On Saturday 19 July 2008, Leo Mauler wrote:
--- On Wed, 7/16/08, Luke -Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote:
On Wednesday 16 July 2008, Oren Beck wrote:
Consider how YOU would write a RFC draft to sever adult from non-adult content !
- Please don't refer to immoral images as "adult"; there are still some
decent adults left, no matter how many damn themselves with this crud.
And to top it all off, why is a photograph of a nude woman "pornography" while a painting of a nude woman is "art"? This distinction has allowed people to get away with all kinds of stuff in the Pornographic Painting Industry. Sculpture too, as you can even see "David's" tallywhacker on half a dozen websites, entirely for free.
It seems you need to review the difference between nudity and porn...
Main Entry: por·nog·ra·phy 1 : the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement 2 : material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement
Main Entry: nude 2 a: devoid of a natural or conventional covering; especially : not covered by clothing or a drape b (1): of the color of a white person's flesh (2): giving the appearance of nudity <a nude dress>
Immoral images can be adult, its just in how you present them.
Immoral images are inherently abusive and not appropriate for any audience.
- Standards on how to say "I am porn!" never work because the porn
industry does not want filters blocking access to them. Not only do they *want* children and others to get addicted, they certainly aren't going to participate in something any ISP blocks off entirely without user consent.
Porn filters never work because of the sheer collective lust drive of teenage boys. There could be 100% acceptance of a porn filter and teenage boys would still get access to porn.
Not if they don't know it exists. Your claim depends on incompetent parents.