When I have kids, I will definitely make sure to put internet restrictions

So yeah if at some point I'll have a kid, I will make sure he isn't going to be an ipad kid going around and just staring at the ipad and killing eyes. But more importantly I will make sure to restrict his internet, so he does not end up like me. That is the great thing with kids, you can see on what your parents failed at, to make sure you don't do the same thing with your kid. When I say "so he does not end up like me" I mean is that the internet has fuarrrked me in multiple of ways. First is me finding porn, and that messed me up. Just like the good ol story goes, kid finds porn and as time goes on he progresses into worse and worse territory. Eventually I moved on to straight shota and loli. From there to omegle, and getting groomed. But I knew I was getting groomed, that is what aroused me. And from there, people online tried to convince me to meet up and rape this little girl. And good thing, I knew that I should not do that because that is very illegal. Another thing is finding gore online. I don't know at what age, I first saw gore, but at some point I got desensitized. When high school came, I everyday had these intrusive thoughts of either killing myself or killing people. Glad I got past that, looking back that was a scary time. And no one knew. And I think this is all internet's fault. And of course internet radicalization. But honestly this could also be somewhat by parents fault. Growing my dad never really taught me anything, the only thing he did was work. For my mom, well she was a stay at home mom, so she was taking care of things. So in the end, I ended up without really having a father figure or mother figure, even if both of them were present. You know maybe I shouldn't even have kids. I don't know I'm just kind of ranting. I don't want pity, I just wanted to say this to someone.

>>63097 That's dumb. iPad kids aren't the ones watching gore and loli porn.

i got into fuarrrking already age 10 not cause internet but because some library fantasy book had a section about the lust of the boy over girl in it. So "no internet" is not the eunuch path. At 16 i also watched intentional gore on quadchan to desensitize for minijob cutting hospital operation videos. Never got me into some murder larp but did the job of helping me focus on the editing work instead of repulsing every time they cut flesh apart. tldr: i think you were led by make believe x does y to people autosuggestion.

>>63103 You don't know that short

>Ipad kids arent the ones watching gore & loli porn they might not be watching lolishit but they're fairly often watching porn. Everyone I know who deals with ipads in schools has had multiplie incididents with kids getting porn on them and watching it even in class. And this is through all the filtering they try and put on school internet connections. >>63106 maybe so but I dont think OP is looking for the eunich path. For one, he's talking about getting his own kiddos. Personally I'd argue that the internet path seems like its much more likely the eunich path; I don't think nearly as many kids were seeking castration as they are now, back in like the 80s. Obviously sex is good, but porn is not sex. >>63097 mind that just about any filtering that allows you to reach the internet can be bypassed to reach sites it tried to block. Filtering may be reasonable, but its hardly a solution by itself, and a clever kid will be able to get past almost anything you set up. Better solution is probably steering him so hes not even wasting time on the internet to begin with, than putting him there and presenting him with a number of very interesting locked doors. Also remember that public school may try to get him into these things anyway. They'll explain porn and how you can get it if you go on the internet, and they'll hand him computers and the means to do it. If he doesn't already know about proxies and things then a fellow student can show him how to use one to get past any school website blocks. These things were happening when I was in school a number of years ago, they are probably no better today, and things will have to change a good bit to make them not so whenever your kids going teen.

>>63097 > And of course internet radicalization. I feel sorry for your future kid(s) to be honest. Having slave-mind centrists as parents is a fate worse than death.

>>63114 the university indoctrinated radicals are the slaves not the centrists who refuse to follow orders blindly...

>>63115 > the university indoctrinated radicals > the university indoctrinated > the university American detected. Not everybody on this board is American though.

>>63115 It is at every level and in every facet of civilization. Eduction, media, "news". And, of course, people willfully engage in pushing the propaganda as well, so even if you avoid those main areas, you still have to deal with the people. However, unfortunately, the best way to deal with it isn't to avoid it -- This creates an inability to distinguish and argue, which can make it much easier to actually subvert the individual. The best way to deal with it is to discuss these things and break them down logically. Get them to ask questions. Nothing pisses off the current agenda like trying to force them to elaborate down to the foundational level. If you ask "Why should we be equal?", the only response, no matter how they try to reword it, is "It is the right thing to do." or "It is morally right" -- This is not a real answer, but the response of a cult or religion. When I bring this to the attention of the individual, I will often be asked "Why should we not kill others if not for a 'moral' reason?" which is an interesting assumption, on their part, and an interesting question to ask because it shows a complete lack of understanding of my initial question. To answer a question with a question is a rhetorical skill, sure, but when you force people to deal with their rejection of reality, they lash out at you and try to pull the few "shutdown words" that they have. When those down work... Well, it becomes violence. Interestingl, you can really reduce these ideologies down to "Because we said so" and that is when you realize the unfortunate truth is that violence is the only outcome. That is to say.. I wouldn't waste my time trying to debate the idealogue, but reinforcing the mind to only care for natural law can create a bit of a shield and for those who genuinely want to avoid it. Just don't teach your children to be {racist,sexist,etc} "just because", otherwise, you're just as much a bigot as those you're attempting to avoid. >>63116 >only america indoctrinates I've seen the indoctrination in the US and several other places... Just because you aren't aware of it does not mean you're not immune to propaganda.

>>63118 Before you can debate the merits of equality you have to define what you mean by equality. We all sort-of know what it means, but the devil is in the details. If you start drilling down you will notice that there are in fact many inequalities. Some more and some less justified.

>>63118 Generally the younger kids are not as blind and more keen on pointing out illogical nonsense. University is the age many got tainted enough by repeated mantras of how they should think while thinking they are smarter than they are which gives them the bravado to lash out according to the programming. If you look at history you see violent revolutions led by students trained on new doctrines including attacking their own parents. >I wouldn't waste my time trying to debate the idealogue this is precisely what happens though. I think the smartest play one could do is foster radicals on the opposing side so both sides fight each other. The problem of centrists is when one side gets derezzed the middle moves and suddenly one of the radical sides sees them as the new opposing force which leads them into forced conflict. Its also how countries operate - they simply fund already existing groups in countries they wish to sabotage over trying to kickstart their own. I think we can trust their expertise on that matter. >>63116 you boast about your education yet you are clearly unaware of any of the many historic student revolutions instigated by new ideologies propagated through universities in many different countries. Also EU is just a US province by now. Everything flows downstream. Funniest soykaf so far ive seen is BLM protests in a EU country where you cant find a single brother if you tried. So we can establish safely here europes npcs are just second hand parrots to the US news cycle. Might be also related to them living on us sites like reddit over creating/using their own places. How could they not be identical if they consume all the same soykaf.

>>63119 >Before you can debate the merits of equality you have to define what you mean by equality. This idea that we need to "define what you mean by equality" actually underlines my point. You're implying, rightfully so, that the meaning behind the words depend on the individual's world view. There is "WE ARE ALL THE SAME" types, the "I ACTUALLY MEAN EQUITY" types, then there is the "EQUAL UNDER THE LAW" types. Unfortunately, there are subsections under the "EQUAL UNDER THE LAW" types, because racism/sexism/etc. Which means they're actually "WE ARE ALL THE EXACT SAME" types but they require rhetoric in order to push their ideas. I find "equal under the law" an acceptable form of equality. I find "separate but equal" to be an acceptable form of equality. I find "The only difference between you and I are what was available to us" sentiment to be absurd, and we have plenty of data points to prove this is an incorrect point of view. You can look at comparisons via class, the capital available to a given school, etc. You will find, across the board, things stay roughly the same, in terms of racial disparities. I do not have a "haha own the negroes" sentiment, the issue is forcing negroes to be under a white system is limiting the potential for what it is to be a negro. It does not and will not work for the mass majority. The same goes for forcing "Whites" under a black system, it will not work as well as it could. Forced integration at gun point was the beginning of this interesting experiment that resulted in my being right and "them" being wrong. If I am faster, smarter, stronger then I should not be forced to wear weights on my feet, a timed buzzer in my ear, and a 50 pound wrist band on each arm to keep me from having an advantage over others. This superiority should be cultivated and used to help elevate humanity. >>63121 I want to preface this with saying: I am not a centrist. I have some very radical ideas that would piss off centrist, leftists, and rightists. >I think the smartest play one could do is foster radicals on the opposing side so both sides fight each other. Yes. This is why so many people push their own brand of propaganda on others. This power struggle is one facet of the "power struggle" being ranted and raved about often in various circles. I entirely agree with your sentiment about, and critique of, centrism. This "I just want to grill" crap isn't a centralist, it's attempting to mark yourself as apolitical. >Rape is bad >Rape is good >Guys... Some rape is okay. This is one of several critiques that I enjoy pointing out to fence sitters. I miss being apolitical and apathetic, but that time is over and everyone must understand that the time must come or you'll rapidly find yourself among people who want to kill you.

Damn the 4 posts above me are really just insider trading about how echo chambers are bad, not realizing the irony. >>63111 Do you really think seeing a naked body is harmful? >>63116 I talked to a German biologist studying in Frankfurt who believed male and female humans are physically identical aside from primary sexual characteristics.

>>63135 >Do you really think seeing a naked body is harmful? suggesting that 'seeing a naked body' is the same as seeing porn is obtuse. Please don't be that obtuse, lain.

>>63137 They intentionally twist words and use pilpul in order to twist the conversation instead of having an honest one. This is why I say, unfortunately: >when you force people to deal with their rejection of reality, they lash out at you and try to pull the few "shutdown words" that they have. Notice how in this way, the individual decided to attempt to twist the words and make it seem more casual. However, I still wouldn't want a child to become familiar with seeing a naked body. The phrase "slippery slope" comes to mind (as does the phrase "fallacy fallacy".)

>>63137 >>63146 You act like I'm twisting your words, but you really do have a problem with naked bodies displayed on the internet, right? You would think it's wrong even if all porn was just naked poses excluding sex. Also, please read https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pornography >any display of material of an erotic nature.

I agree with you op, mainly because most iPad kids are very concerning to me. If I were to have kids (huge if), definitely not letting them have a phone or anything until they're 10/13 or so. Maybe I'll teach them the terminal though. the thing with watching youtube and early internet exposure is that it teaches you to learn only from the internet. Most people nowadays only get their opinions/talking-points/ideas from the internet. I don't want my kid being in an echo chamber and falling into a cult of personality over some youtuber.

>>63111 is me >>63149 >any display of material of an erotic nature is pornography I think I agree with this. But nakedness by itself is not erotic. >you really do have a problem with naked bodies displayed on the internet, right? I think for the purpose of this thread, the trouble with internet porn (and porn in general) should be taken as a given from the OP. For my own purposes: no, I have no problem with 'naked bodies displayed on the internet', but I do think that porn is a different category from that--overlapping but not even entierly subsumed. Because of this I find that you're twisting my words: there's porn without naked bodies, and there's naked bodies without erotic qualities. Its like I said something against horror movies and horror genre in general and you're asking me what I have against photography. Are you ESL? If you disagree with the assertion that nakedness can be (and frankly is, more often than not) non erotic, then I'm a little baffled. >you would think its wrong even if all porn was just naked poses exluding sex I'm not OP I'm not sure what he'd say. If I beleive porn is bad, then I am against porn. This included some depictions of sex, some depictions of nakedness, and probably some depictions of other things as well. To use your definition, it seems like the functional difference here is the presence of Eros. He is not present in a dry manual explaining in specific detail the artificial insemmination of a cow, but a writer aiming for his inclusion can find a way to bring him there. Even without removing a stitch of clothes from the farmer doing the task, such a writer can make it porn. The distinction is Eros' presence. Its a wholly and entierly seperate matter from 'naked bodies'.

>>63118 >If you ask "Why should we be equal?", the only response, no matter how they try to reword it, is "It is the right thing to do." or "It is morally right" -- This is not a real answer, but the response of a cult or religion. You can ask enough questions about anything and get to a point where there's no answer. Do you think that you don't hold any axiomatic beliefs?

>>63153 overcomplicating it. If people fap to it it's porn. Easy as that. And before anyone goes furries fap to cows - such definitions go by majority not outliers.

>>63156 valiant effort but I disagree. I'm not sure most people even fap so majority might be unattainable, and there's obviously bovine porn that the majority of fappers (probably) don't fap to. Maybe we could settle and call porn media made to be fapped to.

>>63157 Remember the goal - effects in society. For that you want to only look at mainstream behaviour and ignore outliers as noise. Thats why the weird stuff doesn't matter as the userbase hovers barely over not existing.

>>63153 You were agreeing with OP, who said this >wouldn't want a child to become familiar with seeing a naked body. If you really believe that seeing naked people is not a bad thing, then you ought to be disagreeing with OP.

>>63159 If that subsequent post in which that is said is by the op, then sure: I'm not sure I agree with him on that point. THE OP itself however, the post at the top of the thread is mostly about porn, gore, corrupting groomers and weak parents. It doesn't mention 'seeing naked bodies'; this wording originated with a later post, and different poster. The poster who brought in this wording, and frankly this concept was twisting MY words in >>63111 with by conflation of the concept of porn, with that of merely seeing naked bodies. Overall I don't mind that I disagree with OP on certain quibbling points, and at any rate I do approve of parental controls on their children, which is the topic he proposed for this thread. I do disagree strongly with whomever would seek to confuse the distinction between 'seeing naked bodies' and porn. You might argue that OP's possible subsequent post succamb to this confusion, but he does not seem to be the one trying to sow said confusion.

>>63165 It's not a conflation, naked bodies is a subset of porn. >I don't like FOOD!! >So you don't like hotdogs? >NOOOOO!!! I NEVER SAID THAT! CONFLATION!!!!!

>>63175 >naked bodies is a subset of porn. ok this is retarded.

All this is retarded reasons. Kids shouldn't be online because it normalizes being online. They should do online for work/as a hobby, not as the main thing they do. Simple as.

>>63176 Post some naked bodies here. Surely since it's not porn it should be fine to post, right? Email some to your boss too.

>>63184 >since its socially unacceptable it is pornography >since its socially unacceptable it is wrong

>>63135 >echo chambers are bad I explicitly spend my time with leftists and liberals, despite not being one. >>63149 >you really do have a problem with naked bodies displayed on the internet You're saying this as if you have some win over me. I explicitly said: >However, I still wouldn't want a child to become familiar with seeing a naked body. The phrase "slippery slope" comes to mind (as does the phrase "fallacy fallacy".) >You act like I'm twisting your words Your twisting their words. Yes.

>>63176 >>63186 Honestly, I wonder how many here, as young teenage boys, were looking at the bra catalogue and purchasing wasn't on their mind.

>>63188 Or even a good encyclopedia or dictionary. >>63181 can't we agree that, while what you say is true, it is also reasonable to not want your kids 'hobby' to be online pornography and gore videos ?

>>63188 teenage boys will jerk off to literally any picture of an attractive person. That doesn't make it porn. Making certain parts of the body taboo only increases their association with sex. The reality is that practically any part of the body can be sexy, and the body as a whole can be sexy even if no specific part is shown. That's why arabs force their women to wear burqas and veils in public. Sexiness is context-dependent. Were nudity the norm, it would not be associated with sexuality.

>>63188 Back in the day, it was 100% of us until we could buy pron magazines. And even that wasn't quite as hard as the guro I started to watch when I discovered /b/. None of us considered buying it. No one. Why should we? >>63212 >Were nudity the norm, it would not be associated with sexuality. Naturalism create a trauma to kids and teenagers will associate anything with sexuality. I will not take a part of the world that normalize marring you first degree cousin as an example.

>>63248 >I will not take a part of the world that normalize marring you first degree cousin as an example. Fun fact: kids at 40 have higher risk than sibling incest at 18. The career first focus did on a population scale likely more damage than alabama.

>>63097 Something to consider: Your kid's friends will likely have parents who allow unrestricted access. Speaking anecdotally, my parents were fairly ahead on recognizing that there's stuff on the internet a kid should not see, and so my internet access was heavily monitored. I hated them for it at the time, but in retrospect I wish they would've done more. Thing is, they weren't very tech savvy and it didn't take long for me learn to go around their restrictions. My friend's parents also did not share the same idea, and so whenever I wanted to see something I knew I shouldn't I would just walk down the block to my friend's house. All of which is to say, talk to your kid's friend's parents and try to get them on board. Easier said than done of course, but the fact that you're even having this conversation puts you ahead of most parents these days.