The latest Essential Research survey has Labor’s lead at 58-42 for the third successive week. Also included are leadership approval ratings (Kevin Rudd predictably little changed on a fortnight ago; Tony Abbott with mediocre ratings, which is much better than Turnbull had been doing); Copenhagen (important, but unlikely to reach agreement); and “Christmas spending”. We’ve also had a 400-sample of Western Australian voters from Westpoll (see right) which has federal Labor’s lead in the state at 53-47 (compared with 53-47 against in 2007). The West Australian takes this to mean Abbott “has largely proved a turn-off for WA voters”, but it might equally be to do with Westpoll’s low-sample volatility, which has seen the score go from 55-45 in February to 50-50 in May to 53-47 in December.
Diogenes
[That of course means more children will watch porn on the net as their parents think Conroy has fixed the problem.]
This result arises directly from the relentless behaviour of the unsalvageable inner party faithful on any and every political issue. They work backwards. Once there is a party position then the onus is on any critic to prove their opposition to it.
It is instructive to me that not one poster has today addressed the questions I posed this morning: How does the Conroy proposal meet its intended aim; and how do they answer the experts’ opinion that it is a crock? The answer is …. **
[Very Whacky – according to St Bob Parents are incapable of caving in to their kids re Junk food so the Govt must ban same, yet re the Interwebs it is the Parent’s Job.]
That should be that Parents are incapable of resisting to the demands of their kids to purchase Junk Food.
z
You have done nothing. I strongly disagree with your arguments which I think are totally illogical.
My post accurately reflects the logical outcome of your argument. You are in favour of giving parents a false sense of security about their kids accessing porn on the internet by your own admission.
To try and spin that as a good outcome beggars belief.
Centre
Love the TAG,will mention it at the next coven.
But like wow,do you realise that the filter issue has many levels and issue,among which PORN is but one.
The issue relates to a lofty concept
SOVEREIGNTY
Once you comprehend that,we may be able to argue on a level playing field.
Other than that,it is like pissing on ants,fun but ultimately futile.
Continue the red herrings and personal abuse if it floats your goat,but please at least inform yourself.
Then at least you wont get wet
HTH
[Still, he didn’t get jeered like Penny.]
Diog
wRONg again 😛
[WWF_Climate RT @tcktcktck NGO crowd does mild boo of Obama speech to #COP15. Nothing new, nothing ambitious. Back to work now.
19 minutes ago from PeopleBrowsr]
Finns
I’m off to see Wang Wang and Funi with the kids tomorrow. I plan to quiz Wang Wang about the pronunciation of his name and I won’t be putting up with any of this “there are 20 characters in Mandarin for Wang” rubbish. I’m going to be expecting some straight answers.
vera
I watched it. I didn’t hear any booing. I thought most just fell asleep.
Diog
It was a “mild” boo, but a boo’s a boo so there! 😛
Hey, Dio.
Did you read the David Penberthy article in the Advertiser today?
Rich material, to be mined at little carbon emission cost.
It is clear now a 3 pages broad Agreement will be done at Copenhagen covering:
1. Emission targets to stabilise at 2 degree
2. Finance for the developing countries
3. Monitoring & Accountability
It looks like any other business plan. I can almost write it for them.
vera
What bit didn’t they like? I thought he just waffled. Perhaps they booed at what wasn’t said.
[I’m off to see Wang Wang and Funi with the kids tomorrow.]
Diog, you will hear nothing but booo-boooo-booooo from WW and FN. I have SMSed them with the instruction 😛
Diog
You need to ask WWF_Climate RT @tcktcktck. It was their tweet.
[My post accurately reflects the logical outcome of your argument. You are in favour of giving parents a false sense of security about their kids accessing porn on the internet by your own admission.]
It is not a logical outcome of my argument.
I repeat: at present, many parents have a (mistaken) perception that the internet is a dangerous place for their children. I disagree with that, and so (apparently) do most of the anti filter mob. If a filter creates the impression that it is safe for their children to go on the net, that is a good result.
If you are trying to say that a necessary outcome of children going on the net without constant parental vigilance is that they will inevitably encounter porn, then surely that is an argument for the filter.
I will put up with personal abuse, ridicule, whatever: not with deliberate distortion of my arguments.
You obviously are feeling personally antagonistic to me for some reason. There are multiple posts questioning the anti filter stance here. Mine appear to be the only ones you have deliberately and repeatedly distorted.
I find your attitude personally offensive. There are multiple ways of attacking the argument you think I was making without the insinuations you have made.
I repeat: I am neither pro or anti the filter. It is irrelevant to me. I will definitely be anti if it considerably slows down the net or if it excludes educational material on subjects like euthanasia, safe sex etc.
I have attacked some of the anti filter arguments, most of which – like your responses to me – seem driven by emotion more than reason.
However, the reactions to my posts and the refusal to accept that I’m asking genuine questions, makes me think that the anti filterers themselves don’t have a coherent position.
As has been previously pointed out, the argument at present seems to be that the filter will spoil the internet for adults but make porn freely available to children – an argument which is inherently contradictory.
Your linking of ‘children being allowed to access the net’ with ‘children accessing porn’ seems to be of that ilk.
Gus why don’t you scroll back to earler in the thread to a post that provides a link to Google SLAMMING the proposed filter and see if you and other con(servative) filter proponents might learn something.
Personal abuse??? What telling Frank to take off his rose coloured after he directed a post at me with effing in it!!! 😆
z
[If you are trying to say that a necessary outcome of children going on the net without constant parental vigilance is that they will inevitably encounter porn, then surely that is an argument for the filter.]
You seem to be incapable of understanding that 99% of porn will not be filtered out by Conroy.
It is not a distortion of your argument. It is a logical conclusion.
Centre
so your religious nutter tag aint abuse
Sheesh dude!
re frank
all i can say is a good effing helps
sometimes
😉
BTW Centre dont even dare try the conservative shite,we go back too far for that childish talk
Well, on the net filter, you are aligned with the religious nutters Gus. Is that too difficult to understand or accept?
[If a filter creates the impression that it is safe for their children to go on the net, that is a good result.]
No it’s not.
1. It’s a false impression.
2. The internet can be dangerous.
3. Why spend $130M just to create an “impression”?
4. The parents can pay $20 and put on a Net Nanny program if they want to feel their children are safer and it would actually do something.
[Personal abuse??? What telling Frank to take off his rose coloured after he directed a post at me with effing in it!!! :lol:]
The Effing was in utter frustration of having to repeat myself over and over again.
Centre
the use of the religious nutters is weak and venal.
If you wish to debate the law and application thereof to the webby, great
if you wish to discuss the sovereignty of the internet via vis oz, great
But,if you care to read the report,PORN is peripheral to what the filter is and ultimately accomplishes.
If you cannot see that,then we have reached an impasse.
ps I’ll still respect you in the morning
😉
zoomster
[If a filter creates the impression that it is safe for their children to go on the net, that is a good result.]
That is the opposite of my point yesterday. Surely the best approach is to use an educative model. That comes from parents with some input from school.
But in the absence of any identified new problem with the use of the web on computers, I wonder why we are here discussing a proposed tightening of censorship laws, with penalties.
No-one has actually defined a problem. No-one has actually defined a remedy (not surprising given the previous point)
Given that, on the expert opinion, the filter proposal cannot even start to control the internet within any national borders (again see China), then for the government to say to the average Joe/lene that all is under control is going to create false sense of security in the less informed parent body, is it not?
No-one will answer my questions – has the party completely taken over? 🙁
It feels different being on the same side as the Greens against the Labor Hackery for a change 😆
[Well, on the net filter, you are aligned with the religious nutters Gus. Is that too difficult to understand or accept?]
And do also include the hundreds of thousands of parents and other community members who do not frequent blogs and other online forujms where the noisy Freedom Fighters are congregating ??
[(again see China)]
Ahh that hoary old chestnut – the UK and Sweden and other European Countries which have similar filters to Conroy proposing haven’t jailed anybody for complaining about their Govts yet.
Diog
[2. The internet can be dangerous.]
This is the problem with trying to understand this argument. Firstly, people (not you, I admit) keep saying that the internet isn’t dangerous, that it’s very very difficult to access porn accidentally and not even that easy to access it deliberately.
But apparently once a filter is installed, it becomes almost inevitable that your child will access porn.
It’s got me all muddled.
So: is porn easy to access at present or not? Will a filter make it easier, less easier or the same? If the latter, then there is no more danger now in junior being on the net than there will be if a filter is installed.
[3. Why spend $130M just to create an “impression”?]
Why build a fort at Queenscliff to keep out the Russians? Why have a big Australian Defence Force? Why do pollies drive around in limousines? Why do women spend a fortune on clothes and make up?
Impressions are very important.
[4. The parents can pay $20 and put on a Net Nanny program if they want to feel their children are safer and it would actually do something.]
Except your average parent is going to wrestle with the program for a few minutes, run their fingers through their hair and then ask junior to install the blasted thing.
It’s what would happen in our house.
Anyway, thanks, Diogs.
Centre
To You
The TAB etc wont be affected
99% of ahem adult sites wont be affected’
For Australia
Benefit to miltary,police other intel -incalculble
ability to deter and stop cyber attacks-increased
better trails for prosecution-unimaginable data logging
control over and monitoring of phishing sites-including real-time monitoring and blocking
detection of foreign/organised crime/paedophle rings enhanced-stealth and mirror site capabilty detectable.
once you get an idea that this aint just some anti whacking filter ,you may just want to revise your opine
HTH
(again)
Centre
it’s actually quite entertaining on this side. Here am I, don’t give a flying rats about the filter, and yet I’m getting lots of good intellectual exercise.
You should be able to argue all sides of a question, and it’s nice to go all contrary occasionally!
[ 4. The parents can pay $20 and put on a Net Nanny program if they want to feel their children are safer and it would actually do something.
Except your average parent is going to wrestle with the program for a few minutes, run their fingers through their hair and then ask junior to install the blasted thing.]
And Junior will then find a way of disabling said program so he can then go on nefarious ways.
[It feels different being on the same side as the Greens against the Labor Hackery for a change]
Go, Centre! But it’s better without any party at all. First get your friends around for a big party, and later in the night, after putting on Pink Floyd’s “Another Brick In The Wall”, take off all your clothes, screw th!em into a ball and throw them into the corner singing, “I don’t need no party education” 🙂
It works every time
And speaking of Computer illiterate parents, I’ve heard a real doozy of a solution from the Freedom Fighters – Install Linux – – your average parent has problems with Windows XP – and you expect Linux to be easier for them ??
Frank:
[the UK and Sweden and other European Countries which have similar filters to Conroy proposing]
Do you have a link to verify this please?
[Do you have a link to verify this please?]
It’s in Conroy’s Media Release.
zoom, it goes to show that no two people can always agree and feel the same way about each and every issue.
[It’s in Conroy’s Media Release.]
And in the reports of the Trial
Sorry, where do I find Conroy’s media release?
Frank
its the effing media release remember
😉
[the UK and Sweden and other European Countries which have similar filters to Conroy proposing]
I didn’t think they were mandatory, which if correct represents a significant difference.
New thread.