Wow. A straw man fallacy, red herring and ad hominem in the same reply… haven’t seen that one before. And yes, I do need a therapist. I’m autistic, and was emotionally abused by my mother. I’m sorry if you don’t " believe in" emotional abuse.
My background aside, I am perfectly capable of holding a logical, civilised discussion and assume you are too.
Firstly,
Never at any time did I argue in favor of unrestricted internet access. We are in agreement on the topic of filters and their necessity.
Secondly,
I stated clearly that the issue here is not the use of filters, but the use of surveillance, that is, recieving reports on internet activity in addition to filters.
My thesis statement is simply that filters are enough, and there is no benefit to using surveillance that justifies the disadvantages. Namely:
A) The child feeling distrusted by the parents, and
B) The child losing any feeling of autonomy, which is very important for development during the teenage years.
I apologise for my lack of clarity earlier, as well as my inflamatory language and ad hominem. I did not make my point clear, and should not have escalated in that manner. I respect your opinion as well, even if you no longer wish to continue with this discussion. I forgive you for the ad hominem as well - it was only fare given my earlier rash behaviour.
I’m sorry if my way of talking seems vague or offensive, I have Asperger’s Syndrome so I tend to write an essay when I want to talk… sorry.
And to clarify farther, I am in no way in favour of teens being able to access porn or other inappropriate material. As I said, I agree that filters are necessary.
My comnent:
“Filters are necessary…”
Wow. A straw man fallacy, red herring and ad hominem in the same reply… haven’t seen that one before. And yes, I do need a therapist. I’m autistic, and was emotionally abused by my mother. I’m sorry if you don’t " believe in" emotional abuse.
My background aside, I am perfectly capable of holding a logical, civilised discussion and assume you are too.
Firstly, Never at any time did I argue in favor of unrestricted internet access. We are in agreement on the topic of filters and their necessity.
Secondly, I stated clearly that the issue here is not the use of filters, but the use of surveillance, that is, recieving reports on internet activity in addition to filters.
My thesis statement is simply that filters are enough, and there is no benefit to using surveillance that justifies the disadvantages. Namely:
A) The child feeling distrusted by the parents, and
B) The child losing any feeling of autonomy, which is very important for development during the teenage years.
I apologise for my lack of clarity earlier, as well as my inflamatory language and ad hominem. I did not make my point clear, and should not have escalated in that manner. I respect your opinion as well, even if you no longer wish to continue with this discussion. I forgive you for the ad hominem as well - it was only fare given my earlier rash behaviour.
I’m sorry if my way of talking seems vague or offensive, I have Asperger’s Syndrome so I tend to write an essay when I want to talk… sorry.
And to clarify farther, I am in no way in favour of teens being able to access porn or other inappropriate material. As I said, I agree that filters are necessary.