Christian Group Prepares To Mark Wii as 'Porn Portal' 565
Citing the Wii's ability to browse the internet via the Opera browser, a Christian group based out of California is planning on targeting the console with a smear campaign, Kotaku reports. The site has gotten ahold of a leaked press release from the upcoming 'Porn Talk' media event. From the release: "Like many new gaming technologies, the Wii's wireless internet capabilities make it a portal to porno. 'Parents think the computer is the only way for their kids to get porn on the internet. Unfortunately, they are dead wrong,' says Mike Foster, founder of ThePornTalk.com. 'Gaming devices like the Wii and the PSP aren't just for fun games anymore. You're able to surf the net, chat with friends, email, and view porn because of its internet access. Kids know this but parents don't!'"
Son, what are you doing in there? (Score:5, Funny)
"Oh, ok. Carry on."
First joke!
Wii this, Wii that... (Score:5, Funny)
"Playstation 3" sounds like a deep space brothel.
"X-Box 360" sounds like getting gang-raped by guys who ejaculate Mountain Dew.
Come on, people.
Re:Wii this, Wii that... (Score:5, Funny)
Only to you.
Especially only to you.
Re:Wii this, Wii that... (Score:5, Funny)
Sounds like bukkake?
Re:Wii this, Wii that... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"how did you feel when you saw it?"
"bad..."
"and if you were blind and looking at it, how do you think you'd feel then?"
"Not so bad, i guess..."
Re:FYI The blog from the origin (Score:4, Informative)
We all cool now? Breathe deeply, allow the hatred of all things religious to wash out of you.
They are simply trying to inform parents about the need to use the Parental controls and to engage their kids in an active discussion on the topic of pornography. In other words, they are trying to foster GOOD PARENTING. They just erred in selecting an ad-campaign by picking one that was a tad too combative in presentation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are wacky bible-bashing Christians out there just like there are crazy cut-your-head-off Muslims.
I am a Christian, but I am often very saddened by the state of Christianity because I read reports like this one. Most Christians in the USA are good, easy-goin people like me.
I personally don't care if you want to run around naked in your own house, pee on a dog and have sex with chickens. That is your problem, not mine. Thoug
Re:Be gone with you SATAN!! (Score:5, Insightful)
What rubbish. I currently live in a predominantly Catholic country, and despite not being a Christian myself, am married to a woman who goes to mass twice a week, has a grandfather who was beatified by the last pope, and an uncle who is likely to be beatified by this one. Yet strangely, neither she nor her priest have mentioned the Wii (which is constantly sold out over here), or the Internet (massively popular), or for that matter porn (also incredibly popular). They also have far less in the way of silly prudishness than most protestant countries: nearly all women go topless on the beach, TV adverts have full-frontal topless shots, explicit sex scenes don't have watershed hours, and movie ratings are advisory rather than enforced by law, for example (one also sees a lot more blood and gore on news reports, which aren't censored for fear of possibly scaring a child. The attitude here seems to be that it's a parent's job to control what their children watch, not everyone else's).
Thus, a far more accurate statement would be: most of this crazy "Christian" crap comes from US-based right wing fundamentalist religious nuts.
"Look at the history of the Catholic church. Murder. Rape. Molestation. Lies."
All of which are true of Protestants when they've had the power to do so. Here are a few examples (there are many, many more):
- John Calvin's followers burned 58 "heretics".
- Lutherans in Germany instituted the death penalty for heresy, i.e. the crime of not interpreting Biblical scriptures in the same way as them.
- Elizabeth 1 of England outlawed Catholicism and executed at least 200 Catholics; Quakers and other non-Anglicans were also persecuted.
- John Knox et. al. made it illegal to say Mass in Scotland. Punishment for the first offence was flogging and confiscation of all good, second offence banishment, third offence death.
- Matthew Hopkins, the notorious "Witch Finder General", was a Protestant.
- Puritan settlers of Massachusetts instituted what can best be described as a religious police state where even minor doctrinal differences were punished by flogging, pillorying, hanging, cutting off ears and / or noses, and boring holes in tongues with hot irons. Quakerism was a capital offence, and four Quakers were hanged for it, while the famous Salem witch trials resulted in 20 executions and around 150 people being imprisoned.
Protestants who happily lambast Catholics for their church's past atrocities are thus akin to Nigerians condemning Uganda for being full of black people.
Re:Be gone with you SATAN!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Moderation is moderation, and its the usual state of humans who have better things to worry about , like getting to work on time and making sure the kids are doing the homework.
Re:Be gone with you SATAN!! (Score:4, Insightful)
For every example you can name for which this might be true, I'm confident there's one for which it isn't. The one you did choose is completely ridiculous. Do you honestly believe that people just snap one day and start having gay affairs because they're too morally sheltered? Isn't it possible that.. I don't know... they're actually just gay?
When it comes to porn, which is really what this is about, for a lot of people (perhaps most people), a little bit doesn't inoculate, it's the beginning of an addiction. See, for example, this [pointlesswasteoftime.com]. (NSFW, by the way.) It's obviously not very scientific, but I think it definitely makes the point.
Re:Be gone with you SATAN!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Some guy has never had any sex, doesn't go out. And suddenly in his late thirties, he starts going to gay bars and fucks guys. How do you interpret that?
The naive christian conservative's interpretation: Because he led a sheltered life, he just "snapped" when he saw porn the first time. And the first porn he happened to see was gay porn.
The real explanation: Yes, he was gay all along, and knew it since puberty dawned on him when he was 13 years young. But being somewhat on the shy side, he never dared to announce this publically. He never went out, because it seemed pointless to him: in the "normal" hangouts, he'd meet girls (in which he was not interested), and if he went to the gay hangouts, he feared he would get "caught" and ridiculed or ostracised for it. Result: he deliberately led a sheltered life. And after 24 years of abstinence, he finally grew a spine, and fully assumed his sexuality.
So, in our example, the candidate did not become gay because he led a sheltered life, but it was the other way round: he led a sheltered life because he was gay, but didn't dare to live it.
Re:Be gone with you SATAN!! (Score:4, Insightful)
There is nothing stopping a gay person from mating with the opposite sex
True, and many do (presumably by thinking about a man while they fuck their wife...). But many don't get happy that way, and eventually snap and come out. And many are unable to think about a different kind of sex while having real sex.
just like there is nothing stopping a straight person from having sex with the same sex.
That should be theoretically possible as well in the same way, but what would be the point? Why fake something for which many members of society still look down on you?
There is however an underlying preference that pushes people to one way or another. Just like favoring the color red over the color blue, this preference has been learned throughout the person's life.
Any evidence to support that claim?
Sometime during their life, they had to acknowledge this preference and determine to become a homosexual.
If it is truly a decision, how come so many gay people struggle with their homosexuality, and live in the closet?
True, many don't have a problem with it, and live their feelings openly as soon as they show up, but others are scared of these feelings, and try to hide them.
It is the same for heterosexuals but society is prewired to push the heterosexual lifestyle so the decision isn't that obvious. But no matter what anyone thinks, they did make a decision to be one way or the other. Most often this decision is so gradual (it is made in steps or stages) that it seems the natural thing to do. Some times the deviancy of having gay sex excites the person to the point of making the choice because it was more rewarding.
So, in a way, they want to make themselves look "interesting"? How then do you explain the existence of shy and introverted gay people? Shy people would do everything to stay out of the spotlight, and certainly not "chose" a sexuality because its "deviancy is more exciting".
This is like those who think public sex is more rewarding
Not really.
or those who use pain, whips, role playing or whatever.
This may be closer to it. But again, these are things that happen to turn them on, and are not necessarily a choice...
And because society has made the decisions that sex in the act of reproduction was the right way to have it, most sex that cannot produce offspring is considered not good. The extent of which is closely related to the ability to have children and how far society is willing to depart from what they were told was the norm.
True, at least as far as the 3 big monotheistic religions are concerned. Other societies have less qualms about homosexuality. And guess what, even in those societies, most people are still straight, and a minority is gay or lesbian. If it were truely a choice, you'd expect having an equal share of all sexualities in societies where no stigma is attached to homosexuality.
Some people get a rush from doing things they know they shouldn't.
Not really. Again: consider shy and introverted gay people.
Having an affair with a married woman generally results better sex because you know it is wrong.
That really depends on other aspects of the participants' temperament. For some people, the thrill of the forbidden adds to the excitement, but for others the need to be permanently on the lookout somehow kills the atmosphere.
On the same note, A person who is told he can't have gay sex might find it more exciting or satisfying because he knows he shouldn't be doing it. This can also explain some of the "gay and in your face" attitude some gays adopt.
More like "I've hid my feelings for too long. Now it's time for 'revenge', and I show openly what I've repressed for so long". Why is it considered ok if a heterosexual "flaunts his sexuality" (by continuously talking about his wife and his kids), but not
A religionist using 'groupthink'? How droll! (Score:3, Insightful)
Also hilarious, is that you bash 'leftists' for their 'groupthink'. Leftists are progressives...and since you obviously see the world in black and white, you must be a rightist...or conservative. Conservatives don't like change...they want things to stay the same way they've always been and the same way everybody already does them...which is GROUPTHINK!
If this was a troll, good job.
Re:Be gone with you SATAN!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly I can't imagine a more lunatic bigoted view, but on Slashdot even the idiots get modified insightful, as long as it tangentially goes along with the group-think.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The urban rat has a life expectancy of about a year. The lab rat or pet two to four years. Is the urban rat healthier at all ages or are you simply looking at survivors of infant mortality in the weeks or months of their adult prime?
folks like this don't realize that you need to face evil to become hardened to it
I would have thought that become hardened
What homophobes modded this up!? (Score:5, Insightful)
June 28, 1969 called. It wants its misinformed homophobia back.
Re:Be gone with you SATAN!! (Score:5, Insightful)
WTF? Those of us who actually care don't want to become "hardened" to evil. Evil is evil and it sucks. Evil is bigotry, prejudice, violence, and those who don't choose to live by the "golden rule". They are the enemy of everyone. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If you become hardened to evil then you are choosing to ignore it. I don't want anyone to ignore evil. Make a difference. I'll risk my life to intervene if I see a mugging or convenience store robbery. I choose to not associate with people who espouse prejudices, violence, or really harmful "criminal" activities...who really cares about a friendly poker game or smoking a little pot?
As far as homosexuals go, they don't harm me or as far as I can see, they don't harm society. Hell, we've got too many kids out there who need parents and being raised by a homosexual does not mean you become a homosexual. Homosexuality seems to be in most mammalian and many bird species but they are, and must by Darwin's law, remain a minority.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Son, what are you doing in there? (Score:5, Funny)
"and this new console from Nintendo is pretty cool too!"
In other news.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In other news.... (Score:5, Insightful)
TLA for the KJC (Score:5, Insightful)
Sigh. "Nannie state fascist" is not a bad term, but the fact that you apply it so carelessly indicates a certain knee-jerkiness on your part. Please repeat after me: "Rush Limbaugh thinks with his mouth."
To me, a "Nannie State fascist" is somebody wants the government to outlaw every little danger. Ralph Nader is a prime case. Of course, the term is sort of subjective. You and I would probably agree that the crusade to require passive restraints in cars (basically, seatbelts that buckle you in involuntarily) is Nannie State Fascism. But we probably disagree as to the speed limit (I think people who think they can drive safely at 90 MPH are fooling themselves, but that's not a popular opinion).
This, on the other hand is better described as "Righteous Religious Fascism." The motivation is not to protect you from yourself, but to protect you from Satan.
corrected: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:In other news.... (Score:5, Insightful)
This Onion article seems appropriate: Teen Exposed To Violence, Profanity, Adult Situations By Family [theonion.com]
Seriously though, other than money and the spot-light, what are these people looking for.
Re:In other news.... (Score:5, Funny)
Jeez, posting Onion articles That agree with the real article is happening so often now that it's almost becoming a meme! How fucked up can society get?
Re:In other news.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I know this is Slashdot and we never RTFA, but in case you mistakenly managed to locate it (here [theporntalk.com]), you would see that this Christian Group does in general give a positive review of the console. It only goes as far as warning the parents about the Wii's ability to be used as a browser and how to enable parental control on it. Period.
But then again, how would the poster of the original review generate traffic to his website if it was not by sensationalism?
Re:In other news.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Rules of thumb:
If your headline could be considered flamebait, it's not news.
If your headline ends in a question mark, it's not news.
Re:In other news.... (Score:5, Interesting)
As a non-childless Slashdotter, speculating wildly about my obviously meaningless to you life experience as a parent, I find it perfectly easy to play the stuff my daughter plays, and watch the things my daughter watches, and to manage the parental controls accordingly, thereby making sure she won't encounter porn until she wants to encounter porn at least not where I can control it...And don't tell me kids are smarter than me at this particular activity; if there is a way to find porn, I'll have found it long before she will--finding porn is like a male geek superpower.
And for the record: "Porno" is so hilariously 1970's it really gives you a good idea of the level of technology these jokers are comfortable with.
Re:In other news.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Who says we are all childless?
I have a 6 year old and a Wii.
Kids have to learn judgement, and some of that learning comes through exposure to bad judgement.
Goatse is only really bad because we are conditioned as a society to think it is bad. Kids have very little of that conditioning yet. They usually only apply context to things via the reactions of the ADULTS around them.
If a 5 year old saw goatse - they would probably say something like "that is a butt" and maybe by this time a "gross" or a couple "poop" jokes might come out of the whole experience. And they would forget all about it and go on. They are not really interested in goatse, my kid would just keep browsing looking for the "Cat, I'm a Kitty Cat - and I dance dance dance" video...
But if an adult FREAKS OUT and says that it is BAD - then instantly goatse sticks in the memory. That is how kids learn.
When a toddler falls down and bumps their knee in an empty room when they think no one is watching, they just keep going. But if the look around and see that mom or dad are jumping up to "help" them, they will start crying. They key in to our reactions, emotions, and responses.
Nothing teaches a kid to swear faster than telling them they should not swear, or by covering their ears when others swear. We have NEVER censored ourselves or our friends or our TV or movies, and our child has no problem with swearing at all because he doesn't think that it is anything special. And we have made clear distinctions between what behavior is OK at home vs. at school vs. in a restaurant etc etc etc.
But nothing sells like Pr0n - so there is no faster way to increase the popularity of the Wii than to brand it a Pr0n machine.
And as others have noted. The browser can be turned off, and parental controls can be applied. Easier on the Wii than on the family computer...
Re:In other news.... (Score:5, Funny)
Goatse is only really bad because we are conditioned as a society to think it is bad. Kids have very little of that conditioning yet. They usually only apply context to things via the reactions of the ADULTS around them.
I completely understand what you've said and agree with most of it (in fact, I too have a 6 yr old and live by similar "rules" in my house), but...
GOATSE MAN! GOATSE!!!!! That shit changes your life when you see it. I mean... AAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, but by "built-in wireless chat", you should realize that it has even less of a range than, say, walkie-talkies. Maybe about 120 feet with any walls or buildings around, and maybe 300 feet or so if you're facing someone else with a DS. It's also a bit flakey, so I would imagine the "stranger danger" factor is practically nil.
If, on the other hand, you mean the online play over the Internet, well, it's all anonymous, nickname-only random matches with others, with no communication in most games, and
Re:In other news.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:In other news.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Unlike the upstanding paragons Pat Roberts, Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, Fred Phelps, Jimmy Swaggart, Robert Tilton, and Ted Haggard? Jim Jones? David Koresh? Or were you thinking of those really great guys John Calvin, Oliver Cromwell and Cotton Mather? How about Southern antebellum churches and their wholesale advocation of African slavery? And let's not forget that absolute bastion of solid Protestant virtue, the Ku Klux Klan. Sure, freed slaves and their descendants were their main focus, but they hated Catholics too.
No one's saying the Catholic church hasn't done some fucked up shit, but they aren't the only ones with issues.
Re:In other news.... (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, the Inquisition was wrong, and persecuting scientists was wrong. But, interestingly, Catholicism has moved past that. (Perhaps Americans are not aware enough of that fact given the strength of Protestantism in their country, hence Protestantism is often considered simply 'Christianity'? No idea, I don't like in the US.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because it is a prime principle of the Christian right to be anti-sex in any form. Anti-sex to the exclusion of being anti-war or anti-exploitation or anti-racist or anti-poverty or anti-anything that really matters to the lives of real human beings. It is precisely these Christi
Re:In other news.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's your Wii. Here's your access point.
Don't set your kids Wii up with the code for your access point.
Wow. That was tough. I mean, it took all of no time at all to do.
Of course, I'm probably not going to have to convince YOU.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"The following works are entirely fictional and any relation to real events or persons, living or dead, is pure coincidence."
--Red Dwarf
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
give me a break (Score:5, Insightful)
-stormin
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Shame on you, editors.
Re:give me a break (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:give me a break (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like someone got carried away with a metaphor. The difference is that a car salesman is actually selling something for real: and getting money on false premises. The sensationalism here is not being used to sell a car. And it's not "blatant misinformation". Kids could get porn through the Wii. That doesn't mean you should burn your kids Wii, but parents should be aware of the capabilities of the toys their kids have.
Penny-Arcade did a similar story when some local affiliate did an expose on the fact that your kids can chat with anyone using a DS Lite. It was a sensationalist story, but it's worth trying to keep parents informed of the capacity of their kids toys so that they can make their parenting decisions accordingly.
The fundamental message of this is just: your kids can get online with a Wii. I want parents and *everyone* to know this so that we don't have more silly sue-MySpace type lawsuits when some kid manages to build a bomb online or hook up with a sex predator on a Wii.
Re:give me a break (Score:4, Funny)
Interestingly, no matter how you interpret this sentence, your kid will not be looking at porn anymore!
So? (Score:2, Informative)
Perverted Christinas (Score:3, Funny)
You didn't go straight to a porn site on your wii? (Score:2)
Welcome to Slashdot. You must be new here.
Re:Perverted Christinas (Score:5, Funny)
As a Christian myself... (Score:5, Insightful)
Christians who judge others haven't read their Bibles. It is time to move forth, Christians, read your Bibles, and get out of people's lives, especially the lives of non-Christians.
Embarassing, to say the least.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:As a Christian myself... (Score:4, Insightful)
Only one: The United States of America. More specificaly, the White House and the Mexican-Americans in the US.
Mexico does not celebrate the Cinco de Mayo. It is remembered of course, as an important (and one of the very few) military victory of the Army against a foreign enemy (the French), but it is NOT an official hoilday.
Re: (Score:2)
So out of curiousity, when he was asked what one must do beyond knowing and following the 10 commandments in order to be admitted to heaven and he replied "One thing you still lack; sell all that you possess and distribute it to the poor", do you think he didn't mean it, or are you just not that interested in eternal life?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You are mistakenly quoting the law. Under the law it was incredibly difficult to get to heaven. Under grace, it's as easy as:
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,
Re:As a Christian myself... (Score:4, Interesting)
What's the point in being God if the rules don't follow your whim?
Actually, the law is based on a single promise. The promise of eternal life to Adam and Eve. The problem was that Adam and Eve failed to follow the single law they were given (don't eat from the tree at the center of the garden) and were cast out. But that's not entirely fair to their descendents, so they each had the choice to live their life according to the promise given. The 10 Commandments were a set of laws God gave to the Jewish civilization so that they would know how to conduct themselves in a pure form. If one sinned, they were required to atone for that sin. The most common atonement was to slaughter a lamb as a sacrifice. This was symbolic of the fate that would await the savior. You see, in Judaism, they believed in Christ before he came. Those who continue to practice Judaism believe that he hasn't arrived yet.
The harshest penalty (death) was reserved for only the highest crimes, murder being the most obvious. Even then, you'll note that God was merciful in many sitations, sparing the the life of the individual.
You need to be more specific. Leviticus set up the laws under which the Jewish people lived. They did not differ all that significantly from the laws we live under today. The only thing that's changed is that today's laws are not as hard and fast as those of the old testament. e.g. When you sleep with a virgin woman outside of marriage, it may be "wrong" from a Christian perspective, but the law doesn't require you to marry her and pay the father 100 shekels of silver. Today's law in Christian societies recognizes grace, which the old testament did not. This follows a general societal pattern of placing greater value on life. If you look back in history to the period in which Leviticus was written, the humans of the world did not place a very high value on an individual's right to live.
He didn't "suddenly change his mind". First off, the savior was promised to the Jews long before he arrived. The primary purpose of the Bible is to track his lineage, going all the way back to Adam and Eve. It was important that Jesus be a son of man and not of the Niphilim. The Bible also tells us that Jesus spent time in the place of imprisioned spirits (hell? purgatory? I'll leave that to the scholars) preaching to them [biblegateway.com] so that they might also be saved.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I did something similar to this about 18 months ago -- I did sell almost everything I possessed and distributed all of the extra to a variety of charities in my area, and invested in a charity of my own. E-mail me for details.
That being said, I believe the Kingdom message was focused on the Early Church, prior to His second coming which I believed happened in 70 AD, ending the Age/the Covenant of Abraham and David.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pot, meet kettle. (Score:5, Insightful)
Christians who judge others haven't read their Bibles.
Sounds like you're doing a little judgment of your own, doesn't it?
Look. Way too many people make this misunderstanding. The passage says "Judge not, lest you also be judged" (or something to that effect, depending on your translation). It DOESN'T say, "never judge anything at all, ever." It says, watch yourself, because the same rod you use to measure others might come back and bite you in the ass one day (I'm reminded of some very famous televangelests).
In fact, just moments after Jesus instructs us to "judge not", he says: Well, clearly, he didn't mean LITERAL dogs and swine. How would we know if they were dogs or swine if we didn't JUDGE the behavior of others? Clearly, we're supposed to make assessments of others based on their actions, and had you read your Bible, you'd know that's what Jesus meant.
I realize this seems off-topic, and I'll likely be modded down to oblivion, but as it IS a Christian group that's the subject of discussion here, I think this rebuttal is only fair. Flame on
Re: (Score:2)
If not (which I certainly hope), how can you base morality on the bible if you've got your own selective critera which parts to pick?
(I'm asking this, because you've said, "Christians, read your Bibles [..and act upon it]".)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My sense is that Mark 4:24 and the related quotes from the other gospels is that it is about the basic moral principle of being careful to apply the same standard by which you judge others to yourself. I think it is a mistake to read it that we should not judge at all - but rather that we should judge fairly and not be hypocrites.
The reductio argument for your position is that if we are unable to judge, then it would mean that we must tolerate behaviors such as murder, torture, lying, sexual abuse and so
Re:As a Christian myself... (Score:4, Insightful)
Judgers, Judgers, Judgers, Judgers, ... (Score:5, Funny)
[WTF?] [badgerbadgerbadger.com]
Somehow (Score:5, Funny)
Wii is for porn. (Score:2)
Good times, Good times.
Well, of course (Score:2)
Rob
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, where are you going? I haven't even gotten to my BDSM idea yet!
Rob
As if Wiis weren't already hard enough to get... (Score:4, Interesting)
1. This Christian group is planning to provide free advertisement for the Wii. "There's No Such Thing As Bad Publicity"
2. This Christian group is planning to provide free advertisements that inform people that they can use the Wii to look at porn on their bigscreen TV.
Re:As if Wiis weren't already hard enough to get.. (Score:5, Informative)
Inflamitory nature aside... (Score:3, Informative)
Anyways, if this group's inflammatory campaign motivates parents to better monitory their children's online behavior, then all the better. If Sony/MS/Nitendo lose a handful of sales to far right wing conservatives, I doubt it will make or break the bottom line.
-Rick
PS: Link for those "Label lovers" out there: http://engrish.com/ [engrish.com]
Uhhh ... parental security features? (Score:5, Informative)
That was put there so PARENTS COULD HAVE CONTROL OVER WHAT THEIR KIDS DO WITH THE MACHINE! (Sorry for the yelling...) "Wii == Porn Portal" makes a much better headline than "Parents too busy to take responsibility for thier kids."
I mean seriouly, it takes all of 2 minutes to setup a PIN number on the Wii. It takes even less time to not tell your kids what the PIN # is. If you can't trouble parents with that level of responsibility, what are they there for?
The article actually does mention PIN numbers (Score:5, Informative)
Also, the "Wii == Porn Portal" is actually something the gaming press came up with. The actual site itself doesn't appear to be "blaming the Wii" for any problems.
Unfortunately, this appears to be a case where the gaming media is blowing something out of proportion, and stands a good chance at doing more harm than good. If I were a regular parent who came across the article on this site, I would have thought, "Oh, the Wii has a web browser? And I have a way to turn on parental controls? Excellent!". However, if I had come across the Slashdot or Kotaku article instead, I might be thinking "THE WII IS A PORTAL TO PORN!? OMG!" . Gee, thanks gaming press.
Yes, this is reactionary....however... (Score:3, Interesting)
Not to be a prude, but there is some pretty harsh stuff out there (not just porn BTW) that is not exactly "kid-friendly".
While screaming, "but you can get to porn!...THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!" is a tad reactionary, it would be a cool feature to store a "white-list" of acceptable websites on the console. So, that this particular "internet access port" is limited to specific locations - very much like enabling "parental control" on my Satellite TV box.
That would seem reasonable.
Friend Codes (Score:2, Insightful)
does anyone... (Score:4, Interesting)
Christian groups seem to decry basically everything and everyone, and they seem to love dropping the "porn" bombshell left and right, but outside their little communities and fellow zealots, is there really any threat whatsoever from these people? And, as such, is this really newsworthy? I'd really only begin to worry if people in Congress start talking about it.
and, as a slight aside, am I the only one who have noticed that kids who grow up in these perfectly wholesome and innocent Christian-value-centric homes seem to end up being significantly maladjusted and immature in a sense that even though they end up as good adults, they're really completely unprepared to actually live in the world?
*sigh*
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking as someone who lives in the bible belt, I can tell you that a lot of people here certainly do take the things those sort of groups say seriously.
Not everyone here is like that, but there are people here who judge you based on what church you do or don't belong to, how god-fearing they think you are, etc.
Reasons I wear my pa-kua under my shirt.
A little sensationalist (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, the press release isn't bashing the Wii, or calling it "Satan's PORNtal" or anything like that. They even go as far as to point out that the Wii includes parental controls: It looks like they're just using the Wii's popularity to push their agenda, that agenda being discussing the issue of porn with your kids -- a perfectly respectable goal. FTA:Encouraging parents to talk to kids about online behavior? That's a good thing. The Wii tie-in is nothing but marketing to attract parents.
Re:A little sensationalist (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Being offended that Christians exist
2. Mocking that Christians are concerned about pornography
3. Defending that pronography never has harmful effects
4. Being armchair parents and pontificating about what they would do if they were ever able to procreate
5. Blasting religion in general and categorizing those who follow any form of it as less intelligent/sophisticated as themselves even if the religous people do get more chances at procreation
That no one has offered any helpful advice on this technical problem. Does no one realize that the appropriate solution would be to roll your own proxy server. No one mentioned Squid or its various plugins that can help parents have a solid control on the situation complete with auditing and alerting. The fact is there are people who want children to experiance the world with just a bit of a safety net. Let's move off their religous beliefs and start offering ways technology can help them achieve their goals.
I am saddened by the recent decline of slashdot.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
2. Mocking that Christians are concerned about pornography
3. Defending that pronography never has harmful effects
Well, it is hard to take seriously the claim that blocking pornography "keeps kids safe". Looking at a picture never harmed anyone, and it's hard to imagine any means by which it could.
(Yes, porn addiction exists, but so do shopping addiction and exercise addiction. No one claims that kids need to be kept away from stores, or that gym class is inherently harmful, even though those otherwise-harmless activities become a problem for a tiny minority.)
No HD (Score:2)
Guns are 'murder portals' ... (Score:2)
A web browser is a tool. It is not there to browse porn, it can be used by someone to browse porn. Unlike a gun it actually has many many uses that are beneficial.
Tools are not portals. The desires of the user of the tool are, and children have been looking at porn illicitly one way or another for decades.
Is porn
what about mobile phones and the fridge? (Score:2)
OH PLEEEEAAASSSEEE give me a break... (Score:4, Insightful)
And #1 teach them a sense of values. What video game system they have doesn't matter its what you tell them to do with it, and what you teach them is OK.
When I was young could I get a copy of a playboy sure, but I knew I shouldn't have...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
examples, please? (Score:2, Funny)
So What? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Like many new gaming technologies, the Wii's wireless internet capabilities make it a portal to porno. 'Parents think the computer is the only way for their kids to get porn on the internet. Unfortunately, they are dead wrong,' says Mike Foster, founder of ThePornTalk.com. 'Gaming devices like the Wii and the PSP aren't just for fun games anymore. You're able to surf the net, chat with friends, email, and view porn because of its internet access. Kids know this but parents don't!'"
So the solution lies in parents getting the facts and then talking to their children about expectations for online activity. Foster believes that, "Whether it is the home computer or these new gaming consoles, porn is easily accessible. The Wii is an amazing console and tons of fun but parents need good info on how to keep kids safe."
My Gord! That's so... so... rational, unemotional, and largely objectively (or "empirically", if you prefer) true. Compare to
targeting the console with a smear campaign
Saying the truth in a calm, collected manner is called smearing, now? When did that start? Or
I find it funny that a site that seems to go to so much effort to hide its ties to religion and ministry work is using the phrase dirty little secret.
Wait, was that an implication that religion is a dirty little secret? Damn submarine Jews.
the story's caustic tone
Is that more or less caustic than calling religions dirty little secrets?
Seriously. I may think the anti-porn campaign is a bit unnecessary (in a "don't you have something better to do?" way), but the campaign is surprisingly (at least after reading the beginning of the article) docile and rational. Who cares what they think, really? And who cares if they tell parents that kids can surf porn on the Wii? I mean, you can surf porn on the Wii, right? The most emotional (as opposed to rational) appeal in the whole thing is the title of the campaign ("The Wii's Dirty Little Secret"), and even that's less emotional/sarcastic/caustic (or "witty", as we prefer to say) than the average Slashdot catch-phrase. Hell, this paragraph has more sarcasm than that whole campaign.
Overall rating of the article: Troll.
This is especially funny... (Score:4, Funny)
In related news (Score:3, Funny)
MS claims to have inventd porn and is releasing XBox: Whackjob.
The tone is perhaps a bit too strong (Score:4, Interesting)
- A lot of children have relatively unmonitored access to the Wii, perhaps in their own bedroom or play room.
- A lot of parents *don't* know about the Wii's internet capabilities. Many of those that *are* aware, assume that the content is somehow filtered.
- A lot of parents *don't* know about the Wii's child protection features, account controls, etc. - I'm not sure what's required to download the browser, but if no credit card is required and no admin-like privileges are required or set up, then its possible for them to download the browser themselves.
While the tone of the press release is too strong as I said above, I think we can all see that, yes, the Wii can be used to access porn, chat rooms, etc that may be innapropriate for young people. I think we can all agree that, yes, all parents should be aware of this reality and take steps they deem appropriate, but many are simply not aware at this point.This isn't another "Video games are the devil!" argument, no one's calling for a boycott of the Wii, or for Nintendo to be held responsible for the content some children might access... beyond the slightly sensational tone all I see is information that is usefull and pertinent for parents.
No one here would turn their kid loose on the web without proper protection/monitoring in place, or at the very least recognize the risk in doing so. We forum-goers are always calling for parental and personal responsibility, for good reason, and I don't see this press release as doing much else.
I think they misread their bible... (Score:4, Funny)
Sensationalism coming from ... the gaming press? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, so the website appears to be funded my some Christian group. Even though I'm not Christian, I don't really see a problem here, considering the actual messaging is quite reasonable and responsible. I don't see them blasting Nintendo or the console, in fact just providing parents the messaging they need to "do the right thing" (use the proper parental controls, etc.).
Sometimes I think the gaming press really does itself more harm than good
Whoopie doo.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Whatever happened to parents taking an active part in their childrens life instead of blaming everything in the world for corrupting their children? Oh that's right they're too busy out crusading against everything to bother with, you know, raising their kids. God knows they need to make the world safer for the kids. [/sarcasm]
This is ridiculous. (Score:3, Informative)
This is not a Jack Thompsonesque nationwide crusade against Wii or anything like it, which is apparent from reading the actual press release. It's merely a piece written by Christians and for Christians, with the now-typical sensationalist attention-grabbing headline. Most of us recognize sensationalism as such when the topic is more mundane, and I expect that the skewed view of Christianity that is prevalent here on
Sometimes Christian groups do things that are worth talking about because they're stepping on the rights of others. This is not one of those times. Nothing to see here, move along.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Rather than using your Wii to surf for adult materials (which is of questionable utility anyway, seeing as how you have a hires computer screen in front of you), why not point it toward one of the many online gaming sites that cater to the Wii?
The most popular is probably WiiCade [wiicade.com], as they have the largest selection. There's also WiiArcade [wiiarcade.com] and WiiFii.net [wiifii.net].
You're welcome.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Why are you blaming Nintendo for the quality of non-Nintendo games?