| Forum Index > General Forum |
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk | ||
|
baldgye
United Kingdom1103 Posts
Don't worry Dave is here to save you from becoming a pedophile!!!! Thanks to the amazing efforts of the wonderful publication that is the Daily Mail we are now SAVED from the factual damage and corruption of nudity that was first recorded in Victorian times. Today is a great day for freedom, don't you think comrade! | ||
|
jello_biafra
United Kingdom6641 Posts
On July 22 2013 17:26 baldgye wrote: Don't worry Dave is here to save you from becoming a pedophile!!!! Thanks to the amazing efforts of the wonderful publication that is the Daily Mail we are now SAVED from the factual damage and corruption of nudity that was first recorded in Victorian times. Today is a great day for freedom, don't you think comrade! There's also this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2366391/Internet-giants-secretly-urged-ministers-pretend-blocking-online-porn-let-Cameron-declare-victory-issue.html I really doubt this is actually going to make it to reality. | ||
|
baldgye
United Kingdom1103 Posts
How dare those American Dogs try and trick us into there corruption and evil ways! We must stop this oppression of evil and fight to have our decency saved from these savages! Fellow comrades we must work together, rally your men, we must protect our selfs from pornography! The great Daily Mail has show us the way we must now act and fight for our freedom with oppression! | ||
|
adwodon
United Kingdom592 Posts
Nothing will change if you opt-in and the same system is basically already in place on mobile phones, you need to enter credit-card details in order to access 'adult content', it charges you a small amount which is deducted from your next bill. The reason its an opt-in system is that a lot of people out there would be unaware of it otherwise, child-protection filters do exist and are on most routers as far as I'm aware but most people don't understand them or even know they exist and yes I do think its important that children be barred from seeing these things as the internet can get pretty dark within a few clicks and children don't quite understanding what they are doing. Not to mention the heaps of malware etc that an idiotic child could slam on your computer through mindless porn clicking. There are a tonne of people going all 1984 on us, yelling that this is the slippery slope to full censorship. It's really not at all, it's a fairly logical step to help ensure that the internet is a welcome place for everyone and that parents who aren't tech savvy can be sure their children aren't being exposed to something they don't want them to, which as parents is their right to decide and the government is simply facilitating that with an extremely minor inconvenience to everyone else, it will probably just be a check-box during sign up or a small e-mail or call for those already on a service. If you don't like it, opt-in, what's the big deal? Sucks if you like rape porn I suppose but outlawing that is hardly a bold step in uncharted waters. Also I haven't read the DM article, I don't like click-bait so I can't comment on the their arguments. | ||
|
baldgye
United Kingdom1103 Posts
On July 22 2013 21:35 adwodon wrote: I think it's a good idea, I don't understand why everyone is getting so pissy about it. Nothing will change if you opt-in and the same system is basically already in place on mobile phones, you need to enter credit-card details in order to access 'adult content', it charges you a small amount which is deducted from your next bill. The reason its an opt-in system is that a lot of people out there would be unaware of it otherwise, child-protection filters do exist and are on most routers as far as I'm aware but most people don't understand them or even know they exist and yes I do think its important that children be barred from seeing these things as the internet can get pretty dark within a few clicks and children don't quite understanding what they are doing. Not to mention the heaps of malware etc that an idiotic child could slam on your computer through mindless porn clicking. There are a tonne of people going all 1984 on us, yelling that this is the slippery slope to full censorship. It's really not at all, it's a fairly logical step to help ensure that the internet is a welcome place for everyone and that parents who aren't tech savvy can be sure their children aren't being exposed to something they don't want them to, which as parents is their right to decide and the government is simply facilitating that with an extremely minor inconvenience to everyone else, it will probably just be a check-box during sign up or a small e-mail or call for those already on a service. If you don't like it, opt-in, what's the big deal? Sucks if you like rape porn I suppose but outlawing that is hardly a bold step in uncharted waters. Also I haven't read the DM article, I don't like click-bait so I can't comment on the their arguments. It's a horrible idea based on zero research and actual facts. If porn is a problem, why are topless women allowed to be printed on page three of The Sun? Why are porn magazines and men's magazines (softcore porn) allowed to be sold in the same place as children's magazines? It's not logical in any way, trying to shame people into not being able to access porn is infact shameful. How do these filters even work? Will they block the Mail Online's site? It's got dozens of softcore porn images on it, what about The Sun? It's a ludicrous idea thought up by idiots who have no idea what the internet actually is. Nanny state politics thought up by lazy incompetent parents. | ||
|
ref4
2933 Posts
On July 22 2013 21:35 adwodon wrote: I think it's a good idea, I don't understand why everyone is getting so pissy about it. Nothing will change if you opt-in and the same system is basically already in place on mobile phones, you need to enter credit-card details in order to access 'adult content', it charges you a small amount which is deducted from your next bill. The reason its an opt-in system is that a lot of people out there would be unaware of it otherwise, child-protection filters do exist and are on most routers as far as I'm aware but most people don't understand them or even know they exist and yes I do think its important that children be barred from seeing these things as the internet can get pretty dark within a few clicks and children don't quite understanding what they are doing. Not to mention the heaps of malware etc that an idiotic child could slam on your computer through mindless porn clicking. There are a tonne of people going all 1984 on us, yelling that this is the slippery slope to full censorship. It's really not at all, it's a fairly logical step to help ensure that the internet is a welcome place for everyone and that parents who aren't tech savvy can be sure their children aren't being exposed to something they don't want them to, which as parents is their right to decide and the government is simply facilitating that with an extremely minor inconvenience to everyone else, it will probably just be a check-box during sign up or a small e-mail or call for those already on a service. If you don't like it, opt-in, what's the big deal? Sucks if you like rape porn I suppose but outlawing that is hardly a bold step in uncharted waters. Also I haven't read the DM article, I don't like click-bait so I can't comment on the their arguments. Yup. Like how after many U.S. states outlawed sodomy people have stopped committing sodomy 100%. It totally works guys and the facts check out. And there is absolutely zero gun-related violence in states that banned guns. Totally, man. | ||
|
adwodon
United Kingdom592 Posts
On July 23 2013 00:08 baldgye wrote: It's a horrible idea based on zero research and actual facts. http://www.apa.org/monitor/nov07/webporn.aspx Discredits your 'zero research' straight off the bat, want more? On July 23 2013 00:08 baldgye wrote: If porn is a problem, why are topless women allowed to be printed on page three of The Sun? I'm not going to defend page three, I think its tacky and unnecessary but if you can't tell the difference between hardcore pornography and a pair of tits then I worry for you. On July 23 2013 00:08 baldgye wrote: Why are porn magazines and men's magazines (softcore porn) allowed to be sold in the same place as children's magazines? When I was younger you needed to be 16 to buy mens magazines, has this changed? Hardcore magazines have their covers censored and must be on the top shelf, out of reach of young children. On July 23 2013 00:08 baldgye wrote: It's not logical in any way, trying to shame people into not being able to access porn is infact shameful. How do these filters even work? Why is it shameful? You tick a box, you don't have to describe why you want to tick the box to anybody. Is it shameful to walk into a pornography retailer or buying a lads mag (as you clearly have trouble telling the two apart)? These filters work in the same way as current mobile phone operators filter adult content, if you're on O2 you can't look at explicit websites without confirming your age with a credit card transaction (which is refunded in your next bill), many workplaces often employ similar filters to block out content, often expanded. Most sites these days are categorized in one way or another, it will simply filter a site based on its category, if a site is unreasonably filtered it can obviously be appealed and added to a list of exceptions. This is nothing new, its been around for a long time. On July 23 2013 00:08 baldgye wrote: Will they block the Mail Online's site? No. On July 23 2013 00:08 baldgye wrote: It's got dozens of softcore porn images on it, what about The Sun? No. On July 23 2013 00:08 baldgye wrote: It's a ludicrous idea thought up by idiots who have no idea what the internet actually is. Pot, kettle. On July 23 2013 00:08 baldgye wrote: Nanny state politics thought up by lazy incompetent parents. If you're so enthusiastic and competent why are you afraid to tick a box? Also it's not mandated so I don't see how its 'nanny state'. On July 23 2013 00:21 ref4 wrote: Yup. Like how after many U.S. states outlawed sodomy people have stopped committing sodomy 100%. It totally works guys and the facts check out. And there is absolutely zero gun-related violence in states that banned guns. Totally, man. Your hyperbole has floored me, I conceded to your superior skills of debate. | ||
|
Eufouria
United Kingdom4425 Posts
He's decided to deal with an issue that isn't really an issue, this is so clearly a diversion tactic so people forget about all the important things that are happening. | ||
|
Asymmetric
Scotland1309 Posts
"The whole Country is excited" David, go fuck yourself. You don't speak for me. | ||
|
Klive5ive
United Kingdom6056 Posts
Evidence is showing that watching porn can lead young people to see sex as a something "recreational" and having the mindset that women are "sexual play-things". Now a good parent can buffer a young person against this and limit or remove the effects so yes you can blame bad parents. However, this doesn't help the young people themselves and so therefore it's sensible to look at ways of limiting their access to porn. That doesn't mean I think this bill is a good idea, because, as always, the devil is in the detail - we shall have to see. On July 23 2013 01:19 Asymmetric wrote: David Cameron on the Royal Baby "The whole Country is excited" David, go fuck yourself. You don't speak for me. Scotland is a different country to England, so yeah, go fuck YOURself :p | ||
|
Telcontar
United Kingdom16710 Posts
On July 23 2013 01:19 Asymmetric wrote: David Cameron on the Royal Baby "The whole Country is excited" David, go fuck yourself. You don't speak for me. Someone's having a kid? Congrats, I guess. | ||
|
Asymmetric
Scotland1309 Posts
On July 23 2013 01:22 Klive5ive wrote: I'm sorry but it IS an issue. Evidence is showing that watching porn can lead young people to see sex as a something "recreational" and having the mindset that women are "sexual play-things". Now a good parent can buffer a young person against this and limit or remove the effects so yes you can blame bad parents. However, this doesn't help the young people themselves and so therefore it's sensible to look at ways of limiting their access to porn. That doesn't mean I think this bill is a good idea, because, as always, the devil is in the detail - we shall have to see. Scotland is a different country to England, so yeah, go fuck YOURself :p I would love nothing more than David Cameron to be the Prime minister of England. Edit: I don't believe everyone in England is a royal loving parasite either. | ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
| ||
|
Eufouria
United Kingdom4425 Posts
On July 23 2013 01:22 Klive5ive wrote: I'm sorry but it IS an issue. Evidence is showing that watching porn can lead young people to see sex as a something "recreational" and having the mindset that women are "sexual play-things". Now a good parent can buffer a young person against this and limit or remove the effects so yes you can blame bad parents. However, this doesn't help the young people themselves and so therefore it's sensible to look at ways of limiting their access to porn. That doesn't mean I think this bill is a good idea, because, as always, the devil is in the detail - we shall have to see. Goodness, imagine how terrible that would be. On July 23 2013 01:22 Klive5ive wrote: Scotland is a different country to England, so yeah, go fuck YOURself :p David Cameron is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom I would assume when he says "the whole country" he is referring to the country he is the Prime Minister of, which includes Scotland. | ||
|
baldgye
United Kingdom1103 Posts
Thanks for your reply. The link you posted actually states that they cannot find evidence to show that online porn negatively effects how teens view sex or women, only that there could be links. Restricting access to the Internet and actually knowing what it is and how to deal with it is what parenting is in the 21stC, if you fail to do these basic things then chances are, your unfit to be a parent and no matter what the Gov does your children will suffer due to your incompetence. This whole concept is idiotic and helps no one but the Daily Mails PR team and the idiots who read it. I should have to 'opt in' to an open Internet. This is suppose to be a free county yet all that's actually happening is freedoms are being removed to try and help failing parents who were never fit for purpose to begin with. | ||
|
Kleinmuuhg
Vanuatu4091 Posts
Will be interesting to see how this situation develops. | ||
|
SCkad
Scotland97 Posts
On July 23 2013 00:49 adwodon wrote: Why is it shameful? You tick a box, you don't have to describe why you want to tick the box to anybody. Is it shameful to walk into a pornography retailer or buying a lads mag (as you clearly have trouble telling the two apart)? These filters work in the same way as current mobile phone operators filter adult content, if you're on O2 you can't look at explicit websites without confirming your age with a credit card transaction (which is refunded in your next bill), many workplaces often employ similar filters to block out content, often expanded. Most sites these days are categorized in one way or another, it will simply filter a site based on its category, if a site is unreasonably filtered it can obviously be appealed and added to a list of exceptions. This is nothing new, its been around for a long time. according to the BBC some people may need to call up their ISP to get the setting changed which is where the "shame" comment comes from I believe. Not many people want to call up and say "hey can i get my porn filter turned off please?" unfortunately and this is key the list of what will be blocked will not be available to the public it might have been created with good intentions but it looks to open to abuse imho and the fact that its main argument is "think of the children" is really not helping matters either | ||
|
baldgye
United Kingdom1103 Posts
On July 23 2013 02:36 SCkad wrote: it might have been created with good intentions but it looks to open to abuse imho and the fact that its main argument is "think of the children" is really not helping matters either It's created so to try and link pornography to actually negatively effecting children, when infact bad parenting is actually whats to blame. You know how you actually stop teenage pregnancies and the lower-class from ever expanding, its education. It's also how you prevent extremism. But education takes along time and people are too short sighted and too short minded to actually allow it to happen, so instead we get these extreme jumps in logic in order to prevent it, which in actual fact all it achieves is the general public loosing freedoms and the government being able to set dangerous presidents and bowing to lobbying groups. Like the PC Pro podcast talked about, the model they seem to be basing this off is the Talk Talk model, but no one will talk to the public, or press about how these black lists are generated, who moderates them or who owns them. It's insane. What happens after this, do sites that link to violence get black listed too? What about video games, video games that have sex in them, are they banned? I don't understand the logic behind the people who think this is a good thing, becasue I don't think that those people have a grasp on the world they live in. | ||
|
Klive5ive
United Kingdom6056 Posts
On July 23 2013 01:56 baldgye wrote: Restricting access to the Internet and actually knowing what it is and how to deal with it is what parenting is in the 21stC, if you fail to do these basic things then chances are, your unfit to be a parent and no matter what the Gov does your children will suffer due to your incompetence. Except it's the state that picks up the pieces. We don't live in "not my problem" world any more (thank God). Limiting that suffering is important wherever possible. Again, I must stress that I'm not sure I would support the legislation. But I believe the principle of limiting access to pornography for young people is a worthwhile one. "It's created so to try and link pornography to actually negatively effecting children, when infact bad parenting is actually whats to blame." Why is everyone so keen to make this false dichotomy? | ||
KwarK
United States43966 Posts
| ||
| ||
[ Submit Event ] |
|
|
|
OSC
Big Brain Bouts
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
Classic vs GgMaChine
Rogue vs Maru
WardiTV Invitational
IPSL
Ret vs Art_Of_Turtle
Radley vs TBD
BSL
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
herO vs TriGGeR
NightMare vs Solar
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
