Soxy

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 26, 2006 -> 01:21 PM) It seemed that Rush was stating that by Fox not taking his meds, Fox's actions were exaggerated. Not regardless of his medications, he would not exhibit these symptoms. Sorry for the detour. But he WAS taking the meds, and when he says he's exaggerating the symptoms of the disease, I don't see that as related to the meds issue either. Wait, did I just waste 10 seconds of my life on Rush Limbaugh. DAMMIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Saw this on the JetBlue website. Should be nice to have such a cheap option. Hopefully they'll increase the places they fly to (now just NYC and one city in Cali). Very exciting, though!

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Oct 26, 2006 -> 11:54 AM) How about Andrea Dworkin and Catharine A. MacKinnon? I understand that you probably have never met them, but they fit that radical part quite nicely. We should send these two over to the mid east to kick some Muslim butt! Well, one of them is dead, so. . . And Catharine MacKinnon is considered a real outlier in the feminist movement mostly because of her VERY strong anti-pornography stance. Other than that I'm not aware that she is so radical. . .ETA: I believe that b**** has also represented some of women victims from some of the Eastern European genocides.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 26, 2006 -> 11:21 AM) The week before with cartman as Dog the Bounty Hunter combined with Ike sleeping with the Kindergarden teacher was a great episode. Instant classic IMO. That one was funny, but I've never seen Dog the Bounty Hunter, so a little went over my head. I almost peed laughing when Stan is trying to report it to the police, but they keep saying, "Niiiiiiiice." Perfect spot on satire. This week with Butters and Biggie and the My Super Sweet Sixteen, was just hilarious--I hadn't laughed that hard in a long time.

So, I thought South Park was hilarious last night. But Satan, the Acura is a very nice car!

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Oct 26, 2006 -> 10:44 AM) Wanting women to have equal treatment under the law is common sense. The radical feminist agenda is nothing even remotely related to that. Well then, I've not met any radical feminists.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Oct 26, 2006 -> 10:39 AM) Ive heard some pretty asinine things come from you but that just tops the cake. Go find me one post where I advocate women being treated as second class citizens. Go find me one post where I state women shouldn't have the right to vote. Go find me one post where I advocate husbands beating their wives. Go find me one post where I say that you need 5 witnesses to prove rape. I wont hold my breath. It'll be a lot easier, though, for you to find posts written by me where I bemoan how awful women are treated in the Islamic world. Just because I dont agree with the radical feminist agenda I must be one of the mullah's huh? What the f*** ever. Go to the store and buy yourself a f***ing clue. Nuke believes women should have equal rights (under the law) as men. So, Nuke, how does that NOT make you a feminist again? You may deny the label, but you fit the description.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Oct 26, 2006 -> 10:24 AM) From Link 1: There's actually 2 study's that were involved in these articles. Did they include details? No. Seems to me that you're reduced to quibbling about details now ( I suspect you'd want a list of names and telephone numbers of everybody involved in this research before you'd accept it ). By arguing here and trying to discredit what Ive posted, you are just making the argument that porn isin't really that bad for kids. This whole thread was about the ACLU suing to break down protections keeping children from online porn. Your argument is that parents should be solely responsible for what their kids view online but in spite of that there is overwhelming evidence noted in about a dozen posts in this thread that kids are still accessing it in ever increasing numbers. Your claim that I asked for support was that kids who view porn are more likely to get STD's, pregnant and engage in sex earlier. NONE of your sources support that claim, in fact none of your empirical studies even ADDRESS that claim. Here's my question: what if the porn seeking behavior is actually the SYMPTOM of a problem. That is, a kid has an unhealthy attitude about sex, women and relationships. So, instead of focusing on healthy relationships, the kid searches for porn. Whether or not he finds the porn he still has an unhealthy view of relationships and sex. So, what has not been demonstrated (by you or any research) is whether porn is the cause of these problems or if people with these problems SEEK out pornography. I believe this is also alluded to in the references I posted. So far, there isn't a way to establish the directionality of the relationship; consequently, causal claims cannot conclusively be made on this topic. Also, one of the sources I posted (from an actual peer reviewed journal--I provided you with a full citation so that you could find it if you wanted--which is, by the way, the proper way to give sources and support your claims) says that the 9 out of 10 study is a huge overestimation. If you are so worried about your kid accessing porn on the internet, don't sign the slip that lets them go online at school or the library. Then you can tightly monitor their behavior. But to be honest, I think an honest conversation with your children about sexuality (and how it's not healthily depicted in most pornography) is really the best way to stop children from viewing porn as "real sex." And, thus, decrease their appetite for it. And if your kid still engages in seeking pornographic images, then take the next step (no internet, counseling, volunteer at a crisis center or std clinic), but this isn't a place where the government belongs.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 06:21 PM) You've been provided with a study, presented to the U.S. Senate no less, that says that exposing children to pornography has negative effects on their development, including the effects you deny exist. ( even though these effects should be patently obvious to anyone when you take into account how impressionable children are ). You choose to disavow it. You have been presented with facts and stats that say that children are viewing pornography online in increasing numbers, in spite of parent's best efforts to rein that sort of thing in. You choose to disavow it. You say you require stats proving that it is so, yet even in the absence of said statistics ( I can't find a study that is that focused ) there is hard evidence that pornography negatively affects a childs development and they have easier and easier access to it. It is certainly logical to draw the conclusion that I originally have drawn but you can't seem to draw that correlation. So from the history of this thread it is safe to say that you don't believe that pornography has negative effects on children. Now, in your last sentence you are saying that children viewing pornography is an issue and needs to be dealt with. Which is it? It wasn't a study. Read that page. Tell me: what was the methodology? What was the sample size? What were the actual results? IT WASN'T A STUDY. There was not even a real (peer reviewed journal) source for her claim. So, no, it wasn't a study. It was what one person said to the senate without any hard facts or studies to back it up. So, no you didn't give any evidence. And I said that pornography and children's internet usage should be dealt with by FAMILIES. Which is what I've been saying this entire time. This is not a government issue.

Nuke, this study kind of addresses your point, but with relatively different hypotheses and conclusions. Interesting peer reviewed article on the topic. Just found it. If anyone would like to read the entire article, drop me a pm with your e-mail and I can send you a pdf. Estimates suggest that up to 90% or more youth between 12 and 18 years have access to the Internet. Concern has been raised that this increased accessibility may lead to a rise in pornography seeking among children and adolescents, with potentially serious ramifications for child and adolescent sexual development. Using data from the Youth Internet Safety Survey, a nationally representative, cross-sectional telephone survey of 1501 children and adolescents (ages 10-17 years), characteristics associated with self-reported pornography seeking behavior, both on the Internet and using traditional methods (e.g., magazines), are identified. Seekers of pornography, both online and offline, are significantly more likely to be male, with only 5% of self-identified seekers being female. The vast majority (87%) of youth who report looking for sexual images online are 14 years of age or older, when it is developmentally appropriate to be sexually curious. Children under the age of 14 who have intentionally looked at pornography are more likely to report traditional exposures, such as magazines or movies. Concerns about a large group of young children exposing themselves to pornography on the Internet may be overstated. Those who report intentional exposure to pornography, irrespective of source, are significantly more likely to cross-sectionally report delinquent behavior and substance use in the previous year. Further, online seekers versus offline seekers are more likely to report clinical features associated with depression and lower levels of emotional bonding with their caregiver. Results of the current investigation raise important questions for further inquiry. Findings from these cross-sectional data provide justification for longitudinal studies aimed at parsing out temporal sequencing of psychosocial experiences. Ybarra, M., & Mitchell, K. (2005) Exposure to Internet pornography among children and adolescents: A national survey. CyberPsychology & Behavior. 8, 473-486. ETA: Ongoing concern about effects of sexually explicit materials includes the role of such material in sex offenses. Issues include sex offenders' experiences with pornography and the link between pornography and sex crime rates. Review of the literature shows that sex offenders typically do not have earlier or more unusual exposure to pornography in childhood or adolescence, compared to nonoffenders. However, a minority of offenders report current use of pornography in their offenses. Rape rates are not consistently associated with pornography circulation, and the relationships found are ambiguous. Findings are consistent with a social learning view of pornography, but not with the view that sexually explicit materials in general contribute directly to sex crimes. The effort to reduce sex offenses should focus on types of experiences and backgrounds applicable to a larger number of offenders. Bauserman, R. (1996). Sexual aggression and pornography: A review of correlational research. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 18, 405-427 QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 05:44 PM) So you've gone from "oh its not really a problem" to "well it's a problem but you can't prove how much of a problem". We know the effects that this stuff has on kids, we know that kids are getting access to porn online in ever increasing numbers and yet you persist in your viewpoint that this is not a pressing issue. No, I'm still waiting to see evidence from a peer reviewed journal, or at least evidence that actually has a real SOURCE. You have not yet provided any sort of statistics about increased likelyhood of getting pregnant or an STD. You have one source that says (without any citations or referenes for the fact) that says that there are documented instances of kids looking at porn having sex earlier and getting more stds. I don't think it's unreasonable to be skeptical of the your document because it provides no empirical evidence or, well, any outside evidence I'm not saying this is NOT a pressing issue. I'm saying this is an issue that should be dealt with by families (and I don't mean Uncle Sam).

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 05:33 PM) From the second link. From my post: And the one section where they talk about kids viewing porn they just say these things are DOCUMENTED. Of course it's been documented, but that statement is USELESS without a qualification of prevelence. So readers have no idea if they're talking about the majority of kids who see porn or if just a tiny subset of those kids. And I don't see where the author got those statistics (that section isn't linked to any empirical or peer reviewed article). Yes it has been documented, but Nuke, they don't tell you the frequency or prevelence. It's also been documented that a Republican Congressmen sent dirty e-mails to kids. Does that mean that the majority of congressmen do it? Or that a statistically insignificant number of congressmen do it? Without that kind of a qualification (and I would argue actual sources supporting this) it's a useless statement.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 05:18 PM) Took me a little while Soxy but here you go. http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed120605a.cfm http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/tst111405a.cfm This study, who's findings were presented to the Senate Judiciary Committee last year, documents the negative impact that not only direct viewing by children of porn. To compound the problem, this study here, taken by the Center for Missing and Exploited Children........ http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/FSCView.asp?coid=699 ........found the following. I also enjoyed the irony of locating these stats on a site dedicated to anti-censorship causes. First, a lot of the second link you provide talks about the negative impact ADULT usage of pornography has on children. So, does that mean PARENTS shouldn't be allowed to view porn? Basically, the heritage websites seem to be anti-porn period. And the one section where they talk about kids viewing porn they just say these things are DOCUMENTED. Of course it's been documented, but that statement is USELESS without a qualification of prevelence. So readers have no idea if they're talking about the majority of kids who see porn or if just a tiny subset of those kids. And I don't see where the author got those statistics (that section isn't linked to any empirical or peer reviewed article). Personally, I think porn is like alcohol. Yes it's a vice. It's not for everyone. But in moderate doses can it cause problems? I doubt it. If you're on the net every night playing the skin flute to porn then, yes, that is obviously going to negatively impact your family. ETA: It's also definitely not for underage people. QUOTE(Steff @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 05:16 PM) I wish they had to at the Plainfield one. Every time I go in there the group of boys at the terminals is a dead giveaway as to what they are doing. We also have a mini community center next to the fire house and they have access in there with no supervision that I've ever seen. Honestly, you should bring that up at a library board meeting (or to someone on the board). You pay for their services, so give them your feedback.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 05:11 PM) Schools and the Library. Don't parents have to sign off on usage of the internet there? I know mine did in high school and at the library while I was under age.

I don't understand why parents can't just password protect internet access at home. Internet usage is a privilege not a right, so if a kid abuses the privilege TAKE IT AWAY. I am absolutely baffled why the government needs to be at all involved in this.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 04:30 PM) Once again. Sarcasm is a poor substitute for a reasoned argument. But that's to be expected from some. I'd still like to see some statistical or empirical support for your "reasoned" argument. QUOTE(Steff @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 04:39 PM) Thanks to computers everywhere accessible to anyone it's way easier to control a child's diet than to control what they view on the internet. Sad. I agree re the credibility. Though I can only speak for me and my childhood.. I didn't have half the exposure to the things "kids" today do and like I said above sex was unheard of in my social circle at the age it is now. I'm not convinced that sexual behavior is really as out of control as it is portrayed in the media. I look back at my friends and how sexually active we were (or really weren't) when we entered college (6 years ago), and I think that the hyperpromiscuous teen is still in the minority.

QUOTE(Steff @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 04:30 PM) Hey Soxy, not sure if you would call this reputable cause it's not a major health mag or hospital linked study. But some of the figures are down right frightening. And it actually makes arguments for both sides being duiscussed here. http://www.focusas.com/SexualBehavior.html That's an interesting link, but how do we know that the music/tv/culture/etc is what's making kids violent or sexually active? Could it be that kids who are interested in that stuff are just DRAWN to those types of media? It's an interesting article, but it doesn't have any real scientific or research credibility--which is what people need to make claims like, oh, it's the fault of porn or music that's ruining society.

QUOTE(greasywheels121 @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 03:59 PM) Yep, Comedy Central from 7-8 PM ET and WGN from 11:30-12:30 AM ET. It's also on the local Fox here. I was ill that weekend when Comedy Central had the Scrubs marathon--I'd never really liked the show before, maybe it was just the fever, but I actually enjoy it. Pretty funny show. Although evertime I see Turk I remember him with braces in Clueless.

Consequently, I will not make a Jersey joke for 5 days. I will not even joke about my lab partner's Jersey Hair.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 04:11 PM) A known cause of heart disease when it's consumed in too great quantities and not balanced with exercise. The other one tends to encourage kids to experiment with sex at too young an age leading to teen pregnancy and STDs. Which one is worse again? I'm calling bs on that. I need to see some stats (from a reputable journal) linking porn and teen pregnancy, STDs, and age of first sexual encounter. I don't buy that argument AT ALL and I would like to see some scientific support for your claim.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 12:45 PM) LOL f.o.r.d = fix or repair daily. I always thought it was Found On Road Dead

Sniff. My second car was a Taurus and I loved it very much. And now, a moment of silence for the Taurus. Any thoughts on if this has a broader significance for the American automakers?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 12:09 PM) They have a ton of them, most of them are new under our shiney new Strategic Plan, of course which the school board almost didn't approve... They have all kinds of intervention, remediation, and alternative programs, including stuff working with local hospitals and couseling providers. Funding has been the biggest problem in keeping many of these programs going on. If they don't already have TRiO (it's a federally funded program that mentors kids from young ages (elementary) all way up to getting into graduate school. Like I said, I don't know if MC has any of the TRiO program, but I have a friend that works on it up in Minnesota and it seems successful. In case you're interested here's the link.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 11:47 AM) Even worse than our SpeEd rates are our poverty rates. System wide it is something like 58%, 9-12 it is 43%. The middle school my wife teachers at is 70%. She has a kid in her class right now who has started downhill in her behavior, whom she is trying to "save". This kid has never had ANYONE in her entire family who has EVER graduated high school. The kid expects to be a dropout and on welfare, self-admittedly. She knows nothing else, and doesn't even understand that there are other possibilies. Its a rough system and needs a TON of help. That's just depressing. Do the schools have an outside mentoring programs? Like the TRiO program? I remember when I was at St. Olaf that they had some success working with kids from the Twin Cities.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 08:20 AM) For our district imparticular, is going to be really bad, because there is also no distinction made for learning disabled/special education students. They also must graduate in 4 years meeting all Indiana/federal standards, no exceptions, or they count as "not gradutated." EDIT-I left out that the MCAS special ed rate is 20%, which is the highest in the state as of last year. Wow, that's huge--so the 20% rate, does that mean that 1 our of 5 kids in MC schools are in the special ed program? That's going to be an enormous problem for those graduation rate. I'm not sure how it work in IN, but aren't special ed kids allowed to be in school until 20 or 21? So, to keep these graduation rates intact some of those kids couldn't be moved up until they are 16 or 17? Lawmakers seem to be so out of touch with the needs of special populations (or at least special populations with no money). I think the minimum age bump up is really good though. I saw an episode of Oprah (I know, I know) and I seem to remember them focusing pretty hard on IN about a higher drop out rate, though, admittedly, I don't remember what part of IN that was.

Support a balanced budget amendment. Strong on science: support stem cell research, increase funding to our national science foundations (NIH, NSF, NIMH), research and advocate the use of alternative energy sources (wind turbines, solar power) Strong on education: Repeal No Child Left Behind, increase funding for education (particularly math, science, and foreign language) National Health care (or some way to fix the current uninsured crisis in this country) Pro-choice and pro-sex education (like LCR I think that education is the best way to bring down the need for abortion) Supports environmental causes (clean air/water, Kyoto, no ANWAR drilling, tougher emmissions standards, just a beginning of a list here) Against a "protection of marriage amendment" and the flag burning amendment And I really like NSS72's quoting Roosevelt (I think) of "walk softly and carry a big stick." But I guess I'd add, walk softly with others while carrying that big stick.