dansguardian/christian parental controls question - Ubuntu

This is a discussion on dansguardian/christian parental controls question - Ubuntu ; In article , Joe wrote: >On 2008-04-09, Bruce Sinclair > wrote: >> In article , "Cork Soaker" > wrote: >> >>>: FWIW, religion and science are not necessarily mutually exclusive. >> >>>Yes they are. >> >> I have known religious ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 200

Thread: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

  1. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    In article , Joe wrote:
    >On 2008-04-09, Bruce Sinclair
    > wrote:
    >> In article , "Cork Soaker"

    > wrote:
    >>
    >>>: FWIW, religion and science are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

    >>
    >>>Yes they are.

    >>
    >> I have known religious scientists. Yes, good ones.
    >> The good ones keep the belief systems separate. It is possible.

    >
    >Absolutely. It is possible to start out with a belief in God, then
    >set out in search of proof. The only thing that would make them
    >"good" scientists, though, is if they were willing to disregard their
    >faith in a creator if such evidence came around that sufficiently
    >proved a different truth. Most religious folks cannot do this.


    Agreed from what I have seen. As stated elsewhere, science is more a
    process than a belief. Hypothesis, test, challenge, change, hypothesis ...
    that kind of thing. Yes, sometimes it takes a while, but at least the
    process is fairly solid.




  2. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 01:50:42 +0000, Roy Strachan wrote:

    > On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 07:07:45 +0100, Phil Stovell
    > wrote:
    >
    >>On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 02:45:11 +0100, Cork Soaker wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>> I have installed the Christian Parental Controls module
    >>>
    >>> I'm appalled.

    >>
    >>It'd be OK if there's also Jewish, Moslem and Atheist parental controls
    >>modules. Is there?

    >
    > Since most wars throughout history have been fought over religion and
    > very few, if any, fought over porn, I'm for blocking religious sites.


    Apart from this one: http://www.landoverbaptist.org/


    > Roy Strachan - Registered Linux User 469226


    --
    Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK



  3. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question



    "Wes Groleau" wrote in message
    news:cfeLj.10143$qB1.1172@trnddc07...

    8<

    >I use squidGuard instead of Dan's Guardian. I just run the proxy on a
    >server, and the firewalls on all the other computers block port 80.


    > So even if the kids could download their own copy of FireFox, or write
    > their own browser to bypass the proxy, they still couldn't get to the
    > web directly.


    There are plenty of proxies out there that don't use port 80 just to avoid
    the sort of block you have.
    If you want to be safe you have to filter on each packet and use white
    lists.
    A child could bypass what you describe above.



  4. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 08:05:02 +0100, Phil Stovell
    wrote:

    >On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 01:50:42 +0000, Roy Strachan wrote:
    >
    >> On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 07:07:45 +0100, Phil Stovell
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 02:45:11 +0100, Cork Soaker wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>> I have installed the Christian Parental Controls module
    >>>>
    >>>> I'm appalled.
    >>>
    >>>It'd be OK if there's also Jewish, Moslem and Atheist parental controls
    >>>modules. Is there?

    >>
    >> Since most wars throughout history have been fought over religion and
    >> very few, if any, fought over porn, I'm for blocking religious sites.

    >
    >Apart from this one: http://www.landoverbaptist.org/


    Yeah, this one rates a divine exception. )


    Roy Strachan - Registered Linux User 469226

  5. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question



    "Phil Stovell" wrote in message
    newsan.2008.04.10.07.04.59.421372@stovell.org.uk...
    > On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 01:50:42 +0000, Roy Strachan wrote:
    >
    >> On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 07:07:45 +0100, Phil Stovell
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 02:45:11 +0100, Cork Soaker wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>> I have installed the Christian Parental Controls module
    >>>>
    >>>> I'm appalled.
    >>>
    >>>It'd be OK if there's also Jewish, Moslem and Atheist parental controls
    >>>modules. Is there?

    >>
    >> Since most wars throughout history have been fought over religion and
    >> very few, if any, fought over porn, I'm for blocking religious sites.

    >
    > Apart from this one: http://www.landoverbaptist.org/


    quote from their "FAQ"

    "As I always say, it is not for us to question how the Lord gets his kicks,
    but basically, unless your retarded, deaf, dumb and blind sister finds some
    way of understanding that Jesus died for her sins, and she miraculously
    finds the cognitive ability to accept Him as her personal savior, she is
    going to roast in Hell along with all the Catholics, child molesters,
    fornicators and mass murderers, not to mention the aborted and miscarried
    fetuses, who were also never able to comprehend Jesus and must therefore be
    tortured for eternity. "

    That is why religions are bad, people twist and distort "a bible" to fit
    whatever their personal hates are.
    Remember religion was invented by man not by God.



  6. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    On 2008-04-10, Joe wrote:
    > On 2008-04-08, Ignoramus6985 wrote:
    >> On 2008-04-08, Daniel wrote:
    >>> Hi all,
    >>>
    >>> I have installed the Christian Parental Controls module into my regular
    >>> Ubuntu Gutsy version. In addition to filtering the web content, it appears
    >>> to have installed a firewall because I cannot ssh into anymore. Is
    >>> Dansguardian doing the actual firewall, or is it some other module? How do I
    >>> configure it so that I open ssh and other ports?

    >>
    >> Never heard of this.
    >>
    >> Does this parental control work for atheists?
    >>
    >> What exactly does it do? I am interested in some parental software
    >> personally.

    >
    > Personally, I would skip the "Christian" controls, and just install
    > Dansguardian and Squid. Dansguardian is an excellent content filter
    > that works with a proxy (squid). I run a server at the house on
    > CentOS 4.5 with Squid/Dans and have the kids machines configured to
    > use that proxy for all internet requests.
    >
    > Not only does it block the content you want to avoid, but it also
    > provides nice logs.
    >
    >


    Sounds great. I will set it up on one server at home. I think that I
    have 2-3 years before this kid figures out proxy settings, at which
    point I may use uptables to block non-proxied access from his
    account. (iptables let me do it)

    i

  7. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    Ignoramus22864 wrote:
    > On 2008-04-10, Wes Groleau wrote:
    >> caver1 wrote:
    >>> Ignoramus22864 wrote:
    >>>> I have not one but many computers, and cannot possibly monitor them.
    >>> Then tell them which computers they can get on and which they can't and

    >> No one in my house, whether two or twenty gets on a computer
    >> without a password. I have as much right--maybe even duty--
    >> to control web access as I have to control access to matches,
    >> high voltage, poisons, or credit cards.

    >
    > Same here.
    >
    >> Heck, there are websites I don't want _myself_ going to accidentally.
    >> I'm certainly not obligated to unblock those for other users of MY
    >> computers.

    >
    > I think that noone seriously questions parental control here, the
    > question is, what makes sense to do.
    >
    > i



    That was more of the point I was trying to make. Parents need to have an
    active roll.
    caver1

  8. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    Joe wrote:
    > On 2008-04-09, caver1 wrote:
    >> Moog wrote:
    >>> Cork Soaker illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    >>>> :
    >>>> : FWIW, religion and science are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
    >>>> :
    >>>>
    >>>> Yes they are.
    >>> No. If you're relgious, then god obviously invented science to prove
    >>> the concept of faith. Or something.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >> The stsrt point is the same - faith.
    >> Think about it.
    >> In the beginning there was void, nothingness. Where did everything come
    >> from? God made it.
    >> or
    >> In the beginning there was nothing a void. then all of a sudden there
    >> was a Big Bang and everything was made-by chance.
    >> where was everything before either of these? both sides put their
    >> faith in everything was made from nothing.
    >> They are only mutually exclusive in the close minded.

    >
    > No, Science does not say that everything came from nothing. Science
    > says that something was always there. A small piece of that something
    > was a black hole. That black hole collapsed on it's singularity. The
    > singularity exploded, and produced our known universe.



    Basically the start point is the same. Christian belief states that
    there was no beginning. So It depends on where you put your faith.


    > It is a bit more complex than that, but that is a good start. Oddly
    > enough, as brilliant as he is, Hawking explains it all in a very
    > compelling and easy to understand manner, if you can put aside your
    > religious bent...
    >
    >





    The point is many on Both sides are very close minded and little minded.
    Instead of having your "beliefs" and leaving the others alone many have
    to prove and belittle the other for their beliefs.
    You can be considered one of those. I say that because you accuse me of
    havind a religious bent and I never said or gave hint if I believed in
    god or not.

  9. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    Joe wrote:
    > On 2008-04-09, caver1 wrote:
    >
    >> Here is where you are jumping to conclusions. Where did I ever say God
    >> exists?
    >> There are equally closed minds on both sides.
    >> Both say that everything came from nothing.
    >> Even Quantum mechanics.
    >> Every one says the size of the Universe is impossible for the human mind
    >> to comprehend. Try imagining nothing thats even harder.
    >> Both sides rely on a certain amount of faith.
    >> It is a little mind that belittles someone for their beliefs. And
    >> neither side is free of that little mindedness.

    >
    > No, science does not rely on faith, nor does it state that everything
    > came from nothing. Science is a search. It starts with the
    > understanding that we do not know everything, and works towards
    > figuring out as much as we can in a search for knowledge.




    No that is where the close minded on the religious side are wrong. Even
    the truly opened minded of the religious know that not everything is known.



    > Religion starts out by assuming that we do know everything. Anything
    > that we don't have a rational answer for, we just lump into "God made
    > it", and whammo - simple explanation. The two are mutually exclusive,
    > and only one of them is closed-minded.


    If you follow the what I call the non-zealot creationists,for lack of a
    better term, They state that God did create everything but they do not
    know how as God never said.


    > Hell, Science does not even insist that there is no "creator". That
    > is always the possibility. It may just turn out that it is the
    > eventual answer. The difference is that science will not get there
    > without proof. For religion, no proof is needed, and no lack of proof
    > will ever be enough to dissuade.
    >
    >


    But many anti religious, science faithful( for lack of a better term) do
    say there was no creator.
    My point here is At this point there is no ultimate proof either way. So
    any on either side can denigrate the other for their faith and this
    discussion has proven a point that most on either side are very closed
    minded.


    caver1

  10. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    Joe wrote:
    > On 2008-04-09, Bruce Sinclair wrote:
    >> In article , "Cork Soaker" wrote:
    >>
    >>> : FWIW, religion and science are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
    >>> Yes they are.

    >> I have known religious scientists. Yes, good ones.
    >> The good ones keep the belief systems separate. It is possible.
    >>

    >
    > Absolutely. It is possible to start out with a belief in God, then
    > set out in search of proof. The only thing that would make them
    > "good" scientists, though, is if they were willing to disregard their
    > faith in a creator if such evidence came around that sufficiently
    > proved a different truth. Most religious folks cannot do this.
    >
    >



    Most "science believers" are the same way. If they find something that
    may back up a religious belief the person to them is a Quack, or there
    was something wrong with the science or whatever.
    And those religious folk that cannot are close minded.
    caver1

  11. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    Bruce Sinclair wrote:
    > In article , groleau+nntp@freeshell.org wrote:
    >>>>>> I have installed the Christian Parental Controls module
    >>>>> I'm appalled.
    >>>> It'd be OK if there's also Jewish, Moslem and Atheist parental controls
    >>>> modules. Is there?
    >>> I'm with the other poster ... religion based cesorship is ... abhorrent to
    >>> me. By all means choose what you read, or even what your kids read ... but
    >>> censoring by religion seems to have all the disadvantages with none of the

    >> ....but don't allow your religion to have any influence on your choices?

    >
    > ? not sure what you mean here. Are you meaning you don't want you kids
    > 'exposed' to anything that might challenge the dogma provided by their
    > parents ?
    > I'd be seriously against that. Parents have a duty to let their kids come to
    > their own conclusions ... with a little steering as to "right" and "wrong".
    > If parents provide the models, kids are pretty good at picking up the cues.
    >
    >
    > I'm against censorship generally. It's a bit like prohibition ... it
    > doesn't work anyway. I'm for parents taking an interest in what their kids
    > do, spending time with them and educating them.
    >
    >
    >



    Brainwashing and teaching values are at opposing ends of the spectrum.
    A parent that doesn't try to teach their kids values shouldn't have kids.
    Kids need to learn wrong from right. And don't say your wrong is
    different from mine. These are your kids. So if mine beliefs are
    different then yours are you going to intrust your kids to me?
    And if what I believe is abhorrent to you?
    caver1

  12. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question


    "Bruce Sinclair" wrote
    in message news:ftjlvk$fm9$1@aioe.org...
    > In article , "Cork Soaker"
    > wrote:
    >
    >>: FWIW, religion and science are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

    >
    >>Yes they are.

    >
    > I have known religious scientists. Yes, good ones.
    > The good ones keep the belief systems separate. It is possible.
    >


    It is indeed possible to have this, although I would go as far to say that
    religious scientists have some serious internal issues to deal with. For
    instance; I believe that Evolution directly conflicts with Genesis, and
    seeing as it's (Evolution) an observed fact and known to be true, the book
    of genesis is in some serious ****e.

    Religious beliefs = Self Delusions. Why delude ur kids, why keep them from
    information? Far be it from me to give anyone advice on how to raise their
    kids, but for Gods sake (snicker) at least give them a fighting chance and
    let them have the truth, science is nothing but observed facts, religion is
    based on nothing but faith, which of the 2 are you going to feed?



  13. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question


    "Bruce Sinclair" wrote
    in message news:ftjlvk$fm9$1@aioe.org...
    > In article , "Cork Soaker"
    > wrote:
    >
    >>: FWIW, religion and science are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

    >
    >>Yes they are.

    >
    > I have known religious scientists. Yes, good ones.
    > The good ones keep the belief systems separate. It is possible.
    >


    It is indeed possible to have this, although I would go as far to say that
    religious scientists have some serious internal issues to deal with. For
    instance; I believe that Evolution directly conflicts with Genesis, and
    seeing as it's (Evolution) an observed fact and known to be true, the book
    of genesis is in some serious ****e.

    Religious beliefs = Self Delusions. Why delude ur kids, why keep them from
    information? Far be it from me to give anyone advice on how to raise their
    kids, but for Gods sake (snicker) at least give them a fighting chance and
    let them have the truth, science is nothing but observed facts, religion is
    based on nothing but faith, which of the 2 are you going to feed?



  14. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question


    "Bruce Sinclair" wrote
    in message news:ftjlvk$fm9$1@aioe.org...
    > In article , "Cork Soaker"
    > wrote:
    >
    >>: FWIW, religion and science are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

    >
    >>Yes they are.

    >
    > I have known religious scientists. Yes, good ones.
    > The good ones keep the belief systems separate. It is possible.
    >


    It is indeed possible to have this, although I would go as far to say that
    religious scientists have some serious internal issues to deal with. For
    instance; I believe that Evolution directly conflicts with Genesis, and
    seeing as it's (Evolution) an observed fact and known to be true, the book
    of genesis is in some serious ****e.

    Religious beliefs = Self Delusions. Why delude ur kids, why keep them from
    information? Far be it from me to give anyone advice on how to raise their
    kids, but for Gods sake (snicker) at least give them a fighting chance and
    let them have the truth, science is nothing but observed facts, religion is
    based on nothing but faith, which of the 2 are you going to feed?



  15. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 09:06:36 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

    > Remember religion was invented by man not by God.
    >
    >


    In the beginning Man created God;
    and in the image of Man
    created he him.

    2 And Man gave unto God a multitude of
    names,that he might be Lord of all
    the earth when it was suited to Man

    3 And on the seven millionth
    day Man rested and did lean
    heavily on his God and saw that
    it was good.

    4 And Man formed Aqualung of
    the dust of the ground, and a
    host of others likened unto his kind.

    5 And these lesser men were cast into the
    void; And some were burned, and some were
    put apart from their kind.

    6 And Man became the God that he had
    created and with his miracles did
    rule over all the earth.

    7 But as all these things
    came to pass, the Spirit that did
    cause man to create his God
    lived on within all men: even
    within Aqualung.

    8 And man saw it not.

    9 But for Christ's sake he'd
    better start looking.



  16. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 23:28:15 -0500, Joe wrote:

    > On 2008-04-09, Ignoramus22864
    > wrote:
    >
    >> So, does the browser need to be configured to use this dansguardian
    >> proxy?
    >>
    >> Or does it, somehow, take effect for all browsers installed on a
    >> particular computer?

    >
    > The filter is a background process, and the browser does need to be
    > configured for it. You can, however, set up your firewall to prevent
    > any browsing from a pc without going through the proxy.


    It's been a while since I set it up - you may be right, but I don't recall
    that.

  17. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question


    "caver1" wrote in message
    news:47fd375e$0$6155$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
    : Cork Soaker wrote:
    : > : In the beginning there was nothing a void. then all of a sudden there
    : > : was a Big Bang and everything was made-by chance.
    : > : where was everything before either of these? both sides put their
    : > : faith in everything was made from nothing.
    : > : They are only mutually exclusive in the close minded.
    : >
    : >
    : > Haven't read much Quantum Theory have you?
    : >
    : >
    :
    :
    : Even Quantum only goes back so far.

    You've pretty much proved my point there.



  18. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question


    : If you want my opinion, and you probably don't, then I would say, YES.
    : The big bang, molecules and atoms forming life over time is the more
    : plausible explanation than some "bloke" who decided to "create an
    : eco-system" simply becuase he could.

    "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor



  19. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question


    : No that is where the close minded on the religious side are wrong. Even
    : the truly opened minded of the religious know that not everything is
    known.

    God punished Adam and Eve for eating from the tree of knowledge.

    "God" does not want you to know anything. He made it, and that's it!

    You can NOT get any more closed minded!



  20. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question


    : Both say that everything came from nothing.
    : Even Quantum mechanics.

    No it does not! Stop talking about things you know nothing about!!



+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast