climate change talks but there are fears it may not prevent a 3C (5.4F) temperature rise. Denmark’s prime minister spoke of “very fruitful” talks as Copenhagen prepared to receive US President Barack Obama and 118 other world leaders. Both the US and China, the two largest emitters of greenhouse gases, have indicated they may make concessions. It is hoped these may help overcome sharp divisions at the two-week talks.

    China signalled concessions on the monitoring of emission curbs while the US said it would commit money for developing countries. Denmark’s Lars Lokke Rasmussen called late-night talks with a group of 26 influential world leaders on how to unblock negotiations. ]

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8419769.stm

  27. Zoomster

    [I’m talking about parents’ perceptions. A perception can be wrong but still be valid. ]
    Yes and Conroy is preying on those perceptions. He knows this filter won’t do anything to protect them.
    It’s a sad waste of 128 Million.

  28. [I already tried reason, they don’t want reason, they want Nanny Conroy to protect them from the evils of porn… Even though the filter won’t stop porn. There’s a lot of legal porn, so Frank’s example above about a kid looking for pussy cats is dumb. The filter won’t help him.]

    FFS We are Talking stuff that is REFUSED CLASSIFICATION – Porn that is rated R18+ will STGILL be allowed – so your legal porn is safe – or are you worried that the sex site between Poss & Bob Brown will be filtered ??

  29. 2123

    [Though I would be immensely surprised if your teenage boys are not looking at porn (they are, after all, teenage boys), it would be fairly futile to try and stop them from accessing this material anyway.]

    They’re not, not that it would bother me. The 13 year old still thinks kissing is yucky.

    My objection was to the use of the word ‘obscene’.

    Your language does need moderation.

    [It is neither rude, disrespectful nor unnecessary to call people out on not monitoring the internet use of (young) children. It is irresponsible, lazy and negligent to not monitor the internet use of (young) children and if for some unfathomable reason this offends you – tough.]

    Young children are not interested in seeking out naughty websites.

    [It is actually extremely easy to find this stuff if you are looking, hence why children’s net use should be monitored. I have argued it is very hard to “stumble upon” such content, particularly if the subject matter is illegal, such as child pornography.]

    Why would a young child be looking for it? If it is very hard to stumble upon it, then why monitor young children’s internet use. According to this, they are not going to come across it accidentally – and I can guarantee that a young child isn’t going to go looking for it.

    So hovering over them and checking is going to be a waste of time.

    [It will NOT have the ability to censor message boards, chat rooms and email, where there exist real dangers, particularly for very young children and where illegal imformation and images can be easily passed around and be stumbled upon by the unwitting. ]

    Make up your mind. Can they stumble on it unwittingly or not? Where are the dangers in these sites for very young children, who probably wouldn’t understand them anyway?

    Please. I really don’t want to be in this discussion. I find it tedious. But as long as you keep giving me silly arguments, I’m going to respond.

  30. Astro, as I keep saying – if the PERCEPTION that their child is safe on the net means that they let their child on the computer, then that’s a good thing.

    Whether it’s worth x million or slowing down the net is another thing.

  31. Zoomster
    [I’m fascinated – why are the anti filter people so aggressive? Why is asking them reasonable questions seen as nailing one’s colours to the pro filter mast? Why are reasonable concerns (not just by me) responded to with personal attacks?]

    This is in your head. The reason you think the posters are being aggressive is because that’s the defence your brain makes when your ideology is under threat.
    Why don’t you worry about Frank’s constant attacks, or the pro-filter lobby continually trying to suggest that the anti-filter lobby are perverts? You are not the voice of reason here, nor an unbiased observer.

    People aren’t uspet because this will stop them seeing bad things on the net. They’re upset because it’s a waste of money. I mean look at the bi-partisan anti-filter lobby: dio, Possum, TTH, 3Zebras, Me, Bob1234… It’s rare that one issue has such across the board agreement that it’s bad.

    Maybe we should have a vote. Who here thinks the filter will adequately do what it’s supposed to do?

    I say no.

  32. yeh, the Chinese notion of MVR was:

    we will do the monitoring
    we will then invite someone from outside to look at the results (not create the results)
    then who cares who reports to whom?

    But then, since the Chinese target is likely to be a percentage of a rising and untrammelled total, why is it so important to check it at all, at all?

  33. Astro

    [I already tried reason, they don’t want reason, they want Nanny Conroy to protect them from the evils of porn…]

    so you’ve gone out into the streets and talked to parents about their concerns? Or have you just missed the whole point of what I was saying – that you need to understand the concerns of the average parent (who isn’t posting or reading comments here) if you’re to mount an effective argument against the filter?

  34. Still

    It might even be better than the MVR the Japanese managed to install for their share of the Blue Fin Tuna catch.

    The question now is: are there sufficient adult Blue Fin Tuna left to breed? Not much MVR left to be doing there at all, at all.

  35. Zoomster

    [if the PERCEPTION that their child is safe on the net means that they let their child on the computer, then that’s a good thing.]

    No it isn’t. Becuase that means the parent takes less care about what their child is seeing, when the child will NOT be any safer from seeing pornography. A false sense of security is the worst outcome. What we need is greater vigilance from parents, not outsourcing parental responsibilty to the Govt.

  36. Astro

    [I mean look at the bi-partisan anti-filter lobby: dio, Possum, TTH, 3Zebras, Me, Bob1234…]

    Hmmm…apolitical, green (apologies if I’m wrong, poss) or apolitical, loony, green, green, green. That’s not bipartisan.

  37. Got to let the 15 year old on here. He thinks I’m hogging the computer.

    Astro, either it’s safe to let your kid on the net or its not. You can’t argue that a filter is unnecessary because the net’s as safe as houses and then say that a filter will give parents a false sense of security because it’s not.

    At the moment, many parents have a false sense of insecurity. This would be a good thing to overcome.

  38. Zoomster

    [so you’ve gone out into the streets and talked to parents about their concerns? Or have you just missed the whole point of what I was saying – that you need to understand the concerns of the average parent (who isn’t posting or reading comments here) if you’re to mount an effective argument against the filter?]

    Hang on. Are you saying that I need to go out and promote the idea of not having a filter to strangers in the street? Is it my responsibility to prove that this filter is worthless? No. That’s not my responsibility.

    I don’t have to understand the concerns of everyday folk to know that this filter is useless. It doesn’t matter whether people want it to work or not. The important thing is whether it will work.

    Do we worry about people’s perception of chemotherapy? Do we worry about people’s perception of electromagnetism? No. Becuase that’s largely irrelevant.

    You seem to be trying to shift the discussion into some weird realm here.

  39. Zoomster

    [Astro

    I mean look at the bi-partisan anti-filter lobby: dio, Possum, TTH, 3Zebras, Me, Bob1234…

    Hmmm…apolitical, green (apologies if I’m wrong, poss) or apolitical, loony, green, green, green. That’s not bipartisan.]

    Thanks, I think you just shot yourself in the foot.

  40. [No it isn’t. Becuase that means the parent takes less care about what their child is seeing, when the child will NOT be any safer from seeing pornography. A false sense of security is the worst outcome. What we need is greater vigilance from parents, not outsourcing parental responsibilty to the Govt.]

    Which flies flat in the face of this call from St Bob & Co on another subject involvimg Kids and parental responsibility 🙂

    [The Greens want junk food advertising banned during children’s television hours.

    Greens leader Bob Brown launched the policy in Adelaide, saying parents are helpless against the so-called pester power of children who demand unhealthy foods.

    Senator Brown says both major parties are opposed to the move because they are kowtowing to the power of the big advertising and food companies.

    “We’re saying it’s as simple as that, break your connection stand up for kids instead of the junk food corporations, there’s a choice here,” he said.

    “Look there’s over $400 million in advertising each year going to push junk food at kids in Australia.”]

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/31/2077742.htm

    The usual cliche invloving Kitchen utensils apply 🙂

  41. [If a kid was searching forf pussy cats, what do you expect to be included amongst the results ?]
    Try pussy. What’s number 1?

  42. Zoomster
    [Astro, either it’s safe to let your kid on the net or its not.]

    False dichotomy ALERT!!!

    [You can’t argue that a filter is unnecessary because the net’s as safe as houses and then say that a filter will give parents a false sense of security because it’s not.]
    Strawman!
    I never argued the net was ‘safe’. My argument is that the filter won’t make it safe. Or even ‘safer’.

    [At the moment, many parents have a false sense of insecurity. This would be a good thing to overcome.]
    They SHOULD have a sense of insecurity about the net, it’s not false. We shouldn’t try and ‘overcome’ that. Parents should be vigilant about the net. You can’t shift the burden of responsibility.

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 43 of 47
1 42 43 44 47