On July 24 2013 19:44 bardtown wrote: But Labour is led by the wrong person too. So we have 3 parties with simply bad leaders. This is what despair feels like, I suppose.
Give me a break. You think Ed Miliband is likely to do these things? Restrict access to porn, try to destroy the NHS, introduce the bedroom tax, divide the country by hitting people on low incomes including parents who are working 50 hours? All while fighting tooth and claw over bankers' bonuses?
If not, then you don't have a point. "Labour is just as bad as the Tories" is nothing but tabloid spin that you have swallowed hook, line and sinker.
I think it's all about parents and parenting ... But then again it's not easy for someone not computer-literate to set an enviroment with parents filters... Smartphones are even worse... P2P messenger programs are even worse... Whatsapp and the alikes ... Anyway no easy solution, they should just try to fight and ban child porn, violence, rape and nasty stuff and just pretend kids can't see porn with 1 word on google/bing
Edit: Just out of curiosity try to google images for girls or women in google images and bang ... already have erotic images (not porn but whatever ...)
On July 24 2013 22:04 Douillos wrote: Wasn't this supposed to be for child pornography only?
And rape ... But for doing that they want to do a filter over ISPs for everyone's house, and whoever opt out will be even more monitored ... Try to imagine american's prism turbo 2.0
On July 24 2013 21:28 BillGates wrote: The studies come from Sweden and Japan. And it goes even further than just normal porn.
Either way the problem isn't if its safe or not, its do you have the right to self ownership, the right to private property and the right to freedom?
If you don't, then the government can force ISP's to have this crap, it can force people into Chinese style censorship of the internet, it can say in 50 years time force people to throw their babies in pits of fire to satisfy the government gods. I mean its only history that this has happened.
Caligula married his horse and drank blood from young virgin girls, count Dracula or Vlad the impaler, the king of Romania or that region in the time, used to go out kidnap woman, rape them, drain them of their blood and shower in it, and it was okay because he was the king, people though he had the authority and right to do that.
I mean Hitler said he'd show the Jews and they were the unpopular group at the time, until soon enough everyone was in concentration camps and over 20 million Germans ultimately died in WW2 and they were the biggest losers.
The Vlad part is inaccurate to say the least. Maybe you mean Elizabeth Bathory of Hungary ? Events and facts around Vlad the Impaler are not very clear, some monarchs from western countries and merchants are believed to have manufactured his blood thirst and lust for torture. We can't be actually sure either way, but one thing I can tell you is that I don't think anyone ever said he did that. They said he liked to dine at the bottom of the impaled bodies of his enemies though . As for the discussion at hand, if they think they can censor the internet, well I think they are delusional. There will always be ways around it. If you don't want your kids to watch porn in your house, restrict their access to the internet. They'll watch either way if they really want to at a friend who's parents have opted in for it or something like that.
On July 24 2013 19:44 bardtown wrote: But Labour is led by the wrong person too. So we have 3 parties with simply bad leaders. This is what despair feels like, I suppose.
Give me a break. You think Ed Miliband is likely to do these things? Restrict access to porn, try to destroy the NHS, introduce the bedroom tax, divide the country by hitting people on low incomes including parents who are working 50 hours? All while fighting tooth and claw over bankers' bonuses?
If not, then you don't have a point. "Labour is just as bad as the Tories" is nothing but tabloid spin that you have swallowed hook, line and sinker.
I think his point was that rightly or wrongly, people think that Labour got Ed Milliband instead of David, who would have stopped the Conservative/Liberal Democrats coalition getting in in the first place.
On July 24 2013 19:44 bardtown wrote: But Labour is led by the wrong person too. So we have 3 parties with simply bad leaders. This is what despair feels like, I suppose.
Give me a break. You think Ed Miliband is likely to do these things? Restrict access to porn, try to destroy the NHS, introduce the bedroom tax, divide the country by hitting people on low incomes including parents who are working 50 hours? All while fighting tooth and claw over bankers' bonuses?
If not, then you don't have a point. "Labour is just as bad as the Tories" is nothing but tabloid spin that you have swallowed hook, line and sinker.
I think his point was that rightly or wrongly, people think that Labour got Ed Milliband instead of David, who would have stopped the Conservative/Liberal Democrats coalition getting in in the first place.
Yes, Ed is "weird looking", as they say. The British actually appear to be sufficiently moronic to allow that to determine their judgement.
On July 24 2013 19:44 bardtown wrote: But Labour is led by the wrong person too. So we have 3 parties with simply bad leaders. This is what despair feels like, I suppose.
Give me a break. You think Ed Miliband is likely to do these things? Restrict access to porn, try to destroy the NHS, introduce the bedroom tax, divide the country by hitting people on low incomes including parents who are working 50 hours? All while fighting tooth and claw over bankers' bonuses?
If not, then you don't have a point. "Labour is just as bad as the Tories" is nothing but tabloid spin that you have swallowed hook, line and sinker.
I think his point was that rightly or wrongly, people think that Labour got Ed Milliband instead of David, who would have stopped the Conservative/Liberal Democrats coalition getting in in the first place.
Yes, Ed is "weird looking", as they say. The British actually appear to be sufficiently moronic to allow that to determine their judgement.
I don't really see that as a solely British failing alas, it's been a consistent problem with politicians ever since the dawn of the televisual age gave those with physical charisma a big boost vs those who don't
On July 24 2013 19:44 bardtown wrote: But Labour is led by the wrong person too. So we have 3 parties with simply bad leaders. This is what despair feels like, I suppose.
Give me a break. You think Ed Miliband is likely to do these things? Restrict access to porn, try to destroy the NHS, introduce the bedroom tax, divide the country by hitting people on low incomes including parents who are working 50 hours? All while fighting tooth and claw over bankers' bonuses?
If not, then you don't have a point. "Labour is just as bad as the Tories" is nothing but tabloid spin that you have swallowed hook, line and sinker.
Did I say he was likely to do those things? No? Then why are you putting words in my mouth? Labour's economic policies are weak and Ed Miliband is a weak leader in a time where we need just the opposite. David (Miliband) was perfect for the job and acknowledged the mistakes labour made in the past. I wouldn't vote for Cameron after this disaster but there's no good alternative. Even the green party (AKA the party people resort to when they want to rebel against the 3 party dominance in parliament) come out with ridiculous policies.
Edit: His looks aren't the point, although looking like you've barely graduated from university doesn't help you to have presence in a room full of world leaders. He cannot even begin to hold his own in the house of commons, which is the forum for presenting your party to the public. If debating is not one of your strengths then you shouldn't be aiming to be the prime minister in the first place. David Miliband was the Foreign Secretary, during which time he had some good impact and impressed the public. There's no debate that the Labour supporting public wanted David to be the leader of the party and not Ed.
On July 24 2013 22:04 noD wrote: I think it's all about parents and parenting ... But then again it's not easy for someone not computer-literate to set an enviroment with parents filters... Smartphones are even worse... P2P messenger programs are even worse... Whatsapp and the alikes ... Anyway no easy solution, they should just try to fight and ban child porn, violence, rape and nasty stuff and just pretend kids can't see porn with 1 word on google/bing
Edit: Just out of curiosity try to google images for girls or women in google images and bang ... already have erotic images (not porn but whatever ...)
There is an easy solution, it's called opt-in.
If you're not capable of opting in to a no porn agreement with your ISP when you sign up then you shouldn't be trusted with a computer, let alone a child.
On July 24 2013 22:44 bardtown wrote: Did I say he was likely to do those things? No? Then why are you putting words in my mouth? Labour's economic policies are weak and Ed Miliband is a weak leader in a time where we need just the opposite.
Labour's economic policies are weak? You do realize that the Tories haven't produced any meaningful growth since they've been in charge? And their sole response has been to blame the last government which produced 10 years of growth and balanced the books perfectly until the stimulus package that was advised by economic experts?
But carry on, if you like, believing the unsupported doctrine that austerity without growth is strong economic policy. Carry on believing that the best way to tackle unemployment is to do nothing other than punish people.
On July 24 2013 22:44 bardtown wrote: Did I say he was likely to do those things? No? Then why are you putting words in my mouth? Labour's economic policies are weak and Ed Miliband is a weak leader in a time where we need just the opposite.
Labour's economic policies are weak? You do realize that the Tories haven't produced any meaningful growth since they've been in charge? And their sole response has been to blame the last government which produced 10 years of growth and balanced the books perfectly until the stimulus package that was advised by economic experts?
But carry on, if you like, believing the unsupported doctrine that austerity without growth is strong economic policy. Carry on believing that the best way to tackle unemployment is to do nothing other than punish people.
Carry on being dogmatic and assuming everybody who disagrees is an idiot. 'Economic experts' recommend policies in both directions. I'm sure their stimulus package was recommended by 'economic experts' - left wing economic experts. The IMF and other international organisations mostly support Conservative cuts, and Labour has admitted it would have had to make heavy cuts. You can ignore international events all you like and blame it entirely on domestic politics, but that's just plain ignorance. You have to bottleneck the services that are effective in order to reestablish growth.
On July 24 2013 22:44 bardtown wrote: Did I say he was likely to do those things? No? Then why are you putting words in my mouth? Labour's economic policies are weak and Ed Miliband is a weak leader in a time where we need just the opposite.
Labour's economic policies are weak? You do realize that the Tories haven't produced any meaningful growth since they've been in charge? And their sole response has been to blame the last government which produced 10 years of growth and balanced the books perfectly until the stimulus package that was advised by economic experts?
But carry on, if you like, believing the unsupported doctrine that austerity without growth is strong economic policy. Carry on believing that the best way to tackle unemployment is to do nothing other than punish people.
All your posts are hilarious, thanks. Been making my day.
On July 24 2013 03:27 DeathProfessor wrote: TBH its like if smoking was an opt OUT. Kids as young as 10 find porn then begin masturbating. As their brains are in their development stages, there is scientific evidence that their minds pleasure centers become rewired, in extreme cases they will have erectile dysfunction (e.g. not being able to get it up when they DO get a chance at sex). Porn can be addictive to people who just want that dopamine rush. This is where you get these kids on the internet who admit they masturbate like 5 times a day every day for 6 years.
Theres a good TED Talk video about this here:
Of course I would like completely free internet but the damage porn can do to the sexual expectations, innocence and brains of our youth leads me to support David Cameron.
yeah... You are gonna have to come with some solid sauce with such a statement.
On July 24 2013 20:36 FFW_Rude wrote: I really don't understand what the big problem is ... It exists on the cable and TV for like 10 years. Do it on the internet and you get a fucktons of : "NOOOOOOOO". This thing already exists. Maybe i'm too old and i'm being conservative or something
It's not : - A restriction of freedom. - A stupid thing to block some thing from the start even if you as a parent have to do your work (like the TV system in place). - a BAN of porn
It is : - A political thing because it's not blockable entirely (torrents, ddl etc.. of non official sites) and could encourage piracy of porn (yes porn is not free) because all legit sites would be blocked but not pirated ones.
It is a forum with people that know theire way around computer. But for people that DON'T know how to block things... How to prevent childrens and teenagers to access it.. It can be a good thing. Hell my 6year old niece found by herself how to copy her disney films from the pc to the ipad... imagine what can do my 10year old niece with a computer
Purely on principle, if you don't live in the UK or are familiar with it.
1. The campaign was endorsed/started by the media outlets that are the most sexist, puerile and have archaic views on women.
2. Endorsed by the Conservative party, who generally bemoan the 'nanny state'.
I mean, god forbid parents take some responsibility, or maybe learn to be more computer literate.
So that's why i didn't get it. Thank you for the explanation.
On July 24 2013 03:27 DeathProfessor wrote: TBH its like if smoking was an opt OUT. Kids as young as 10 find porn then begin masturbating. As their brains are in their development stages, there is scientific evidence that their minds pleasure centers become rewired, in extreme cases they will have erectile dysfunction (e.g. not being able to get it up when they DO get a chance at sex). Porn can be addictive to people who just want that dopamine rush. This is where you get these kids on the internet who admit they masturbate like 5 times a day every day for 6 years.
Of course I would like completely free internet but the damage porn can do to the sexual expectations, innocence and brains of our youth leads me to support David Cameron.
yeah... You are gonna have to come with some solid sauce with such a statement.
Not just sources but justification for why banning porn is better than educating people about the risks of immoderation and giving them free choice.
On July 24 2013 22:44 bardtown wrote: Did I say he was likely to do those things? No? Then why are you putting words in my mouth? Labour's economic policies are weak and Ed Miliband is a weak leader in a time where we need just the opposite.
Labour's economic policies are weak? You do realize that the Tories haven't produced any meaningful growth since they've been in charge? And their sole response has been to blame the last government which produced 10 years of growth and balanced the books perfectly until the stimulus package that was advised by economic experts?
But carry on, if you like, believing the unsupported doctrine that austerity without growth is strong economic policy. Carry on believing that the best way to tackle unemployment is to do nothing other than punish people.
Carry on being dogmatic and assuming everybody who disagrees is an idiot. 'Economic experts' recommend policies in both directions. I'm sure their stimulus package was recommended by 'economic experts' - left wing economic experts. The IMF and other international organisations mostly support Conservative cuts, and Labour has admitted it would have had to make heavy cuts. You can ignore international events all you like and blame it entirely on domestic politics, but that's just plain ignorance. You have to bottleneck the services that are effective in order to reestablish growth.
It must take an awful lot of faith to believe that the same policies that took a stock market crash into the Great Depression, which are observably failing right at the moment under your nose all throughout Europe, must be sound economic policy and something that only a weak man would question.
But carry on believing that everything going bad under the Tory government must be the fault of the last government and continue judging economic policy by "fiscal consolidation" even though national debt as a percentage of GDP has been comparable to what it is now for most of the last 300 years.
On July 24 2013 20:36 FFW_Rude wrote: I really don't understand what the big problem is ... It exists on the cable and TV for like 10 years. Do it on the internet and you get a fucktons of : "NOOOOOOOO". This thing already exists. Maybe i'm too old and i'm being conservative or something
It's not : - A restriction of freedom. - A stupid thing to block some thing from the start even if you as a parent have to do your work (like the TV system in place). - a BAN of porn
It is : - A political thing because it's not blockable entirely (torrents, ddl etc.. of non official sites) and could encourage piracy of porn (yes porn is not free) because all legit sites would be blocked but not pirated ones.
It is a forum with people that know theire way around computer. But for people that DON'T know how to block things... How to prevent childrens and teenagers to access it.. It can be a good thing. Hell my 6year old niece found by herself how to copy her disney films from the pc to the ipad... imagine what can do my 10year old niece with a computer
Purely on principle, if you don't live in the UK or are familiar with it.
1. The campaign was endorsed/started by the media outlets that are the most sexist, puerile and have archaic views on women.
2. Endorsed by the Conservative party, who generally bemoan the 'nanny state'.
I mean, god forbid parents take some responsibility, or maybe learn to be more computer literate.
So that's why i didn't get it. Thank you for the explanation.
On July 24 2013 22:44 bardtown wrote: Did I say he was likely to do those things? No? Then why are you putting words in my mouth? Labour's economic policies are weak and Ed Miliband is a weak leader in a time where we need just the opposite.
Labour's economic policies are weak? You do realize that the Tories haven't produced any meaningful growth since they've been in charge? And their sole response has been to blame the last government which produced 10 years of growth and balanced the books perfectly until the stimulus package that was advised by economic experts?
But carry on, if you like, believing the unsupported doctrine that austerity without growth is strong economic policy. Carry on believing that the best way to tackle unemployment is to do nothing other than punish people.
Carry on being dogmatic and assuming everybody who disagrees is an idiot. 'Economic experts' recommend policies in both directions. I'm sure their stimulus package was recommended by 'economic experts' - left wing economic experts. The IMF and other international organisations mostly support Conservative cuts, and Labour has admitted it would have had to make heavy cuts. You can ignore international events all you like and blame it entirely on domestic politics, but that's just plain ignorance. You have to bottleneck the services that are effective in order to reestablish growth.
It must take an awful lot of faith to believe that the same policies that took a stock market crash into the Great Depression, which are observably failing right at the moment under your nose all throughout Europe, must be sound economic policy and something that only a weak man would question.
But carry on believing that everything going bad under the Tory government must be the fault of the last government and continue judging economic policy by "fiscal consolidation" even though national debt as a percentage of GDP has been comparable to what it is now for most of the last 300 years.
I'm no economist, but it does strike me as curious that the UK economy has recovered more slowly than many of our EU neighbours of comparable size.
The nation by and large accepted that some degree of spending cuts and whatnot were necessary, but equally there was the expectation that there would be a positive effect of austerity in the medium/long term that hasn't really happened yet.
There's only so much 'Labour fucked up before us' that people can accept hearing, especially as deregulation of the City was a process that the Tories enthusiastically underwent going even further back.
EPT
.
