Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Internet Porn and Minors!

13

Comments

  • #102
    Franz Von Peppercorn II
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,398 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn II


    cgcsb wrote: »
    Possibly, I just think it's bizzar when people jump to such extreme conclusions with no rational basis whatsoever.

    It’s hardly irrational to think that extreme porn affects the minds of pre pubescent or early pubescent children. It has to.

    It might be that most children are not affected but some might be.


  • #103
    mariaalice
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,615 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    porn made these boys commit this murder to the same extent that playing Doom made the boys who carried out the Columbine school massacre do what they did

    Of course, pron did not make them commit murder and no rational person thinks that however, it did contribute to their opinion of her as an object to be used obviously thier is something seriously wrong and disturbed with a 14-year-old who rapes and murderer a girl its not jus about pron.

    The thing is we have no way of distinguishing between those for whom pron is harmless or those for which it is harmful.

    When children were beaten in school: my husband says it did him no lasting harm but it was wrong and it probably did no lasting harm to 90% but it did serious life long damage to 10%.

    There is no clear way of tellng who will be harmed by what.


  • #104
    jmayo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,186 ✭✭✭✭jmayo


    Sonics2k wrote: »
    Explain your logic there?

    The case was an absolutely tragedy, but literally thousands of kids in Ireland have smart phones and would never commit such a crime.

    There is huge issue with online bullying and this is a factor in this case.
    The girl was bullied relentlessly both in real world and online.

    And before anyone jumps in with the refrain that the bullying didn't kill her, it did no doubt copperfasten the mindset in the killers that Ana was worthless and who cared about her.

    The online bullying is definitely something that has to be tackled.
    And I believe part of that is censorship.
    For too long authorities have pussyfooted around social media sites, especially the ones they could actually sanction, about cleaning up their act.
    And yes I know the internet is borderless, but the thing is big business aren't.

    FFS the biggest one is so badly managed that they live streamed a massacre.

    They have the money and resources to get their act together so do it fooking now.

    The other worrying thing is that kids are now being desensitised to violence and probably certain sexual practices from a much earlier age.

    That is definitely not something to be so nonchalant about.

    I am not allowed discuss …



  • #105
    GarIT
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    jmayo wrote: »
    FFS the biggest one is so badly managed that they live streamed a massacre.

    What do you think the solution to that is? Have 10,000 staff checking every video as it happens? And 10,000 probably isn't enough for that. Or just ban live video altogether? Only allow live videos by companies and celebrities that Facebook deems worthy?


  • #106
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    mariaalice wrote: »
    Of course, pron did not make them commit murder and no rational person thinks that however, it did contribute to their opinion of her as an object to be used obviously thier is something seriously wrong and disturbed with a 14-year-old who rapes and murderer a girl its not jus about pron.

    The thing is we have no way of distinguishing between those for whom pron is harmless or those for which it is harmful.

    When children were beaten in school: my husband says it did him no lasting harm but it was wrong and it probably did no lasting harm to 90% but it did serious life long damage to 10%.

    There is no clear way of tellng who will be harmed by what.

    while agreeing that this might be a half-reasonable position to take on any one thing, what I'd think is that you very quickly find that it becomes an excuse to ban anything the person calling for the banning didnt like in the first place

    where does it stop. where does it start.

    franz peppercorn above says extreme porn affects prepubescent minds. it has to.

    i mean, look i probably agree in my gut, but that's not a case. that's not an argument.

    if (to pick a figure) 99.5% of a population dont become killers after an activity, then the activity isnt the problem.

    to say it is is just simple evasion of the facts.

    if we could easily identify the .05% then they are what needs to be dealt with. find the factors, the vectors, the treatment, the remedy and apply it in a logical and targeted fashion.

    thats hard to do. people will say inclusion, individual rights, whatever.

    fine, for whatever reason it cant be done or is too difficult a choice to make.

    but it is not about anything or anyone other than the .05% and its nothing to do with society (every society we have ever had has had murder and cruelty)


  • #107
    BeerWolf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,122 ✭✭✭BeerWolf


    I use THREE, and they've already got an OPT-IN for adult content.


  • #108
    theguzman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,081 ✭✭✭theguzman


    BeerWolf wrote: »
    I use THREE, and they've already got an OPT-IN for adult content.

    Three is so useless that you'd wait so long for the porn to load you'd lose interest.


  • #109
    Blaizes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 809 ✭✭✭Blaizes


    mariaalice wrote: »
    Its very nuanced, for example, 30 or 40 years ago it was common to see parents smoking around children or to see children being given a slap in public and no one thought anything of it. Any parent who smoked arond children or who slaps them in public today would be shamed or judged and this is enough of a deterrent so that for some parents smoking around children or slaping them in public is rare, of course, there are parents who do the right thing because it is the right thing to do.

    It would be nice to think that people do the right thing for the right reason but sometimes they do the right thing because they are nudged into it or becaue they will be judged for it.

    Banning smartphone for children will not work but a little bit judging of parents could change the culture so that eventually it would be rare for parents to give children unmonitored access to smartphones.

    Why won’t banning smart phones for children work? For example children as young as seven or eight are getting smart phones that’s far too young , plus kids that age are going on social media. Parents probably give in ( some at least because digital culture is very much part of the Irish landscape now and they succumb to the prevailing culture and that’s understandable) when at that age children should be playing, drawing, doing sport etc not stuck to a screen. It’s so messed up imo and maybe we won’t really see the effects for years to come.I’ll be considered old fashioned no doubt but we need to let children be children and protect them from material/ events etc. that they cannot put into context or process at their age. If there was a will to changes things something could surely be done.


  • #110
    GarIT
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    BeerWolf wrote: »
    I use THREE, and they've already got an OPT-IN for adult content.

    Easily bypassible but better than an age check implemented by the websites themselves. It should be a mandatory option on every internet package.


  • #111
    Franz Von Peppercorn II
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,398 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn II


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    while agreeing that this might be a half-reasonable position to take on any one thing, what I'd think is that you very quickly find that it becomes an excuse to ban anything the person calling for the banning didnt like in the first place

    where does it stop. where does it start.

    Slippery slope argument.
    peppercorn above says extreme porn affects prepubescent minds. it has to.

    i mean, look i probably agree in my gut, but that's not a case. that's not an argument.

    You’re agreeing with a non argument?
    if (to pick a figure) 99.5% of a population dont become killers after an activity, then the activity isnt the problem.

    to say it is is just simple evasion of the facts.

    I mean it clearly is the problem for 0.5% of the population. You just said that. If a new drug or drink caused 0.5% of adults to become homicidally violent it would be banned.
    if we could easily identify the .05% 0.5% then they are what needs to be dealt with. find the factors, the vectors, the treatment, the remedy and apply it in a logical and targeted fashion.

    thats hard to do. people will say inclusion, individual rights, whatever.

    fine, for whatever reason it cant be done or is too difficult a choice to make.

    but it is not about anything or anyone other than the .05% and its nothing to do with society (every society we have ever had has had murder and cruelty)

    Remember we are talking about children and hard core porn here. Thus this is where the tortured logic gets us. Allow this activity if it only affects 99.5% of the child population? But what if it’s 10%, or 30%. Why do you get to decide the percentage.

    Whenever an activity has a large effect on even a small minority of adults and that also effects the rest of society by the actions of that minority then its worth contemplating restrictions. However if it’s too difficult, if there are benefits to the rest of society from the existence of this activity (ie good driving vs bad driving) then those restrictions wouldn’t be universally applied.

    Here we are talking about porn. It’s hard to see any benefit for the percentage of children who don’t become homicidal by watching it. It probably effects 100% of children in some way. Not least attitudes to sex in general.

    Incidentally we stop children from doing lots of activities that are otherwise benign for adults, it’s hardly that radical a proposition that hardcore porn be curtailed.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    jmayo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,186 ✭✭✭✭jmayo


    GarIT wrote: »
    What do you think the solution to that is? Have 10,000 staff checking every video as it happens? And 10,000 probably isn't enough for that. Or just ban live video altogether? Only allow live videos by companies and celebrities that Facebook deems worthy?

    I don't know, but I presume they have had to put in place something after Christchurch.

    What always got my goat was youtube and how they left up cr** like ISIS hacking the head of some poor guy.

    These companies couldn't give a shyte, all that gets them is when revenue is hit.
    The likes of introduction of GDPR has done something to focus the mind of some entities, because companies are worried that they could be in court every other day and could be hit for millions.

    The big social media companies are American and immediately rant on about Freedom of speech and the likes of Facefook has gotten away with some awful shyte because they deem themselves not to be a publisher, but a conduit, neutral platform some such shyte.

    Yet they in 2018 claimed in court they were a publisher when it suited their case.
    They claimed they were a publisher, and a company that makes editorial decisions, which are protected by the first amendment.
    Yet in congress they immediately spout that platforms cannot be liable for content users post on their sites.

    And yes I know there is lot of worse stuff out there being run from servers god knows where but really if there was a will then there is a god damn way.

    But fecks sake we should lock down the companies that are operating openly making billions yet flouting basic standards.

    I am not allowed discuss …



  • #113
    goose2005
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,798 ✭✭✭goose2005


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Oh FFS. The level of truly simple, I hesitate to call it "thinking" when a tragedy occurs never ceases to surprise me. It seems to get worse if anything. In another thread on the matter it was suggested we need more of all things feminism because yeah that would have stopped this happening. Are people who appear to be generally bright enough actually this thick when hard sums come into it? Jesus.

    In 1973 a seven year old boy was murdered in an attic in Palmerstown Dublin by a 16 year old, in what looked to be a satanistic type rite. Pre internet. No doubt in good oul Catholic Ireland(where the case was kept out of the news) it was blamed on satanic forces or evil fillums or books.
    the country was riddled with rape at a time when even the mildest of sexual content was forbidden in cinema or literature.
    TheValeyard wrote: »
    Wasnt the Jamie Bulger case blamed on horror films or that Film 'Childs Play'. Banning horror films wouldnt stop child murder.

    It would be impossible to block internet porn. Anyone with half a brain could bypass any filter. Education is key. Sure they still have massive and almost impossible job of removing illegal porn, and/ or drug, weapons, medicines from the web

    "video nasties" were just the tabloid tale of the time. Another period they'd blame it on the radio or the printing press or polyphonic chant.


  • #114
    Force Carrier
    Closed Accounts Posts: 594 ✭✭✭Force Carrier


    Is there peer reviewed papers showing causal links between porn and violent crime?


  • #115
    beejee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,787 ✭✭✭beejee


    What do children need smartphones for?

    Exactly.

    A "dumb" phone is plenty good. Problem solved.


  • #116
    Calhoun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,447 ✭✭✭Calhoun


    God forbid parents in Ireland actually take some parental responsibility. Easier to blame it on other things so we might make a bit of money off it down the line when we sue.


  • #117
    Airyfairy12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,405 ✭✭✭Airyfairy12


    Porn is far to accessible for kids, they can literally access any type of porn they like in a couple of seconds, any time of the day or night , most boys are learning about sex from hard core porn videos, porn is very addictive for some people, I hate to think what it's doing to kids and how it will effect their future intimate relationships, you can say it doesn't effect them all you like but the fact is it does.
    What also worries me is how some schools are making it compulsory for kids to have ipads and tablets making it very hard for parents to limit their childs internet and technology usage as from first thing in the morning their eyes are glued to a computer screen.
    There is such a thing as internet addiction and porn addiction and although its not the cause of rapes and murders, in the wrong hands, its certainly an instigator and apart of the problem.


  • #118
    Alexander Vast Smokehouse
    Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Alexander Vast Smokehouse


    Force Carrier wrote: »
    Is there peer reviewed papers showing causal links between porn and violent crime?

    i would wonder about this also. i think it's easy to point at something like porn and say this must have been it, this is the problem to solve. i can only imagine there was more going on and it was all more nuanced. but i don't really know... hence why i wonder this as well

    it's hard to know what to do about children and mobiles. say no altogether? educate them? both?


  • #119
    ILoveYourVibes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,202 ✭✭✭✭ILoveYourVibes


    Sam Quentin wrote: »
    Why is the Taoiseach waiting to see how the UK's age verification check 'fairs' out before introducing such laws here!? It seems like a no brainer to me and if anything a great start.

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/apr/17/online-pornography-age-checks-to-be-mandatory-in-uk-from-15-july


    IMO free porn should be on the internet. You should have to pay by credit card.

    It's like having porn on the telly at three in the afternoon.

    Just get rid of free porn. Problem solved.


  • #120
    freshpopcorn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,810 ✭✭✭✭freshpopcorn


    NIMAN wrote: »
    The trial that concluded the other day is more than enough evidence we need to ban minors from smart phones until they are at least 16.

    Every school should ban the use of smart mobile phones. End of.

    Haven't most schools already banned phones?
    We went from basic phones to camera phones to smart phones whilst I was at school and they were banned!


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    Panthro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,824 ✭✭✭✭Panthro


    If I ever have kids I'll try to keep the smart phone away for as long as possible.

    You can't learn social skills from social media.


  • #122
    ILoveYourVibes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,202 ✭✭✭✭ILoveYourVibes


    Panthro wrote: »
    If I ever have kids I'll try to keep the smart phone away for as long as possible.

    You can't learn social skills from social media.
    I think you UNLEARN the social skills you do have.


  • #123
    nihicib2
    Registered Users Posts: 370 ✭✭nihicib2


    I've worked in schools for nearly 25 years, primary and post primary, not a teacher. The kids get educated in all matters of stay safe programmes, internet awareness programmes, consent programmes etc.

    In my humble opinion I'll tell ye now that in my experience the problem lies with the parents, they buy them these expensive phones, they have no idea how to monitor or set up parental control, age restrictions etc. they see their kids on these devices all day and roll their eyes but do they parent ? No they do not!

    I have no idea how many discussions I've had with sensible, good people about how if they were to set boundaries on their kids phone usage, that it would cause a meltdown at home, and I'm like, eh, who pays the bills, who bought the phone, maybe set out rules when you do buy the phone, and keep to them, whose house it it, whose rules are they!

    But many parents want to blame the schools, oh they need to do more,educate them more blah blah, erm there are only so many hours in a day, maybe be a parent to your child and get off your own screen and parent them and talk to them and if you decide to buy them a device that can teach them anything from making a cake to watching porn then cop yourself on and take control of the situation.


    I honestly would guarantee you all that unless you monitor your teenagers phone yourself you would be shocked by what they post, Kids are smart, they are more advanced but that is no excuse for parents to turn a blind eye and just let them get on with it. just be responsible parents, if you lay down boundaries from the start, well then its a start, Im not saying its the answer to everything, but its a start!


  • #124
    Force Carrier
    Closed Accounts Posts: 594 ✭✭✭Force Carrier


    I think situations like the horrific murder of Anna Kriegel cause feelings of lack of control and vulnerability in society. Random, senseless evil and atrocities - well who can predict those never mind prevent them.

    If you create an idea that the perpetrators rather than having agency were in fact directed by some mis-policy or oversight in our societal make up then this is a problem that can be fixed. We're in control. Eliminate the evil influence i.e pornography and then no 13 year old boy will think it is a good idea to torture and kill a school mate.

    Sadly we are not in control of the chaos of nature. The existence of psychopaths. Random and senseless killing. Never have been and never will be.

    Should we restrict pornography anyway aside from these matters? Possibly, we should certainly educate our children to its false and enervating aspect. Its illusory and occasionally disrespectful and dehumanizing dimension. The short term pay off versus the long term toll? Well maybe. But don't delude yourselves that this has any effect on or will ever have effect on the evil ones and psychopaths that are thrown up as trace elements in our population ever and anon. They will be there.


  • #125
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,078 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I once read some headline back in the day that the average 18 year old has seen 11000 murders ON TV AND IN MOVIES. Why not start there?

    The average teen runs rings technically round their parents. Can't see how this ban can practically work. In fact it might inspire the next generation of IT whizzes and make computer nerds popular to get round porn filters.


  • #126
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,078 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Force Carrier wrote: »
    I think situations like the horrific murder of Anna Kriegel cause feelings of lack of control and vulnerability in society. Random, senseless evil and atrocities - well who can predict those never mind prevent them.

    If you create an idea that the perpetrators rather than having agency were in fact directed by some mis-policy or oversight in our societal make up then this is a problem that can be fixed. We're in control. Eliminate the evil influence i.e pornography and then no 13 year old boy will think it is a good idea to torture and kill a school mate.

    Sadly we are not in control of the chaos of nature. The existence of psychopaths. Random and senseless killing. Never have been and never will be.

    Should we restrict pornography anyway aside from these matters? Possibly, we should certainly educate our children to its false and enervating aspect. Its illusory and occasionally disrespectful and dehumanizing dimension. The short term pay off versus the long term toll? Well maybe. But don't delude yourselves that this has any effect on or will ever have effect on the evil ones and psychopaths that are thrown up as trace elements in our population ever and anon. They will be there.

    Well said


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    freshpopcorn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,810 ✭✭✭✭freshpopcorn


    Deleted User wrote: »

    The average teen runs rings technically round their parents. Can't see how this ban can practically work. In fact it might inspire the next generation of IT whizzes and make computer nerds popular to get round porn filters.

    When I was at school one guys parents were tech savy. So e had to be smarter than them.
    He was loved in the computer room by both the students and teachers.


  • #128
    jimbobaloobob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,153 ✭✭✭jimbobaloobob


    NIMAN wrote: »
    Of course they would never commit such a crime, but many will access and watch videos that they shouldn't be watching.

    We are running the risk of damaging many young minds with access to inappropriate videos.

    What they do at home is the parents responsibility, unfortunately many parents don't give a toss.

    It begins long before a child sees anything on a smart phone.
    Look at the Bo bo the clown experiment.


    Banning smart phones you mention but Prohibition has never worked


  • #129
    10000maniacs
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,017 ✭✭✭10000maniacs


    Some people are evil. Some people are prone to drug and drink addiction. Turning Ireland into a nanny state is not going to solve these problems. It will just make people who don't fit these categories angry and resentful. Of course Mary and Biddy from the back of beyonds will be happy with this legislation but blanket stuff like this is always idiotic.


  • #130
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Give them a sim with mobile data blocked and use a router to filter the internet at home.

    Of course as soon they leave the house and find free WiFi in a cafe or a friend's house they are unlocked again. Not sure what a parent can do about that. You can install an app on their phone but most won't agree to that or just uninstall it.

    A dumb phone won't cut it as most teenagers use discord or Whatsapp or similar as they are free. Another issue is bullying via those apps or social media.

    Education is key but teenagers generally don't listen to anyone but themselves.


  • #131
    Iwouldinmesack
    Registered Users Posts: 180 ✭✭Iwouldinmesack


    cgcsb wrote: »
    What? You think that smart phones create monstors?
    Best tell the parents of Jamie Bolger your solution.

    Sorry to be peandric here but the lads name was James Bulger, not Jamie Bolger. It's just a personal bugbear of mine, he at least deserves people to get his name correct after the horrific way he died.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,078 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    If you want to filter porn, good for you but don't delude yourself that it would stop in any way the development of evil bastards like these two. As another poster says this starts young. You can spot the bad ones at 5 or 6 already. One 7 year old among a litany of other things tried to push my daughter backwards down a steep drive on roller blades. Luckily I caught him. You could see the glee in his eye hoping she would break bones or worse. He's in his 20s now and is still an evil bastard, but hides it better. Could easily see him doing something like this if he thought he'd get away with it, and doing it solely to inflict pain.

    Heres the thing - these kids are often the popular ones and have lots of friends, and their parents think they are angels. They are rarely the stereotype of the nerd in the basement jacking off to horse porn.

    From the details of the trial we can see that Boy A was quite a hit with the ladies as evidenced by how excited Anna was to meet him. And don't say she was excited to meet anyone as she had no interest in Boy B.

    This isn't something a porn filter will stop. The whole obsession with porn being the cause of all of society's ills is bizarre to me. Sure kids should be restricted from it but it's out there.

    Maybe it's violent porn that should be restricted, that stuff is sick anyway. 50 shades of course showed us studies that more women are into that kind of stuff than men.

    Plenty of slasher films and the likes too that contributed more to these guys desire for violence than porn, but no talks of banning those.


  • #133
    Discodog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,918 ✭✭✭✭Discodog


    BeerWolf wrote: »
    I use THREE, and they've already got an OPT-IN for adult content.

    You can get around this by simply using a browser that filters traffic to save bandwidth.


  • #134
    donaghs
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,773 ✭✭✭donaghs


    Panthro wrote: »
    If I ever have kids I'll try to keep the smart phone away for as long as possible.

    You can't learn social skills from social media.

    I think this is just something that has to be faced-up to eventually. No technological solutions will be perfect. But something will be better than nothing.

    Its not an outright ban. There's a lot of hypocrisy here as well.
    Lots of adults watch porn, but don't want ever put their hand up or even tick a box to say "i'd like to have access to porn". If this hurdle could be overcome, perhaps progress could be made on regulating children's access.


  • #135
    Seanachai
    Registered Users Posts: 2,544 ✭✭✭Seanachai


    Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »
    It’s hardly irrational to think that extreme porn affects the minds of pre pubescent or early pubescent children. It has to.

    It might be that most children are not affected but some might be.

    There's an underlying pathology there though, most that are exposed to it don't develop warped behaviours


  • #136
    Hal3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 818 ✭✭✭Hal3000


    It's good that this is finally being discussed. Terrible what it took for us to get to this point. If we can bring parental responsibility into the equation that would be good.


  • #137
    OneOfThem Stumbled
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 934 ✭✭✭OneOfThem Stumbled


    kneemos wrote: »
    Wasn't there a privacy issue with presenting ID and accessing a porn site?

    A gigantic one.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/uk-porn-ban-when-date-privacy-websites-vpn-a8956941.html

    The UK at the moment is not compliant with EU privacy laws (so harvesting porn habits of users and sending those to a third party company to look at the identities of all 20 million users is possible for them). The EU isn't pulling the UK up on its breach of privacy laws at the moment, as it would feel a bit redundant with Brexit and all.

    The media whipping itself into a frenzy over the Ana Kriegal case is the same old, same old. Boy A also played violent video games and heavy metal if I read the news article correctly. The media was spoiled for choice on this one!

    Correlation does not imply causation.


  • #138
    gibgodsman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 573 ✭✭✭gibgodsman


    Its not a case of banning Porn for Minors, its a case of Parents actually minding their children and stopping them in the first place, it shouldn't be the governments job to monitor peoples Children


  • #139
    cgcsb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,754 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »
    It’s hardly irrational to think that extreme porn affects the minds of pre pubescent or early pubescent children. It has to.

    It might be that most children are not affected but some might be.

    saying that porn made those boys murder that girl is ridiculous. Could it affect them in other ways? sure.


  • #140
    mariaalice
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,615 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    Its amazing the number of people who only see ban porn and not the nuanced subtle nature of the issue. its almost comes across as entitlement, how dare , society interferes with my fun my entitlement to watch porn. A ban would not work as teenagers would get arond it, but it could certainly be made the norm the children and young teens do not have access smartphone.

    It is not a moral panice porn did not make those boys do what they did but it certainly influenced one of them and formed a cultuer that Ana was an object to be used.

    There are lots of things that are good for society that interfere with individuals wish to do what they like. An individual cant drink and drive they can't legally drink till 18.

    Societies right to protect its self always trumps an individual right to do as one wants.


  • #141
    Force Carrier
    Closed Accounts Posts: 594 ✭✭✭Force Carrier


    mariaalice wrote: »
    it certainly influenced one of them and formed a cultuer that Ana was an object to be used.

    You have no idea what influenced the boys.
    The only people who may be able to speak on that are qualified professionals who meet them and diagnose or treat them.

    There is no evidence to support your statement above. Correlation is not causation.

    Is unfettered access to porn and/or smartphones harmful to young people? It may be and there is published research to support such arguments. Conflating that issue with the tragic murder in Lucan is without basis and agenda driven.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    cgcsb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,754 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    ILoveYourVibes wrote: »
    IMO free porn should be on the internet. You should have to pay by credit card.

    It's like having porn on the telly at three in the afternoon.

    Just get rid of free porn. Problem solved.

    would a tax help? :pac::rolleyes:


  • #143
    mariaalice
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,615 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    Force Carrier wrote: »
    You have no idea what influenced the boys.
    The only people who may be able to speak on that are qualified professionals who meet them and diagnose or treat them.

    There is no evidence to support your statement above. Correlation is not causation.

    Is unfettered access to porn and/or smartphones harmful to young people? It may be and there is published research to support such arguments. Conflating that issue with the tragic murder in Lucan is without basis and agenda driven.

    Its not, it very difficult to do empirical research on this becaue there are so many other factor involved home environment, personality trait ect, and by the way I an not saying ban porn.


  • #144
    denis1501
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 493 ✭✭denis1501


    Parents have to take responsibility for their kids and at least make it extremely difficult for them to access certain material. Install Opendns on a password protected router/modem. Monitor your kids smartphones with parental control apps that can't be uninstalled without a password. Use an Internet security software suite like Bitdefender which will report to you on the apps and social media they are using and their location. If they somehow manage to bypass your efforts to twart them then take their phones off them for a month.
    It's like protecting your house from thieves breaking in. You lock doors and windows. Install CCTV cameras, alarms, etc. The dedicated thief might still manage to break in but by God it's been hard work for him.


  • #145
    cgcsb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,754 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    Remember the momo challenge? the Irish media ran with it, AFTER it had been widely discredited as a hoax in other countries. Every semi-computer literate concerned mom from Portumna seemed to buy into it, despite the fact that a simple google would tell you it was a hoax. The Irish media saw a clickable opportunity to sell advertisements and subscriptions. This is similar, the boy had watched porn, we'll add some subjective adjectives like 'hard core', and boom a headline that can be reheated every day for a month and attract clicks from the concerned moms.


  • #146
    mariaalice
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,615 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    denis1501 wrote: »
    Parents have to take responsibility for their kids and at least make it extremely difficult for them to access certain material. Install Opendns on a password protected router/modem. Monitor your kids smartphones with parental control apps that can't be uninstalled without a password. Use an Internet security software suite like Bitdefender which will report to you on the apps and social media they are using and their location. If they somehow manage to bypass your efforts to twart them then take their phones off them for a month.
    It's like protecting your house from thieves breaking in. You lock doors and windows. Install CCTV cameras, alarms, etc. The dedicated thief might still manage to break in but by God it's been hard work for him.

    What do you do about other parents who are not monitoring their child phone or who ambiguous about doing it.

    That is why there has to be a cultural change.


  • #147
    Force Carrier
    Closed Accounts Posts: 594 ✭✭✭Force Carrier


    mariaalice wrote: »
    Its not, it very difficult to do empirical research on this becaue there are so many other factor involved home environment, personality trait ect, and by the way I an not saying ban porn.

    I'm not saying 'don't ban porn'
    I'm saying that you cannot state that viewing porn caused the Lucan killing because you simply don't know that.


  • #148
    mariaalice
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,615 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    cgcsb wrote: »
    Remember the momo challenge? the Irish media ran with it, AFTER it had been widely discredited as a hoax in other countries. Every semi-computer literate concerned mom from Portumna seemed to buy into it, despite the fact that a simple google would tell you it was a hoax. The Irish media saw a clickable opportunity to sell advertisements and subscriptions. This is similar, the boy had watched porn, we'll add some subjective adjectives like 'hard core', and boom a headline that can be reheated every day for a month and attract clicks from the concerned moms.

    Are you realy comparing an internet hoax to a 12 year old child with 12000 Porn images on his smartphone?


  • #149
    mariaalice
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,615 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    Force Carrier wrote: »
    I'm not saying 'don't ban porn'
    I'm saying that you cannot state that viewing porn caused the Lucan killing because you simply don't know that.

    That true maybe I put it too strongly, , put it this way even though I dont have any evidence of this, I personally think a 12/13-year-old boy with 12000 porn images on his phone could possibly have had an influenced on him in some way.


  • #150
    OneOfThem Stumbled
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 934 ✭✭✭OneOfThem Stumbled


    mariaalice wrote: »
    That true maybe I put it too strongly, , put it this way even though I dont have any evidence of this, I personally think a 12/13-year-old boy with 12000 porn images on his phone could possibly have had an influenced on him in some way.

    Maybe.

    And maybe the fact that he disliked homework influenced him in some way (MacNamee, 2019). Some say that those who dislike homework are more likely to come from less well-disciplined homes and may be more susceptible to a lack of self-control.

    If your immediate reaction is "well, what 13 year old doesn't hate homework? What does that tell me, exactly?" that would be a correct reaction. However, it is the same reaction that could be had to your assertion.


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    Force Carrier
    Closed Accounts Posts: 594 ✭✭✭Force Carrier


    If you assume that they were normal in the first place then you are looking for an intervening step in the process. A step at which point they became 'bad' or 'mad'. And then committed a crime. That sequence is based on the assumption they were normal and without pathology to begin with.

    If they were psychopaths who were predisposed to violence and sexual violence then I would expect nothing other than to find violent porn on their internet history. And expect that if the right circumstances aligned that they would violently assault other people.

    In terms of outside influences I wonder who introduced them to satanism. That came from somebody or some group they interacted with somewhere at some point.


Advertisement