|
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 |
I agree that opt in is the better way to go about this.
On July 23 2013 03:47 KwarK wrote:
I do not agree. For most of human history you'd grow up with your parents fucking in the same cave/shack you lived in. A lot of humans still live that way. You need to achieve a certain level of excessive wealth and decadence to have enough of a surplus that you can start making sex shameful and that's actually relatively recent. There's a reason Victorian values are called Victorian values and we all know what wonderfully well adjusted people they were.
I understand that you have a different point of view on this than I have and I respect that. You can raise your kids different then from how I raise mine. This is not a law, but it is an optional choice that should be made available in my eyes.
However, I strongly dislike your cave/shack example. A few hundrets of years ago it was also normal for small kids to watch executions and see dead or diseased bodies very often. You still wouldnt let your 6 year old kids watch gore horror movies would you? The human race and its cultures changes and so do the effects that different influences have on a kid when growing up.
If that makes me a Victorian, then so be it.
|
/Checks U.S. Politics thread
"haha American's are dumb!"
/Checks U.K. Politics thread
"fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu"
6 pages it took. 6 fucking pages for Brits to get into an argument about kinky sex. Fucking seriously. It's like a French politics page that goes on about the rights and wrongs of surrendering to a superior force or an Irish politics page that defaults to discussions of potatoes. Really, fucking look at yourselves.
Blah, in for a penny, in for a pound ho hooooooooooooooooooooo....
So let's just say me and my wife enjoy rape role play. Fine n' dandy as far as the law is concerned. So now we make a flick of us in the act of this rape role play and I whack off to it while she's on holiday. Now I'm a criminal. WHERE NOW FOR BARELY THOUGHT THROUGH BEDROOM LEGISLATION?
This new round of banning extreme pornography/censoring the web unless you chose to call up your ISP so you can be put on a list which you have no control over/criminalising people for putting the wrong search term into Google is a naked attempt at vote trawling. We've been here before under a Labour government and dumb won that time. It was dumb then, it's dumb now. It's a dumb dumb dumb assault on freedom of speech which will have not avert a single crime. Again for anyone who think I'm not treating this subject with the seriousness it deserves. Any changes in corporate policy or legislation that result from the intended course outlined by the Prime Minister will not avert a single crime.
Think, search, read, analyse and think again. Then dismiss this rubbish with the same contempt which the framers of the current debate have for the public at large. If for no other reason than that we don't have a read a story in two years time that the Arseache candidate for ashton-upon-fuckwitch lost a bunch of votes when it was leaked that they had asked for the nonce's version of the internet.
What a waste of fucking time. Think I'll post something a bit more constructive next.
|
On July 23 2013 04:45 Dapper_Cad wrote:/Checks U.S. Politics thread "haha American's are dumb!" /Checks U.K. Politics thread "fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu" 6 pages it took. 6 fucking pages for Brits to get into an argument about kinky sex. Fucking seriously. It's like a French politics page that goes on about the rights and wrongs of surrendering to a superior force or an Irish politics page that defaults to discussions of potatoes. Really, fucking look at yourselves. Blah, in for a penny, in for a pound ho hooooooooooooooooooooo.... So let's just say me and my wife enjoy rape role play. Fine n' dandy as far as the law is concerned. So now we make a flick of us in the act of this rape role play and I whack off to it while she's on holiday. Now I'm a criminal. WHERE NOW FOR BARELY THOUGHT THROUGH BEDROOM LEGISLATION? This new round of banning extreme pornography/censoring the web unless you chose to call up your ISP so you can be put on a list which you have no control over/criminalising people for putting the wrong search term into Google is a naked attempt at vote trawling. We've been here before under a Labour government and dumb won that time. It was dumb then, it's dumb now. It's a dumb dumb dumb assault on freedom of speech which will have not avert a single crime. Again for anyone who think I'm not treating this subject with the seriousness it deserves. Any changes in corporate policy or legislation that result from the intended course outlined by the Prime Minister will not avert a single crime. Think, search, read, analyse and think again. Then dismiss this rubbish with the same contempt which the framers of the current debate have for the public at large. If for no other reason than that we don't have a read a story in two years time that the Arseache candidate for ashton-upon-fuckwitch lost a bunch of votes when it was leaked that they had asked for the nonce's version of the internet. What a waste of fucking time. Think I'll post something a bit more constructive next.
Newsflash: People aren't as different as their nationalities would have you believe.
|
On July 23 2013 04:47 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2013 04:45 Dapper_Cad wrote:/Checks U.S. Politics thread "haha American's are dumb!" /Checks U.K. Politics thread "fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu" 6 pages it took. 6 fucking pages for Brits to get into an argument about kinky sex. Fucking seriously. It's like a French politics page that goes on about the rights and wrongs of surrendering to a superior force or an Irish politics page that defaults to discussions of potatoes. Really, fucking look at yourselves. Blah, in for a penny, in for a pound ho hooooooooooooooooooooo.... So let's just say me and my wife enjoy rape role play. Fine n' dandy as far as the law is concerned. So now we make a flick of us in the act of this rape role play and I whack off to it while she's on holiday. Now I'm a criminal. WHERE NOW FOR BARELY THOUGHT THROUGH BEDROOM LEGISLATION? This new round of banning extreme pornography/censoring the web unless you chose to call up your ISP so you can be put on a list which you have no control over/criminalising people for putting the wrong search term into Google is a naked attempt at vote trawling. We've been here before under a Labour government and dumb won that time. It was dumb then, it's dumb now. It's a dumb dumb dumb assault on freedom of speech which will have not avert a single crime. Again for anyone who think I'm not treating this subject with the seriousness it deserves. Any changes in corporate policy or legislation that result from the intended course outlined by the Prime Minister will not avert a single crime. Think, search, read, analyse and think again. Then dismiss this rubbish with the same contempt which the framers of the current debate have for the public at large. If for no other reason than that we don't have a read a story in two years time that the Arseache candidate for ashton-upon-fuckwitch lost a bunch of votes when it was leaked that they had asked for the nonce's version of the internet. What a waste of fucking time. Think I'll post something a bit more constructive next. Newsflash: People aren't as different as their nationalities would have you believe.
I completely agree. But when you have a national stereotype and you watch your fellow nationals conform to it so beautifully you can't help but laugh.
|
Sad times when the Prime Minister has nothing better to do than launch an assault on kinky sex.
|
Looks like we have a future king, 3 kings in a row it is set to be.
|
Seriously if this goes through I have lost all respect for this government. What is the next step? Surely the people 'roleplaying' are more criminal than the people watching. What about other 'scenarios'? Any porn involving teachers/students is about child molestation, any girl calling a guy 'daddy' is endorsing incest, any doctor/nurse costume encourages abuse of power. I don't understand how a law can be passed that flies completely in the face of an elementary understanding of human sexuality. Was anybody even consulted about this? Where is the data demonstrating that watching scenario pornography makes one more likely to commit sex crimes? A complete, unfounded abuse of freedom.
Meanwhile kids pass videos of beheadings and torture around for fun and it doesn't warrant a mention. Shameful priorities.
|
Well the kid couldn't come at a better time for David Cameron he can now slip under the radar for a couple of weeks.
|
On July 23 2013 06:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Well the kid couldn't come at a better time for David Cameron he can now slip under the radar for a couple of weeks.
Yeah what a coincidence he happened to announce it today eh?
|
That and the Tobacco Lobby.
|
On July 22 2013 11:43 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 09:35 KwarK wrote:
I don't believe the BBC has any political leanings although that could just be that it generally agrees with me. I'm reasonably centrist by British standards.
I'd say the BBC is somewhat (not massively) to the left of our country's 'mainstream' opinion. I heard the BBC leans left but wanted to see what the opinion was across the pond.
The BBC is a state broadcaster. It get's a compulsory tax from anyone who owns a television, so is largely dependant on the state for income, in addition it's hirings and firings are subject to some state interference.
But does them being part of the state automatically mean they are "leftist" in some sense as often accused? No, it means they, on most days, will play safe by the state. We should expect any organisation to avoid actions which might endanger the jobs of the people who influence the actions of that organisation. The BBC follows the state line because stepping off it might result in punishment. A good example is the Dr. David Kelly affair which ultimately resulted in the resignations of the BBC's Director General and the Chairman. To be fair though, some sectors of the British media will bad mouth the BBC fairly regularly no matter what they do. Why? Well they ruin the internets and mess with the great world money chi.
Starey bespectacled man tells tale of cyborg future run by fat BBC Apparatchiks
but that's somewhat by the by, the bias created by the colouring of discourse on the BBC by those whose interests it interferes with is never going to be equivalent to the bias created by the interests of the BBC itself. On the front page of the BBC news website right now is a piece on "Dr. Who" a BBC entertainment program which it sells with some success around the world. This is a fairly straight forward example of possible bias when selecting what to "print". A more subtle one goes back to what I was saying at the beginning, the BBC is unlikely to take a position which pisses the government of the day off too dramatically. How this plays out is difficult to gauge on any single story but, for funzies, lets have a stab on a story currently live in this thread.
I notice the BBC's reporting of David Cameron's demand for a "Default on" internet porn filter doesn't seem to cover the interesting fact, linked in a post above, that a letter from the Department of Education to ISPs said
Without changing what you will be offering, the Prime Minister would like to be able to refer to your solutions as “default-on”.
It's true that the Daily Mail link does it's best to mislead the reader, a less misleading article can be found at the register which quotes the letter in full and gives a better description of the situation in a single sentence than the daily mail can manage in an entire article:
Yesterday, the BBC published a leaked letter from the Department for Education that nudged internet providers into changing the wording of their website-blocking plans from "Active Choice +" to "default-on".
Small beans maybe, a matter of semantics? A single leak from a single department asking that ISPs change some language to bolster the position of the sitting Prime Minister not really a big deal? Maybe. The story does have some legs though, the Daily Mail quoted a "source at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport" as saying that "The Department for Education is part of the problem". That's one government ministry calling another government ministry part of the internet porn problem.
Again though, as I say, difficult to judge from a single piece on a single day. If nothing else, something about this might crop up in the BBCs reporting tomorrow. Or you might judge the whole thing as a storm in a teacup and offer no surprise that the BBC should pass over it. A deeper analysis might be had of an undeniably big story that runs on and on over years.
This report: "How the BBC betrayed the NHS" on the BBCs coverage of the "Health and Social Care Act" is more damning. It covers perceived BBC misreporting, over the course of 3 years, of a change to the National Health Service so large that the NHSs chief executive described it as "visible from space".
If you are seriously interested in accusations of BBC bias in recent years it's essential reading. If you're seriously interested in the future of the NHS it's essential reading too as it puts together a lot of interesting information on the subject. Frankly if you're a British citizen it's pretty essential reading.
For those more narrowly focused on why and how the BBC works a scan of the BBCs royal charter and some of the ways that the BBC trust interprets that charter might be useful. From that last link I'll give you a quote which I believe explains some of the accusations of left bias:
(ii) Cater for the different nations, regions and communities of the UK.
Audiences value the work the BBC does to cater for the interests of
nations, regions and communities of the UK.3 This includes local
services; programming tailored for the nations and regions; and output
meeting the needs of minority communities. In Building Public Value
the BBC committed itself to: ‘provide civic and cultural support to
communities all over the country…to reflect their concerns, celebrate
their cultures and build a sense of place.’ These communities include
those of interest as well as of place.
A lot of those that designate themselves as right of centre are -in my view- uncomfortable with minorities having a voice (7:35), or uncomfortable with minorities other than their specific minority having a voice.
None of this is to say that the BBC shouldn't do news. Or that the NHS is being privatised PANIC! Or even that Jeremy Clarkson is a tax avoiding tossbag (personally it should, it is and he is.). More that the BBC, or any news source for that matter, has biases which emerge from its structure and position, biases you should examine at some point if you are relying on it as a source of information.
|
On July 22 2013 21:35 adwodon wrote:
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.
What exactly is and isn't 'rape porn'? And seen as 99% of porn sites offer things which are 100% not 'rape porn', some things which are 'rape porn' and some things which could maybe be 'rape porn' depending on your opinion of the term then how the fuck is that at all enforceable.
Not to mention that what exactly is wrong with rape porn? Billions of people get enjoyment from fictional scenarios in all forms of entertainment which would be illegal if they were real. From rape porn, to movies like Hostel and Saw to TV shows like The Wire and The Sopranos.
When the fuck did acting out fictional events become cause for a crime? Absolutely fucking ridiculous.
|
On July 23 2013 08:23 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2013 21:35 adwodon wrote:
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.
What exactly is and isn't 'rape porn'? And seen as 99% of porn sites offer things which are 100% not 'rape porn', some things which are 'rape porn' and some things which could maybe be 'rape porn' depending on your opinion of the term then how the fuck is that at all enforceable. Not to mention that what exactly is wrong with rape porn? Billions of people get enjoyment from fictional scenarios in all forms of entertainment which would be illegal if they were real. From rape porn, to movies like Hostel and Saw to TV shows like The Wire and The Sopranos. When the fuck did acting out fictional events become cause for a crime? Absolutely fucking ridiculous.
if the scene is the recording of an actual rape (why someone would make a video of this i have no clue) then its rape porn. if its a scene of roleplaying and somewhere in the video or description it explicitly states that then it isn't rape porn, its just some really weird porn.
thats my opinion anyways and its probably oversimplified but hey its an opinion it doesn't need to be right
|
On July 23 2013 08:49 SCkad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2013 08:23 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On July 22 2013 21:35 adwodon wrote:
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.
What exactly is and isn't 'rape porn'? And seen as 99% of porn sites offer things which are 100% not 'rape porn', some things which are 'rape porn' and some things which could maybe be 'rape porn' depending on your opinion of the term then how the fuck is that at all enforceable. Not to mention that what exactly is wrong with rape porn? Billions of people get enjoyment from fictional scenarios in all forms of entertainment which would be illegal if they were real. From rape porn, to movies like Hostel and Saw to TV shows like The Wire and The Sopranos. When the fuck did acting out fictional events become cause for a crime? Absolutely fucking ridiculous. if the scene is the recording of an actual rape (why someone would make a video of this i have no clue) then its rape porn. if its a scene of roleplaying and somewhere in the video or description it explicitly states that then it isn't rape porn, its just some really weird porn. thats my opinion anyways and its probably oversimplified but hey its an opinion it doesn't need to be right
WTF, it's rape plain and simple where does the porn come in?!
|
On July 23 2013 08:49 SCkad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2013 08:23 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On July 22 2013 21:35 adwodon wrote:
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.
What exactly is and isn't 'rape porn'? And seen as 99% of porn sites offer things which are 100% not 'rape porn', some things which are 'rape porn' and some things which could maybe be 'rape porn' depending on your opinion of the term then how the fuck is that at all enforceable. Not to mention that what exactly is wrong with rape porn? Billions of people get enjoyment from fictional scenarios in all forms of entertainment which would be illegal if they were real. From rape porn, to movies like Hostel and Saw to TV shows like The Wire and The Sopranos. When the fuck did acting out fictional events become cause for a crime? Absolutely fucking ridiculous. if the scene is the recording of an actual rape (why someone would make a video of this i have no clue) then its rape porn. if its a scene of roleplaying and somewhere in the video or description it explicitly states that then it isn't rape porn, its just some really weird porn. thats my opinion anyways and its probably oversimplified but hey its an opinion it doesn't need to be right
A recording of an actual rape is already illegal, obviously, because it's just live footage of a major crime.
David Cameron is obviously referring to simulated rape. which could mean anything up to and including mild BDSM style stuff the I imagine a hell of a lot of people have watched/enjoyed.
|
Is the porn ban getting a thread anytime soon?
I feel like I haven't rabble rabble rabbled in a while
|
I hope not. I don't want to read anything about how it's good because sex shouldn't seem like a good thing to young people or whatever shit people come out with.
I hate the conservative party.
I hate David Cameron.
This though, this is a whole new thing, it is just the dumbest thing I've seen a government in the UK openly do for a long long time.
|
On July 23 2013 11:47 Zealos wrote:
I hope not. I don't want to read anything about how it's good because sex shouldn't seem like a good thing to young people or whatever shit people come out with.
I hate the conservative party.
I hate David Cameron.
This though, this is a whole new thing, it is just the dumbest thing I've seen a government in the UK openly do for a long long time.
I absolutely despise the lack of respect for free speech that we have in the UK and the willingless to let the government tell you how to live your life.
Say what you want about the US but I envy most of their populations total deference for freedom and their suspicion of government.
|
On July 23 2013 11:55 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2013 11:47 Zealos wrote:
I hope not. I don't want to read anything about how it's good because sex shouldn't seem like a good thing to young people or whatever shit people come out with.
I hate the conservative party.
I hate David Cameron.
This though, this is a whole new thing, it is just the dumbest thing I've seen a government in the UK openly do for a long long time. I absolutely despise the lack of respect for free speech that we have in the UK and the willingless to let the government tell you how to live your life. Say what you want about the US but I envy most of their populations total deference for freedom and their suspicion of government.
To be honest, I am not even broaching the issue of censorship. I personally do not think this is going to be used beyond the obvious. I just hate the message it sends. Girls are constantly told that they should only have sex if they "love" someone, and that it has to be something special, else they are whores or sluts or whatever the fuck men wanna call them. Changes like this just cement this sort of issue. So while it really fucking sucks for guys that wanna masturbate, the real shame is that for young people growing up, it further criminalizes the idea of sex.
|
Maybe Cameron is doing this in an attempt to show the UKIP he is Conservative after all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
