[marden]

Fun Poll #4 Should Non-Techies Be Allowed To Become Parents?

When kids grow up around computers cell phones and other electronic devices they can learn all kinds of ways to use those devices to get into trouble. If parents don't have at least a competence in technology usage and an interest and awareness of the capabilities of technology the parents will not be able to monitor and manage the kids' upbringing.

This could result in the child or children falling victim to all kinds of problems and/or traps that could irrevocably harm the youngster, harm the parent(s) AND harm America & our society.

Some might say that non-tech parents can simply deny their kids any hi-tech toys and that would solve the problem. But that's not reasonable in this day and age. Computers and such are more than toys, they are tools. Denying a kid the tools of the 21st Century is to guarantee he will be at a competitive disadvantage in school placement or jobs and socially retard his growth. And America would also suffer from the lack of that child's future potential contributions.

So, if kids can't be denied access to tech devices and if a parent who can't understand and be interested in technology is irresponsible then the only sensible position is that non-techies or those who are not interested in technology or committed to staying abreast of technological advances and capabilities in order to guide and protect their kids, themselves, America and our society should not become parents.

[Chuckit]

We allow people with all sorts of strange ideas about raising children to have them. And it's not as though kids never got anything past their parents before technology came into play.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

We allow people with all sorts of strange ideas about raising children to have them. And it's not as though kids never got anything past their parents before technology came into play.

Computer mischief is not the same as toilet papering the neighbor's house at Halloween.

[Chuckit]

What is "computer mischief," and how so?

And even if the parents are technologically savvy, that doesn't necessarily mean they'll be more savvy than their child. My father was a computer science student back when computer science wasn't cool, but I feel pretty confident that I've had him beat in computer knowledge for quite a while.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

What is "computer mischief," and how so?

And even if the parents are technologically savvy, that doesn't necessarily mean they'll be more savvy than their child. My father was a computer science student back when computer science wasn't cool, but I feel pretty confident that I've had him beat in computer knowledge for quite a while.

Hacking, posting threats, stealing identities, falling for online come ons, posting inappropriate pix, buying things they shouldn't, becoming involved in inappropriate businesses, concocting scams, allowing spyware, etc. to affect the computer, posting personal info online, going places online that you shouldn't, becoming too nerdly, accidentally starting a thermonuclear war...

[Chuckit]

Most of those — stealing, bullying, looking at porn, getting in inappropriate relationships — aren't much different from things kids can do right under their parents noses without any help from technology.

[slpdLoad]

In general I think bad parenting is bad parenting, and no amount of cameras or vast knowledge of computers is going to change that. Computers or not, the kid is gonna have to be able to make choices for him or her self, and have a bit of a concious about it. Parenting doesn't have anything to do with technology, technology is just another part of life kids are exposed to. The general principles don't change whether or not we should let "techies" procreate.

Originally Posted by marden 

becoming too nerdly,

When did this become a bad thing?

P.S. Posted enough polls lately, marden?

[zro]

The solution posed by this poll is ludicrous.

A more appropriate question would be; Should technology ignorant parents be required to learn about the technology their children will or can use?

As enticing as the prospect of a "Child License" is, it is wholly immoral due to the fact that, like practically any governing, it is subject to the agendas of those defining it. That sort of control is one that mankind should not endeavor to suffer upon one another.

[Jawbone54]

What do you mean "allowed to be parents?"

[Dakar²]

You ask some bizarre questions.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Most of those — stealing, bullying, looking at porn, getting in inappropriate relationships — aren't much different from things kids can do right under their parents noses without any help from technology.

That's the point. When they do these things without benefit of a computer the parent has a chance of keeping up with the kid.

[marden]

Originally Posted by slpdLoad 

In general I think bad parenting is bad parenting, and no amount of cameras or vast knowledge of computers is going to change that. Computers or not, the kid is gonna have to be able to make choices for him or her self, and have a bit of a concious about it. Parenting doesn't have anything to do with technology, technology is just another part of life kids are exposed to. The general principles don't change whether or not we should let "techies" procreate.

Dear Readers, what do you think of the above statement?

Originally Posted by slpdLoad 

When did this become a bad thing?

P.S. Posted enough polls lately, marden?

It became a bad thing when the world of computers became an ALMOST satisfying real life surrogate in terms of user's perception. But the thing is that the average user of real life gets much more than he realizes out of real life at the time. And only later does he reach back and see that his experiences have provided him a treasure chest of tools that will serve him well all the rest of his days. But the nerdly person who hasn't the richness of real life experiences is only a facsimile of a real person. They lack depth and insight and are sorrowfully 2 dimensional.

And they don't know it.

Yes. I've posted enough polls for the moment. But that might change in 10 minutes.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

What do you mean "allowed to be parents?"

Every woman must pass a computer test sometime during pregnancy and she must give up the name of the baby's daddy and he must be tested.

If one or both can not pass the test(s) the baby would be aborted.

The liberals should have no problem with this idea.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

You ask some bizarre questions.

Thanks.

[TheoCryst]

Originally Posted by marden 

The liberals should have no problem with this idea.

Wow, I didn't even need to help. See you on page 5!

EDIT: Oh, and I voted other. Because... umm.....

...hey, is that a demonic duck of some sort? *bravely runs away*

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by marden 

Every woman must pass a computer test sometime during pregnancy and she must give up the name of the baby's daddy and he must be tested.

If one or both can not pass the test(s) the baby would be aborted.

The liberals should have no problem with this idea.

Something doesn't quite make sense here, and I think it's me posting in this thread.

[©öñFü$íóÑ]

I didn't read the entire thread yet, but I'll say this:

As long as a kid gets bored, there will always be problems. Give a bored kid a computer for homework or even just a few games, fine.

But give the kid the internet, UNSUPERVISED, you'll end up with even more problems. Don't think that monitoring software will do -ALL- the work for you, the parent. You just have to find a way to make the time to spend with your kids and teach them every now and then what's right and wrong.

To me, the internet is exactly like a trip -outside- the home. If you keep an eye on your children while outside the house, and especially in a dangerous part of town, then why not supervise them while they use the internet as well? In my opinion, the kid should only be using the internet for research and the occasional e-mail with classmates and relatives. If you can find a way to restrict your child's uses for the computer to just those, then I think you'll have less of a headache and the kid would find more constructive hobbies to do or something.

Teens......... now....... that's another story....... most are messed up to begin with anyway (teens usually just want to do whatever the hell they want, in real life or on the internet).....

[marden]

Originally Posted by ©öñFü$íóÑ 

I didn't read the entire thread yet, but I'll say this:

As long as a kid gets bored, there will always be problems. Give a bored kid a computer for homework or even just a few games, fine.

But give the kid the internet, UNSUPERVISED, you'll end up with even more problems. Don't think that monitoring software will do -ALL- the work for you, the parent. You just have to find a way to make the time to spend with your kids and teach them every now and then what's right and wrong.

To me, the internet is exactly like a trip -outside- the home. If you keep an eye on your children while outside the house, and especially in a dangerous part of town, then why not supervise them while they use the internet as well? In my opinion, the kid should only be using the internet for research and the occasional e-mail with classmates and relatives. If you can find a way to restrict your child's uses for the computer to just those, then I think you'll have less of a headache and the kid would find more constructive hobbies to do or something.

Teens......... now....... that's another story....... most are messed up to begin with anyway (teens usually just want to do whatever the hell they want, in real life or on the internet).....

Great post.

And as you say when the kids become teens then they will really walk all over the parents if they have internet access and really suffer if they DON'T have internet access.

[badidea]

Fun Post

If this would mean that internet forums would get rid of members who frequently change their username and post way too many stupid threads ("fun" polls which are the opposite of fun for example) then I would say "NO"!!! Great idea!!!

But since I don't believe that Nazi-like birthcontrol will help America to take over the world and I'm against birthcontrol anyway, I would say "YES"!

[marden]

Originally Posted by badidea 

Fun Post

If this would mean that internet forums would get rid of members who frequently change their username and post way too many stupid threads ("fun" polls which are the opposite of fun for example) then I would say "YES"!!! Great idea!!!

But since I don't believe that Nazi-like birthcontrol will help America to take over the world and I'm against birthcontrol anyway, I would say "NO"!

Fun post!

[Tiresias]

And I thought your last poll was dumb. This one takes the cake.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

And I thought your last poll was dumb. This one takes the cake.

The next one will take the pie.

[Tiresias]

I can't wait.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

I can't wait.

I have faith in you. I bet you can!

By the way, I believe you would have no problems in passing the tech competency reproduction test!

[Tuoder]

Originally Posted by marden 

Every woman must pass a computer test sometime during pregnancy and she must give up the name of the baby's daddy and he must be tested.

If one or both can not pass the test(s) the baby would be aborted.

The liberals should have no problem with this idea.

Why don't we just kill all people who are not tech savvy? Then we wouldn't have to kill any babies.

[badidea]

Originally Posted by Tuoder 

Why don't we just kill all people who are not tech savvy? Then we wouldn't have to kill any babies.

Great idea!

Then we can go on with killing all races except one (and all religious groups except one) - that way we can get rid of racism and religious wars!

Mardolf Darwin can make the next "fun" polls to choose the remaing race and religion!

[mac128k-1984]

Originally Posted by marden 

Every woman must pass a computer test sometime during pregnancy and she must give up the name of the baby's daddy and he must be tested.

If one or both can not pass the test(s) the baby would be aborted.

The liberals should have no problem with this idea.

I think living in a free country means that we are free to be parents and its actually quite asinine to try to enforce some sort of litmus test. I've seen some people who I shudder when I thought they'd be parents but once they had the baby I was amazed at how much they sacrificed and bent over backwards to be a parent. converserly I've seen some rather well off people who decided that throwing tons of toys and gadgets at them instead of spending time with their children. the bottome line nobody can really tell how a mother and father is going to be until the baby comes. True there are signs and indications but it is surprising at how so many people grow up quick when a baby arrives.

Also as a parent I think I can ask this, since you posted the poll are you a parent?

Finally let me finish with this; by your reckoning the Amish could not have kids as they decided to avoid technology in favor of preserving their particular way of life.

[talisker]

Having the computer in a public area of the house rather than shut away in their bedroom would seem to be a sensible move.

What the poll hasn't recognised is that, no matter how supposedly techy you are, by the time your child is ten they will know far more than you about the latest gadgets and technology, and you will be a sad out of touch old fart.

[invisibleX]

I don't understand this. You want only techies reproduce so that their kids will be less techy, but non techies can't have kids.

Arethe pitfalls of the internet any different from anything else? You watch over your child when you can, teach them how to avoid the traps and pitfalls, and at some point they start making their own decisions. You don't need to be technology savvy to do this.

Or, in terms marden can grasp: People first, America's interests second. If America might suffer for my child not being another Bill Gates then America is gonna have to take one for the team.

[Tuoder]

Okay, I was joking, is everyone else serious?

[mac128k-1984]

Originally Posted by Tuoder 

Okay, I was joking, is everyone else serious?

That type of joking is in rather poor taste.

[Tuoder]

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984 

That type of joking is in rather poor taste.

I'd be less worried about the ones who are joking, and more worried about the ones who are serious.

[badidea]

Originally Posted by Tuoder 

Okay, I was joking, is everyone else serious?

At least for me it was obvious!

I'd be less worried about the ones who are joking, and more worried about the ones who are serious.

[SirCastor]

This has been said, but reiteration is valuable. The "bad" things that happen online are a result of moral difference, not knowledge. Kids need to know right and wrong (and in many cases, a lot of that may differ from household to household, but that's not the topic). Kids need to be taught to make the right decisions in the first place. The technology to do that doesn't change much.

Before kids had cars, they did bad stuff
before kids had money, they did bad stuff
before kids had computers they did bad stuff.

These things are all just tools that kids can use for bad or good.

[marden]

Originally Posted by SirCastor 

This has been said, but reiteration is valuable. The "bad" things that happen online are a result of moral difference, not knowledge. Kids need to know right and wrong (and in many cases, a lot of that may differ from household to household, but that's not the topic). Kids need to be taught to make the right decisions in the first place. The technology to do that doesn't change much.

Before kids had cars, they did bad stuff
before kids had money, they did bad stuff
before kids had computers they did bad stuff.

These things are all just tools that kids can use for bad or good.

That is what I mean. If you give them a powerful tool like a computer with internet access they will STILL do bad. But the parents will have NO CLUE how to deal with it. Nor will they have any clue as to the fact that the kids are doing anything bad until or unless they are caught BY THE LAW!

And what about PORN?

At least without a computer the parents would get SOME kind of cues and clues. A sneaky little kid will cover up his mischief.

And what about the parent teaching the kid the right values?

Pfft!

Only a small % of them ever have before. So what makes anyone believe parents will just now start being smarter and more principled?

And what about temptation?

Without enforcement rules will NOT be obeyed.

[Chuckit]

It has ALWAYS been possible for children to get things by their parents. Technology did not suddenly make this possible.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

What do you mean "allowed to be parents?"

That's a little tough to legislate, with our current constitution, anyway. It is just a stupid piece of paper, though. Maybe it should be ripped up, so that the govt. can control every aspect of our normal lives. For everyone's safety, of course.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by marden 

Hacking, posting threats, stealing identities, falling for online come ons, posting inappropriate pix, buying things they shouldn't, becoming involved in inappropriate businesses, concocting scams, allowing spyware, etc. to affect the computer, posting personal info online, going places online that you shouldn't, becoming too nerdly, accidentally starting a thermonuclear war...

You're just having one of those "Young punks! Get off my lawn!" moments.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

It has ALWAYS been possible for children to get things by their parents. Technology did not suddenly make this possible.

Technology makes the possible consequences oh so much worse.

[marden]

Originally Posted by chris v 

That's a little tough to legislate, with our current constitution, anyway. It is just a stupid piece of paper, though. Maybe it should be ripped up, so that the govt. can control every aspect of our normal lives. For everyone's safety, of course.

Why do you think I came here? I figured you guys would help me out by thinking of how it could be accomplished.

[marden]

Originally Posted by chris v 

You're just having one of those "Young punks! Get off my lawn!" moments.

More like, "This nation is going to hell in a hand basket and what can be done before it's too late?!" moments.

[ghporter]

I think a lot of people should be barred from reproducing, but not just because they aren't tech savvy. A parent who is responsible is also involved, and can tell when a child is not behaving appropriately-which is often the case when they're doing something they know they're not supposed to. Involved parents are what we need, not the self-absorbed, "my child is a fabulous accessory" kind we seem to have an abundance of today. A little less "me first" and a lot more "the kid first" would go a long way. And even selfishness has its uses here: the kid is the one that's going to choose your nursing home...

[chris v]

Originally Posted by marden 

More like, "This nation is going to hell in a hand basket and what can be done before it's too late?!" moments.

Video cameras in every home, and laws against deviant activity, such as reading un-approved books, or not watching govt. approved news sources might be a good start. Travel outside of our home towns without permits should be restricted. Some way of more surely and swiftly idenifying any person, like a tatoo, or small chip with a new Citizen I.D# should be put in place by the Justice dept. immediately. From that we can proceed to society-wide dress-codes, a national bed time, and a new department that can choose our housing and place of employment for us. We'd all be in charge of reporting any suspicious actvity of course, with serious repercussions against those who didn't report suspicious activity on a regular basis. All for our safety, of course.

[marden]

Originally Posted by chris v 

Video cameras in every home, and laws against deviant activity, such as reading un-approved books, or not watching govt. approved news sources might be a good start. Travel outside of our home towns without permits should be restricted. Some way of more surely and swiftly idenifying any person, like a tatoo, or small chip with a new Citizen I.D# should be put in place by the Justice dept. immediately. From that we can proceed to society-wide dress-codes, a national bed time, and a new department that can choose our housing and place of employment for us. We'd all be in charge of reporting any suspicious actvity of course, with serious repercussions against those who didn't report suspicious activity on a regular basis. All for our safety, of course.

Don't be silly.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by marden 

Don't be silly.

Back atcha, with your "we need to regulate against non-technical-savvy people having children" nonsense. Such a notion should be anathema to a supposedly free society, like the one we're purported to have. One thing that gets me (sorry this is straying into pol/war territory) with the current crop of neo-conservatives is this strong authoritarian tendency. I thought conservatives were all about freedom & personal responsibility. I just don't get the shift. Suddenly, the conservatives have gone all "nanny" on us.

The last thing in the world that I would want is someone making up arbitrary rules about who can & can't have children, based upon whether they own a certain technological device or not. The rules would shift every time there was an election. What would be the minimum CPU & RAM requirement for someone to be sufficiently technologically advanced? What if Microsoft bankrolled an anti-Apple slate of candidates, and suddenly only Window's users could legally bear children? What would you do with the kids that were born to people not meeting the requirements, or would you forcibly sterilize them, or forcibly abort them? The whole notion is wrong-headed and un-American.

Sorry to be so harsh up here in the not-pol/war lounge, but really, get the hell out of my bedroom, Abe.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by marden 

Every woman must pass a computer test sometime during pregnancy and she must give up the name of the baby's daddy and he must be tested.

If one or both can not pass the test(s) the baby would be aborted.

The liberals should have no problem with this idea.

(missed this the first time around)

Oh, for the love of Jesus. Welcome to my ignore list, (goddam it's hard not to call you a ****-for-brains, right here) you moron.

[marden]

Originally Posted by chris v 

Back atcha, with your "we need to regulate against non-technical-savvy people having children" nonsense. Such a notion should be anathema to a supposedly free society, like the one we're purported to have. One thing that gets me (sorry this is straying into pol/war territory) with the current crop of neo-conservatives is this strong authoritarian tendency. I thought conservatives were all about freedom & personal responsibility. I just don't get the shift. Suddenly, the conservatives have gone all "nanny" on us.

The last thing in the world that I would want is someone making up arbitrary rules about who can & can't have children, based upon whether they own a certain technological device or not. The rules would shift every time there was an election. What would be the minimum CPU & RAM requirement for someone to be sufficiently technologically advanced? What if Microsoft bankrolled an anti-Apple slate of candidates, and suddenly only Window's users could legally bear children? What would you do with the kids that were born to people not meeting the requirements, or would you forcibly sterilize them, or forcibly abort them? The whole notion is wrong-headed and un-American.

Sorry to be so harsh up here in the not-pol/war lounge, but really, get the hell out of my bedroom, Abe.

I'm sorry but only you can do that.

Signed,

MARDEN

[marden]

Originally Posted by chris v 

(missed this the first time around)

Oh, for the love of Jesus. Welcome to my ignore list, (goddam it's hard not to call you a ****-for-brains, right here) you moron.

Yet, in a textbook demonstration of the perfect liberal post you did the following:

- Twice used the name of our Savior in vain. (It may not mean as much to you as it does to others that the Bible says we should not use the Lord's name in vain. Maybe that's why you do it. Because you KNOW it means something to other people. But obviously not to you. Do you call yourself a Christian???)

- Assume that your putting me on your ignore list means anything to anyone but you. (The essence of the liberal's attitude. 'What matters is what I think!')

- Put on a HEROIC DISPLAY of self control. (But owing to the supposed outrageousness of my provocation you were unable to contain yourself.)

- Called me a name which was caught by the naughty word filter.

- Called me a name which was not caught by a filter. (Which shows that liberals are sneaky, manipulative and unable to control their emotions.)

Originally Posted by chris v 

(goddam it's hard not to call you a ****-for-brains, right here) you moron.

Reported...











In the spirit of forgiveness on this day of Thanksgiving I will not report you, this time. I hope you give thanks for my forgiveness of your transgression.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by marden 

YIn the spirit of forgiveness on this day of Thanksgiving I will not report you, this time. I hope you give thanks for my forgiveness of your transgression.

That's sweet of you, snookums.

I know I shouldn't take the bait of your obvious provocations, and that more than likely, you will not respond substantively to the actual counterpoints in my posts, such as why you think we need this sort of authoritarianism in this great nation of ours, but yet somehow, I still get sucked in. My bad.

No, I don't call myself a Christian. No offense intended to those who do -- it's a common expression that I've heard self-professed Christians use, including my dear, sweet, departed grandmother. For someone who likes to provoke, you seem a bit quick to take offense at any percieved slight, merely for the rhetorical upper-hand, and it's cheap, Abe. Why not debate the substance of the discussion?

[marden]

Originally Posted by chris v 

That's sweet of you, snookums.

I know I shouldn't take the bait of your obvious provocations, and that more than likely, you will not respond substantively to the actual counterpoints in my posts, such as why you think we need this sort of authoritarianism in this great nation of ours, but yet somehow, I still get sucked in. My bad.

No, I don't call myself a Christian. No offense intended to those who do -- it's a common expression that I've heard self-professed Christians use, including my dear, sweet, departed grandmother. For someone who likes to provoke, you seem a bit quick to take offense at any percieved slight, merely for the rhetorical upper-hand, and it's cheap, Abe. Why not debate the substance of the discussion?

Well, you can call me Mar. Or you can call me Mard-e. Or you can call me "m." And you can even call me "M-N."

But ya doesn't hasta call me Abe.

Ray J. Johnson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Biography for Bill Saluga