Cameron’s plans for a more child-friendly internet experience include deals with four of the largest internet providers in England; regulations include “family-friendly filters” that would automatically block pornography and other adult material in millions of people’s homes, filtering material from all land lines, WiFi connected devices, and even in public areas where children are likely to be present. Families and individuals would have the ability to opt out of the filters; they would simply need to check a box on a form or inform their internet provider that they wish to have pornography unfiltered and available.
Other measures include stricter video restrictions and laws, pressure for search engines to offer more tools for barring content, and an increase in the legal action and monitoring abilities available to the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre and police when searching for sources of illegal material and in tracking down pedophiles. Cameron also called for the immediate blacklisting of certain “horrific” terms, meaning that they would not show any results when searched on Google or Bing.
Opponents of this proposal feels this is just another measure to enforce stricter filter of the internet and spy on the people and limit their access to information, using only child protection as a gateway excuse. It looks however that the UK government is supportive of this. What is your opinion?
...and now he's suddenly hated by the entire male population o.O
Although it says "By the end of next year, households will have to accept or decline an automatic porn filter." So this seems like people still have a choice to ignore this porn filter... although I'm sure it'll raise some eyebrows and narrow the eyes of spouses and significant others, if a person goes out of their way to say, "I want to be able to watch porn!"
"Search engines have been given until October to block illegal content with the government already looking at the legislative options to force action."
In other news, parents become less concerned with their kids and their kids' behaviors, because clearly the government is a better parent >.>
This is not good , in my country , the fucking shieks and ignorant people protested to get porn banned , unfortunately they played the religion card and their campaign gained alot of support , the Jordanian government being the "democracy" that it is decided to respond to the people and ban porn on the basis of "protecting children , the Jordanian youth , and Jordanian values" , guess what happened ?
Months have gone since the passing of anti porn law here , and so far not a single porn site has been banned or blocked , but somehow a fuckton of blogs , newspapers , news websites , and any material that is critical of the government they can find is getting banned on continuous basis , and somehow the "people" didnt see this coming. LOL ! , and when the government was asked to respond , guess what they said ? "we are protecting the jordanian youth and values from such foul material"
Don't give any government power over the internet , NEVER , EVER.
Cameron, mate, children are doing just fine. Why don't you concentrate on that economy of yours that seems to be not doing so well like the rest of the world's ...
Seriously, I wonder what kind of people are advising these politicians as to where they truly need to focus. Pornography ? That thing's been existing ever since video tapes have been founded ! What, do you expect to somehow put a halt to a hundred-years-history of pornography, you nutbrain ? That idea's worse than proliferation. Stop being stupid and start acting on things that really matter.
A dangerous precedent that could restrict the freedom of its citizens(even with an opt-in). Could you imagine a teenage boy trying to convince his single mother to opt-in for porn? Awkward.
But perhaps more than anything else it would seem to be a large amount of wasteful resources would have go into this program increasing UK's debt needlessly.
Silly policy, and even then it should be an option to opt out of adult content, not having to opt in.
Just going to wait for the inevitable news stories when someone gets their hands of the data of which top politicians, community figures, and celebrities are opting in.
On July 23 2013 20:29 spkim1 wrote: Oh god, what do we do with these British ...
Cameron, mate, children are doing just fine. Why don't you concentrate on that economy of yours that seems to be not doing so well like the rest of the world's ...
Seriously, I wonder what kind of people are advising these politicians as to where they truly need to focus. Pornography ? That thing's been existing ever since video tapes have been founded ! What, do you expect to somehow put a halt to a hundred-years-history of pornography, you nutbrain ? That idea's worse than proliferation. Stop being stupid and start acting on things that really matter.
You make it sound like it was easy to get a hold of porn before the internet. It wasn't, it was a complete mission. This really sucks for teenagers but also for guys in general, it would be so awkward to tell your spouse you wanted access to porn so you could have the odd cheeky look around lol.
That's clearly the main problem with the children nowadays rofl. Banning porn won't fix anything for children who have lazy parents that don't give a shit about them and just had children for the sake of it. They'll still turn out as whatever they are influenced to be by their environment, and I doubt jacking off porn has ever influenced anyone's personality much. I guess christians and religious people in general feel good at least. yay.
I don't see the problem. I wouldn't want my kids to have the chance to happen across porn when they aren't looking at it, and I've read numerous studies about how porn can sabotage relationships. The PM is indeed protecting families and youth. They aren't "censoring the internet" as some of you have said, because you can opt in to porn. If you want to do something, you shouldn't be ashamed about it and if you are perhaps that is an indication that you should reassess it.
Sure, if it's easy to disable it (like, log in on your ISP:s website, check box). If it requires you to call someone and say "uhm, yeah, I want porn" then it's bad.
On July 23 2013 20:36 peidongyang wrote: Im guessing RIP hotel porn?
As much as I disagree with this the title is a bit misleading. Its not so much a 'ban' as just an automatic opt out. Its not banned you just have to talk to your ISP to watch it.
Sets a dangerous precedent, I would heavily oppose it. Think it is quite funny that a parliament full of nonces decides whether porn is immoral or not.
The sales of women's underwear catalogues will likely go through the roof.
Remember the riots some years back. Imagine a horde of testerone filled fapless youths going on a rampage, that would make awesome TV.
The thread on reddit made me lol. Guy who is 20 posts
"man how am i supposed to watch porn now, i live at home with my mum and dad how am i going to ask them to unblock it?"
Some other guy posts
"Don't worry, im a father and my son will soon find out that it is unblocked"
ahahah xD
In terms of what they have suggested and what is happening with the British ISPs banning Porn unless told to turn it on (or block off however u want it to be) i am not to fussed about it. I do agree that there are tons of links and people underage watching porn and it does give the wrong idea, but if you ban it from the internet, surely you have to ban it from the TV? Ala all the naughty shows on after 11pm etc or the porn cam girls channels u get in England. All easy accessible from 9pm onwards
David clearly has some skeletons in his closet, that he's afraid would be leaked out
But I don't agree with keeping children off the internet, as it is such a valuable resource for learning etc, it's hard to get the balance right on for whats good and whats bad with the internet, as it is difficult to control with all the child porn, rape etc but it's also hard to get rid of it as the guy from Jordan said, once they have this amount of control they will use it for another, deeper agenda which can be scary. And if the UK government succeeds in this, then it will be the stepping stone for all governments including organisations like SOPA... So yeah don't allow them to do this, it's more up to the parents/families to protect their children from what they see on the internet. Use the filters, use adblockers etc while the kids are on, don't let Cameroon and his dark history give control to what your kids should be looking at on the internet, that control goes to the parent, families alone
Dude. I read the DailyMail article about this, and it's less misleading than this OP. Basically (if they stick to their word, being politicians and policymakers, don't trust them to be lenient with how much censorship they can get away with) soon every time you set up a new subscription with an ISP, they'll have a sort of "Porn Opt-In". By default you entire coverage with have family-filters, but you can choose the adult option if you wish. My question is if proxies will still work, which I trust they will, as the similar act of Virgin blocking TPB is very easily circumvented, and for people who know what they're doing (or who are desperate/addicted enough), blocks like this don't really work anyway.
Also, they're fixing a loophole where distribution of certain sick sex shit is illegal, but possession is not. Comments aside about weather we should have the freedom to enjoy whatever filth we want from the bowels of the internet, they're drawing the line such that if its material which is banned from being sold in a store, you're not allowed to have it on your computer (I think). Whine about freedom, but they already do this for CP (child porn). See LulzSec guy's charges, the dirt they found on him in court was some child abuse video on his computer, even though they wanted to punish him for the digital attacks he orchestrated. It does raise a worrying point though, that if we increase the scope of what forms of media are criminal, you could get abuse of legal power by planting CP (as opposed to planting drugs or something), which is arguably easier to achieve (hack someone remotely, download a file they've never seen or consented to onto a secret part of their computer, bust them).
Finally they want to make CP harder for the casual CPers to attain, which is a good thing. There are far more people who access CP (that .Gov know of) than those who are busted. It could possibly get a bit scary if one wrong google search results in the cops knocking on your door (" I'm not a pedo Mr. Officer, it was my 12 year old daughter researching a project on "abuse elephant child" which contains the words child+abuse, please don't arrest me" ). But they're not making it a crime to search CP keywords (as far as I can tell), they're pressuring search engines to return no results from those blacklisted phrases. Dude, if you waste time around 4chan ->motherless and you lose all conscience, chances are if you're really rubbed in a fucked up way, the first step towards CP will be as simple as a google search (before bothering with ToR). So what they want to do is block the casual CPers.
I mean all you young hormone loving males may think Porn is the lifeblood of all creation, but these laws are primarily for child protection, blocking them from seeing filthy scarring shit when they're 12. They'll get their dear adult content (and consent to being 18 when they're not) in due time, and so will you if you really need to, but this is to prevent early-age damage. Also, porn does fuck you up, so on a general level I think it's a good thing they make it less convenient to get.
He needs some pretext to create the infrastructure to ultimately allow censorship and stricter control.
Why don't the families simply install an own blacklist, firewall, whatever. There are surely miriads of products for that.
Instead → The government gets extended surveillance resources for some agencies, upon which they surely can be accessed by related agencies. → The government gets an overview of all pornography consumers in the UK. → If you don't live on your own, you can't consume porn without everyone in the family knowing you do. → People will need to buy their shit in shops to stay anonymous. TAXES, and dat pornography lobby will thank them too. → Some horny boys in their early teens will become terrorists.
Ultimately though, it makes sense from the point of view of people in his position. The government aims for the most control, most income, most benefit possible, it's their role, they'll try to play it. The right to privacy isn't part of that plan, as it's a right that doesn't benefit the government, and only benefits the individual, and society in a way that it allows for deviant opinions to be expressed without fear of repercussion, for example measures that benefit each individual but not the government, but it's double edges and also offers a place to hide for criminals.
If you assume your government will always act the right way (in an ideal world let's say), then that anonymous freedom of expression can be gradually taken away by these measures without concern. The past has shown often enough that people with power start abusing it though.
Do you prefer living with some criminal individuals or a potentially criminal government?
Who changed the title? This is not what they are doing.
The Government has told ALL British ISPs to automatically BLOCK porn as of a date which i haven't found yet, UNLESS the ISP bill payer tells them otherwise. If the bill payer says "i want it off" they can use porn freely still.
I had no idea that his political advisers would think that he gains in public sentiment to be seen as helping the children and families and not taking dangerous steps to limit speech. I mean, it's not a popular stand to side with pornographers in any fight, but still, this does not come at a time when it's seen that the great danger to children and families is the availability of pornography. Compare that to rising youth delinquency and unemployment. Even consider things an order of magnitude below that: privacy in the age of social media and advertising, mistakes in checking the right boxes on website agreements affecting what information is available on you in the future.
What is the fate of online advertising for escort services or other frowned upon lesser moral violations with this? If certain groups can be seen as negatively impacting the safety of children, how goes their freedom to operate websites seen by UK citizens? Do you have to opt-in to hate speech to see these, etc?
So, U.K. does not only spy on others with Tempora, but also blocks, what people are not supposed to have on the other hand side. Long live the Empire ...
On July 23 2013 20:53 Sated wrote: I don't mind the overall idea, but the execution is backwards. It would work a hell of a lot better if you had to opt-in, as that would allow concerned parents to use it as an aid to help protect their childre (the intended purpose) without causing any uncomfortable situations for other people.
Yeah my mate said that. Why not just make people AWARE that you can opt into this service to stop it. Make ISPs send out letters to customers stating that if they reply to this letter or call number "x" they can opt in
On July 23 2013 20:47 bITt.mAN wrote:I mean all you young hormone loving males may think Porn is the lifeblood of all creation, but these laws are primarily for child protection, blocking them from seeing filthy scarring shit when they're 12. They'll get their dear adult content (and consent to being 18 when they're not) in due time, and so will you if you really need to, but this is to prevent early-age damage. Also, porn does fuck you up, so on a general level I think it's a good thing they make it less convenient to get.
Early-age damage ? I guess i should be a total fuck up since i pretty much watched my first porn at the age of 7. Can you show me studies that this is true or is just more talking about protecting the children from things they should already know and be explained to them?
On July 23 2013 20:47 bITt.mAN wrote:I mean all you young hormone loving males may think Porn is the lifeblood of all creation, but these laws are primarily for child protection, blocking them from seeing filthy scarring shit when they're 12. They'll get their dear adult content (and consent to being 18 when they're not) in due time, and so will you if you really need to, but this is to prevent early-age damage. Also, porn does fuck you up, so on a general level I think it's a good thing they make it less convenient to get.
Early-age damage ? I guess i should be a total fuck up since i pretty much watched my first porn at the age of 7. Can you show me studies that this is true or is just more talking about protecting the children from things they should already know and be explained to them?
I'd just like to point out that we have no evidence that you are not a total fuck up.
On July 23 2013 20:47 bITt.mAN wrote:I mean all you young hormone loving males may think Porn is the lifeblood of all creation, but these laws are primarily for child protection, blocking them from seeing filthy scarring shit when they're 12. They'll get their dear adult content (and consent to being 18 when they're not) in due time, and so will you if you really need to, but this is to prevent early-age damage. Also, porn does fuck you up, so on a general level I think it's a good thing they make it less convenient to get.
Early-age damage ? I guess i should be a total fuck up since i pretty much watched my first porn at the age of 7. Can you show me studies that this is true or is just more talking about protecting the children from things they should already know and be explained to them?
The ridiculous thing is that when I was about 10 I was shown beheading videos by other people from school. How bigotted do you have to be to make sexuality more 'disturbing' or worthy of blocking than snuff/torture videos which are rife and unmonitored?
On July 23 2013 20:55 BBS wrote: So, U.K. does not only spy on others with Tempora, but also blocks, what people are not supposed to have on the other hand side. Long live the Empire ...
Indeed.
It's starting to look like George Orwell was right, we was just 40 years or so to soon on the dates.
The world is going to be a scary place in a few decades time.
On July 23 2013 20:52 Danglars wrote: I had no idea that his political advisers would think that he gains in public sentiment to be seen as helping the children and families and not taking dangerous steps to limit speech. I mean, it's not a popular stand to side with pornographers in any fight, but still, this does not come at a time when it's seen that the great danger to children and families is the availability of pornography. Compare that to rising youth delinquency and unemployment. Even consider things an order of magnitude below that: privacy in the age of social media and advertising, mistakes in checking the right boxes on website agreements affecting what information is available on you in the future.
What is the fate of online advertising for escort services or other frowned upon lesser moral violations with this? If certain groups can be seen as negatively impacting the safety of children, how goes their freedom to operate websites seen by UK citizens? Do you have to opt-in to hate speech to see these, etc?
I like your idea.
On July 23 2013 21:02 Snotling wrote: this will work for about two days, then there will be ways around it. as always
There is, its called "calling your ISP and notifying them that you want to be able to watch porn".
On July 23 2013 20:36 Foblos wrote: I don't see the problem. I wouldn't want my kids to have the chance to happen across porn when they aren't looking at it, and I've read numerous studies about how porn can sabotage relationships. The PM is indeed protecting families and youth. They aren't "censoring the internet" as some of you have said, because you can opt in to porn. If you want to do something, you shouldn't be ashamed about it and if you are perhaps that is an indication that you should reassess it.
Well, one problem is that you establish a system for further censorship. We might even accept the idea, that this goverment only has the good of youth and family in their minds. But what about some years into the future? Why not ban websites that lead to terrorist propaganda? Far right or far left organisations? Critical bloggers? Political parties with the "wrong" ideas? It will be extremely hard to get rid of it once it's been used and it's a system that is very tempting for the ruling people to exploit. Problematic, since the line between good intentions and abuse can be very thin. Mechanisms like that tend to be exploited.
I agree that there should be easy-to-use programs that enable partents to block certain content for young children, but an opt-out system managed by the state is very problematic in my eyes.
Mind going a bit further about how porn sabotages relationships? Are you talking about wrong expectations of people who translate drastic porn imagery into their sex-life? I agree that it's problematic if young men and women take their sexual education and sexual role models out of pornographic videos, which is why I'd like a functioning system for content blocking. It just shouldn't be in the hands of the goverment. It should be installable software - optional, as a choice to get it for your family.
On July 23 2013 20:47 bITt.mAN wrote:I mean all you young hormone loving males may think Porn is the lifeblood of all creation, but these laws are primarily for child protection, blocking them from seeing filthy scarring shit when they're 12. They'll get their dear adult content (and consent to being 18 when they're not) in due time, and so will you if you really need to, but this is to prevent early-age damage. Also, porn does fuck you up, so on a general level I think it's a good thing they make it less convenient to get.
Early-age damage ? I guess i should be a total fuck up since i pretty much watched my first porn at the age of 7. Can you show me studies that this is true or is just more talking about protecting the children from things they should already know and be explained to them?
I'd just like to point out that we have no evidence that you are not a total fuck up.
Well i can take my own word for it. And since i know there can be exceptions i am asking for facts on that. We watch violence since we are really young aswell, but people only raise their voices when it's mostly on videogames.
Specially to spend money on this instead of just (sexual) education.
On July 23 2013 20:36 Foblos wrote: I don't see the problem. I wouldn't want my kids to have the chance to happen across porn when they aren't looking at it, and I've read numerous studies about how porn can sabotage relationships. The PM is indeed protecting families and youth. They aren't "censoring the internet" as some of you have said, because you can opt in to porn. If you want to do something, you shouldn't be ashamed about it and if you are perhaps that is an indication that you should reassess it.
Well, one problem is that you establish a system for further censorship. We might even accept the idea, that this goverment only has the good of youth and family in their minds. But what about some years into the future? Why not ban websites that lead to terrorist propaganda? Far right or far left organisations? Critical bloggers? Political parties with the "wrong" ideas? It will be extremely hard to get rid of it once it's been used and it's a system that is very tempting for the ruling people to exploit. Problematic, since the line between good intentions and abuse can be very thin. Mechanisms like that tend to be exploited.
I agree that there should be easy-to-use programs that enable partents to block certain content for young children, but an opt-out system managed by the state is very problematic in my eyes.
Mind going a bit further about how porn sabotages relationships? Are you talking about wrong expectations of people who translate drastic porn imagery into their sex-life? I agree that it's problematic if young men and women take their sexual education and sexual role models out of pornographic videos, which is why I'd like a functioning system for content blocking. It just shouldn't be in the hands of the goverment. It should be installable software - optional, as a choice to get it for your family.
They still havnt banned a single website, so you're going to have to motivate your fear of no bans turning into V for Vendetta.
On July 23 2013 21:10 Catch]22 wrote: They still havnt banned a single website, so you're going to have to motivate your fear of no bans turning into V for Vendetta.
I just remember similar plans in Australia and the list of websites that was released. A good number of non-pornographic websites was on the blacklist.
On July 23 2013 20:52 Danglars wrote: I had no idea that his political advisers would think that he gains in public sentiment to be seen as helping the children and families and not taking dangerous steps to limit speech. I mean, it's not a popular stand to side with pornographers in any fight, but still, this does not come at a time when it's seen that the great danger to children and families is the availability of pornography. Compare that to rising youth delinquency and unemployment. Even consider things an order of magnitude below that: privacy in the age of social media and advertising, mistakes in checking the right boxes on website agreements affecting what information is available on you in the future.
What is the fate of online advertising for escort services or other frowned upon lesser moral violations with this? If certain groups can be seen as negatively impacting the safety of children, how goes their freedom to operate websites seen by UK citizens? Do you have to opt-in to hate speech to see these, etc?
If any of you believe this is for the children you're blind . Just another attempt to censor the internet (outside of porn). If you read other sources there's talk about banning other "illegal" subject matter and if any legislation is passed it would probably give the government free hand to block whatever they choose.
And for people not wanting their kids to come across porn, there's plenty of programs to block it (keywords/sites etc).
Must be a bit embarrassing for guys to have to call their ISPs and specifically ask to watch porn. Even more embarrassing if the other person on the line is a woman. But if that's what you have to do....
I doubt this will actually happen. Main reason being every adult male with an internet connection watches porn at some point. Noone will opt in.
That said, I appreciate trying to protect kids. I find it kind of sad how kids lose their innocence so early these days. But I think its the responsibility of the parents, not the government.
For those talking about free speech etc, we don't really have a constitution in the UK, we have traditions and principles, where people are just expected to use common sense. Which is why this law will be shut down.
The thing that bothers me about this is that simulated rape porn will be illegal. Who decides what is simulated rape and what is not? If a guy handcuffs his wife and films it, is that simulated rape porn?
The other problem is that it is too easy to get around ISP filtering anyway. Things like child porn are already blocked by British ISPs. Pedophiles do not just start Chrome and watch child porn on Youtube, which is what the filtering would block.
On July 23 2013 21:41 hzflank wrote: The thing that bothers me about this is that simulated rape porn will be illegal. Who decides what is simulated rape and what is not? If a guy handcuffs his wife and films it, is that simulated rape porn?
The other problem is that it is too easy to get around ISP filtering anyway. Things like child porn are already blocked by British ISPs. Pedophiles do not just start Chrome and watch child porn on Youtube, which is what the filtering would block.
*edited* if post is serious, then i don't know what to say.
On July 23 2013 21:41 hzflank wrote: The thing that bothers me about this is that simulated rape porn will be illegal. Who decides what is simulated rape and what is not? If a guy handcuffs his wife and films it, is that simulated rape porn?
The other problem is that it is too easy to get around ISP filtering anyway. Things like child porn are already blocked by British ISPs. Pedophiles do not just start Chrome and watch child porn on Youtube, which is what the filtering would block.
On July 23 2013 21:41 hzflank wrote: The thing that bothers me about this is that simulated rape porn will be illegal. Who decides what is simulated rape and what is not? If a guy handcuffs his wife and films it, is that simulated rape porn?
The other problem is that it is too easy to get around ISP filtering anyway. Things like child porn are already blocked by British ISPs. Pedophiles do not just start Chrome and watch child porn on Youtube, which is what the filtering would block.
...wat?
What exactly don't you understand?
i don't know what to think. apparently some people can't tell what rape is.
I learnt about the birds and the bees on the internets. I remember quite well having somehow put a porn site as starting page for our family's PC and not knowing how to undo it, why would the British not want kids to have memories like that
On July 23 2013 21:41 hzflank wrote: The thing that bothers me about this is that simulated rape porn will be illegal. Who decides what is simulated rape and what is not? If a guy handcuffs his wife and films it, is that simulated rape porn?
The other problem is that it is too easy to get around ISP filtering anyway. Things like child porn are already blocked by British ISPs. Pedophiles do not just start Chrome and watch child porn on Youtube, which is what the filtering would block.
*edited* if post is serious, then i don't know what to say.
Why? It is not about whether I like to watch that sort of thing (I don't). It;s about me not wanting to accidentally possess material that could lead to me becoming a convicted sex offender.
On July 23 2013 21:41 hzflank wrote: The thing that bothers me about this is that simulated rape porn will be illegal. Who decides what is simulated rape and what is not? If a guy handcuffs his wife and films it, is that simulated rape porn?
The other problem is that it is too easy to get around ISP filtering anyway. Things like child porn are already blocked by British ISPs. Pedophiles do not just start Chrome and watch child porn on Youtube, which is what the filtering would block.
...wat?
What exactly don't you understand?
i don't know what to think. apparently some people can't tell what rape is.
I'd say that a lot if not most bdsm porn is essentially showing rape, it's just not the classic man attacks woman in a park/alley/car park depiction of rape.
On July 23 2013 21:41 hzflank wrote: The thing that bothers me about this is that simulated rape porn will be illegal. Who decides what is simulated rape and what is not? If a guy handcuffs his wife and films it, is that simulated rape porn?
The other problem is that it is too easy to get around ISP filtering anyway. Things like child porn are already blocked by British ISPs. Pedophiles do not just start Chrome and watch child porn on Youtube, which is what the filtering would block.
*edited* if post is serious, then i don't know what to say.
Why? It is not about whether I like to watch that sort of thing (I don't). It;s about me not wanting to accidentally possess material that could lead to me becoming a convicted sex offender.
does watching "simulated rape porn" make you a sex offender in england if this law passes through?
On July 23 2013 21:41 hzflank wrote: The thing that bothers me about this is that simulated rape porn will be illegal. Who decides what is simulated rape and what is not? If a guy handcuffs his wife and films it, is that simulated rape porn?
The other problem is that it is too easy to get around ISP filtering anyway. Things like child porn are already blocked by British ISPs. Pedophiles do not just start Chrome and watch child porn on Youtube, which is what the filtering would block.
*edited* if post is serious, then i don't know what to say.
Why? It is not about whether I like to watch that sort of thing (I don't). It;s about me not wanting to accidentally possess material that could lead to me becoming a convicted sex offender.
does watching "simulated rape porn" make you a sex offender in england if this law passes through?
I presume so as they're now grouping simulated rape porn and child porn into the same category.
On July 23 2013 21:41 hzflank wrote: The thing that bothers me about this is that simulated rape porn will be illegal. Who decides what is simulated rape and what is not? If a guy handcuffs his wife and films it, is that simulated rape porn?
The other problem is that it is too easy to get around ISP filtering anyway. Things like child porn are already blocked by British ISPs. Pedophiles do not just start Chrome and watch child porn on Youtube, which is what the filtering would block.
*edited* if post is serious, then i don't know what to say.
Why? It is not about whether I like to watch that sort of thing (I don't). It;s about me not wanting to accidentally possess material that could lead to me becoming a convicted sex offender.
does watching "simulated rape porn" make you a sex offender in england if this law passes through?
I presume so as they're now grouping simulated rape porn and child porn into the same category.
well rape and sex with minors are both illegal, so i'm pretty sure i understand why they put these two types of porn into same category. however, i don't think that *watching* this makes you a convicted sex offender, lol. this kind of filter is to prevent *some* people to get teh wrong ideas.
On July 23 2013 21:41 hzflank wrote: The thing that bothers me about this is that simulated rape porn will be illegal. Who decides what is simulated rape and what is not? If a guy handcuffs his wife and films it, is that simulated rape porn?
The other problem is that it is too easy to get around ISP filtering anyway. Things like child porn are already blocked by British ISPs. Pedophiles do not just start Chrome and watch child porn on Youtube, which is what the filtering would block.
*edited* if post is serious, then i don't know what to say.
Why? It is not about whether I like to watch that sort of thing (I don't). It;s about me not wanting to accidentally possess material that could lead to me becoming a convicted sex offender.
does watching "simulated rape porn" make you a sex offender in england if this law passes through?
We don't know yet. Possessing rape porn does. Who decides what is simulated and what is not?
With child porn it is easy. If the person is under the age of 18 then it is illegal. With rape it is more difficult. In professional porn shoots the models have to sign a contract, so that is fine. But what about people who film themselves and post the video online? That do not sign anything to say that they are not being raped.
How about the idiots that can't control what their kids do are the ones that manually have to disable it instead of putting the normally gifted individuals at a disadvantage? I feel for you britain
On July 23 2013 21:41 hzflank wrote: The thing that bothers me about this is that simulated rape porn will be illegal. Who decides what is simulated rape and what is not? If a guy handcuffs his wife and films it, is that simulated rape porn?
The other problem is that it is too easy to get around ISP filtering anyway. Things like child porn are already blocked by British ISPs. Pedophiles do not just start Chrome and watch child porn on Youtube, which is what the filtering would block.
*edited* if post is serious, then i don't know what to say.
Why? It is not about whether I like to watch that sort of thing (I don't). It;s about me not wanting to accidentally possess material that could lead to me becoming a convicted sex offender.
does watching "simulated rape porn" make you a sex offender in england if this law passes through?
I presume so as they're now grouping simulated rape porn and child porn into the same category.
well rape and sex with minors are both illegal, so i'm pretty sure i understand why they put these two types of porn into same category. however, i don't think that *watching* this makes you a convicted sex offender, lol. this kind of filter is to prevent *some* people to get teh wrong ideas.
Possessing child porn (and soon rape porn) is illegal, and if you are caught you can be convicted and have to sign the sex offenders register. You do not have to be involved in filing it, simply having a video or pictures on your computer is enough.
On July 23 2013 21:41 hzflank wrote: The thing that bothers me about this is that simulated rape porn will be illegal. Who decides what is simulated rape and what is not? If a guy handcuffs his wife and films it, is that simulated rape porn?
The other problem is that it is too easy to get around ISP filtering anyway. Things like child porn are already blocked by British ISPs. Pedophiles do not just start Chrome and watch child porn on Youtube, which is what the filtering would block.
*edited* if post is serious, then i don't know what to say.
Why? It is not about whether I like to watch that sort of thing (I don't). It;s about me not wanting to accidentally possess material that could lead to me becoming a convicted sex offender.
does watching "simulated rape porn" make you a sex offender in england if this law passes through?
We don't know yet. Possessing rape porn does. Who decides what is simulated and what is not?
With child porn it is easy. If the person is under the age of 18 then it is illegal. With rape it is more difficult. In professional porn shoots the models have to sign a contract, so that is fine. But what about people who film themselves and post the video online? That do not sign anything to say that they are not being raped.
i don't know what you think rape is, but rape looks nothing like "simulated" rape on video. i've never thought about this before, but now that i am, i can see why the government wants to remove access to "simulated" rape porn and child porn since it, apparently, does turn on a percentage of people.
it's just a thought, but really, if someone is turned on by rape and sex with children, aren't they *more likely* to become the ones who do this? i mean, that's just what i think, lol.
On July 23 2013 20:55 BBS wrote: So, U.K. does not only spy on others with Tempora, but also blocks, what people are not supposed to have on the other hand side. Long live the Empire ...
Indeed.
It's starting to look like George Orwell was right, we was just 40 years or so to soon on the dates.
The world is going to be a scary place in a few decades time.
On one hand you could be right, but I'm still trying to be optimistic, a few decades on all the older generation with these stupid ideas will be dead or dying off, hopefully this generation will be able to pull us out of whatever shit we get in to. On topic though, not a completely stupid idea, just a really really dumb way of executing it. If they do want to do this then they should at least make it so that you have to opt-in to the filter, that way concerned parents can phone up.
If you have to opt out by contacting your ISP, will there be an administration charge? I can really see that happening. Its like the TV license for porn.
People need to stop pretending that 12 year olds (or any year olds) being exposed to porn scenes is some gigantic problem the society needs to deal with, when in truth it is blatantly harmless and doesn't leave "scars" of any variety.
On July 23 2013 22:05 Talin wrote: People need to stop pretending that 12 year olds (or any year olds) being exposed to porn scenes is some gigantic problem the society needs to deal with, when in truth it is blatantly harmless and doesn't leave "scars" of any variety.
the fact that it does stimulate some people is what bothers me, lol.
On July 23 2013 22:05 Talin wrote: People need to stop pretending that 12 year olds (or any year olds) being exposed to porn scenes is some gigantic problem the society needs to deal with, when in truth it is blatantly harmless and doesn't leave "scars" of any variety.
the fact that it does stimulate some people is what bothers me, lol.
Porn? Fulfilling the purpose of why it was created? How shocking!
On July 23 2013 21:41 hzflank wrote: The thing that bothers me about this is that simulated rape porn will be illegal. Who decides what is simulated rape and what is not? If a guy handcuffs his wife and films it, is that simulated rape porn?
The other problem is that it is too easy to get around ISP filtering anyway. Things like child porn are already blocked by British ISPs. Pedophiles do not just start Chrome and watch child porn on Youtube, which is what the filtering would block.
*edited* if post is serious, then i don't know what to say.
Why? It is not about whether I like to watch that sort of thing (I don't). It;s about me not wanting to accidentally possess material that could lead to me becoming a convicted sex offender.
does watching "simulated rape porn" make you a sex offender in england if this law passes through?
We don't know yet. Possessing rape porn does. Who decides what is simulated and what is not?
With child porn it is easy. If the person is under the age of 18 then it is illegal. With rape it is more difficult. In professional porn shoots the models have to sign a contract, so that is fine. But what about people who film themselves and post the video online? That do not sign anything to say that they are not being raped.
i don't know what you think rape is, but rape looks nothing like "simulated" rape on video. i've never thought about this before, but now that i am, i can see why the government wants to remove access to "simulated" rape porn and child porn since it, apparently, does turn on a percentage of people.
it's just a thought, but really, if someone is turned on by rape and sex with children, aren't they *more likely* to become the ones who do this? i mean, that's just what i think, lol.
Rape is as old as mankind itself. It has been going on for thousands upon thousands of years, it has nothing at all to do with internet porn.
On July 23 2013 21:41 hzflank wrote: The thing that bothers me about this is that simulated rape porn will be illegal. Who decides what is simulated rape and what is not? If a guy handcuffs his wife and films it, is that simulated rape porn?
The other problem is that it is too easy to get around ISP filtering anyway. Things like child porn are already blocked by British ISPs. Pedophiles do not just start Chrome and watch child porn on Youtube, which is what the filtering would block.
*edited* if post is serious, then i don't know what to say.
Why? It is not about whether I like to watch that sort of thing (I don't). It;s about me not wanting to accidentally possess material that could lead to me becoming a convicted sex offender.
does watching "simulated rape porn" make you a sex offender in england if this law passes through?
I presume so as they're now grouping simulated rape porn and child porn into the same category.
well rape and sex with minors are both illegal, so i'm pretty sure i understand why they put these two types of porn into same category. however, i don't think that *watching* this makes you a convicted sex offender, lol. this kind of filter is to prevent *some* people to get teh wrong ideas.
Except this isn't rape, the is simulated rape, hence IT'S NOT FUCKING REAL. Just like Saw is simulated torture, 100% of action films have simulated murder, Harry Potter has simulated witchcraft, WWE is simulated bare knuckle/no rules fighting and Chess is simulated regicide.
None of those things are illegal because they're not real, they're fake and it's fucking retarded beyond all fucking measures to censor something which is fake.
Isn't it the parents' job to make sure their children aren't exposed to what they don't want them to be exposed to? Kind of a waste of effort and money in my opinion.
On July 23 2013 21:41 hzflank wrote: The thing that bothers me about this is that simulated rape porn will be illegal. Who decides what is simulated rape and what is not? If a guy handcuffs his wife and films it, is that simulated rape porn?
The other problem is that it is too easy to get around ISP filtering anyway. Things like child porn are already blocked by British ISPs. Pedophiles do not just start Chrome and watch child porn on Youtube, which is what the filtering would block.
*edited* if post is serious, then i don't know what to say.
Why? It is not about whether I like to watch that sort of thing (I don't). It;s about me not wanting to accidentally possess material that could lead to me becoming a convicted sex offender.
does watching "simulated rape porn" make you a sex offender in england if this law passes through?
We don't know yet. Possessing rape porn does. Who decides what is simulated and what is not?
With child porn it is easy. If the person is under the age of 18 then it is illegal. With rape it is more difficult. In professional porn shoots the models have to sign a contract, so that is fine. But what about people who film themselves and post the video online? That do not sign anything to say that they are not being raped.
i don't know what you think rape is, but rape looks nothing like "simulated" rape on video. i've never thought about this before, but now that i am, i can see why the government wants to remove access to "simulated" rape porn and child porn since it, apparently, does turn on a percentage of people.
it's just a thought, but really, if someone is turned on by rape and sex with children, aren't they *more likely* to become the ones who do this? i mean, that's just what i think, lol.
Rape is as old as mankind itself. It has been going on for thousands upon thousands of years, it has nothing at all to do with internet porn.
On July 23 2013 21:41 hzflank wrote: The thing that bothers me about this is that simulated rape porn will be illegal. Who decides what is simulated rape and what is not? If a guy handcuffs his wife and films it, is that simulated rape porn?
The other problem is that it is too easy to get around ISP filtering anyway. Things like child porn are already blocked by British ISPs. Pedophiles do not just start Chrome and watch child porn on Youtube, which is what the filtering would block.
*edited* if post is serious, then i don't know what to say.
Why? It is not about whether I like to watch that sort of thing (I don't). It;s about me not wanting to accidentally possess material that could lead to me becoming a convicted sex offender.
does watching "simulated rape porn" make you a sex offender in england if this law passes through?
I presume so as they're now grouping simulated rape porn and child porn into the same category.
well rape and sex with minors are both illegal, so i'm pretty sure i understand why they put these two types of porn into same category. however, i don't think that *watching* this makes you a convicted sex offender, lol. this kind of filter is to prevent *some* people to get teh wrong ideas.
Except this isn't rape, the is simulated rape, hence IT'S NOT FUCKING REAL. Just like Saw is simulated torture, 100% of action films have simulated murder, Harry Potter has simulated witchcraft, WWE is simulated bare knuckle/no rules fighting and Chess is simulated regicide.
None of those things are illegal because they're not real, they're fake and it's fucking retarded beyond all fucking measures to censor something which is fake.
i don't think you understand what i'm trying to say. the problem is not the fact that "simulated" rape porn is not real, it's the fact that it does stimulate *some* people. just like how violence in movies, games, animal abuse, etc. helps stimulate *some* people and ultimately motivates these people to do things to others in the real world. that's all i'm saying.
On July 23 2013 22:15 Nymzee wrote: I don't understand why Cameron is doing this given how much of a wanker he is.
Seriously though, I truly do not understand the point of this at all.
During this government's reign a huge amount of power play is going on RE: the internet. I think this is just another step in that plan, so rather than take it as an action on its own, it should be viewed as part of a whole. We have the twitter legislation where people are being fined/jailed etc. for saying naughty stuff on twitter. Cameron is hugely supportive all copyright controls. Now ISPs being forced to cooperate on this issue.
On July 23 2013 21:41 hzflank wrote: The thing that bothers me about this is that simulated rape porn will be illegal. Who decides what is simulated rape and what is not? If a guy handcuffs his wife and films it, is that simulated rape porn?
The other problem is that it is too easy to get around ISP filtering anyway. Things like child porn are already blocked by British ISPs. Pedophiles do not just start Chrome and watch child porn on Youtube, which is what the filtering would block.
*edited* if post is serious, then i don't know what to say.
Why? It is not about whether I like to watch that sort of thing (I don't). It;s about me not wanting to accidentally possess material that could lead to me becoming a convicted sex offender.
does watching "simulated rape porn" make you a sex offender in england if this law passes through?
We don't know yet. Possessing rape porn does. Who decides what is simulated and what is not?
With child porn it is easy. If the person is under the age of 18 then it is illegal. With rape it is more difficult. In professional porn shoots the models have to sign a contract, so that is fine. But what about people who film themselves and post the video online? That do not sign anything to say that they are not being raped.
i don't know what you think rape is, but rape looks nothing like "simulated" rape on video. i've never thought about this before, but now that i am, i can see why the government wants to remove access to "simulated" rape porn and child porn since it, apparently, does turn on a percentage of people.
it's just a thought, but really, if someone is turned on by rape and sex with children, aren't they *more likely* to become the ones who do this? i mean, that's just what i think, lol.
Rape is as old as mankind itself. It has been going on for thousands upon thousands of years, it has nothing at all to do with internet porn.
On July 23 2013 21:54 i zig zag around you wrote:
On July 23 2013 21:52 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:
On July 23 2013 21:51 i zig zag around you wrote:
On July 23 2013 21:49 hzflank wrote:
On July 23 2013 21:45 i zig zag around you wrote:
On July 23 2013 21:41 hzflank wrote: The thing that bothers me about this is that simulated rape porn will be illegal. Who decides what is simulated rape and what is not? If a guy handcuffs his wife and films it, is that simulated rape porn?
The other problem is that it is too easy to get around ISP filtering anyway. Things like child porn are already blocked by British ISPs. Pedophiles do not just start Chrome and watch child porn on Youtube, which is what the filtering would block.
*edited* if post is serious, then i don't know what to say.
Why? It is not about whether I like to watch that sort of thing (I don't). It;s about me not wanting to accidentally possess material that could lead to me becoming a convicted sex offender.
does watching "simulated rape porn" make you a sex offender in england if this law passes through?
I presume so as they're now grouping simulated rape porn and child porn into the same category.
well rape and sex with minors are both illegal, so i'm pretty sure i understand why they put these two types of porn into same category. however, i don't think that *watching* this makes you a convicted sex offender, lol. this kind of filter is to prevent *some* people to get teh wrong ideas.
Except this isn't rape, the is simulated rape, hence IT'S NOT FUCKING REAL. Just like Saw is simulated torture, 100% of action films have simulated murder, Harry Potter has simulated witchcraft, WWE is simulated bare knuckle/no rules fighting and Chess is simulated regicide.
None of those things are illegal because they're not real, they're fake and it's fucking retarded beyond all fucking measures to censor something which is fake.
i don't think you understand what i'm trying to say. the problem is not the fact that "simulated" rape porn is not real, it's the fact that it does stimulate *some* people. just like how violence in movies, games, animal abuse, etc. helps stimulate *some* people and ultimately motivates these people to do things to others in the real world. that's all i'm saying.
So you're completely ignoring the fact that rape is one of man's oldest past times? Hell 50% of the reason men used to go to war pre Napoleonic era was because they'd be able to rape the native women once they won (the other 50% being money). People have always committed rape, there is no link at all between it and watching rape porn. The percentage of men who would rape someone given the opportunity is right now at an all time low for humanity.
The information age does not have a monopoly on violence, I don't know where you insane people get off on this madness.
It's also none of your fucking business what gets me or anyone else off where consenting adults are involved. Last I checked the thought police came from a fiction book not the UK circa 2013.
And how will these filters work exactly? How will they discern between what's safe and what's not?
This is hilarious to me, considering a friend of mine has such a filter at his workplace and apparently it blocks imgur, among other sites. Yes, one of the biggest image sharing sites on the web. lol
Also lol at censoring the internet. Goes to show how out of touch some people are...
On July 23 2013 21:41 hzflank wrote: The thing that bothers me about this is that simulated rape porn will be illegal. Who decides what is simulated rape and what is not? If a guy handcuffs his wife and films it, is that simulated rape porn?
The other problem is that it is too easy to get around ISP filtering anyway. Things like child porn are already blocked by British ISPs. Pedophiles do not just start Chrome and watch child porn on Youtube, which is what the filtering would block.
*edited* if post is serious, then i don't know what to say.
Why? It is not about whether I like to watch that sort of thing (I don't). It;s about me not wanting to accidentally possess material that could lead to me becoming a convicted sex offender.
does watching "simulated rape porn" make you a sex offender in england if this law passes through?
We don't know yet. Possessing rape porn does. Who decides what is simulated and what is not?
With child porn it is easy. If the person is under the age of 18 then it is illegal. With rape it is more difficult. In professional porn shoots the models have to sign a contract, so that is fine. But what about people who film themselves and post the video online? That do not sign anything to say that they are not being raped.
i don't know what you think rape is, but rape looks nothing like "simulated" rape on video. i've never thought about this before, but now that i am, i can see why the government wants to remove access to "simulated" rape porn and child porn since it, apparently, does turn on a percentage of people.
it's just a thought, but really, if someone is turned on by rape and sex with children, aren't they *more likely* to become the ones who do this? i mean, that's just what i think, lol.
Rape is as old as mankind itself. It has been going on for thousands upon thousands of years, it has nothing at all to do with internet porn.
On July 23 2013 21:54 i zig zag around you wrote:
On July 23 2013 21:52 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:
On July 23 2013 21:51 i zig zag around you wrote:
On July 23 2013 21:49 hzflank wrote:
On July 23 2013 21:45 i zig zag around you wrote:
On July 23 2013 21:41 hzflank wrote: The thing that bothers me about this is that simulated rape porn will be illegal. Who decides what is simulated rape and what is not? If a guy handcuffs his wife and films it, is that simulated rape porn?
The other problem is that it is too easy to get around ISP filtering anyway. Things like child porn are already blocked by British ISPs. Pedophiles do not just start Chrome and watch child porn on Youtube, which is what the filtering would block.
*edited* if post is serious, then i don't know what to say.
Why? It is not about whether I like to watch that sort of thing (I don't). It;s about me not wanting to accidentally possess material that could lead to me becoming a convicted sex offender.
does watching "simulated rape porn" make you a sex offender in england if this law passes through?
I presume so as they're now grouping simulated rape porn and child porn into the same category.
well rape and sex with minors are both illegal, so i'm pretty sure i understand why they put these two types of porn into same category. however, i don't think that *watching* this makes you a convicted sex offender, lol. this kind of filter is to prevent *some* people to get teh wrong ideas.
Except this isn't rape, the is simulated rape, hence IT'S NOT FUCKING REAL. Just like Saw is simulated torture, 100% of action films have simulated murder, Harry Potter has simulated witchcraft, WWE is simulated bare knuckle/no rules fighting and Chess is simulated regicide.
None of those things are illegal because they're not real, they're fake and it's fucking retarded beyond all fucking measures to censor something which is fake.
i don't think you understand what i'm trying to say. the problem is not the fact that "simulated" rape porn is not real, it's the fact that it does stimulate *some* people. just like how violence in movies, games, animal abuse, etc. helps stimulate *some* people and ultimately motivates these people to do things to others in the real world. that's all i'm saying.
So you're completely ignoring the fact that rape is one of man's oldest past times? Hell 50% of the reason men used to go to war pre Napoleonic era was because they'd be able to rape the native women once they won (the other 50% being money). People have always committed rape, there is no link at all between it and watching rape porn. The percentage of men who would rape someone given the opportunity is right now at an all time low for humanity.
The information age does not have a monopoly on violence, I don't know where you insane people get off on this madness.
no, i'm not ignoring it. i'm saying that if some people are stimulated by rape, they shouldn't have access to it 24 hours a day from their computer. it's like letting pyromaniac teenagers play with fire, or convicted murders walk with guns. it's just not *right* if you ask me. this has nothing to do with history, lol.
but hey, if you're alright with child molesters having access to child porn from their personal computer at home, be my guest. but it's in my opinion that it's wrong.
The information age does not have a monopoly on violence, I don't know where you insane people get off on this madness.
It's also none of your fucking business what gets me or anyone else off where consenting adults are involved. Last I checked the thought police came from a fiction book not the UK circa 2013.
also, i have no idea what your problem is or what you're talking about, but you need to calm the fuck down when you reply to me.
On July 23 2013 22:24 MasterOfPuppets wrote: And how will these filters work exactly? How will they discern between what's safe and what's not?
This is hilarious to me, considering a friend of mine has such a filter at his workplace and apparently it blocks imgur, among other sites. Yes, one of the biggest image sharing sites on the web. lol
Also lol at censoring the internet. Goes to show how out of touch some people are...
Imgur being blocked is not surprising as it is almost impossible to properly filter. Google images is also blocked in some workplaces.
On July 23 2013 21:41 hzflank wrote: The thing that bothers me about this is that simulated rape porn will be illegal. Who decides what is simulated rape and what is not? If a guy handcuffs his wife and films it, is that simulated rape porn?
The other problem is that it is too easy to get around ISP filtering anyway. Things like child porn are already blocked by British ISPs. Pedophiles do not just start Chrome and watch child porn on Youtube, which is what the filtering would block.
*edited* if post is serious, then i don't know what to say.
Why? It is not about whether I like to watch that sort of thing (I don't). It;s about me not wanting to accidentally possess material that could lead to me becoming a convicted sex offender.
does watching "simulated rape porn" make you a sex offender in england if this law passes through?
We don't know yet. Possessing rape porn does. Who decides what is simulated and what is not?
With child porn it is easy. If the person is under the age of 18 then it is illegal. With rape it is more difficult. In professional porn shoots the models have to sign a contract, so that is fine. But what about people who film themselves and post the video online? That do not sign anything to say that they are not being raped.
i don't know what you think rape is, but rape looks nothing like "simulated" rape on video. i've never thought about this before, but now that i am, i can see why the government wants to remove access to "simulated" rape porn and child porn since it, apparently, does turn on a percentage of people.
it's just a thought, but really, if someone is turned on by rape and sex with children, aren't they *more likely* to become the ones who do this? i mean, that's just what i think, lol.
Rape is as old as mankind itself. It has been going on for thousands upon thousands of years, it has nothing at all to do with internet porn.
On July 23 2013 21:54 i zig zag around you wrote:
On July 23 2013 21:52 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:
On July 23 2013 21:51 i zig zag around you wrote:
On July 23 2013 21:49 hzflank wrote:
On July 23 2013 21:45 i zig zag around you wrote:
On July 23 2013 21:41 hzflank wrote: The thing that bothers me about this is that simulated rape porn will be illegal. Who decides what is simulated rape and what is not? If a guy handcuffs his wife and films it, is that simulated rape porn?
The other problem is that it is too easy to get around ISP filtering anyway. Things like child porn are already blocked by British ISPs. Pedophiles do not just start Chrome and watch child porn on Youtube, which is what the filtering would block.
*edited* if post is serious, then i don't know what to say.
Why? It is not about whether I like to watch that sort of thing (I don't). It;s about me not wanting to accidentally possess material that could lead to me becoming a convicted sex offender.
does watching "simulated rape porn" make you a sex offender in england if this law passes through?
I presume so as they're now grouping simulated rape porn and child porn into the same category.
well rape and sex with minors are both illegal, so i'm pretty sure i understand why they put these two types of porn into same category. however, i don't think that *watching* this makes you a convicted sex offender, lol. this kind of filter is to prevent *some* people to get teh wrong ideas.
Except this isn't rape, the is simulated rape, hence IT'S NOT FUCKING REAL. Just like Saw is simulated torture, 100% of action films have simulated murder, Harry Potter has simulated witchcraft, WWE is simulated bare knuckle/no rules fighting and Chess is simulated regicide.
None of those things are illegal because they're not real, they're fake and it's fucking retarded beyond all fucking measures to censor something which is fake.
i don't think you understand what i'm trying to say. the problem is not the fact that "simulated" rape porn is not real, it's the fact that it does stimulate *some* people. just like how violence in movies, games, animal abuse, etc. helps stimulate *some* people and ultimately motivates these people to do things to others in the real world. that's all i'm saying.
So you're completely ignoring the fact that rape is one of man's oldest past times? Hell 50% of the reason men used to go to war pre Napoleonic era was because they'd be able to rape the native women once they won (the other 50% being money). People have always committed rape, there is no link at all between it and watching rape porn. The percentage of men who would rape someone given the opportunity is right now at an all time low for humanity.
The information age does not have a monopoly on violence, I don't know where you insane people get off on this madness.
It's also none of your fucking business what gets me or anyone else off where consenting adults are involved. Last I checked the thought police came from a fiction book not the UK circa 2013.
For the most part I'd rather people with rape fetishes got their kicks via the internet than real life, however I would still prefer kids didn't stumble on that shit.
What adults do online is their business. However I disagree with people acting like kids aren't vulnerable.
On July 23 2013 21:41 hzflank wrote: The thing that bothers me about this is that simulated rape porn will be illegal. Who decides what is simulated rape and what is not? If a guy handcuffs his wife and films it, is that simulated rape porn?
The other problem is that it is too easy to get around ISP filtering anyway. Things like child porn are already blocked by British ISPs. Pedophiles do not just start Chrome and watch child porn on Youtube, which is what the filtering would block.
*edited* if post is serious, then i don't know what to say.
Why? It is not about whether I like to watch that sort of thing (I don't). It;s about me not wanting to accidentally possess material that could lead to me becoming a convicted sex offender.
does watching "simulated rape porn" make you a sex offender in england if this law passes through?
We don't know yet. Possessing rape porn does. Who decides what is simulated and what is not?
With child porn it is easy. If the person is under the age of 18 then it is illegal. With rape it is more difficult. In professional porn shoots the models have to sign a contract, so that is fine. But what about people who film themselves and post the video online? That do not sign anything to say that they are not being raped.
i don't know what you think rape is, but rape looks nothing like "simulated" rape on video. i've never thought about this before, but now that i am, i can see why the government wants to remove access to "simulated" rape porn and child porn since it, apparently, does turn on a percentage of people.
it's just a thought, but really, if someone is turned on by rape and sex with children, aren't they *more likely* to become the ones who do this? i mean, that's just what i think, lol.
Rape is as old as mankind itself. It has been going on for thousands upon thousands of years, it has nothing at all to do with internet porn.
On July 23 2013 21:54 i zig zag around you wrote:
On July 23 2013 21:52 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:
On July 23 2013 21:51 i zig zag around you wrote:
On July 23 2013 21:49 hzflank wrote:
On July 23 2013 21:45 i zig zag around you wrote:
On July 23 2013 21:41 hzflank wrote: The thing that bothers me about this is that simulated rape porn will be illegal. Who decides what is simulated rape and what is not? If a guy handcuffs his wife and films it, is that simulated rape porn?
The other problem is that it is too easy to get around ISP filtering anyway. Things like child porn are already blocked by British ISPs. Pedophiles do not just start Chrome and watch child porn on Youtube, which is what the filtering would block.
*edited* if post is serious, then i don't know what to say.
Why? It is not about whether I like to watch that sort of thing (I don't). It;s about me not wanting to accidentally possess material that could lead to me becoming a convicted sex offender.
does watching "simulated rape porn" make you a sex offender in england if this law passes through?
I presume so as they're now grouping simulated rape porn and child porn into the same category.
well rape and sex with minors are both illegal, so i'm pretty sure i understand why they put these two types of porn into same category. however, i don't think that *watching* this makes you a convicted sex offender, lol. this kind of filter is to prevent *some* people to get teh wrong ideas.
Except this isn't rape, the is simulated rape, hence IT'S NOT FUCKING REAL. Just like Saw is simulated torture, 100% of action films have simulated murder, Harry Potter has simulated witchcraft, WWE is simulated bare knuckle/no rules fighting and Chess is simulated regicide.
None of those things are illegal because they're not real, they're fake and it's fucking retarded beyond all fucking measures to censor something which is fake.
i don't think you understand what i'm trying to say. the problem is not the fact that "simulated" rape porn is not real, it's the fact that it does stimulate *some* people. just like how violence in movies, games, animal abuse, etc. helps stimulate *some* people and ultimately motivates these people to do things to others in the real world. that's all i'm saying.
So you're completely ignoring the fact that rape is one of man's oldest past times? Hell 50% of the reason men used to go to war pre Napoleonic era was because they'd be able to rape the native women once they won (the other 50% being money). People have always committed rape, there is no link at all between it and watching rape porn. The percentage of men who would rape someone given the opportunity is right now at an all time low for humanity.
The information age does not have a monopoly on violence, I don't know where you insane people get off on this madness.
no, i'm not ignoring it. i'm saying that if some people are stimulated by rape, they shouldn't have access to it 24 hours a day from their computer. it's like letting pyromaniac teenagers play with fire, or convicted murders walk with guns. it's just not *right* if you ask me. this has nothing to do with history, lol.
but hey, if you're alright with child molesters having access to child porn from their personal computer at home, be my guest. but it's in my opinion that it's wrong.
The information age does not have a monopoly on violence, I don't know where you insane people get off on this madness.
It's also none of your fucking business what gets me or anyone else off where consenting adults are involved. Last I checked the thought police came from a fiction book not the UK circa 2013.
also, i have no idea what your problem is, but you need to calm the fuck down when you reply to me.
You're equating child porn and FAKE rape porn. That makes absolutely no sense.
And Aeroplane is perfectly correct that it's none of your business what people use for sexual relief, so long as it's not against the law.
On July 23 2013 21:41 hzflank wrote: The thing that bothers me about this is that simulated rape porn will be illegal. Who decides what is simulated rape and what is not? If a guy handcuffs his wife and films it, is that simulated rape porn?
The other problem is that it is too easy to get around ISP filtering anyway. Things like child porn are already blocked by British ISPs. Pedophiles do not just start Chrome and watch child porn on Youtube, which is what the filtering would block.
*edited* if post is serious, then i don't know what to say.
Why? It is not about whether I like to watch that sort of thing (I don't). It;s about me not wanting to accidentally possess material that could lead to me becoming a convicted sex offender.
does watching "simulated rape porn" make you a sex offender in england if this law passes through?
We don't know yet. Possessing rape porn does. Who decides what is simulated and what is not?
With child porn it is easy. If the person is under the age of 18 then it is illegal. With rape it is more difficult. In professional porn shoots the models have to sign a contract, so that is fine. But what about people who film themselves and post the video online? That do not sign anything to say that they are not being raped.
i don't know what you think rape is, but rape looks nothing like "simulated" rape on video. i've never thought about this before, but now that i am, i can see why the government wants to remove access to "simulated" rape porn and child porn since it, apparently, does turn on a percentage of people.
it's just a thought, but really, if someone is turned on by rape and sex with children, aren't they *more likely* to become the ones who do this? i mean, that's just what i think, lol.
Rape is as old as mankind itself. It has been going on for thousands upon thousands of years, it has nothing at all to do with internet porn.
On July 23 2013 21:54 i zig zag around you wrote:
On July 23 2013 21:52 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:
On July 23 2013 21:51 i zig zag around you wrote:
On July 23 2013 21:49 hzflank wrote:
On July 23 2013 21:45 i zig zag around you wrote:
On July 23 2013 21:41 hzflank wrote: The thing that bothers me about this is that simulated rape porn will be illegal. Who decides what is simulated rape and what is not? If a guy handcuffs his wife and films it, is that simulated rape porn?
The other problem is that it is too easy to get around ISP filtering anyway. Things like child porn are already blocked by British ISPs. Pedophiles do not just start Chrome and watch child porn on Youtube, which is what the filtering would block.
*edited* if post is serious, then i don't know what to say.
Why? It is not about whether I like to watch that sort of thing (I don't). It;s about me not wanting to accidentally possess material that could lead to me becoming a convicted sex offender.
does watching "simulated rape porn" make you a sex offender in england if this law passes through?
I presume so as they're now grouping simulated rape porn and child porn into the same category.
well rape and sex with minors are both illegal, so i'm pretty sure i understand why they put these two types of porn into same category. however, i don't think that *watching* this makes you a convicted sex offender, lol. this kind of filter is to prevent *some* people to get teh wrong ideas.
Except this isn't rape, the is simulated rape, hence IT'S NOT FUCKING REAL. Just like Saw is simulated torture, 100% of action films have simulated murder, Harry Potter has simulated witchcraft, WWE is simulated bare knuckle/no rules fighting and Chess is simulated regicide.
None of those things are illegal because they're not real, they're fake and it's fucking retarded beyond all fucking measures to censor something which is fake.
i don't think you understand what i'm trying to say. the problem is not the fact that "simulated" rape porn is not real, it's the fact that it does stimulate *some* people. just like how violence in movies, games, animal abuse, etc. helps stimulate *some* people and ultimately motivates these people to do things to others in the real world. that's all i'm saying.
So you're completely ignoring the fact that rape is one of man's oldest past times? Hell 50% of the reason men used to go to war pre Napoleonic era was because they'd be able to rape the native women once they won (the other 50% being money). People have always committed rape, there is no link at all between it and watching rape porn. The percentage of men who would rape someone given the opportunity is right now at an all time low for humanity.
The information age does not have a monopoly on violence, I don't know where you insane people get off on this madness.
It's also none of your fucking business what gets me or anyone else off where consenting adults are involved. Last I checked the thought police came from a fiction book not the UK circa 2013.
For the most part I'd rather people with rape fetishes got their kicks via the internet than real life, however I would still prefer kids didn't stumble on that shit.
What adults do online is their business. However I disagree with people acting like kids aren't vulnerable.
Kids are vulnerable because instead of educating them, people just prefer to censor things as if that actually works...
On July 23 2013 21:41 hzflank wrote: The thing that bothers me about this is that simulated rape porn will be illegal. Who decides what is simulated rape and what is not? If a guy handcuffs his wife and films it, is that simulated rape porn?
The other problem is that it is too easy to get around ISP filtering anyway. Things like child porn are already blocked by British ISPs. Pedophiles do not just start Chrome and watch child porn on Youtube, which is what the filtering would block.
*edited* if post is serious, then i don't know what to say.
Why? It is not about whether I like to watch that sort of thing (I don't). It;s about me not wanting to accidentally possess material that could lead to me becoming a convicted sex offender.
does watching "simulated rape porn" make you a sex offender in england if this law passes through?
We don't know yet. Possessing rape porn does. Who decides what is simulated and what is not?
With child porn it is easy. If the person is under the age of 18 then it is illegal. With rape it is more difficult. In professional porn shoots the models have to sign a contract, so that is fine. But what about people who film themselves and post the video online? That do not sign anything to say that they are not being raped.
i don't know what you think rape is, but rape looks nothing like "simulated" rape on video. i've never thought about this before, but now that i am, i can see why the government wants to remove access to "simulated" rape porn and child porn since it, apparently, does turn on a percentage of people.
it's just a thought, but really, if someone is turned on by rape and sex with children, aren't they *more likely* to become the ones who do this? i mean, that's just what i think, lol.
Rape is as old as mankind itself. It has been going on for thousands upon thousands of years, it has nothing at all to do with internet porn.
On July 23 2013 21:54 i zig zag around you wrote:
On July 23 2013 21:52 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:
On July 23 2013 21:51 i zig zag around you wrote:
On July 23 2013 21:49 hzflank wrote:
On July 23 2013 21:45 i zig zag around you wrote:
On July 23 2013 21:41 hzflank wrote: The thing that bothers me about this is that simulated rape porn will be illegal. Who decides what is simulated rape and what is not? If a guy handcuffs his wife and films it, is that simulated rape porn?
The other problem is that it is too easy to get around ISP filtering anyway. Things like child porn are already blocked by British ISPs. Pedophiles do not just start Chrome and watch child porn on Youtube, which is what the filtering would block.
*edited* if post is serious, then i don't know what to say.
Why? It is not about whether I like to watch that sort of thing (I don't). It;s about me not wanting to accidentally possess material that could lead to me becoming a convicted sex offender.
does watching "simulated rape porn" make you a sex offender in england if this law passes through?
I presume so as they're now grouping simulated rape porn and child porn into the same category.
well rape and sex with minors are both illegal, so i'm pretty sure i understand why they put these two types of porn into same category. however, i don't think that *watching* this makes you a convicted sex offender, lol. this kind of filter is to prevent *some* people to get teh wrong ideas.
Except this isn't rape, the is simulated rape, hence IT'S NOT FUCKING REAL. Just like Saw is simulated torture, 100% of action films have simulated murder, Harry Potter has simulated witchcraft, WWE is simulated bare knuckle/no rules fighting and Chess is simulated regicide.
None of those things are illegal because they're not real, they're fake and it's fucking retarded beyond all fucking measures to censor something which is fake.
i don't think you understand what i'm trying to say. the problem is not the fact that "simulated" rape porn is not real, it's the fact that it does stimulate *some* people. just like how violence in movies, games, animal abuse, etc. helps stimulate *some* people and ultimately motivates these people to do things to others in the real world. that's all i'm saying.
So you're completely ignoring the fact that rape is one of man's oldest past times? Hell 50% of the reason men used to go to war pre Napoleonic era was because they'd be able to rape the native women once they won (the other 50% being money). People have always committed rape, there is no link at all between it and watching rape porn. The percentage of men who would rape someone given the opportunity is right now at an all time low for humanity.
The information age does not have a monopoly on violence, I don't know where you insane people get off on this madness.
no, i'm not ignoring it. i'm saying that if some people are stimulated by rape, they shouldn't have access to it 24 hours a day from their computer. it's like letting pyromaniac teenagers play with fire, or convicted murders walk with guns. it's just not *right* if you ask me. this has nothing to do with history, lol.
but hey, if you're alright with child molesters having access to child porn from their personal computer at home, be my guest. but it's in my opinion that it's wrong.
Why do you keep saying 'lol'? What is so funny about sex?
No one is okay with child molesters having access to child porn but we know that is is extremely hard to enforce.
The difference between child porn and rape porn, as I have already explained, is that it is much harder to work out what is rape porn and what is not. You are going to find this shocking lol, but some girls might like rough sex, other girls might like it kinky, some might like to be filmed, etc.
On July 23 2013 21:45 i zig zag around you wrote: [quote]
*edited* if post is serious, then i don't know what to say.
Why? It is not about whether I like to watch that sort of thing (I don't). It;s about me not wanting to accidentally possess material that could lead to me becoming a convicted sex offender.
does watching "simulated rape porn" make you a sex offender in england if this law passes through?
We don't know yet. Possessing rape porn does. Who decides what is simulated and what is not?
With child porn it is easy. If the person is under the age of 18 then it is illegal. With rape it is more difficult. In professional porn shoots the models have to sign a contract, so that is fine. But what about people who film themselves and post the video online? That do not sign anything to say that they are not being raped.
i don't know what you think rape is, but rape looks nothing like "simulated" rape on video. i've never thought about this before, but now that i am, i can see why the government wants to remove access to "simulated" rape porn and child porn since it, apparently, does turn on a percentage of people.
it's just a thought, but really, if someone is turned on by rape and sex with children, aren't they *more likely* to become the ones who do this? i mean, that's just what i think, lol.
Rape is as old as mankind itself. It has been going on for thousands upon thousands of years, it has nothing at all to do with internet porn.
On July 23 2013 21:54 i zig zag around you wrote:
On July 23 2013 21:52 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:
On July 23 2013 21:51 i zig zag around you wrote:
On July 23 2013 21:49 hzflank wrote:
On July 23 2013 21:45 i zig zag around you wrote: [quote]
*edited* if post is serious, then i don't know what to say.
Why? It is not about whether I like to watch that sort of thing (I don't). It;s about me not wanting to accidentally possess material that could lead to me becoming a convicted sex offender.
does watching "simulated rape porn" make you a sex offender in england if this law passes through?
I presume so as they're now grouping simulated rape porn and child porn into the same category.
well rape and sex with minors are both illegal, so i'm pretty sure i understand why they put these two types of porn into same category. however, i don't think that *watching* this makes you a convicted sex offender, lol. this kind of filter is to prevent *some* people to get teh wrong ideas.
Except this isn't rape, the is simulated rape, hence IT'S NOT FUCKING REAL. Just like Saw is simulated torture, 100% of action films have simulated murder, Harry Potter has simulated witchcraft, WWE is simulated bare knuckle/no rules fighting and Chess is simulated regicide.
None of those things are illegal because they're not real, they're fake and it's fucking retarded beyond all fucking measures to censor something which is fake.
i don't think you understand what i'm trying to say. the problem is not the fact that "simulated" rape porn is not real, it's the fact that it does stimulate *some* people. just like how violence in movies, games, animal abuse, etc. helps stimulate *some* people and ultimately motivates these people to do things to others in the real world. that's all i'm saying.
So you're completely ignoring the fact that rape is one of man's oldest past times? Hell 50% of the reason men used to go to war pre Napoleonic era was because they'd be able to rape the native women once they won (the other 50% being money). People have always committed rape, there is no link at all between it and watching rape porn. The percentage of men who would rape someone given the opportunity is right now at an all time low for humanity.
The information age does not have a monopoly on violence, I don't know where you insane people get off on this madness.
no, i'm not ignoring it. i'm saying that if some people are stimulated by rape, they shouldn't have access to it 24 hours a day from their computer. it's like letting pyromaniac teenagers play with fire, or convicted murders walk with guns. it's just not *right* if you ask me. this has nothing to do with history, lol.
but hey, if you're alright with child molesters having access to child porn from their personal computer at home, be my guest. but it's in my opinion that it's wrong.
The information age does not have a monopoly on violence, I don't know where you insane people get off on this madness.
It's also none of your fucking business what gets me or anyone else off where consenting adults are involved. Last I checked the thought police came from a fiction book not the UK circa 2013.
also, i have no idea what your problem is, but you need to calm the fuck down when you reply to me.
You're equating child porn and FAKE rape porn. That makes absolutely no sense.
And Aeroplane is perfectly correct that it's none of your business what people use for sexual relief, so long as it's not against the law.
you need to read before you comment. i never said it was any of my business, i'm saying i have a problem with people who're turned on by child porn and rape. that's my opinion and i can't feel however i want about it without anyone telling me anything.
Why? It is not about whether I like to watch that sort of thing (I don't). It;s about me not wanting to accidentally possess material that could lead to me becoming a convicted sex offender.
does watching "simulated rape porn" make you a sex offender in england if this law passes through?
We don't know yet. Possessing rape porn does. Who decides what is simulated and what is not?
With child porn it is easy. If the person is under the age of 18 then it is illegal. With rape it is more difficult. In professional porn shoots the models have to sign a contract, so that is fine. But what about people who film themselves and post the video online? That do not sign anything to say that they are not being raped.
i don't know what you think rape is, but rape looks nothing like "simulated" rape on video. i've never thought about this before, but now that i am, i can see why the government wants to remove access to "simulated" rape porn and child porn since it, apparently, does turn on a percentage of people.
it's just a thought, but really, if someone is turned on by rape and sex with children, aren't they *more likely* to become the ones who do this? i mean, that's just what i think, lol.
Rape is as old as mankind itself. It has been going on for thousands upon thousands of years, it has nothing at all to do with internet porn.
On July 23 2013 21:54 i zig zag around you wrote:
On July 23 2013 21:52 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:
On July 23 2013 21:51 i zig zag around you wrote:
On July 23 2013 21:49 hzflank wrote: [quote]
Why? It is not about whether I like to watch that sort of thing (I don't). It;s about me not wanting to accidentally possess material that could lead to me becoming a convicted sex offender.
does watching "simulated rape porn" make you a sex offender in england if this law passes through?
I presume so as they're now grouping simulated rape porn and child porn into the same category.
well rape and sex with minors are both illegal, so i'm pretty sure i understand why they put these two types of porn into same category. however, i don't think that *watching* this makes you a convicted sex offender, lol. this kind of filter is to prevent *some* people to get teh wrong ideas.
Except this isn't rape, the is simulated rape, hence IT'S NOT FUCKING REAL. Just like Saw is simulated torture, 100% of action films have simulated murder, Harry Potter has simulated witchcraft, WWE is simulated bare knuckle/no rules fighting and Chess is simulated regicide.
None of those things are illegal because they're not real, they're fake and it's fucking retarded beyond all fucking measures to censor something which is fake.
i don't think you understand what i'm trying to say. the problem is not the fact that "simulated" rape porn is not real, it's the fact that it does stimulate *some* people. just like how violence in movies, games, animal abuse, etc. helps stimulate *some* people and ultimately motivates these people to do things to others in the real world. that's all i'm saying.
So you're completely ignoring the fact that rape is one of man's oldest past times? Hell 50% of the reason men used to go to war pre Napoleonic era was because they'd be able to rape the native women once they won (the other 50% being money). People have always committed rape, there is no link at all between it and watching rape porn. The percentage of men who would rape someone given the opportunity is right now at an all time low for humanity.
The information age does not have a monopoly on violence, I don't know where you insane people get off on this madness.
no, i'm not ignoring it. i'm saying that if some people are stimulated by rape, they shouldn't have access to it 24 hours a day from their computer. it's like letting pyromaniac teenagers play with fire, or convicted murders walk with guns. it's just not *right* if you ask me. this has nothing to do with history, lol.
but hey, if you're alright with child molesters having access to child porn from their personal computer at home, be my guest. but it's in my opinion that it's wrong.
The information age does not have a monopoly on violence, I don't know where you insane people get off on this madness.
It's also none of your fucking business what gets me or anyone else off where consenting adults are involved. Last I checked the thought police came from a fiction book not the UK circa 2013.
also, i have no idea what your problem is, but you need to calm the fuck down when you reply to me.
You're equating child porn and FAKE rape porn. That makes absolutely no sense.
And Aeroplane is perfectly correct that it's none of your business what people use for sexual relief, so long as it's not against the law.
you need to read before you comment. i never said it was any of my business, i'm saying i have a problem with people who're turned on by child porn and rape. that's my opinion and i can't feel however i want about it without anyone telling me anything.
Fake rape is not rape.
Would you rather people watch fake rape porn, or actually go out on the streets and sexually assault other people?
On July 23 2013 21:41 hzflank wrote: The thing that bothers me about this is that simulated rape porn will be illegal. Who decides what is simulated rape and what is not? If a guy handcuffs his wife and films it, is that simulated rape porn?
The other problem is that it is too easy to get around ISP filtering anyway. Things like child porn are already blocked by British ISPs. Pedophiles do not just start Chrome and watch child porn on Youtube, which is what the filtering would block.
*edited* if post is serious, then i don't know what to say.
Why? It is not about whether I like to watch that sort of thing (I don't). It;s about me not wanting to accidentally possess material that could lead to me becoming a convicted sex offender.
does watching "simulated rape porn" make you a sex offender in england if this law passes through?
We don't know yet. Possessing rape porn does. Who decides what is simulated and what is not?
With child porn it is easy. If the person is under the age of 18 then it is illegal. With rape it is more difficult. In professional porn shoots the models have to sign a contract, so that is fine. But what about people who film themselves and post the video online? That do not sign anything to say that they are not being raped.
i don't know what you think rape is, but rape looks nothing like "simulated" rape on video. i've never thought about this before, but now that i am, i can see why the government wants to remove access to "simulated" rape porn and child porn since it, apparently, does turn on a percentage of people.
it's just a thought, but really, if someone is turned on by rape and sex with children, aren't they *more likely* to become the ones who do this? i mean, that's just what i think, lol.
Rape is as old as mankind itself. It has been going on for thousands upon thousands of years, it has nothing at all to do with internet porn.
On July 23 2013 21:54 i zig zag around you wrote:
On July 23 2013 21:52 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:
On July 23 2013 21:51 i zig zag around you wrote:
On July 23 2013 21:49 hzflank wrote:
On July 23 2013 21:45 i zig zag around you wrote:
On July 23 2013 21:41 hzflank wrote: The thing that bothers me about this is that simulated rape porn will be illegal. Who decides what is simulated rape and what is not? If a guy handcuffs his wife and films it, is that simulated rape porn?
The other problem is that it is too easy to get around ISP filtering anyway. Things like child porn are already blocked by British ISPs. Pedophiles do not just start Chrome and watch child porn on Youtube, which is what the filtering would block.
*edited* if post is serious, then i don't know what to say.
Why? It is not about whether I like to watch that sort of thing (I don't). It;s about me not wanting to accidentally possess material that could lead to me becoming a convicted sex offender.
does watching "simulated rape porn" make you a sex offender in england if this law passes through?
I presume so as they're now grouping simulated rape porn and child porn into the same category.
well rape and sex with minors are both illegal, so i'm pretty sure i understand why they put these two types of porn into same category. however, i don't think that *watching* this makes you a convicted sex offender, lol. this kind of filter is to prevent *some* people to get teh wrong ideas.
Except this isn't rape, the is simulated rape, hence IT'S NOT FUCKING REAL. Just like Saw is simulated torture, 100% of action films have simulated murder, Harry Potter has simulated witchcraft, WWE is simulated bare knuckle/no rules fighting and Chess is simulated regicide.
None of those things are illegal because they're not real, they're fake and it's fucking retarded beyond all fucking measures to censor something which is fake.
i don't think you understand what i'm trying to say. the problem is not the fact that "simulated" rape porn is not real, it's the fact that it does stimulate *some* people. just like how violence in movies, games, animal abuse, etc. helps stimulate *some* people and ultimately motivates these people to do things to others in the real world. that's all i'm saying.
So you're completely ignoring the fact that rape is one of man's oldest past times? Hell 50% of the reason men used to go to war pre Napoleonic era was because they'd be able to rape the native women once they won (the other 50% being money). People have always committed rape, there is no link at all between it and watching rape porn. The percentage of men who would rape someone given the opportunity is right now at an all time low for humanity.
The information age does not have a monopoly on violence, I don't know where you insane people get off on this madness.
no, i'm not ignoring it. i'm saying that if some people are stimulated by rape, they shouldn't have access to it 24 hours a day from their computer. it's like letting pyromaniac teenagers play with fire, or convicted murders walk with guns. it's just not *right* if you ask me. this has nothing to do with history, lol.
So if I decide to jerk off to Dexter can we ban it because it might encourage me to lead a double life as a murderer/blood spatter analyst? How about banning The Sopranos but it might encourage people to get into organised crime?
No gives a shit what you think is right, laws aren't made on what "i zig zag around you" from TeamLiquid.net thinks is right, the entire reason democracy exists is to protect the consenting adults from what the tyranny of the majority deem "right". Less we descend into Saudi Arabia.
but hey, if you're alright with child molesters having access to child porn from their personal computer at home, be my guest. but it's in my opinion that it's wrong.
Oh look, you're absolutely fucking clueless.
Since when does consenting adults have the slightest fucking thing to do with child porn? Oh wait, it doesn't.
On July 23 2013 20:29 spkim1 wrote: Oh god, what do we do with these British ...
Cameron, mate, children are doing just fine. Why don't you concentrate on that economy of yours that seems to be not doing so well like the rest of the world's ...
Seriously, I wonder what kind of people are advising these politicians as to where they truly need to focus. Pornography ? That thing's been existing ever since video tapes have been founded ! What, do you expect to somehow put a halt to a hundred-years-history of pornography, you nutbrain ? That idea's worse than proliferation. Stop being stupid and start acting on things that really matter.
You make it sound like it was easy to get a hold of porn before the internet. It wasn't, it was a complete mission. This really sucks for teenagers but also for guys in general, it would be so awkward to tell your spouse you wanted access to porn so you could have the odd cheeky look around lol.
or my mom, since i am nearly 30 and still living at home...
On July 23 2013 21:51 i zig zag around you wrote: [quote]
does watching "simulated rape porn" make you a sex offender in england if this law passes through?
We don't know yet. Possessing rape porn does. Who decides what is simulated and what is not?
With child porn it is easy. If the person is under the age of 18 then it is illegal. With rape it is more difficult. In professional porn shoots the models have to sign a contract, so that is fine. But what about people who film themselves and post the video online? That do not sign anything to say that they are not being raped.
i don't know what you think rape is, but rape looks nothing like "simulated" rape on video. i've never thought about this before, but now that i am, i can see why the government wants to remove access to "simulated" rape porn and child porn since it, apparently, does turn on a percentage of people.
it's just a thought, but really, if someone is turned on by rape and sex with children, aren't they *more likely* to become the ones who do this? i mean, that's just what i think, lol.
Rape is as old as mankind itself. It has been going on for thousands upon thousands of years, it has nothing at all to do with internet porn.
On July 23 2013 21:54 i zig zag around you wrote:
On July 23 2013 21:52 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:
On July 23 2013 21:51 i zig zag around you wrote: [quote]
does watching "simulated rape porn" make you a sex offender in england if this law passes through?
I presume so as they're now grouping simulated rape porn and child porn into the same category.
well rape and sex with minors are both illegal, so i'm pretty sure i understand why they put these two types of porn into same category. however, i don't think that *watching* this makes you a convicted sex offender, lol. this kind of filter is to prevent *some* people to get teh wrong ideas.
Except this isn't rape, the is simulated rape, hence IT'S NOT FUCKING REAL. Just like Saw is simulated torture, 100% of action films have simulated murder, Harry Potter has simulated witchcraft, WWE is simulated bare knuckle/no rules fighting and Chess is simulated regicide.
None of those things are illegal because they're not real, they're fake and it's fucking retarded beyond all fucking measures to censor something which is fake.
i don't think you understand what i'm trying to say. the problem is not the fact that "simulated" rape porn is not real, it's the fact that it does stimulate *some* people. just like how violence in movies, games, animal abuse, etc. helps stimulate *some* people and ultimately motivates these people to do things to others in the real world. that's all i'm saying.
So you're completely ignoring the fact that rape is one of man's oldest past times? Hell 50% of the reason men used to go to war pre Napoleonic era was because they'd be able to rape the native women once they won (the other 50% being money). People have always committed rape, there is no link at all between it and watching rape porn. The percentage of men who would rape someone given the opportunity is right now at an all time low for humanity.
The information age does not have a monopoly on violence, I don't know where you insane people get off on this madness.
no, i'm not ignoring it. i'm saying that if some people are stimulated by rape, they shouldn't have access to it 24 hours a day from their computer. it's like letting pyromaniac teenagers play with fire, or convicted murders walk with guns. it's just not *right* if you ask me. this has nothing to do with history, lol.
but hey, if you're alright with child molesters having access to child porn from their personal computer at home, be my guest. but it's in my opinion that it's wrong.
The information age does not have a monopoly on violence, I don't know where you insane people get off on this madness.
It's also none of your fucking business what gets me or anyone else off where consenting adults are involved. Last I checked the thought police came from a fiction book not the UK circa 2013.
also, i have no idea what your problem is, but you need to calm the fuck down when you reply to me.
You're equating child porn and FAKE rape porn. That makes absolutely no sense.
And Aeroplane is perfectly correct that it's none of your business what people use for sexual relief, so long as it's not against the law.
you need to read before you comment. i never said it was any of my business, i'm saying i have a problem with people who're turned on by child porn and rape. that's my opinion and i can't feel however i want about it without anyone telling me anything.
Fake rape is not rape.
Would you rather people watch fake rape porn, or actually go out on the streets and sexually assault other people?
Just to be devil's advocate here how do you know that watching fake rape porn wouldn't get people interested in rape who otherwise wouldn't be?
We don't know yet. Possessing rape porn does. Who decides what is simulated and what is not?
With child porn it is easy. If the person is under the age of 18 then it is illegal. With rape it is more difficult. In professional porn shoots the models have to sign a contract, so that is fine. But what about people who film themselves and post the video online? That do not sign anything to say that they are not being raped.
i don't know what you think rape is, but rape looks nothing like "simulated" rape on video. i've never thought about this before, but now that i am, i can see why the government wants to remove access to "simulated" rape porn and child porn since it, apparently, does turn on a percentage of people.
it's just a thought, but really, if someone is turned on by rape and sex with children, aren't they *more likely* to become the ones who do this? i mean, that's just what i think, lol.
Rape is as old as mankind itself. It has been going on for thousands upon thousands of years, it has nothing at all to do with internet porn.
On July 23 2013 21:54 i zig zag around you wrote:
On July 23 2013 21:52 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote: [quote]
I presume so as they're now grouping simulated rape porn and child porn into the same category.
well rape and sex with minors are both illegal, so i'm pretty sure i understand why they put these two types of porn into same category. however, i don't think that *watching* this makes you a convicted sex offender, lol. this kind of filter is to prevent *some* people to get teh wrong ideas.
Except this isn't rape, the is simulated rape, hence IT'S NOT FUCKING REAL. Just like Saw is simulated torture, 100% of action films have simulated murder, Harry Potter has simulated witchcraft, WWE is simulated bare knuckle/no rules fighting and Chess is simulated regicide.
None of those things are illegal because they're not real, they're fake and it's fucking retarded beyond all fucking measures to censor something which is fake.
i don't think you understand what i'm trying to say. the problem is not the fact that "simulated" rape porn is not real, it's the fact that it does stimulate *some* people. just like how violence in movies, games, animal abuse, etc. helps stimulate *some* people and ultimately motivates these people to do things to others in the real world. that's all i'm saying.
So you're completely ignoring the fact that rape is one of man's oldest past times? Hell 50% of the reason men used to go to war pre Napoleonic era was because they'd be able to rape the native women once they won (the other 50% being money). People have always committed rape, there is no link at all between it and watching rape porn. The percentage of men who would rape someone given the opportunity is right now at an all time low for humanity.
The information age does not have a monopoly on violence, I don't know where you insane people get off on this madness.
no, i'm not ignoring it. i'm saying that if some people are stimulated by rape, they shouldn't have access to it 24 hours a day from their computer. it's like letting pyromaniac teenagers play with fire, or convicted murders walk with guns. it's just not *right* if you ask me. this has nothing to do with history, lol.
but hey, if you're alright with child molesters having access to child porn from their personal computer at home, be my guest. but it's in my opinion that it's wrong.
The information age does not have a monopoly on violence, I don't know where you insane people get off on this madness.
It's also none of your fucking business what gets me or anyone else off where consenting adults are involved. Last I checked the thought police came from a fiction book not the UK circa 2013.
also, i have no idea what your problem is, but you need to calm the fuck down when you reply to me.
You're equating child porn and FAKE rape porn. That makes absolutely no sense.
And Aeroplane is perfectly correct that it's none of your business what people use for sexual relief, so long as it's not against the law.
you need to read before you comment. i never said it was any of my business, i'm saying i have a problem with people who're turned on by child porn and rape. that's my opinion and i can't feel however i want about it without anyone telling me anything.
Fake rape is not rape.
Would you rather people watch fake rape porn, or actually go out on the streets and sexually assault other people?
Just to be devil's advocate here how do you know that watching fake rape porn wouldn't get people interested in rape who otherwise wouldn't be?
Commodity. And I'd wager if you've developed enough of a taste in porn that you get to the more extreme stuff, you're probably a heavy porn user and won't be touching another person for a while.
But yeah, it's commodity. Instant relief whose particularities you can control (as far as choosing what video to watch etc) versus actually going out and doing something? It's pretty easy...
We don't know yet. Possessing rape porn does. Who decides what is simulated and what is not?
With child porn it is easy. If the person is under the age of 18 then it is illegal. With rape it is more difficult. In professional porn shoots the models have to sign a contract, so that is fine. But what about people who film themselves and post the video online? That do not sign anything to say that they are not being raped.
i don't know what you think rape is, but rape looks nothing like "simulated" rape on video. i've never thought about this before, but now that i am, i can see why the government wants to remove access to "simulated" rape porn and child porn since it, apparently, does turn on a percentage of people.
it's just a thought, but really, if someone is turned on by rape and sex with children, aren't they *more likely* to become the ones who do this? i mean, that's just what i think, lol.
Rape is as old as mankind itself. It has been going on for thousands upon thousands of years, it has nothing at all to do with internet porn.
On July 23 2013 21:54 i zig zag around you wrote:
On July 23 2013 21:52 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote: [quote]
I presume so as they're now grouping simulated rape porn and child porn into the same category.
well rape and sex with minors are both illegal, so i'm pretty sure i understand why they put these two types of porn into same category. however, i don't think that *watching* this makes you a convicted sex offender, lol. this kind of filter is to prevent *some* people to get teh wrong ideas.
Except this isn't rape, the is simulated rape, hence IT'S NOT FUCKING REAL. Just like Saw is simulated torture, 100% of action films have simulated murder, Harry Potter has simulated witchcraft, WWE is simulated bare knuckle/no rules fighting and Chess is simulated regicide.
None of those things are illegal because they're not real, they're fake and it's fucking retarded beyond all fucking measures to censor something which is fake.
i don't think you understand what i'm trying to say. the problem is not the fact that "simulated" rape porn is not real, it's the fact that it does stimulate *some* people. just like how violence in movies, games, animal abuse, etc. helps stimulate *some* people and ultimately motivates these people to do things to others in the real world. that's all i'm saying.
So you're completely ignoring the fact that rape is one of man's oldest past times? Hell 50% of the reason men used to go to war pre Napoleonic era was because they'd be able to rape the native women once they won (the other 50% being money). People have always committed rape, there is no link at all between it and watching rape porn. The percentage of men who would rape someone given the opportunity is right now at an all time low for humanity.
The information age does not have a monopoly on violence, I don't know where you insane people get off on this madness.
no, i'm not ignoring it. i'm saying that if some people are stimulated by rape, they shouldn't have access to it 24 hours a day from their computer. it's like letting pyromaniac teenagers play with fire, or convicted murders walk with guns. it's just not *right* if you ask me. this has nothing to do with history, lol.
but hey, if you're alright with child molesters having access to child porn from their personal computer at home, be my guest. but it's in my opinion that it's wrong.
The information age does not have a monopoly on violence, I don't know where you insane people get off on this madness.
It's also none of your fucking business what gets me or anyone else off where consenting adults are involved. Last I checked the thought police came from a fiction book not the UK circa 2013.
also, i have no idea what your problem is, but you need to calm the fuck down when you reply to me.
You're equating child porn and FAKE rape porn. That makes absolutely no sense.
And Aeroplane is perfectly correct that it's none of your business what people use for sexual relief, so long as it's not against the law.
you need to read before you comment. i never said it was any of my business, i'm saying i have a problem with people who're turned on by child porn and rape. that's my opinion and i can't feel however i want about it without anyone telling me anything.
Fake rape is not rape.
Would you rather people watch fake rape porn, or actually go out on the streets and sexually assault other people?
Just to be devil's advocate here how do you know that watching fake rape porn wouldn't get people interested in rape who otherwise wouldn't be?
You don't. But then how do you know that playing Starcraft 2 wouldn't get people into injecting themselves with steroids and going on a shooting spree?
We don't know yet. Possessing rape porn does. Who decides what is simulated and what is not?
With child porn it is easy. If the person is under the age of 18 then it is illegal. With rape it is more difficult. In professional porn shoots the models have to sign a contract, so that is fine. But what about people who film themselves and post the video online? That do not sign anything to say that they are not being raped.
i don't know what you think rape is, but rape looks nothing like "simulated" rape on video. i've never thought about this before, but now that i am, i can see why the government wants to remove access to "simulated" rape porn and child porn since it, apparently, does turn on a percentage of people.
it's just a thought, but really, if someone is turned on by rape and sex with children, aren't they *more likely* to become the ones who do this? i mean, that's just what i think, lol.
Rape is as old as mankind itself. It has been going on for thousands upon thousands of years, it has nothing at all to do with internet porn.
On July 23 2013 21:54 i zig zag around you wrote:
On July 23 2013 21:52 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote: [quote]
I presume so as they're now grouping simulated rape porn and child porn into the same category.
well rape and sex with minors are both illegal, so i'm pretty sure i understand why they put these two types of porn into same category. however, i don't think that *watching* this makes you a convicted sex offender, lol. this kind of filter is to prevent *some* people to get teh wrong ideas.
Except this isn't rape, the is simulated rape, hence IT'S NOT FUCKING REAL. Just like Saw is simulated torture, 100% of action films have simulated murder, Harry Potter has simulated witchcraft, WWE is simulated bare knuckle/no rules fighting and Chess is simulated regicide.
None of those things are illegal because they're not real, they're fake and it's fucking retarded beyond all fucking measures to censor something which is fake.
i don't think you understand what i'm trying to say. the problem is not the fact that "simulated" rape porn is not real, it's the fact that it does stimulate *some* people. just like how violence in movies, games, animal abuse, etc. helps stimulate *some* people and ultimately motivates these people to do things to others in the real world. that's all i'm saying.
So you're completely ignoring the fact that rape is one of man's oldest past times? Hell 50% of the reason men used to go to war pre Napoleonic era was because they'd be able to rape the native women once they won (the other 50% being money). People have always committed rape, there is no link at all between it and watching rape porn. The percentage of men who would rape someone given the opportunity is right now at an all time low for humanity.
The information age does not have a monopoly on violence, I don't know where you insane people get off on this madness.
no, i'm not ignoring it. i'm saying that if some people are stimulated by rape, they shouldn't have access to it 24 hours a day from their computer. it's like letting pyromaniac teenagers play with fire, or convicted murders walk with guns. it's just not *right* if you ask me. this has nothing to do with history, lol.
but hey, if you're alright with child molesters having access to child porn from their personal computer at home, be my guest. but it's in my opinion that it's wrong.
The information age does not have a monopoly on violence, I don't know where you insane people get off on this madness.
It's also none of your fucking business what gets me or anyone else off where consenting adults are involved. Last I checked the thought police came from a fiction book not the UK circa 2013.
also, i have no idea what your problem is, but you need to calm the fuck down when you reply to me.
You're equating child porn and FAKE rape porn. That makes absolutely no sense.
And Aeroplane is perfectly correct that it's none of your business what people use for sexual relief, so long as it's not against the law.
you need to read before you comment. i never said it was any of my business, i'm saying i have a problem with people who're turned on by child porn and rape. that's my opinion and i can't feel however i want about it without anyone telling me anything.
Fake rape is not rape.
Would you rather people watch fake rape porn, or actually go out on the streets and sexually assault other people?
Just to be devil's advocate here how do you know that watching fake rape porn wouldn't get people interested in rape who otherwise wouldn't be?
The burden of proof is pretty clearly on you there.
And even then, where are you drawing that line? Can we ban the media reporting on real rapes because it might encourage others? Can we ban action movies because they glorify murder/guns/violence/irresponsbile driving?
On July 23 2013 21:57 i zig zag around you wrote: [quote]
i don't know what you think rape is, but rape looks nothing like "simulated" rape on video. i've never thought about this before, but now that i am, i can see why the government wants to remove access to "simulated" rape porn and child porn since it, apparently, does turn on a percentage of people.
it's just a thought, but really, if someone is turned on by rape and sex with children, aren't they *more likely* to become the ones who do this? i mean, that's just what i think, lol.
Rape is as old as mankind itself. It has been going on for thousands upon thousands of years, it has nothing at all to do with internet porn.
On July 23 2013 21:54 i zig zag around you wrote: [quote]
well rape and sex with minors are both illegal, so i'm pretty sure i understand why they put these two types of porn into same category. however, i don't think that *watching* this makes you a convicted sex offender, lol. this kind of filter is to prevent *some* people to get teh wrong ideas.
Except this isn't rape, the is simulated rape, hence IT'S NOT FUCKING REAL. Just like Saw is simulated torture, 100% of action films have simulated murder, Harry Potter has simulated witchcraft, WWE is simulated bare knuckle/no rules fighting and Chess is simulated regicide.
None of those things are illegal because they're not real, they're fake and it's fucking retarded beyond all fucking measures to censor something which is fake.
i don't think you understand what i'm trying to say. the problem is not the fact that "simulated" rape porn is not real, it's the fact that it does stimulate *some* people. just like how violence in movies, games, animal abuse, etc. helps stimulate *some* people and ultimately motivates these people to do things to others in the real world. that's all i'm saying.
So you're completely ignoring the fact that rape is one of man's oldest past times? Hell 50% of the reason men used to go to war pre Napoleonic era was because they'd be able to rape the native women once they won (the other 50% being money). People have always committed rape, there is no link at all between it and watching rape porn. The percentage of men who would rape someone given the opportunity is right now at an all time low for humanity.
The information age does not have a monopoly on violence, I don't know where you insane people get off on this madness.
no, i'm not ignoring it. i'm saying that if some people are stimulated by rape, they shouldn't have access to it 24 hours a day from their computer. it's like letting pyromaniac teenagers play with fire, or convicted murders walk with guns. it's just not *right* if you ask me. this has nothing to do with history, lol.
but hey, if you're alright with child molesters having access to child porn from their personal computer at home, be my guest. but it's in my opinion that it's wrong.
The information age does not have a monopoly on violence, I don't know where you insane people get off on this madness.
It's also none of your fucking business what gets me or anyone else off where consenting adults are involved. Last I checked the thought police came from a fiction book not the UK circa 2013.
also, i have no idea what your problem is, but you need to calm the fuck down when you reply to me.
You're equating child porn and FAKE rape porn. That makes absolutely no sense.
And Aeroplane is perfectly correct that it's none of your business what people use for sexual relief, so long as it's not against the law.
you need to read before you comment. i never said it was any of my business, i'm saying i have a problem with people who're turned on by child porn and rape. that's my opinion and i can't feel however i want about it without anyone telling me anything.
Fake rape is not rape.
Would you rather people watch fake rape porn, or actually go out on the streets and sexually assault other people?
Just to be devil's advocate here how do you know that watching fake rape porn wouldn't get people interested in rape who otherwise wouldn't be?
You don't. But then how do you know that playing Starcraft 2 wouldn't get people into injecting themselves with steroids and going on a shooting spree?
That isn't even slightly analogous. People play because they enjoy the strategy and being pitted against someone in competition. People watch rape because it turns them on, which is the same reason people rape people.
On July 23 2013 22:11 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote: [quote]
Rape is as old as mankind itself. It has been going on for thousands upon thousands of years, it has nothing at all to do with internet porn.
[quote]
Except this isn't rape, the is simulated rape, hence IT'S NOT FUCKING REAL. Just like Saw is simulated torture, 100% of action films have simulated murder, Harry Potter has simulated witchcraft, WWE is simulated bare knuckle/no rules fighting and Chess is simulated regicide.
None of those things are illegal because they're not real, they're fake and it's fucking retarded beyond all fucking measures to censor something which is fake.
i don't think you understand what i'm trying to say. the problem is not the fact that "simulated" rape porn is not real, it's the fact that it does stimulate *some* people. just like how violence in movies, games, animal abuse, etc. helps stimulate *some* people and ultimately motivates these people to do things to others in the real world. that's all i'm saying.
So you're completely ignoring the fact that rape is one of man's oldest past times? Hell 50% of the reason men used to go to war pre Napoleonic era was because they'd be able to rape the native women once they won (the other 50% being money). People have always committed rape, there is no link at all between it and watching rape porn. The percentage of men who would rape someone given the opportunity is right now at an all time low for humanity.
The information age does not have a monopoly on violence, I don't know where you insane people get off on this madness.
no, i'm not ignoring it. i'm saying that if some people are stimulated by rape, they shouldn't have access to it 24 hours a day from their computer. it's like letting pyromaniac teenagers play with fire, or convicted murders walk with guns. it's just not *right* if you ask me. this has nothing to do with history, lol.
but hey, if you're alright with child molesters having access to child porn from their personal computer at home, be my guest. but it's in my opinion that it's wrong.
The information age does not have a monopoly on violence, I don't know where you insane people get off on this madness.
It's also none of your fucking business what gets me or anyone else off where consenting adults are involved. Last I checked the thought police came from a fiction book not the UK circa 2013.
also, i have no idea what your problem is, but you need to calm the fuck down when you reply to me.
You're equating child porn and FAKE rape porn. That makes absolutely no sense.
And Aeroplane is perfectly correct that it's none of your business what people use for sexual relief, so long as it's not against the law.
you need to read before you comment. i never said it was any of my business, i'm saying i have a problem with people who're turned on by child porn and rape. that's my opinion and i can't feel however i want about it without anyone telling me anything.
Fake rape is not rape.
Would you rather people watch fake rape porn, or actually go out on the streets and sexually assault other people?
Just to be devil's advocate here how do you know that watching fake rape porn wouldn't get people interested in rape who otherwise wouldn't be?
You don't. But then how do you know that playing Starcraft 2 wouldn't get people into injecting themselves with steroids and going on a shooting spree?
That isn't even slightly analogous. People play because they enjoy the strategy and being pitted against someone in competition. People watch rape because it turns them on, which is the same reason people rape people.
On July 23 2013 22:17 i zig zag around you wrote: [quote]
i don't think you understand what i'm trying to say. the problem is not the fact that "simulated" rape porn is not real, it's the fact that it does stimulate *some* people. just like how violence in movies, games, animal abuse, etc. helps stimulate *some* people and ultimately motivates these people to do things to others in the real world. that's all i'm saying.
So you're completely ignoring the fact that rape is one of man's oldest past times? Hell 50% of the reason men used to go to war pre Napoleonic era was because they'd be able to rape the native women once they won (the other 50% being money). People have always committed rape, there is no link at all between it and watching rape porn. The percentage of men who would rape someone given the opportunity is right now at an all time low for humanity.
The information age does not have a monopoly on violence, I don't know where you insane people get off on this madness.
no, i'm not ignoring it. i'm saying that if some people are stimulated by rape, they shouldn't have access to it 24 hours a day from their computer. it's like letting pyromaniac teenagers play with fire, or convicted murders walk with guns. it's just not *right* if you ask me. this has nothing to do with history, lol.
but hey, if you're alright with child molesters having access to child porn from their personal computer at home, be my guest. but it's in my opinion that it's wrong.
The information age does not have a monopoly on violence, I don't know where you insane people get off on this madness.
It's also none of your fucking business what gets me or anyone else off where consenting adults are involved. Last I checked the thought police came from a fiction book not the UK circa 2013.
also, i have no idea what your problem is, but you need to calm the fuck down when you reply to me.
You're equating child porn and FAKE rape porn. That makes absolutely no sense.
And Aeroplane is perfectly correct that it's none of your business what people use for sexual relief, so long as it's not against the law.
you need to read before you comment. i never said it was any of my business, i'm saying i have a problem with people who're turned on by child porn and rape. that's my opinion and i can't feel however i want about it without anyone telling me anything.
Fake rape is not rape.
Would you rather people watch fake rape porn, or actually go out on the streets and sexually assault other people?
Just to be devil's advocate here how do you know that watching fake rape porn wouldn't get people interested in rape who otherwise wouldn't be?
You don't. But then how do you know that playing Starcraft 2 wouldn't get people into injecting themselves with steroids and going on a shooting spree?
That isn't even slightly analogous. People play because they enjoy the strategy and being pitted against someone in competition. People watch rape because it turns them on, which is the same reason people rape people.
I think you missed my post.
And Aeroplane's for that matter.
he didn't.
that's exactly what i said and both you and aeroplane began to insult me.
On July 23 2013 21:57 i zig zag around you wrote: [quote]
i don't know what you think rape is, but rape looks nothing like "simulated" rape on video. i've never thought about this before, but now that i am, i can see why the government wants to remove access to "simulated" rape porn and child porn since it, apparently, does turn on a percentage of people.
it's just a thought, but really, if someone is turned on by rape and sex with children, aren't they *more likely* to become the ones who do this? i mean, that's just what i think, lol.
Rape is as old as mankind itself. It has been going on for thousands upon thousands of years, it has nothing at all to do with internet porn.
On July 23 2013 21:54 i zig zag around you wrote: [quote]
well rape and sex with minors are both illegal, so i'm pretty sure i understand why they put these two types of porn into same category. however, i don't think that *watching* this makes you a convicted sex offender, lol. this kind of filter is to prevent *some* people to get teh wrong ideas.
Except this isn't rape, the is simulated rape, hence IT'S NOT FUCKING REAL. Just like Saw is simulated torture, 100% of action films have simulated murder, Harry Potter has simulated witchcraft, WWE is simulated bare knuckle/no rules fighting and Chess is simulated regicide.
None of those things are illegal because they're not real, they're fake and it's fucking retarded beyond all fucking measures to censor something which is fake.
i don't think you understand what i'm trying to say. the problem is not the fact that "simulated" rape porn is not real, it's the fact that it does stimulate *some* people. just like how violence in movies, games, animal abuse, etc. helps stimulate *some* people and ultimately motivates these people to do things to others in the real world. that's all i'm saying.
So you're completely ignoring the fact that rape is one of man's oldest past times? Hell 50% of the reason men used to go to war pre Napoleonic era was because they'd be able to rape the native women once they won (the other 50% being money). People have always committed rape, there is no link at all between it and watching rape porn. The percentage of men who would rape someone given the opportunity is right now at an all time low for humanity.
The information age does not have a monopoly on violence, I don't know where you insane people get off on this madness.
no, i'm not ignoring it. i'm saying that if some people are stimulated by rape, they shouldn't have access to it 24 hours a day from their computer. it's like letting pyromaniac teenagers play with fire, or convicted murders walk with guns. it's just not *right* if you ask me. this has nothing to do with history, lol.
but hey, if you're alright with child molesters having access to child porn from their personal computer at home, be my guest. but it's in my opinion that it's wrong.
The information age does not have a monopoly on violence, I don't know where you insane people get off on this madness.
It's also none of your fucking business what gets me or anyone else off where consenting adults are involved. Last I checked the thought police came from a fiction book not the UK circa 2013.
also, i have no idea what your problem is, but you need to calm the fuck down when you reply to me.
You're equating child porn and FAKE rape porn. That makes absolutely no sense.
And Aeroplane is perfectly correct that it's none of your business what people use for sexual relief, so long as it's not against the law.
you need to read before you comment. i never said it was any of my business, i'm saying i have a problem with people who're turned on by child porn and rape. that's my opinion and i can't feel however i want about it without anyone telling me anything.
Fake rape is not rape.
Would you rather people watch fake rape porn, or actually go out on the streets and sexually assault other people?
Just to be devil's advocate here how do you know that watching fake rape porn wouldn't get people interested in rape who otherwise wouldn't be?
The burden of proof is pretty clearly on you there.
And even then, where are you drawing that line? Can we ban the media reporting on real rapes because it might encourage others? Can we ban action movies because they glorify murder/guns/violence/irresponsbile driving?
Well i don't have access to those sort of police files so i guess proof is out of the question.
On July 23 2013 22:11 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote: [quote]
Rape is as old as mankind itself. It has been going on for thousands upon thousands of years, it has nothing at all to do with internet porn.
[quote]
Except this isn't rape, the is simulated rape, hence IT'S NOT FUCKING REAL. Just like Saw is simulated torture, 100% of action films have simulated murder, Harry Potter has simulated witchcraft, WWE is simulated bare knuckle/no rules fighting and Chess is simulated regicide.
None of those things are illegal because they're not real, they're fake and it's fucking retarded beyond all fucking measures to censor something which is fake.
i don't think you understand what i'm trying to say. the problem is not the fact that "simulated" rape porn is not real, it's the fact that it does stimulate *some* people. just like how violence in movies, games, animal abuse, etc. helps stimulate *some* people and ultimately motivates these people to do things to others in the real world. that's all i'm saying.
So you're completely ignoring the fact that rape is one of man's oldest past times? Hell 50% of the reason men used to go to war pre Napoleonic era was because they'd be able to rape the native women once they won (the other 50% being money). People have always committed rape, there is no link at all between it and watching rape porn. The percentage of men who would rape someone given the opportunity is right now at an all time low for humanity.
The information age does not have a monopoly on violence, I don't know where you insane people get off on this madness.
no, i'm not ignoring it. i'm saying that if some people are stimulated by rape, they shouldn't have access to it 24 hours a day from their computer. it's like letting pyromaniac teenagers play with fire, or convicted murders walk with guns. it's just not *right* if you ask me. this has nothing to do with history, lol.
but hey, if you're alright with child molesters having access to child porn from their personal computer at home, be my guest. but it's in my opinion that it's wrong.
The information age does not have a monopoly on violence, I don't know where you insane people get off on this madness.
It's also none of your fucking business what gets me or anyone else off where consenting adults are involved. Last I checked the thought police came from a fiction book not the UK circa 2013.
also, i have no idea what your problem is, but you need to calm the fuck down when you reply to me.
You're equating child porn and FAKE rape porn. That makes absolutely no sense.
And Aeroplane is perfectly correct that it's none of your business what people use for sexual relief, so long as it's not against the law.
you need to read before you comment. i never said it was any of my business, i'm saying i have a problem with people who're turned on by child porn and rape. that's my opinion and i can't feel however i want about it without anyone telling me anything.
Fake rape is not rape.
Would you rather people watch fake rape porn, or actually go out on the streets and sexually assault other people?
Just to be devil's advocate here how do you know that watching fake rape porn wouldn't get people interested in rape who otherwise wouldn't be?
You don't. But then how do you know that playing Starcraft 2 wouldn't get people into injecting themselves with steroids and going on a shooting spree?
That isn't even slightly analogous. People play because they enjoy the strategy and being pitted against someone in competition. People watch rape because it turns them on, which is the same reason people rape people.
Loads and loads of women like men to take control during sex/rough sex in general.
Woman do not enjoy being actually raped.
There is a massive difference between fictional and factitious scenarios.
Can we ban Ann Summers from selling schoolgirl outfits because it might encourage paedophillia?
I do see technical issues, but I have two children, and I cannot be everywhere.
Once they get old enough to be able to get on the internet, I plan to get them their own active directory accounts with a white list of web pages, but kids are clever and have a lot of time, and they for sure will get my account password one time. So I will approve any additional barrier that the government would give me regarding porn.
And no, I will no partake the unnecessary discussion if porn is really dangerous to children. You can try to find out and fill your own children up with porn, but I will definitely not.
On July 23 2013 22:23 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote: [quote]
So you're completely ignoring the fact that rape is one of man's oldest past times? Hell 50% of the reason men used to go to war pre Napoleonic era was because they'd be able to rape the native women once they won (the other 50% being money). People have always committed rape, there is no link at all between it and watching rape porn. The percentage of men who would rape someone given the opportunity is right now at an all time low for humanity.
The information age does not have a monopoly on violence, I don't know where you insane people get off on this madness.
no, i'm not ignoring it. i'm saying that if some people are stimulated by rape, they shouldn't have access to it 24 hours a day from their computer. it's like letting pyromaniac teenagers play with fire, or convicted murders walk with guns. it's just not *right* if you ask me. this has nothing to do with history, lol.
but hey, if you're alright with child molesters having access to child porn from their personal computer at home, be my guest. but it's in my opinion that it's wrong.
The information age does not have a monopoly on violence, I don't know where you insane people get off on this madness.
It's also none of your fucking business what gets me or anyone else off where consenting adults are involved. Last I checked the thought police came from a fiction book not the UK circa 2013.
also, i have no idea what your problem is, but you need to calm the fuck down when you reply to me.
You're equating child porn and FAKE rape porn. That makes absolutely no sense.
And Aeroplane is perfectly correct that it's none of your business what people use for sexual relief, so long as it's not against the law.
you need to read before you comment. i never said it was any of my business, i'm saying i have a problem with people who're turned on by child porn and rape. that's my opinion and i can't feel however i want about it without anyone telling me anything.
Fake rape is not rape.
Would you rather people watch fake rape porn, or actually go out on the streets and sexually assault other people?
Just to be devil's advocate here how do you know that watching fake rape porn wouldn't get people interested in rape who otherwise wouldn't be?
You don't. But then how do you know that playing Starcraft 2 wouldn't get people into injecting themselves with steroids and going on a shooting spree?
That isn't even slightly analogous. People play because they enjoy the strategy and being pitted against someone in competition. People watch rape because it turns them on, which is the same reason people rape people.
I think you missed my post.
And Aeroplane's for that matter.
he didn't.
that's exactly what i said and both you and aeroplane began to insult me.
Because you compared real life rape of children to fictional BDSM/rough sex between consenting adults. You deserve to be insulted for such idiocy.
nobody here is actually reading the article. users can opt out of the filter by checking a box and notifying their ISP - this is not the great firewall of china. all it does is allow an easy mechanism for filtering content from children of many parents who aren't technologically inclined to do so on their own.
On July 23 2013 22:27 i zig zag around you wrote: [quote]
no, i'm not ignoring it. i'm saying that if some people are stimulated by rape, they shouldn't have access to it 24 hours a day from their computer. it's like letting pyromaniac teenagers play with fire, or convicted murders walk with guns. it's just not *right* if you ask me. this has nothing to do with history, lol.
but hey, if you're alright with child molesters having access to child porn from their personal computer at home, be my guest. but it's in my opinion that it's wrong.
[quote]
also, i have no idea what your problem is, but you need to calm the fuck down when you reply to me.
You're equating child porn and FAKE rape porn. That makes absolutely no sense.
And Aeroplane is perfectly correct that it's none of your business what people use for sexual relief, so long as it's not against the law.
you need to read before you comment. i never said it was any of my business, i'm saying i have a problem with people who're turned on by child porn and rape. that's my opinion and i can't feel however i want about it without anyone telling me anything.
Fake rape is not rape.
Would you rather people watch fake rape porn, or actually go out on the streets and sexually assault other people?
Just to be devil's advocate here how do you know that watching fake rape porn wouldn't get people interested in rape who otherwise wouldn't be?
You don't. But then how do you know that playing Starcraft 2 wouldn't get people into injecting themselves with steroids and going on a shooting spree?
That isn't even slightly analogous. People play because they enjoy the strategy and being pitted against someone in competition. People watch rape because it turns them on, which is the same reason people rape people.
I think you missed my post.
And Aeroplane's for that matter.
he didn't.
that's exactly what i said and both you and aeroplane began to insult me.
Because you compared real life rape of children to fictional BDSM/rough sex between consenting adults. You deserve to be insulted for such idiocy.
On July 23 2013 22:11 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote: [quote]
Rape is as old as mankind itself. It has been going on for thousands upon thousands of years, it has nothing at all to do with internet porn.
[quote]
Except this isn't rape, the is simulated rape, hence IT'S NOT FUCKING REAL. Just like Saw is simulated torture, 100% of action films have simulated murder, Harry Potter has simulated witchcraft, WWE is simulated bare knuckle/no rules fighting and Chess is simulated regicide.
None of those things are illegal because they're not real, they're fake and it's fucking retarded beyond all fucking measures to censor something which is fake.
i don't think you understand what i'm trying to say. the problem is not the fact that "simulated" rape porn is not real, it's the fact that it does stimulate *some* people. just like how violence in movies, games, animal abuse, etc. helps stimulate *some* people and ultimately motivates these people to do things to others in the real world. that's all i'm saying.
So you're completely ignoring the fact that rape is one of man's oldest past times? Hell 50% of the reason men used to go to war pre Napoleonic era was because they'd be able to rape the native women once they won (the other 50% being money). People have always committed rape, there is no link at all between it and watching rape porn. The percentage of men who would rape someone given the opportunity is right now at an all time low for humanity.
The information age does not have a monopoly on violence, I don't know where you insane people get off on this madness.
no, i'm not ignoring it. i'm saying that if some people are stimulated by rape, they shouldn't have access to it 24 hours a day from their computer. it's like letting pyromaniac teenagers play with fire, or convicted murders walk with guns. it's just not *right* if you ask me. this has nothing to do with history, lol.
but hey, if you're alright with child molesters having access to child porn from their personal computer at home, be my guest. but it's in my opinion that it's wrong.
The information age does not have a monopoly on violence, I don't know where you insane people get off on this madness.
It's also none of your fucking business what gets me or anyone else off where consenting adults are involved. Last I checked the thought police came from a fiction book not the UK circa 2013.
also, i have no idea what your problem is, but you need to calm the fuck down when you reply to me.
You're equating child porn and FAKE rape porn. That makes absolutely no sense.
And Aeroplane is perfectly correct that it's none of your business what people use for sexual relief, so long as it's not against the law.
you need to read before you comment. i never said it was any of my business, i'm saying i have a problem with people who're turned on by child porn and rape. that's my opinion and i can't feel however i want about it without anyone telling me anything.
Fake rape is not rape.
Would you rather people watch fake rape porn, or actually go out on the streets and sexually assault other people?
Just to be devil's advocate here how do you know that watching fake rape porn wouldn't get people interested in rape who otherwise wouldn't be?
You don't. But then how do you know that playing Starcraft 2 wouldn't get people into injecting themselves with steroids and going on a shooting spree?
That isn't even slightly analogous. People play because they enjoy the strategy and being pitted against someone in competition. People watch rape because it turns them on, which is the same reason people rape people.
Fair enough. However, I am not sure that people rape because it turns them on. There are probably a lot of different reasons why people rape, but I doubt there are many people for who the idea of rape is a turn on.
On July 23 2013 22:17 i zig zag around you wrote: [quote]
i don't think you understand what i'm trying to say. the problem is not the fact that "simulated" rape porn is not real, it's the fact that it does stimulate *some* people. just like how violence in movies, games, animal abuse, etc. helps stimulate *some* people and ultimately motivates these people to do things to others in the real world. that's all i'm saying.
So you're completely ignoring the fact that rape is one of man's oldest past times? Hell 50% of the reason men used to go to war pre Napoleonic era was because they'd be able to rape the native women once they won (the other 50% being money). People have always committed rape, there is no link at all between it and watching rape porn. The percentage of men who would rape someone given the opportunity is right now at an all time low for humanity.
The information age does not have a monopoly on violence, I don't know where you insane people get off on this madness.
no, i'm not ignoring it. i'm saying that if some people are stimulated by rape, they shouldn't have access to it 24 hours a day from their computer. it's like letting pyromaniac teenagers play with fire, or convicted murders walk with guns. it's just not *right* if you ask me. this has nothing to do with history, lol.
but hey, if you're alright with child molesters having access to child porn from their personal computer at home, be my guest. but it's in my opinion that it's wrong.
The information age does not have a monopoly on violence, I don't know where you insane people get off on this madness.
It's also none of your fucking business what gets me or anyone else off where consenting adults are involved. Last I checked the thought police came from a fiction book not the UK circa 2013.
also, i have no idea what your problem is, but you need to calm the fuck down when you reply to me.
You're equating child porn and FAKE rape porn. That makes absolutely no sense.
And Aeroplane is perfectly correct that it's none of your business what people use for sexual relief, so long as it's not against the law.
you need to read before you comment. i never said it was any of my business, i'm saying i have a problem with people who're turned on by child porn and rape. that's my opinion and i can't feel however i want about it without anyone telling me anything.
Fake rape is not rape.
Would you rather people watch fake rape porn, or actually go out on the streets and sexually assault other people?
Just to be devil's advocate here how do you know that watching fake rape porn wouldn't get people interested in rape who otherwise wouldn't be?
You don't. But then how do you know that playing Starcraft 2 wouldn't get people into injecting themselves with steroids and going on a shooting spree?
That isn't even slightly analogous. People play because they enjoy the strategy and being pitted against someone in competition. People watch rape because it turns them on, which is the same reason people rape people.
Loads and loads of women like men to take control during sex/rough sex in general.
Woman do not enjoy being actually raped.
There is a massive difference between fictional and factitious scenarios.
Can we ban Ann Summers from selling schoolgirl outfits because it might encourage paedophillia?
Yeah this is true. Personally i think censoring porn is the WORST way to sort this kind of thing out. In relation to rape, surely we would have more data on the psychological causes, and things like porn if we were more open about it and discussed it more as a society, instead of censoring it.
On July 23 2013 22:43 Terranist wrote: nobody here is actually reading the article. users can opt out of the filter by checking a box and notifying their ISP - this is not the great firewall of china. all it does is allow an easy mechanism for filtering content from children of many parents who aren't technologically inclined to do so on their own.
Well not only is this the slippery slope. It outright bans fictional rape porn (which is basically all BDSM porn) and David Cameron has already said he plans to restrict other things he finds morally offensive on the internet.
On July 23 2013 22:17 i zig zag around you wrote: [quote]
i don't think you understand what i'm trying to say. the problem is not the fact that "simulated" rape porn is not real, it's the fact that it does stimulate *some* people. just like how violence in movies, games, animal abuse, etc. helps stimulate *some* people and ultimately motivates these people to do things to others in the real world. that's all i'm saying.
So you're completely ignoring the fact that rape is one of man's oldest past times? Hell 50% of the reason men used to go to war pre Napoleonic era was because they'd be able to rape the native women once they won (the other 50% being money). People have always committed rape, there is no link at all between it and watching rape porn. The percentage of men who would rape someone given the opportunity is right now at an all time low for humanity.
The information age does not have a monopoly on violence, I don't know where you insane people get off on this madness.
no, i'm not ignoring it. i'm saying that if some people are stimulated by rape, they shouldn't have access to it 24 hours a day from their computer. it's like letting pyromaniac teenagers play with fire, or convicted murders walk with guns. it's just not *right* if you ask me. this has nothing to do with history, lol.
but hey, if you're alright with child molesters having access to child porn from their personal computer at home, be my guest. but it's in my opinion that it's wrong.
The information age does not have a monopoly on violence, I don't know where you insane people get off on this madness.
It's also none of your fucking business what gets me or anyone else off where consenting adults are involved. Last I checked the thought police came from a fiction book not the UK circa 2013.
also, i have no idea what your problem is, but you need to calm the fuck down when you reply to me.
You're equating child porn and FAKE rape porn. That makes absolutely no sense.
And Aeroplane is perfectly correct that it's none of your business what people use for sexual relief, so long as it's not against the law.
you need to read before you comment. i never said it was any of my business, i'm saying i have a problem with people who're turned on by child porn and rape. that's my opinion and i can't feel however i want about it without anyone telling me anything.
Fake rape is not rape.
Would you rather people watch fake rape porn, or actually go out on the streets and sexually assault other people?
Just to be devil's advocate here how do you know that watching fake rape porn wouldn't get people interested in rape who otherwise wouldn't be?
You don't. But then how do you know that playing Starcraft 2 wouldn't get people into injecting themselves with steroids and going on a shooting spree?
That isn't even slightly analogous. People play because they enjoy the strategy and being pitted against someone in competition. People watch rape because it turns them on, which is the same reason people rape people.
Fair enough. However, I am not sure that people rape because it turns them on. There are probably a lot of different reasons why people rape, but I doubt there are many people for who the idea of rape is a turn on.
It is my understanding that people usually rape because some crippling insecurity/trauma left them with a dire need to feel powerful and in charge. It makes sense to me that if someone did indeed have such a drive, they would actually go out and rape someone, or at least attempt to, instead of watching pornography of simulated rape.
On July 23 2013 22:17 i zig zag around you wrote: [quote]
i don't think you understand what i'm trying to say. the problem is not the fact that "simulated" rape porn is not real, it's the fact that it does stimulate *some* people. just like how violence in movies, games, animal abuse, etc. helps stimulate *some* people and ultimately motivates these people to do things to others in the real world. that's all i'm saying.
So you're completely ignoring the fact that rape is one of man's oldest past times? Hell 50% of the reason men used to go to war pre Napoleonic era was because they'd be able to rape the native women once they won (the other 50% being money). People have always committed rape, there is no link at all between it and watching rape porn. The percentage of men who would rape someone given the opportunity is right now at an all time low for humanity.
The information age does not have a monopoly on violence, I don't know where you insane people get off on this madness.
no, i'm not ignoring it. i'm saying that if some people are stimulated by rape, they shouldn't have access to it 24 hours a day from their computer. it's like letting pyromaniac teenagers play with fire, or convicted murders walk with guns. it's just not *right* if you ask me. this has nothing to do with history, lol.
but hey, if you're alright with child molesters having access to child porn from their personal computer at home, be my guest. but it's in my opinion that it's wrong.
The information age does not have a monopoly on violence, I don't know where you insane people get off on this madness.
It's also none of your fucking business what gets me or anyone else off where consenting adults are involved. Last I checked the thought police came from a fiction book not the UK circa 2013.
also, i have no idea what your problem is, but you need to calm the fuck down when you reply to me.
You're equating child porn and FAKE rape porn. That makes absolutely no sense.
And Aeroplane is perfectly correct that it's none of your business what people use for sexual relief, so long as it's not against the law.
you need to read before you comment. i never said it was any of my business, i'm saying i have a problem with people who're turned on by child porn and rape. that's my opinion and i can't feel however i want about it without anyone telling me anything.
Fake rape is not rape.
Would you rather people watch fake rape porn, or actually go out on the streets and sexually assault other people?
Just to be devil's advocate here how do you know that watching fake rape porn wouldn't get people interested in rape who otherwise wouldn't be?
You don't. But then how do you know that playing Starcraft 2 wouldn't get people into injecting themselves with steroids and going on a shooting spree?
That isn't even slightly analogous. People play because they enjoy the strategy and being pitted against someone in competition. People watch rape because it turns them on, which is the same reason people rape people.
Fair enough. However, I am not sure that people rape because it turns them on. There are probably a lot of different reasons why people rape, but I doubt there are many people for who the idea of rape is a turn on.
Rape has always existed and it will always exist. It is a terrible thing but it has nothing at all to do with watching simulated rape on the internet, just like murder has always existed, will always exist and isn't caused by watching horror movies or playing GTA.
On July 23 2013 22:23 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote: [quote]
So you're completely ignoring the fact that rape is one of man's oldest past times? Hell 50% of the reason men used to go to war pre Napoleonic era was because they'd be able to rape the native women once they won (the other 50% being money). People have always committed rape, there is no link at all between it and watching rape porn. The percentage of men who would rape someone given the opportunity is right now at an all time low for humanity.
The information age does not have a monopoly on violence, I don't know where you insane people get off on this madness.
no, i'm not ignoring it. i'm saying that if some people are stimulated by rape, they shouldn't have access to it 24 hours a day from their computer. it's like letting pyromaniac teenagers play with fire, or convicted murders walk with guns. it's just not *right* if you ask me. this has nothing to do with history, lol.
but hey, if you're alright with child molesters having access to child porn from their personal computer at home, be my guest. but it's in my opinion that it's wrong.
The information age does not have a monopoly on violence, I don't know where you insane people get off on this madness.
It's also none of your fucking business what gets me or anyone else off where consenting adults are involved. Last I checked the thought police came from a fiction book not the UK circa 2013.
also, i have no idea what your problem is, but you need to calm the fuck down when you reply to me.
You're equating child porn and FAKE rape porn. That makes absolutely no sense.
And Aeroplane is perfectly correct that it's none of your business what people use for sexual relief, so long as it's not against the law.
you need to read before you comment. i never said it was any of my business, i'm saying i have a problem with people who're turned on by child porn and rape. that's my opinion and i can't feel however i want about it without anyone telling me anything.
Fake rape is not rape.
Would you rather people watch fake rape porn, or actually go out on the streets and sexually assault other people?
Just to be devil's advocate here how do you know that watching fake rape porn wouldn't get people interested in rape who otherwise wouldn't be?
You don't. But then how do you know that playing Starcraft 2 wouldn't get people into injecting themselves with steroids and going on a shooting spree?
That isn't even slightly analogous. People play because they enjoy the strategy and being pitted against someone in competition. People watch rape because it turns them on, which is the same reason people rape people.
Fair enough. However, I am not sure that people rape because it turns them on. There are probably a lot of different reasons why people rape, but I doubt there are many people for who the idea of rape is a turn on.
It is my understanding that people usually rape because some crippling insecurity/trauma left them with a dire need to feel powerful and in charge. It makes sense to me that if someone did indeed have such a drive, they would actually go out and rape someone, or at least attempt to, instead of watching pornography of simulated rape.
my point was that people who're interested in rape might be into it online as well.
On July 23 2013 22:27 i zig zag around you wrote: [quote]
no, i'm not ignoring it. i'm saying that if some people are stimulated by rape, they shouldn't have access to it 24 hours a day from their computer. it's like letting pyromaniac teenagers play with fire, or convicted murders walk with guns. it's just not *right* if you ask me. this has nothing to do with history, lol.
but hey, if you're alright with child molesters having access to child porn from their personal computer at home, be my guest. but it's in my opinion that it's wrong.
[quote]
also, i have no idea what your problem is, but you need to calm the fuck down when you reply to me.
You're equating child porn and FAKE rape porn. That makes absolutely no sense.
And Aeroplane is perfectly correct that it's none of your business what people use for sexual relief, so long as it's not against the law.
you need to read before you comment. i never said it was any of my business, i'm saying i have a problem with people who're turned on by child porn and rape. that's my opinion and i can't feel however i want about it without anyone telling me anything.
Fake rape is not rape.
Would you rather people watch fake rape porn, or actually go out on the streets and sexually assault other people?
Just to be devil's advocate here how do you know that watching fake rape porn wouldn't get people interested in rape who otherwise wouldn't be?
You don't. But then how do you know that playing Starcraft 2 wouldn't get people into injecting themselves with steroids and going on a shooting spree?
That isn't even slightly analogous. People play because they enjoy the strategy and being pitted against someone in competition. People watch rape because it turns them on, which is the same reason people rape people.
Fair enough. However, I am not sure that people rape because it turns them on. There are probably a lot of different reasons why people rape, but I doubt there are many people for who the idea of rape is a turn on.
It is my understanding that people usually rape because some crippling insecurity/trauma left them with a dire need to feel powerful and in charge. It makes sense to me that if someone did indeed have such a drive, they would actually go out and rape someone, or at least attempt to, instead of watching pornography of simulated rape.
my point was that people who're interested in rape might be into it online as well.
But if they're already interested into rape then there's a fair chance they'll slip up and get caught by the police. I don't see how them watching a video online changes anything.
Maybe UK should rather consider making it illegal to say that apostates. and homosexuals should be killed, just saying. What a fucking bs smoke screen from real issues.
According to polls 33% of UK Muslims think that apostasy should be penalized by death, ex Muslims are afraid to come out maybe they should tackle Muslim extremist that can publicly promote death for them.
On July 23 2013 22:27 i zig zag around you wrote: [quote]
no, i'm not ignoring it. i'm saying that if some people are stimulated by rape, they shouldn't have access to it 24 hours a day from their computer. it's like letting pyromaniac teenagers play with fire, or convicted murders walk with guns. it's just not *right* if you ask me. this has nothing to do with history, lol.
but hey, if you're alright with child molesters having access to child porn from their personal computer at home, be my guest. but it's in my opinion that it's wrong.
[quote]
also, i have no idea what your problem is, but you need to calm the fuck down when you reply to me.
You're equating child porn and FAKE rape porn. That makes absolutely no sense.
And Aeroplane is perfectly correct that it's none of your business what people use for sexual relief, so long as it's not against the law.
you need to read before you comment. i never said it was any of my business, i'm saying i have a problem with people who're turned on by child porn and rape. that's my opinion and i can't feel however i want about it without anyone telling me anything.
Fake rape is not rape.
Would you rather people watch fake rape porn, or actually go out on the streets and sexually assault other people?
Just to be devil's advocate here how do you know that watching fake rape porn wouldn't get people interested in rape who otherwise wouldn't be?
You don't. But then how do you know that playing Starcraft 2 wouldn't get people into injecting themselves with steroids and going on a shooting spree?
That isn't even slightly analogous. People play because they enjoy the strategy and being pitted against someone in competition. People watch rape because it turns them on, which is the same reason people rape people.
Fair enough. However, I am not sure that people rape because it turns them on. There are probably a lot of different reasons why people rape, but I doubt there are many people for who the idea of rape is a turn on.
It is my understanding that people usually rape because some crippling insecurity/trauma left them with a dire need to feel powerful and in charge. It makes sense to me that if someone did indeed have such a drive, they would actually go out and rape someone, or at least attempt to, instead of watching pornography of simulated rape.
my point was that people who're interested in rape might be into it online as well.
And people who are into murder probably watch horror movies.
Fortunately the existence of murder doesn't mean we are going to ban horror movies and the existence of rape doesn't mean we are going to ban BDSM.
Especially as rape and murder are thousands of years older than both.
On July 23 2013 22:30 MasterOfPuppets wrote: [quote]
You're equating child porn and FAKE rape porn. That makes absolutely no sense.
And Aeroplane is perfectly correct that it's none of your business what people use for sexual relief, so long as it's not against the law.
you need to read before you comment. i never said it was any of my business, i'm saying i have a problem with people who're turned on by child porn and rape. that's my opinion and i can't feel however i want about it without anyone telling me anything.
Fake rape is not rape.
Would you rather people watch fake rape porn, or actually go out on the streets and sexually assault other people?
Just to be devil's advocate here how do you know that watching fake rape porn wouldn't get people interested in rape who otherwise wouldn't be?
You don't. But then how do you know that playing Starcraft 2 wouldn't get people into injecting themselves with steroids and going on a shooting spree?
That isn't even slightly analogous. People play because they enjoy the strategy and being pitted against someone in competition. People watch rape because it turns them on, which is the same reason people rape people.
Fair enough. However, I am not sure that people rape because it turns them on. There are probably a lot of different reasons why people rape, but I doubt there are many people for who the idea of rape is a turn on.
It is my understanding that people usually rape because some crippling insecurity/trauma left them with a dire need to feel powerful and in charge. It makes sense to me that if someone did indeed have such a drive, they would actually go out and rape someone, or at least attempt to, instead of watching pornography of simulated rape.
my point was that people who're interested in rape might be into it online as well.
But if they're already interested into rape then there's a fair chance they'll slip up and get caught by the police. I don't see how them watching a video online changes anything.
well, i disagree, that's all i'm saying. if some troubled kid is watching rape porn a couple of times a day over a long period of time he might get the wrong idea.
On July 23 2013 22:43 Terranist wrote: nobody here is actually reading the article. users can opt out of the filter by checking a box and notifying their ISP - this is not the great firewall of china. all it does is allow an easy mechanism for filtering content from children of many parents who aren't technologically inclined to do so on their own.
Well not only is this the slippery slope. It outright bans fictional rape porn (which is basically all BDSM porn) and David Cameron has already said he plans to restrict other things he finds morally offensive on the internet.
To be fair to him, he did say that these things can be found in the "darkest corners of the internet". I don't think he was talking about any standard porn site, more like the dark world of 4Chan and other places Google does not go. Some BDSM sites will also be caught in the filter, but users can opt out if they want.
As long there is the option to opt out, I see no problem with this sort of filtering. Expecting every family to filter all this stuff on their own is to daunting.
On July 23 2013 22:33 i zig zag around you wrote: [quote]
you need to read before you comment. i never said it was any of my business, i'm saying i have a problem with people who're turned on by child porn and rape. that's my opinion and i can't feel however i want about it without anyone telling me anything.
Fake rape is not rape.
Would you rather people watch fake rape porn, or actually go out on the streets and sexually assault other people?
Just to be devil's advocate here how do you know that watching fake rape porn wouldn't get people interested in rape who otherwise wouldn't be?
You don't. But then how do you know that playing Starcraft 2 wouldn't get people into injecting themselves with steroids and going on a shooting spree?
That isn't even slightly analogous. People play because they enjoy the strategy and being pitted against someone in competition. People watch rape because it turns them on, which is the same reason people rape people.
Fair enough. However, I am not sure that people rape because it turns them on. There are probably a lot of different reasons why people rape, but I doubt there are many people for who the idea of rape is a turn on.
It is my understanding that people usually rape because some crippling insecurity/trauma left them with a dire need to feel powerful and in charge. It makes sense to me that if someone did indeed have such a drive, they would actually go out and rape someone, or at least attempt to, instead of watching pornography of simulated rape.
my point was that people who're interested in rape might be into it online as well.
But if they're already interested into rape then there's a fair chance they'll slip up and get caught by the police. I don't see how them watching a video online changes anything.
well, i disagree, that's all i'm saying. if some troubled kid is watching rape porn a couple of times a day over a long period he might get the wrong idea.
It is the job of the parents to stop their children seeing that. Just like it's the parents job to stop them drinking alcohol, taking drugs, smoking, watching inappropriate movies, seeing violence, swearing or anything else the parents doesn't deem suitable for their kids.
On July 23 2013 22:17 i zig zag around you wrote: [quote]
i don't think you understand what i'm trying to say. the problem is not the fact that "simulated" rape porn is not real, it's the fact that it does stimulate *some* people. just like how violence in movies, games, animal abuse, etc. helps stimulate *some* people and ultimately motivates these people to do things to others in the real world. that's all i'm saying.
So you're completely ignoring the fact that rape is one of man's oldest past times? Hell 50% of the reason men used to go to war pre Napoleonic era was because they'd be able to rape the native women once they won (the other 50% being money). People have always committed rape, there is no link at all between it and watching rape porn. The percentage of men who would rape someone given the opportunity is right now at an all time low for humanity.
The information age does not have a monopoly on violence, I don't know where you insane people get off on this madness.
no, i'm not ignoring it. i'm saying that if some people are stimulated by rape, they shouldn't have access to it 24 hours a day from their computer. it's like letting pyromaniac teenagers play with fire, or convicted murders walk with guns. it's just not *right* if you ask me. this has nothing to do with history, lol.
but hey, if you're alright with child molesters having access to child porn from their personal computer at home, be my guest. but it's in my opinion that it's wrong.
The information age does not have a monopoly on violence, I don't know where you insane people get off on this madness.
It's also none of your fucking business what gets me or anyone else off where consenting adults are involved. Last I checked the thought police came from a fiction book not the UK circa 2013.
also, i have no idea what your problem is, but you need to calm the fuck down when you reply to me.
You're equating child porn and FAKE rape porn. That makes absolutely no sense.
And Aeroplane is perfectly correct that it's none of your business what people use for sexual relief, so long as it's not against the law.
you need to read before you comment. i never said it was any of my business, i'm saying i have a problem with people who're turned on by child porn and rape. that's my opinion and i can't feel however i want about it without anyone telling me anything.
Fake rape is not rape.
Would you rather people watch fake rape porn, or actually go out on the streets and sexually assault other people?
Just to be devil's advocate here how do you know that watching fake rape porn wouldn't get people interested in rape who otherwise wouldn't be?
You don't. But then how do you know that playing Starcraft 2 wouldn't get people into injecting themselves with steroids and going on a shooting spree?
That isn't even slightly analogous. People play because they enjoy the strategy and being pitted against someone in competition. People watch rape because it turns them on, which is the same reason people rape people.
Loads and loads of women like men to take control during sex/rough sex in general.
Woman do not enjoy being actually raped.
There is a massive difference between fictional and factitious scenarios.
Can we ban Ann Summers from selling schoolgirl outfits because it might encourage paedophillia?
yes, we can.
in Australia: schoolgirl outfits, A-cup sized breasts, simpsons/cartoon porn and written stories are all considered child pornography by law and treated as such (you are not allowed any porn with a-cups or schoolgirl props)
On July 23 2013 22:33 i zig zag around you wrote: [quote]
you need to read before you comment. i never said it was any of my business, i'm saying i have a problem with people who're turned on by child porn and rape. that's my opinion and i can't feel however i want about it without anyone telling me anything.
Fake rape is not rape.
Would you rather people watch fake rape porn, or actually go out on the streets and sexually assault other people?
Just to be devil's advocate here how do you know that watching fake rape porn wouldn't get people interested in rape who otherwise wouldn't be?
You don't. But then how do you know that playing Starcraft 2 wouldn't get people into injecting themselves with steroids and going on a shooting spree?
That isn't even slightly analogous. People play because they enjoy the strategy and being pitted against someone in competition. People watch rape because it turns them on, which is the same reason people rape people.
Fair enough. However, I am not sure that people rape because it turns them on. There are probably a lot of different reasons why people rape, but I doubt there are many people for who the idea of rape is a turn on.
It is my understanding that people usually rape because some crippling insecurity/trauma left them with a dire need to feel powerful and in charge. It makes sense to me that if someone did indeed have such a drive, they would actually go out and rape someone, or at least attempt to, instead of watching pornography of simulated rape.
my point was that people who're interested in rape might be into it online as well.
But if they're already interested into rape then there's a fair chance they'll slip up and get caught by the police. I don't see how them watching a video online changes anything.
well, i disagree, that's all i'm saying. if some troubled kid is watching rape porn a couple of times a day over a long period of time he might get the wrong idea.
This is completely baseless assumptions how many people play violent games, are gamers the most dangerous group in society? There is as much prove to that as saying that it helps somebody who want to rape to have an outlet without actually committing the crime, nobody is forced to watch any kind of porn you have to choose this porn in the first place.
On July 23 2013 22:43 Terranist wrote: nobody here is actually reading the article. users can opt out of the filter by checking a box and notifying their ISP - this is not the great firewall of china. all it does is allow an easy mechanism for filtering content from children of many parents who aren't technologically inclined to do so on their own.
Well not only is this the slippery slope. It outright bans fictional rape porn (which is basically all BDSM porn) and David Cameron has already said he plans to restrict other things he finds morally offensive on the internet.
To be fair to him, he did say that these things can be found in the "darkest corners of the internet". I don't think he was talking about any standard porn site, more like the dark world of 4Chan and other places Google does not go. Some BDSM sites will also be caught in the filter, but users can opt out if they want.
As long there is the option to opt out, I see no problem with this sort of filtering. Expecting every family to filter all this stuff on their own is to daunting.
The stuff on HiddenWiki/TOR is illegal anyway already.
Almost all BDSM porn is essentially rape porn, which you can't opt out of. So basically if you're on any normal porn site and click the wrong link you're essentially a sex offender. It's the dumbest, most ridiculous law I've ever seen.
On July 23 2013 22:43 Terranist wrote: nobody here is actually reading the article. users can opt out of the filter by checking a box and notifying their ISP - this is not the great firewall of china. all it does is allow an easy mechanism for filtering content from children of many parents who aren't technologically inclined to do so on their own.
Well not only is this the slippery slope. It outright bans fictional rape porn (which is basically all BDSM porn) and David Cameron has already said he plans to restrict other things he finds morally offensive on the internet.
To be fair to him, he did say that these things can be found in the "darkest corners of the internet". I don't think he was talking about any standard porn site, more like the dark world of 4Chan and other places Google does not go. Some BDSM sites will also be caught in the filter, but users can opt out if they want.
As long there is the option to opt out, I see no problem with this sort of filtering. Expecting every family to filter all this stuff on their own is to daunting.
The opt out is for standard porn. I don't mind that, personally. The only problem that I have with it is that your average teenager will get around the filter in 30 seconds. For example, The Pirate Bay is blocked here in the same way, but a simple web proxy allows people to access it.
Possession of simulated rape porn will be a sex offence. That is really dangerous, as simulate rape can be found on standard porn sites. I do not want to be a sex offender because I clicked on a link to a BDSM video. There are many other ways to accidentally come into possession of something that may be classes as simulated rape porn.
On July 23 2013 22:23 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote: [quote]
So you're completely ignoring the fact that rape is one of man's oldest past times? Hell 50% of the reason men used to go to war pre Napoleonic era was because they'd be able to rape the native women once they won (the other 50% being money). People have always committed rape, there is no link at all between it and watching rape porn. The percentage of men who would rape someone given the opportunity is right now at an all time low for humanity.
The information age does not have a monopoly on violence, I don't know where you insane people get off on this madness.
no, i'm not ignoring it. i'm saying that if some people are stimulated by rape, they shouldn't have access to it 24 hours a day from their computer. it's like letting pyromaniac teenagers play with fire, or convicted murders walk with guns. it's just not *right* if you ask me. this has nothing to do with history, lol.
but hey, if you're alright with child molesters having access to child porn from their personal computer at home, be my guest. but it's in my opinion that it's wrong.
The information age does not have a monopoly on violence, I don't know where you insane people get off on this madness.
It's also none of your fucking business what gets me or anyone else off where consenting adults are involved. Last I checked the thought police came from a fiction book not the UK circa 2013.
also, i have no idea what your problem is, but you need to calm the fuck down when you reply to me.
You're equating child porn and FAKE rape porn. That makes absolutely no sense.
And Aeroplane is perfectly correct that it's none of your business what people use for sexual relief, so long as it's not against the law.
you need to read before you comment. i never said it was any of my business, i'm saying i have a problem with people who're turned on by child porn and rape. that's my opinion and i can't feel however i want about it without anyone telling me anything.
Fake rape is not rape.
Would you rather people watch fake rape porn, or actually go out on the streets and sexually assault other people?
Just to be devil's advocate here how do you know that watching fake rape porn wouldn't get people interested in rape who otherwise wouldn't be?
You don't. But then how do you know that playing Starcraft 2 wouldn't get people into injecting themselves with steroids and going on a shooting spree?
That isn't even slightly analogous. People play because they enjoy the strategy and being pitted against someone in competition. People watch rape because it turns them on, which is the same reason people rape people.
Loads and loads of women like men to take control during sex/rough sex in general.
Woman do not enjoy being actually raped.
There is a massive difference between fictional and factitious scenarios.
Can we ban Ann Summers from selling schoolgirl outfits because it might encourage paedophillia?
yes, we can.
in Australia: schoolgirl outfits, A-cup sized breasts, simpsons/cartoon porn and written stories are all considered child pornography by law and treated as such (you are not allowed any porn with a-cups or schoolgirl props)
What the fuck?
So is it safe to assume that rape figures are now down across the board over in Australia?
On July 23 2013 22:34 MasterOfPuppets wrote: [quote]
Fake rape is not rape.
Would you rather people watch fake rape porn, or actually go out on the streets and sexually assault other people?
Just to be devil's advocate here how do you know that watching fake rape porn wouldn't get people interested in rape who otherwise wouldn't be?
You don't. But then how do you know that playing Starcraft 2 wouldn't get people into injecting themselves with steroids and going on a shooting spree?
That isn't even slightly analogous. People play because they enjoy the strategy and being pitted against someone in competition. People watch rape because it turns them on, which is the same reason people rape people.
Fair enough. However, I am not sure that people rape because it turns them on. There are probably a lot of different reasons why people rape, but I doubt there are many people for who the idea of rape is a turn on.
It is my understanding that people usually rape because some crippling insecurity/trauma left them with a dire need to feel powerful and in charge. It makes sense to me that if someone did indeed have such a drive, they would actually go out and rape someone, or at least attempt to, instead of watching pornography of simulated rape.
my point was that people who're interested in rape might be into it online as well.
But if they're already interested into rape then there's a fair chance they'll slip up and get caught by the police. I don't see how them watching a video online changes anything.
well, i disagree, that's all i'm saying. if some troubled kid is watching rape porn a couple of times a day over a long period he might get the wrong idea.
It is the job of the parents to stop their children seeing that. Just like it's the parents job to stop them drinking alcohol, taking drugs, smoking, watching inappropriate movies, seeing violence, swearing or anything else the parents doesn't deem suitable for their kids.
Governments still require pornographic magazines to be keep out of reach of children in stores, or in their own section. Same with movies. Making an "adults only" section of the internet isn't that bad if adults can get in. It is just providing parents with a tool to keep the children out of the adults only section. Age gates aren’t really doing it, after all.
On July 23 2013 22:23 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote: [quote]
So you're completely ignoring the fact that rape is one of man's oldest past times? Hell 50% of the reason men used to go to war pre Napoleonic era was because they'd be able to rape the native women once they won (the other 50% being money). People have always committed rape, there is no link at all between it and watching rape porn. The percentage of men who would rape someone given the opportunity is right now at an all time low for humanity.
The information age does not have a monopoly on violence, I don't know where you insane people get off on this madness.
no, i'm not ignoring it. i'm saying that if some people are stimulated by rape, they shouldn't have access to it 24 hours a day from their computer. it's like letting pyromaniac teenagers play with fire, or convicted murders walk with guns. it's just not *right* if you ask me. this has nothing to do with history, lol.
but hey, if you're alright with child molesters having access to child porn from their personal computer at home, be my guest. but it's in my opinion that it's wrong.
The information age does not have a monopoly on violence, I don't know where you insane people get off on this madness.
It's also none of your fucking business what gets me or anyone else off where consenting adults are involved. Last I checked the thought police came from a fiction book not the UK circa 2013.
also, i have no idea what your problem is, but you need to calm the fuck down when you reply to me.
You're equating child porn and FAKE rape porn. That makes absolutely no sense.
And Aeroplane is perfectly correct that it's none of your business what people use for sexual relief, so long as it's not against the law.
you need to read before you comment. i never said it was any of my business, i'm saying i have a problem with people who're turned on by child porn and rape. that's my opinion and i can't feel however i want about it without anyone telling me anything.
Fake rape is not rape.
Would you rather people watch fake rape porn, or actually go out on the streets and sexually assault other people?
Just to be devil's advocate here how do you know that watching fake rape porn wouldn't get people interested in rape who otherwise wouldn't be?
You don't. But then how do you know that playing Starcraft 2 wouldn't get people into injecting themselves with steroids and going on a shooting spree?
That isn't even slightly analogous. People play because they enjoy the strategy and being pitted against someone in competition. People watch rape because it turns them on, which is the same reason people rape people.
Loads and loads of women like men to take control during sex/rough sex in general.
Woman do not enjoy being actually raped.
There is a massive difference between fictional and factitious scenarios.
Can we ban Ann Summers from selling schoolgirl outfits because it might encourage paedophillia?
yes, we can.
in Australia: schoolgirl outfits, A-cup sized breasts, simpsons/cartoon porn and written stories are all considered child pornography by law and treated as such (you are not allowed any porn with a-cups or schoolgirl props)
lol so adult female can't play in porn when her breast are small, Australia has some of the most ridiculous media restricting laws, did rape, and violence disappeared already in Australia? There is no single shred of evidence that this does anything,
TotalBiscuit tweeted this pic about this issue and the hypocrisy of the Daily Mail - a British newspaper for the terminally outraged. They campaign against the evils of porn on the internet and yet you can see how they love to show the flesh to drive hits for their 'articles'.
I always knew Cameron was a tosser. I never voted for him, and never will. He is only PM in the first place because Clegg wanted the Lib Dems to have some power.
On July 23 2013 22:27 i zig zag around you wrote: [quote]
no, i'm not ignoring it. i'm saying that if some people are stimulated by rape, they shouldn't have access to it 24 hours a day from their computer. it's like letting pyromaniac teenagers play with fire, or convicted murders walk with guns. it's just not *right* if you ask me. this has nothing to do with history, lol.
but hey, if you're alright with child molesters having access to child porn from their personal computer at home, be my guest. but it's in my opinion that it's wrong.
[quote]
also, i have no idea what your problem is, but you need to calm the fuck down when you reply to me.
You're equating child porn and FAKE rape porn. That makes absolutely no sense.
And Aeroplane is perfectly correct that it's none of your business what people use for sexual relief, so long as it's not against the law.
you need to read before you comment. i never said it was any of my business, i'm saying i have a problem with people who're turned on by child porn and rape. that's my opinion and i can't feel however i want about it without anyone telling me anything.
Fake rape is not rape.
Would you rather people watch fake rape porn, or actually go out on the streets and sexually assault other people?
Just to be devil's advocate here how do you know that watching fake rape porn wouldn't get people interested in rape who otherwise wouldn't be?
You don't. But then how do you know that playing Starcraft 2 wouldn't get people into injecting themselves with steroids and going on a shooting spree?
That isn't even slightly analogous. People play because they enjoy the strategy and being pitted against someone in competition. People watch rape because it turns them on, which is the same reason people rape people.
Loads and loads of women like men to take control during sex/rough sex in general.
Woman do not enjoy being actually raped.
There is a massive difference between fictional and factitious scenarios.
Can we ban Ann Summers from selling schoolgirl outfits because it might encourage paedophillia?
yes, we can.
in Australia: schoolgirl outfits, A-cup sized breasts, simpsons/cartoon porn and written stories are all considered child pornography by law and treated as such (you are not allowed any porn with a-cups or schoolgirl props)
lol so adult female can't play in porn when her breast are small, Australia has some of the most ridiculous media restricting laws, did rape, and violence disappeared already in Australia? There is no single shred of evidence that this does anything,
so according to your logic thus far, if there is no evidence on the matter, you're not allowed to have an opinion?
Just to be devil's advocate here how do you know that watching fake rape porn wouldn't get people interested in rape who otherwise wouldn't be?
You don't. But then how do you know that playing Starcraft 2 wouldn't get people into injecting themselves with steroids and going on a shooting spree?
That isn't even slightly analogous. People play because they enjoy the strategy and being pitted against someone in competition. People watch rape because it turns them on, which is the same reason people rape people.
Fair enough. However, I am not sure that people rape because it turns them on. There are probably a lot of different reasons why people rape, but I doubt there are many people for who the idea of rape is a turn on.
It is my understanding that people usually rape because some crippling insecurity/trauma left them with a dire need to feel powerful and in charge. It makes sense to me that if someone did indeed have such a drive, they would actually go out and rape someone, or at least attempt to, instead of watching pornography of simulated rape.
my point was that people who're interested in rape might be into it online as well.
But if they're already interested into rape then there's a fair chance they'll slip up and get caught by the police. I don't see how them watching a video online changes anything.
well, i disagree, that's all i'm saying. if some troubled kid is watching rape porn a couple of times a day over a long period he might get the wrong idea.
It is the job of the parents to stop their children seeing that. Just like it's the parents job to stop them drinking alcohol, taking drugs, smoking, watching inappropriate movies, seeing violence, swearing or anything else the parents doesn't deem suitable for their kids.
Governments still require pornographic magazines to be keep out of reach of children in stores, or in their own section. Same with movies. Making an "adults only" section of the internet isn't that bad if adults can get in. It is just providing parents with a tool to keep the children out of the adults only section. Age gates aren’t really doing it, after all.
So when I go on porn hub once this passes I'm basically walking across a crime minefield where one misclick and I'm a sex offender. Do you think that is a sensible policy?
On July 23 2013 23:00 revel8 wrote: TotalBiscuit tweeted this pic about this issue and the hypocrisy of the Daily Mail - a British newspaper for the terminally outraged. They campaign against the evils of porn on the internet and yet you can see how they love to show the flesh to drive hits for their 'articles'.
I always knew Cameron was a tosser. I never voted for him, and never will. He is only PM in the first place because Clegg wanted the Lib Dems to have some power.
On July 23 2013 22:43 Terranist wrote: nobody here is actually reading the article. users can opt out of the filter by checking a box and notifying their ISP - this is not the great firewall of china. all it does is allow an easy mechanism for filtering content from children of many parents who aren't technologically inclined to do so on their own.
Well not only is this the slippery slope. It outright bans fictional rape porn (which is basically all BDSM porn) and David Cameron has already said he plans to restrict other things he finds morally offensive on the internet.
To be fair to him, he did say that these things can be found in the "darkest corners of the internet". I don't think he was talking about any standard porn site, more like the dark world of 4Chan and other places Google does not go. Some BDSM sites will also be caught in the filter, but users can opt out if they want.
As long there is the option to opt out, I see no problem with this sort of filtering. Expecting every family to filter all this stuff on their own is to daunting.
The opt out is for standard porn. I don't mind that, personally. The only problem that I have with it is that your average teenager will get around the filter in 30 seconds. For example, The Pirate Bay is blocked here in the same way, but a simple web proxy allows people to access it.
Possession of simulated rape porn will be a sex offence. That is really dangerous, as simulate rape can be found on standard porn sites. I do not want to be a sex offender because I clicked on a link to a BDSM video. There are many other ways to accidentally come into possession of something that may be classes as simulated rape porn.
The part about the BDSM sites will need to be cleared up or worked on for sure. There is some non-sense on the internet however and I would hate to see it lead to a rash of impressionable kids doing dumb, abusing things to their girlfriends(lets be clearly, I mean real kids). After the whole Bum Fights videos leading to the beating deaths of a couple of homeless people, I don't trust kids with every video thats out there.
On July 23 2013 23:00 revel8 wrote: TotalBiscuit tweeted this pic about this issue and the hypocrisy of the Daily Mail - a British newspaper for the terminally outraged. They campaign against the evils of porn on the internet and yet you can see how they love to show the flesh to drive hits for their 'articles'.
I always knew Cameron was a tosser. I never voted for him, and never will. He is only PM in the first place because Clegg wanted the Lib Dems to have some power.
On July 23 2013 22:27 i zig zag around you wrote: [quote]
no, i'm not ignoring it. i'm saying that if some people are stimulated by rape, they shouldn't have access to it 24 hours a day from their computer. it's like letting pyromaniac teenagers play with fire, or convicted murders walk with guns. it's just not *right* if you ask me. this has nothing to do with history, lol.
but hey, if you're alright with child molesters having access to child porn from their personal computer at home, be my guest. but it's in my opinion that it's wrong.
[quote]
also, i have no idea what your problem is, but you need to calm the fuck down when you reply to me.
You're equating child porn and FAKE rape porn. That makes absolutely no sense.
And Aeroplane is perfectly correct that it's none of your business what people use for sexual relief, so long as it's not against the law.
you need to read before you comment. i never said it was any of my business, i'm saying i have a problem with people who're turned on by child porn and rape. that's my opinion and i can't feel however i want about it without anyone telling me anything.
Fake rape is not rape.
Would you rather people watch fake rape porn, or actually go out on the streets and sexually assault other people?
Just to be devil's advocate here how do you know that watching fake rape porn wouldn't get people interested in rape who otherwise wouldn't be?
You don't. But then how do you know that playing Starcraft 2 wouldn't get people into injecting themselves with steroids and going on a shooting spree?
That isn't even slightly analogous. People play because they enjoy the strategy and being pitted against someone in competition. People watch rape because it turns them on, which is the same reason people rape people.
Fair enough. However, I am not sure that people rape because it turns them on. There are probably a lot of different reasons why people rape, but I doubt there are many people for who the idea of rape is a turn on.
It is my understanding that people usually rape because some crippling insecurity/trauma left them with a dire need to feel powerful and in charge. It makes sense to me that if someone did indeed have such a drive, they would actually go out and rape someone, or at least attempt to, instead of watching pornography of simulated rape.
my point was that people who're interested in rape might be into it online as well.
You don't make any sense now. If a guy is a molester or a raper, it makes zero difference whether he watches fake rape porn or not.
Let's have 3 scenarios here. 1/ A sex criminal gets turn on by fake rape porn. He goes out and rape ppl. 2/ A guy who is not gonna commit a crime because he's a sane person and gets turn on by rape porn because that's his thing. No crime commit. 3/ A sex criminal who doesn't watch porn. He goes out and rape ppl.
Conclusion: the porn makes 0 relevant what so ever because it's FAKE, it's NOT REAL entertainment. Also you're accusing ppl who have different opinion than your ridiculous one of defending child molesters and literacy? Wtf dude :|
You don't. But then how do you know that playing Starcraft 2 wouldn't get people into injecting themselves with steroids and going on a shooting spree?
That isn't even slightly analogous. People play because they enjoy the strategy and being pitted against someone in competition. People watch rape because it turns them on, which is the same reason people rape people.
Fair enough. However, I am not sure that people rape because it turns them on. There are probably a lot of different reasons why people rape, but I doubt there are many people for who the idea of rape is a turn on.
It is my understanding that people usually rape because some crippling insecurity/trauma left them with a dire need to feel powerful and in charge. It makes sense to me that if someone did indeed have such a drive, they would actually go out and rape someone, or at least attempt to, instead of watching pornography of simulated rape.
my point was that people who're interested in rape might be into it online as well.
But if they're already interested into rape then there's a fair chance they'll slip up and get caught by the police. I don't see how them watching a video online changes anything.
well, i disagree, that's all i'm saying. if some troubled kid is watching rape porn a couple of times a day over a long period he might get the wrong idea.
It is the job of the parents to stop their children seeing that. Just like it's the parents job to stop them drinking alcohol, taking drugs, smoking, watching inappropriate movies, seeing violence, swearing or anything else the parents doesn't deem suitable for their kids.
Governments still require pornographic magazines to be keep out of reach of children in stores, or in their own section. Same with movies. Making an "adults only" section of the internet isn't that bad if adults can get in. It is just providing parents with a tool to keep the children out of the adults only section. Age gates aren’t really doing it, after all.
So when I go on porn hub once this passes I'm basically walking across a crime minefield where one misclick and I'm a sex offender. Do you think that is a sensible policy?
No, they should work on that part of the bill and make sure that people won't be charged for a misclick. The concept is sound and there is some dark stuff on the internet. As long as they can tell the difference between a PPV website with some darker content and the darkest sections of 4Chan, I think the law will work as intented.
Its a proposed bill, from my understanding. It will be worked on and adjusted. They don't want to charge people with being sex offenders due to a misclick.
On July 23 2013 22:30 MasterOfPuppets wrote: [quote]
You're equating child porn and FAKE rape porn. That makes absolutely no sense.
And Aeroplane is perfectly correct that it's none of your business what people use for sexual relief, so long as it's not against the law.
you need to read before you comment. i never said it was any of my business, i'm saying i have a problem with people who're turned on by child porn and rape. that's my opinion and i can't feel however i want about it without anyone telling me anything.
Fake rape is not rape.
Would you rather people watch fake rape porn, or actually go out on the streets and sexually assault other people?
Just to be devil's advocate here how do you know that watching fake rape porn wouldn't get people interested in rape who otherwise wouldn't be?
You don't. But then how do you know that playing Starcraft 2 wouldn't get people into injecting themselves with steroids and going on a shooting spree?
That isn't even slightly analogous. People play because they enjoy the strategy and being pitted against someone in competition. People watch rape because it turns them on, which is the same reason people rape people.
Loads and loads of women like men to take control during sex/rough sex in general.
Woman do not enjoy being actually raped.
There is a massive difference between fictional and factitious scenarios.
Can we ban Ann Summers from selling schoolgirl outfits because it might encourage paedophillia?
yes, we can.
in Australia: schoolgirl outfits, A-cup sized breasts, simpsons/cartoon porn and written stories are all considered child pornography by law and treated as such (you are not allowed any porn with a-cups or schoolgirl props)
lol so adult female can't play in porn when her breast are small, Australia has some of the most ridiculous media restricting laws, did rape, and violence disappeared already in Australia? There is no single shred of evidence that this does anything,
so according to your logic thus far, if there is no evidence on the matter, you're not allowed to have an opinion?
According to me you shouldn't restrict, and control media when you have no evidence that this helps with anything, Calling something a fact isn't an opinion facts are defined as factual verifiable informations.
That isn't even slightly analogous. People play because they enjoy the strategy and being pitted against someone in competition. People watch rape because it turns them on, which is the same reason people rape people.
Fair enough. However, I am not sure that people rape because it turns them on. There are probably a lot of different reasons why people rape, but I doubt there are many people for who the idea of rape is a turn on.
It is my understanding that people usually rape because some crippling insecurity/trauma left them with a dire need to feel powerful and in charge. It makes sense to me that if someone did indeed have such a drive, they would actually go out and rape someone, or at least attempt to, instead of watching pornography of simulated rape.
my point was that people who're interested in rape might be into it online as well.
But if they're already interested into rape then there's a fair chance they'll slip up and get caught by the police. I don't see how them watching a video online changes anything.
well, i disagree, that's all i'm saying. if some troubled kid is watching rape porn a couple of times a day over a long period he might get the wrong idea.
It is the job of the parents to stop their children seeing that. Just like it's the parents job to stop them drinking alcohol, taking drugs, smoking, watching inappropriate movies, seeing violence, swearing or anything else the parents doesn't deem suitable for their kids.
Governments still require pornographic magazines to be keep out of reach of children in stores, or in their own section. Same with movies. Making an "adults only" section of the internet isn't that bad if adults can get in. It is just providing parents with a tool to keep the children out of the adults only section. Age gates aren’t really doing it, after all.
So when I go on porn hub once this passes I'm basically walking across a crime minefield where one misclick and I'm a sex offender. Do you think that is a sensible policy?
No, they should work on that part of the bill and make sure that people won't be charged for a misclick. The concept is sound and there is some dark stuff on the internet. As long as they can tell the difference between a PPV website with some darker content and the darkest sections of 4Chan, I think the law will work as intented.
Its a proposed bill, from my understanding. It will be worked on and adjusted. They don't want to charge people with being sex offenders due to a misclick.
Who uses PPV porn? There is bdsm/rape porn over all every major site. Where do you even draw the line where we go from rough sex to bdsm to rape porn? How can you even differentiate that.
Not to mention rape porn still shouldn't be illegal anyway because it is fictional.
That isn't even slightly analogous. People play because they enjoy the strategy and being pitted against someone in competition. People watch rape because it turns them on, which is the same reason people rape people.
Fair enough. However, I am not sure that people rape because it turns them on. There are probably a lot of different reasons why people rape, but I doubt there are many people for who the idea of rape is a turn on.
It is my understanding that people usually rape because some crippling insecurity/trauma left them with a dire need to feel powerful and in charge. It makes sense to me that if someone did indeed have such a drive, they would actually go out and rape someone, or at least attempt to, instead of watching pornography of simulated rape.
my point was that people who're interested in rape might be into it online as well.
But if they're already interested into rape then there's a fair chance they'll slip up and get caught by the police. I don't see how them watching a video online changes anything.
well, i disagree, that's all i'm saying. if some troubled kid is watching rape porn a couple of times a day over a long period he might get the wrong idea.
It is the job of the parents to stop their children seeing that. Just like it's the parents job to stop them drinking alcohol, taking drugs, smoking, watching inappropriate movies, seeing violence, swearing or anything else the parents doesn't deem suitable for their kids.
Governments still require pornographic magazines to be keep out of reach of children in stores, or in their own section. Same with movies. Making an "adults only" section of the internet isn't that bad if adults can get in. It is just providing parents with a tool to keep the children out of the adults only section. Age gates aren’t really doing it, after all.
So when I go on porn hub once this passes I'm basically walking across a crime minefield where one misclick and I'm a sex offender. Do you think that is a sensible policy?
No, they should work on that part of the bill and make sure that people won't be charged for a misclick. The concept is sound and there is some dark stuff on the internet. As long as they can tell the difference between a PPV website with some darker content and the darkest sections of 4Chan, I think the law will work as intented.
Its a proposed bill, from my understanding. It will be worked on and adjusted. They don't want to charge people with being sex offenders due to a misclick.
Making 4chan illegal, any part of it, would be atrocious.
Fair enough. However, I am not sure that people rape because it turns them on. There are probably a lot of different reasons why people rape, but I doubt there are many people for who the idea of rape is a turn on.
It is my understanding that people usually rape because some crippling insecurity/trauma left them with a dire need to feel powerful and in charge. It makes sense to me that if someone did indeed have such a drive, they would actually go out and rape someone, or at least attempt to, instead of watching pornography of simulated rape.
my point was that people who're interested in rape might be into it online as well.
But if they're already interested into rape then there's a fair chance they'll slip up and get caught by the police. I don't see how them watching a video online changes anything.
well, i disagree, that's all i'm saying. if some troubled kid is watching rape porn a couple of times a day over a long period he might get the wrong idea.
It is the job of the parents to stop their children seeing that. Just like it's the parents job to stop them drinking alcohol, taking drugs, smoking, watching inappropriate movies, seeing violence, swearing or anything else the parents doesn't deem suitable for their kids.
Governments still require pornographic magazines to be keep out of reach of children in stores, or in their own section. Same with movies. Making an "adults only" section of the internet isn't that bad if adults can get in. It is just providing parents with a tool to keep the children out of the adults only section. Age gates aren’t really doing it, after all.
So when I go on porn hub once this passes I'm basically walking across a crime minefield where one misclick and I'm a sex offender. Do you think that is a sensible policy?
No, they should work on that part of the bill and make sure that people won't be charged for a misclick. The concept is sound and there is some dark stuff on the internet. As long as they can tell the difference between a PPV website with some darker content and the darkest sections of 4Chan, I think the law will work as intented.
Its a proposed bill, from my understanding. It will be worked on and adjusted. They don't want to charge people with being sex offenders due to a misclick.
Making 4chan illegal, any part of it, would be atrocious.
I think that be hilarious tbh. If you think the War of Drugs/Terror are unwinnable then just wait until you try and take on the Internet.
Fair enough. However, I am not sure that people rape because it turns them on. There are probably a lot of different reasons why people rape, but I doubt there are many people for who the idea of rape is a turn on.
It is my understanding that people usually rape because some crippling insecurity/trauma left them with a dire need to feel powerful and in charge. It makes sense to me that if someone did indeed have such a drive, they would actually go out and rape someone, or at least attempt to, instead of watching pornography of simulated rape.
my point was that people who're interested in rape might be into it online as well.
But if they're already interested into rape then there's a fair chance they'll slip up and get caught by the police. I don't see how them watching a video online changes anything.
well, i disagree, that's all i'm saying. if some troubled kid is watching rape porn a couple of times a day over a long period he might get the wrong idea.
It is the job of the parents to stop their children seeing that. Just like it's the parents job to stop them drinking alcohol, taking drugs, smoking, watching inappropriate movies, seeing violence, swearing or anything else the parents doesn't deem suitable for their kids.
Governments still require pornographic magazines to be keep out of reach of children in stores, or in their own section. Same with movies. Making an "adults only" section of the internet isn't that bad if adults can get in. It is just providing parents with a tool to keep the children out of the adults only section. Age gates aren’t really doing it, after all.
So when I go on porn hub once this passes I'm basically walking across a crime minefield where one misclick and I'm a sex offender. Do you think that is a sensible policy?
No, they should work on that part of the bill and make sure that people won't be charged for a misclick. The concept is sound and there is some dark stuff on the internet. As long as they can tell the difference between a PPV website with some darker content and the darkest sections of 4Chan, I think the law will work as intented.
Its a proposed bill, from my understanding. It will be worked on and adjusted. They don't want to charge people with being sex offenders due to a misclick.
Making 4chan illegal, any part of it, would be atrocious.
It doesn't make it illegal, read up on the subject.
Fair enough. However, I am not sure that people rape because it turns them on. There are probably a lot of different reasons why people rape, but I doubt there are many people for who the idea of rape is a turn on.
It is my understanding that people usually rape because some crippling insecurity/trauma left them with a dire need to feel powerful and in charge. It makes sense to me that if someone did indeed have such a drive, they would actually go out and rape someone, or at least attempt to, instead of watching pornography of simulated rape.
my point was that people who're interested in rape might be into it online as well.
But if they're already interested into rape then there's a fair chance they'll slip up and get caught by the police. I don't see how them watching a video online changes anything.
well, i disagree, that's all i'm saying. if some troubled kid is watching rape porn a couple of times a day over a long period he might get the wrong idea.
It is the job of the parents to stop their children seeing that. Just like it's the parents job to stop them drinking alcohol, taking drugs, smoking, watching inappropriate movies, seeing violence, swearing or anything else the parents doesn't deem suitable for their kids.
Governments still require pornographic magazines to be keep out of reach of children in stores, or in their own section. Same with movies. Making an "adults only" section of the internet isn't that bad if adults can get in. It is just providing parents with a tool to keep the children out of the adults only section. Age gates aren’t really doing it, after all.
So when I go on porn hub once this passes I'm basically walking across a crime minefield where one misclick and I'm a sex offender. Do you think that is a sensible policy?
No, they should work on that part of the bill and make sure that people won't be charged for a misclick. The concept is sound and there is some dark stuff on the internet. As long as they can tell the difference between a PPV website with some darker content and the darkest sections of 4Chan, I think the law will work as intented.
Its a proposed bill, from my understanding. It will be worked on and adjusted. They don't want to charge people with being sex offenders due to a misclick.
Who uses PPV porn? There is bdsm/rape porn over all every major site. Where do you even draw the line where we go from rough sex to bdsm to rape porn? How can you even differentiate that.
Not to mention rape porn still shouldn't be illegal anyway because it is fictional.
Well that is something they need to work out and I am sort of with you on that subject. But the concept of making an adults only section of the internet and provided people with a filter if they want to use it isn't horrible. The bdsm videos are fine, but they should be required to clearly label themselves as fictional, mostly for the safty of the people making the video.
For reference, in the UK psuedo images of children (under 18) in pornographic imagery are as illegal as child abuse imagery, including cartoons of all kinds. I think it's likely therefore that rape imagery of all kinds ('simulated rough sex' or bondage) will be a target of the government as that would be consistent with previous legislation.
Banning porn with women with A-cups is insulting and discriminatory. Following the same logic it should be illegal to have sex with A-cup sized women because who could possibly be attracted to them without being a pedophile? Absolute joke.
On July 23 2013 22:54 FFGenerations wrote: in Australia: schoolgirl outfits, A-cup sized breasts, simpsons/cartoon porn and written stories are all considered child pornography by law and treated as such (you are not allowed any porn with a-cups or schoolgirl props)
All of this is just terrible and I'll wager has done absolutely nothing in terms of reducing instances of child abuse or rape.
So, after observing the whole internet, they try to control the content? First pornography, then terrorism. When are political contents next?
The UK is really taking a dire road. Sad to see. Not really fitting anymore to the liberal European standards. We need a free Internet for free people, democracy and freedom of expression!
On July 23 2013 23:23 Caladan wrote: So, after observing the whole internet, they try to control the content? First pornography, then terrorism. When are political contents next?
The UK is really taking a dire road. Sad to see. Not really fitting anymore to the liberal European standards. We need a free Internet for free people, democracy and freedom of expression!
I agree... I'm writing to the prime minister and my local politician. Cannot even believe this is being considered. I feel ashamed.
Good to see that there are other people from UK too.
I mean, if it's really about the children - how about spending more time with them instead of placing them in front of the TV / PC the whole day? -___- Also there is parental control software available in every windows nowadays.
I can't even think of a single reason to censor the internet for this, lol.
On July 23 2013 22:46 MasterOfPuppets wrote: [quote]
It is my understanding that people usually rape because some crippling insecurity/trauma left them with a dire need to feel powerful and in charge. It makes sense to me that if someone did indeed have such a drive, they would actually go out and rape someone, or at least attempt to, instead of watching pornography of simulated rape.
my point was that people who're interested in rape might be into it online as well.
But if they're already interested into rape then there's a fair chance they'll slip up and get caught by the police. I don't see how them watching a video online changes anything.
well, i disagree, that's all i'm saying. if some troubled kid is watching rape porn a couple of times a day over a long period he might get the wrong idea.
It is the job of the parents to stop their children seeing that. Just like it's the parents job to stop them drinking alcohol, taking drugs, smoking, watching inappropriate movies, seeing violence, swearing or anything else the parents doesn't deem suitable for their kids.
Governments still require pornographic magazines to be keep out of reach of children in stores, or in their own section. Same with movies. Making an "adults only" section of the internet isn't that bad if adults can get in. It is just providing parents with a tool to keep the children out of the adults only section. Age gates aren’t really doing it, after all.
So when I go on porn hub once this passes I'm basically walking across a crime minefield where one misclick and I'm a sex offender. Do you think that is a sensible policy?
No, they should work on that part of the bill and make sure that people won't be charged for a misclick. The concept is sound and there is some dark stuff on the internet. As long as they can tell the difference between a PPV website with some darker content and the darkest sections of 4Chan, I think the law will work as intented.
Its a proposed bill, from my understanding. It will be worked on and adjusted. They don't want to charge people with being sex offenders due to a misclick.
Who uses PPV porn? There is bdsm/rape porn over all every major site. Where do you even draw the line where we go from rough sex to bdsm to rape porn? How can you even differentiate that.
Not to mention rape porn still shouldn't be illegal anyway because it is fictional.
Well that is something they need to work out and I am sort of with you on that subject. But the concept of making an adults only section of the internet and provided people with a filter if they want to use it isn't horrible. The bdsm videos are fine, but they should be required to clearly label themselves as fictional, mostly for the safty of the people making the video.
But you already can make an "adults only" section of the internet with parental controls. Why do we expect the government to be a more effective parent than...a parent. The way this bill works is atrocious. You have to call your ISP to tell them you want to opt out of the filter. It comes off as some sort of porn shaming. Actually that's all it is since filters are so easy to get around. It's not actually going to stop any porn, it's just going to force people who want to legally watch it to announce that they watch porn.
On July 23 2013 23:08 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote: Who uses PPV porn? There is bdsm/rape porn over all every major site. Where do you even draw the line where we go from rough sex to bdsm to rape porn? How can you even differentiate that.
Not to mention rape porn still shouldn't be illegal anyway because it is fictional.
Well that is something they need to work out and I am sort of with you on that subject. But the concept of making an adults only section of the internet and provided people with a filter if they want to use it isn't horrible. The bdsm videos are fine, but they should be required to clearly label themselves as fictional, mostly for the safty of the people making the video.
The difference between a professionally produced roleplay movie and someone's video documentation of a sex crime is obvious if you've ever watched either, and adult companies already take it upon themselves to make policies against illegal content because they don't want the flak or responsibility of being a distributor for that kind of material.
There are plenty of technologies parents can use if they want to watch what their kids are doing online, and I haven't seen the prime minister connect the dots from some problem children supposedly have to a national internet filter. And I am not a fan of a government doing random things without a flushed out rationale.
On July 23 2013 20:19 electronic voyeur wrote: Other measures include stricter video restrictions and laws, pressure for search engines to offer more tools for barring content, and an increase in the legal action and monitoring abilities available to the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre and police when searching for sources of illegal material and in tracking down pedophiles. Cameron also caalled for the immediate blacklisting of certain “horrific” terms, meaning that they would not show any results when searched on Google or Bing.
While the porn thing is more than bad enough in and of itself, this blacklisting thing is way, way worse. This is some Chinese censorship stuff in the making. Horrific terms are obviously up to the government to decide what they are. And personally I am of the opinion that finding "horrific" stuff on the internet is one of the many good things about it. How else would you get to know what actually goes on in the middle east or Egypt for example? I'm pretty sure the sniper videos are found using "horrific" terms. Of course it may not be about this yet, but again, the government defines what is horrific, not you.
On July 23 2013 22:48 i zig zag around you wrote: [quote]
my point was that people who're interested in rape might be into it online as well.
But if they're already interested into rape then there's a fair chance they'll slip up and get caught by the police. I don't see how them watching a video online changes anything.
well, i disagree, that's all i'm saying. if some troubled kid is watching rape porn a couple of times a day over a long period he might get the wrong idea.
It is the job of the parents to stop their children seeing that. Just like it's the parents job to stop them drinking alcohol, taking drugs, smoking, watching inappropriate movies, seeing violence, swearing or anything else the parents doesn't deem suitable for their kids.
Governments still require pornographic magazines to be keep out of reach of children in stores, or in their own section. Same with movies. Making an "adults only" section of the internet isn't that bad if adults can get in. It is just providing parents with a tool to keep the children out of the adults only section. Age gates aren’t really doing it, after all.
So when I go on porn hub once this passes I'm basically walking across a crime minefield where one misclick and I'm a sex offender. Do you think that is a sensible policy?
No, they should work on that part of the bill and make sure that people won't be charged for a misclick. The concept is sound and there is some dark stuff on the internet. As long as they can tell the difference between a PPV website with some darker content and the darkest sections of 4Chan, I think the law will work as intented.
Its a proposed bill, from my understanding. It will be worked on and adjusted. They don't want to charge people with being sex offenders due to a misclick.
Who uses PPV porn? There is bdsm/rape porn over all every major site. Where do you even draw the line where we go from rough sex to bdsm to rape porn? How can you even differentiate that.
Not to mention rape porn still shouldn't be illegal anyway because it is fictional.
Well that is something they need to work out and I am sort of with you on that subject. But the concept of making an adults only section of the internet and provided people with a filter if they want to use it isn't horrible. The bdsm videos are fine, but they should be required to clearly label themselves as fictional, mostly for the safty of the people making the video.
But you already can make an "adults only" section of the internet with parental controls. Why do we expect the government to be a more effective parent than...a parent. The way this bill works is atrocious. You have to call your ISP to tell them you want to opt out of the filter. It comes off as some sort of porn shaming. Actually that's all it is since filters are so easy to get around. It's not actually going to stop any porn, it's just going to force people who want to legally watch it to announce that they watch porn.
Pretty sure lots of people will watch less porn because of that. Not everyone is immune to shame and some people cripple under it. It's pretty awful.
the german government tried something similar a few years ago with censorship and blacklisting of sites. luckily a petition was able to stop this shit from happening, because the list of censored sites would have been secret to the public and thus open for abuse.
I think the case was made about scandinavian countries that allready have this blacklisting and most of the sites on those lists were not porn or pedophile sites but other stuff.
Except this isn't rape, the is simulated rape, hence IT'S NOT FUCKING REAL. Just like Saw is simulated torture, 100% of action films have simulated murder, Harry Potter has simulated witchcraft, WWE is simulated bare knuckle/no rules fighting and Chess is simulated regicide.
None of those things are illegal because they're not real, they're fake and it's fucking retarded beyond all fucking measures to censor something which is fake.
Except this isn't rape, the is simulated rape, hence IT'S NOT FUCKING REAL. Just like Saw is simulated torture, 100% of action films have simulated murder, Harry Potter has simulated witchcraft, WWE is simulated bare knuckle/no rules fighting and Chess is simulated regicide.
None of those things are illegal because they're not real, they're fake and it's fucking retarded beyond all fucking measures to censor something which is fake.
On July 23 2013 23:41 Skilledblob wrote: the german government tried something similar a few years ago with censorship and blacklisting of sites. luckily a petition was able to stop this shit from happening, because the list of censored sites would have been secret to the public and thus open for abuse.
I think the case was made about scandinavian countries that allready have this blacklisting and most of the sites on those lists were not porn or pedophile sites but other stuff.
We have a pedophile-site filter but as far as I know it's working as it should. Motherless was blocked for a good year or two but it's been off it for a long time now (probably after Motherless themselves cleaned up their act as it's very hard finding any child pornography there anymore as far as I know). Whenever you go to a site that's been blocked you're greeted with a page that explains that the site is blocked by request from the Swedish police due to being a disseminator of child pornography and that if you feel this block is in error you can contact the police at whatever number or e-mail or whatever it was. It's all very up front. I'm not sure if there's a public list of all the sites the police request to be blocked or not though. Furthermore only ISPs that accept this filtering themselves are included (and there are some that don't, although I think all of the very biggest do).
There is literally no point to this law existing. It solves no problems, introduces a myriad of them, and is unenforceable. Why is it such a horrible occurrence if a minor accidentally stumbles upon porn? It's just people having sex. Most minors are just curious/oblivious/embarrassed when they see such things; they're not scarred for life just because they saw a penis enter a vagina by complete accident.
Even if that was to really protect kids... we all know that kids that really want to see boobs will find a way. I did that without internet in the 90s and probably our parents too.
On July 23 2013 23:41 Skilledblob wrote: the german government tried something similar a few years ago with censorship and blacklisting of sites. luckily a petition was able to stop this shit from happening, because the list of censored sites would have been secret to the public and thus open for abuse.
I think the case was made about scandinavian countries that allready have this blacklisting and most of the sites on those lists were not porn or pedophile sites but other stuff.
We have a pedophile-site filter but as far as I know it's working as it should. Motherless was blocked for a good year or two but it's been off it for a long time now (probably after Motherless themselves cleaned up their act as it's very hard finding any child pornography there anymore as far as I know). Whenever you go to a site that's been blocked you're greeted with a page that explains that the site is blocked by request from the Swedish police due to being a disseminator of child pornography and that if you feel this block is in error you can contact the police at whatever number or e-mail or whatever it was. It's all very up front. I'm not sure if there's a public list of all the sites the police request to be blocked or not though. Furthermore only ISPs that accept this filtering themselves are included (and there are some that don't, although I think all of the very biggest do).
^ If UK does go forward, this seems like a reasonable way to about it. And make it a clearly visible opt in policy. Best of all worlds in my opinion because choosing to accept the block get's around all those 'but who decides' problems. If it is such an issue, just don't opt in.
On July 23 2013 23:41 Skilledblob wrote: the german government tried something similar a few years ago with censorship and blacklisting of sites. luckily a petition was able to stop this shit from happening, because the list of censored sites would have been secret to the public and thus open for abuse.
I think the case was made about scandinavian countries that allready have this blacklisting and most of the sites on those lists were not porn or pedophile sites but other stuff.
We have a pedophile-site filter but as far as I know it's working as it should. Motherless was blocked for a good year or two but it's been off it for a long time now (probably after Motherless themselves cleaned up their act as it's very hard finding any child pornography there anymore as far as I know). Whenever you go to a site that's been blocked you're greeted with a page that explains that the site is blocked by request from the Swedish police due to being a disseminator of child pornography and that if you feel this block is in error you can contact the police at whatever number or e-mail or whatever it was. It's all very up front. I'm not sure if there's a public list of all the sites the police request to be blocked or not though. Furthermore only ISPs that accept this filtering themselves are included (and there are some that don't, although I think all of the very biggest do).
^ If UK does go forward, this seems like a reasonable way to about it. And make it a clearly visible opt in policy. Best of all worlds in my opinion because choosing to accept the block get's around all those 'but who decides' problems. If it is such an issue, just don't opt in.
To be fair, it's the ISP opting in and not the end user. But since you (generally) have the option to choose your ISP regardless of where you live you can just go for one of the freedom-humping ones. They're usually just as good but without the bullshit other ISPs impose on you.
On July 23 2013 23:41 Skilledblob wrote: the german government tried something similar a few years ago with censorship and blacklisting of sites. luckily a petition was able to stop this shit from happening, because the list of censored sites would have been secret to the public and thus open for abuse.
I think the case was made about scandinavian countries that allready have this blacklisting and most of the sites on those lists were not porn or pedophile sites but other stuff.
We have a pedophile-site filter but as far as I know it's working as it should. Motherless was blocked for a good year or two but it's been off it for a long time now (probably after Motherless themselves cleaned up their act as it's very hard finding any child pornography there anymore as far as I know). Whenever you go to a site that's been blocked you're greeted with a page that explains that the site is blocked by request from the Swedish police due to being a disseminator of child pornography and that if you feel this block is in error you can contact the police at whatever number or e-mail or whatever it was. It's all very up front. I'm not sure if there's a public list of all the sites the police request to be blocked or not though. Furthermore only ISPs that accept this filtering themselves are included (and there are some that don't, although I think all of the very biggest do).
^ If UK does go forward, this seems like a reasonable way to about it. And make it a clearly visible opt in policy. Best of all worlds in my opinion because choosing to accept the block get's around all those 'but who decides' problems. If it is such an issue, just don't opt in.
To be fair, it's the ISP opting in and not the end user. But since you (generally) have the option to choose your ISP regardless of where you live you can just go for one of the freedom-humping ones. They're usually just as good but without the bullshit other ISPs impose on you.
ISP's could just make it a check box when you sign up "Do you want the family filter on?" and that solves the problem. I do agree that opt in is always better.
On July 24 2013 00:14 xM(Z wrote: how would this work for downloaded files (torrents/p2p)?
It won't. It a nice thing for UK. But we all have been teenagers and we all find a way to watch some.
Borrowing from friends, asking the big brother, or outright downloading it. So it's just nothing. A political fuss that won't change the majority of things. Maybe you will get less spyware :p
Anyway i think this has nice intentions, but it's just useless.
On July 24 2013 00:28 archonOOid wrote: First they came for the porn, then they'll come for "piracy" and later they'll come for your freedom.
I love those statements... so completly theoritical. For me i think that's a paranoid statement. Also piracy is not something that can be put into quotes. It is what it is
Restricting a few porn websites to me is like "I'm going to try to restrict a small part to see if we can restrict the Internet even more in the future". They're just trying to see how people would react now.
On July 24 2013 00:42 darkness wrote: Restricting a few porn websites to me is like "I'm going to try to restrict a small part to see if we can restrict the Internet even more in the future". They're just trying to see how people would react now.
Why oh why would you think that ? Governments are not out trying to get you. If they wanted to restricts some things you would never know and they would have done it WAYYYY sooner.
Also for the lulz Check out OP's name. It's just perfect
On July 24 2013 00:42 darkness wrote: Restricting a few porn websites to me is like "I'm going to try to restrict a small part to see if we can restrict the Internet even more in the future". They're just trying to see how people would react now.
Why oh why would you think that ? Governments are not out trying to get you. If they wanted to restricts some things you would never know and they would have done it WAYYYY sooner.
Also for the lulz Check out OP's name. It's just perfect
Considering how PRISM, Tempora (UK), SOPA, ACTA, etc were so recent, anything can be possible from retarded governments.
Also Turkish PM wants Twitter blocked. Governments have realised that the Internet is/will be the main force in the future to stop them from doing things we don't want them to do. It may sound as a conspiracy, but this sums it up:
On July 24 2013 00:28 archonOOid wrote: First they came for the porn, then they'll come for "piracy" and later they'll come for your freedom.
On July 24 2013 00:42 darkness wrote: Restricting a few porn websites to me is like "I'm going to try to restrict a small part to see if we can restrict the Internet even more in the future". They're just trying to see how people would react now.
Why oh why would you think that ? Governments are not out trying to get you. If they wanted to restricts some things you would never know and they would have done it WAYYYY sooner.
Also for the lulz Check out OP's name. It's just perfect
Considering how PRISM, Tempora (UK), SOPA, ACTA, etc were so recent, anything can be possible from retarded governments.
I don't think calling governement "retarded" is a way. Well... Some are not doing their job really well (or so it seems). But i think those people are really smart and that they are doing thing that we can't see or understand.
We are in an age of freedom, evrything is getting freeer. Of course governements want to try to keep it under control. If evrything is free, this is anarchy
But they just can't do it. They will sometimes succeed to prevent you to do things but 10 more things will get out of their controls.
On topic, it's not a restrictive of freedom because you just can say : "opt in", "opt out". So no freedom is hurt threre you have the freedom to chose.
I am not sure if my writting is understandable so don't flame me
I may sound as a conspiracy, but this sums it up:
On July 24 2013 00:28 archonOOid wrote: First they came for the porn, then they'll come for "piracy" and later they'll come for your freedom.
I don't think so (my opinion). They should get rid of piracy. It's NORMAL that they want to. I would be a sad panda but it's illegal. They want to get rid of it. It's hurting in some way people or companies. Of course companies should do other things and have there medias reinvented or something but for now. It's hurting them.
On July 24 2013 00:42 darkness wrote: Restricting a few porn websites to me is like "I'm going to try to restrict a small part to see if we can restrict the Internet even more in the future". They're just trying to see how people would react now.
Why oh why would you think that ? Governments are not out trying to get you. If they wanted to restricts some things you would never know and they would have done it WAYYYY sooner.
Also for the lulz Check out OP's name. It's just perfect
Considering how PRISM, Tempora (UK), SOPA, ACTA, etc were so recent, anything can be possible from retarded governments.
I don't think calling governement "retarded" is a way. Well... Some are not doing their job really well (or so it seems). But i think those people are really smart and that they are doing thing that we can't see or understand.
We are in an age of freedom, evrything is getting freeer. Of course governements want to try to keep it under control. If evrything is free, this is anarchy
But they just can't do it. They will sometimes succeed to prevent you to do things but 10 more things will get out of their controls.
On topic, it's not a restrictive of freedom because you just can say : "opt in", "opt out". So no freedom is hurt threre
I am not sure if my writting is understandable so don't flame me
Problem is that you have to "opt in", instead of "opt out".
The irony in all this is they are going to be blocking it from the kids most of which are more computer savvy that the people making the policies
there are 12 year olds making their own linux distributions... I doubt they will have much trouble getting past some simple blocks. Plus as soon as one of them figure it out you can be pretty sure he will tweet/facebook/google+ to everyone of his frieds who will just do the same. If anything this ban will be most effective against the older generation
PS: I wonder if this will effect Peer-Peer and torrents... maybe this initial move is just part of a great plan to get rid of peer-peer and torrents completely so polititians can get backhanders from the media industry.
On July 24 2013 00:42 darkness wrote: Restricting a few porn websites to me is like "I'm going to try to restrict a small part to see if we can restrict the Internet even more in the future". They're just trying to see how people would react now.
Why oh why would you think that ? Governments are not out trying to get you. If they wanted to restricts some things you would never know and they would have done it WAYYYY sooner.
Also for the lulz Check out OP's name. It's just perfect
Considering how PRISM, Tempora (UK), SOPA, ACTA, etc were so recent, anything can be possible from retarded governments.
I don't think calling governement "retarded" is a way. Well... Some are not doing their job really well (or so it seems). But i think those people are really smart and that they are doing thing that we can't see or understand.
We are in an age of freedom, evrything is getting freeer. Of course governements want to try to keep it under control. If evrything is free, this is anarchy
But they just can't do it. They will sometimes succeed to prevent you to do things but 10 more things will get out of their controls.
On topic, it's not a restrictive of freedom because you just can say : "opt in", "opt out". So no freedom is hurt threre
I am not sure if my writting is understandable so don't flame me
Problem is that you have to "opt in", instead of "opt out".
Why is it a problem ? i don't see the big deal.
In France for exemple when you pay tax, you have "I HAVE A TV" checked by default. You don't have one ? You uncheck.
By default it's : "NO PORN". So uncheck it.
On July 24 2013 00:55 MulletMurdoc wrote: The irony in all this is they are going to be blocking it from the kids most of which are more computer savvy that the people making the policies
there are 12 year olds making their own linux distributions... I doubt they will have much trouble getting past some simple blocks. Plus as soon as one of them figure it out you can be pretty sure he will tweet/facebook/google+ to everyone of his frieds who will just do the same. If anything this ban will be most effective against the older generation
LOL...
So your argument is : "Why making locks harder when people will invent lockpicks" ?
On July 24 2013 00:40 r.Evo wrote: Any plans to make consensual non-consent illegal in the bedroom yet?
Nah Big Brother has been kind enough to let us have consensual roleplay in the bedroom for now, but obviously if we film our consensual roleplay we're sex offenders.
This isn't too surprising. "For the Children!" is a pretty classic refrain in the post-WW2 era for when groups want to run roughshod over most laws & civil protections. Just wait until they start arguing they should put CCTVs in homes "for the children". George Orwell, the great Sage.
While not completely about taxes, much of the US Indepedence was about a fairly reasonable tax placed on goods. Most of the "Acts" that caused the major political backlash weren't actually very "bad" in direct or economic terms. It was the fact that they could be imposed with no "say" in the matter. When Authorities have complete license, you are simply a subject to them. This is just one of the ways that Power will be abused. We don't call it the "Nanny State" for nothing.
I also have a little schadenfreude I'll admit to. The "Those Back-water, Bible Thumping Americans!" line of derision from the major European media is normally just passive aggressive projection, but occasionally we do take some strange/self-defeating positions. But this one is pretty damn hilarious. A modern, first world country is going to ban most Porn and it isn't the USA. There's going to be some funny cognitive dissonance happening on this topic.
This is Chinese style censorship. I mean what is next, censoring political speech? Censoring controversial speech? Censoring "conspiracy theories" or rather declassified false flag operations like operation Gladio that government don't want known?
And it always begins to keep people safe, to protect the children, to fight the bad guys, etc...then tyranny happens like in communist China, Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, etc...
I don't understand why all people say they are BANNING it. They are putting a restrictions that you can choose to not have... i don't get it.
On July 24 2013 00:59 BillGates wrote: This is Chinese style censorship. I mean what is next, censoring political speech? Censoring controversial speech? Censoring "conspiracy theories" or rather declassified false flag operations like operation Gladio that government don't want known?
And it always begins to keep people safe, to protect the children, to fight the bad guys, etc...then tyranny happens like in communist China, Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, etc...
So in china you can uncheck the box of censorship ?
On July 24 2013 00:42 darkness wrote: Restricting a few porn websites to me is like "I'm going to try to restrict a small part to see if we can restrict the Internet even more in the future". They're just trying to see how people would react now.
Why oh why would you think that ? Governments are not out trying to get you. If they wanted to restricts some things you would never know and they would have done it WAYYYY sooner.
Also for the lulz Check out OP's name. It's just perfect
Considering how PRISM, Tempora (UK), SOPA, ACTA, etc were so recent, anything can be possible from retarded governments.
I don't think calling governement "retarded" is a way. Well... Some are not doing their job really well (or so it seems). But i think those people are really smart and that they are doing thing that we can't see or understand.
We are in an age of freedom, evrything is getting freeer. Of course governements want to try to keep it under control. If evrything is free, this is anarchy
But they just can't do it. They will sometimes succeed to prevent you to do things but 10 more things will get out of their controls.
On topic, it's not a restrictive of freedom because you just can say : "opt in", "opt out". So no freedom is hurt threre
I am not sure if my writting is understandable so don't flame me
Problem is that you have to "opt in", instead of "opt out".
Why is it a problem ? i don't see the big deal.
In France for exemple when you pay tax, you have "I HAVE A TV" checked by default. You don't have one ? You uncheck.
By default it's : "NO PORN". So uncheck it.
Because suddenly the government has a list of everyone who watches porn, rather than having a list of people who don't want to watch porn.
If it's opt-in to get porn blocked, there will be many that wont opt-in because they are ignorant/lazy so the remainder of the population that hasn't opted-in isn't a definitive list of all the disgusting porn fiends who are out to harm children.
porn is not 'unsafe'. As a matter of fact, and someone will have to back me up on this one, because I dont remember where I read it, research has shown that countries with pornography legally available do not increase the number of cases of rape / violence. Actually, it is quite the opposite!
(skimmed the internet for some evidence : seems it is indeed true that pornography does not increase sex crime rates)
Im not the kind of guy that'll immediatly say 'oh well then it MUST be so they can control our freedom', but if research shows that pornography does not negatively influences peoples behaviour, then I call this a bad move, and question the motivations behind it.
Now, I dont follow UK politics, but is it perhaps from a religious motivation? Or some desperate attempt to win voters (which this won't)?
Also, whats with the whole 'keep kids away from porn'-thing? Who cares if they watch porn? Sure, it's not a very accurate depiction of reality, but I dont see it leading to any delinquent behaviour. If you are concerned about kids' sexual education, perhaps the parents should be more open about it. Schools only teach you so much.
EDIT : TLDR : removing porn from the internet does not make the internet safer, because pornography is not unsafe, as is backed up by plenty of evidence. Thus removing it wont do any good whatsoever.
On July 24 2013 00:42 darkness wrote: Restricting a few porn websites to me is like "I'm going to try to restrict a small part to see if we can restrict the Internet even more in the future". They're just trying to see how people would react now.
Why oh why would you think that ? Governments are not out trying to get you. If they wanted to restricts some things you would never know and they would have done it WAYYYY sooner.
Also for the lulz Check out OP's name. It's just perfect
Considering how PRISM, Tempora (UK), SOPA, ACTA, etc were so recent, anything can be possible from retarded governments.
I don't think calling governement "retarded" is a way. Well... Some are not doing their job really well (or so it seems). But i think those people are really smart and that they are doing thing that we can't see or understand.
We are in an age of freedom, evrything is getting freeer. Of course governements want to try to keep it under control. If evrything is free, this is anarchy
But they just can't do it. They will sometimes succeed to prevent you to do things but 10 more things will get out of their controls.
On topic, it's not a restrictive of freedom because you just can say : "opt in", "opt out". So no freedom is hurt threre
I am not sure if my writting is understandable so don't flame me
Problem is that you have to "opt in", instead of "opt out".
Why is it a problem ? i don't see the big deal.
In France for exemple when you pay tax, you have "I HAVE A TV" checked by default. You don't have one ? You uncheck.
By default it's : "NO PORN". So uncheck it.
Because suddenly the government has a list of everyone who watches porn, rather than having a list of people who don't want to watch porn.
If it's opt-in to get porn blocked, there will be many that wont opt-in because they are ignorant/lazy so the remainder of the population that hasn't opted-in isn't a definitive list of all the disgusting porn fiends who are out to harm children.
If you have a list of people that don't watch porn. Then you have a list of people that do....
On July 24 2013 01:01 []Phase[] wrote: All I can ask is... Why?
porn is not 'unsafe'. As a matter of fact, and someone will have to back me up on this one, because I dont remember where I read it, research has shown that countries with pornography legally available do not increase the number of cases of rape / violence. Actually, it is quite the opposite!
(skimmed the internet for some evidence : seems it is indeed true that pornography does not increase sex crime rates)
Im not the kind of guy that'll immediatly say 'oh well then it MUST be so they can control our freedom', but if research shows that pornography does not negatively influences peoples behaviour, then I call this a bad move, and question the motivations behind it.
Now, I dont follow UK politics, but is it perhaps from a religious motivation? Or some desperate attempt to win voters (which this won't)?
Also, whats with the whole 'keep kids away from porn'-thing? Who cares if they watch porn? Sure, it's not a very accurate depiction of reality, but I dont see it leading to any delinquent behaviour. If you are concerned about kids' sexual education, perhaps the parents should be more open about it. Schools only teach you so much.
EDIT : TLDR : removing porn from the internet does not make the internet safer, because pornography is not unsafe, as is backed up by plenty of evidence. Thus removing it wont do any good whatsoever.
This is so true. I'm really ok with this way of thinking.
On July 24 2013 00:42 darkness wrote: Restricting a few porn websites to me is like "I'm going to try to restrict a small part to see if we can restrict the Internet even more in the future". They're just trying to see how people would react now.
Why oh why would you think that ? Governments are not out trying to get you. If they wanted to restricts some things you would never know and they would have done it WAYYYY sooner.
Also for the lulz Check out OP's name. It's just perfect
Considering how PRISM, Tempora (UK), SOPA, ACTA, etc were so recent, anything can be possible from retarded governments.
I don't think calling governement "retarded" is a way. Well... Some are not doing their job really well (or so it seems). But i think those people are really smart and that they are doing thing that we can't see or understand.
We are in an age of freedom, evrything is getting freeer. Of course governements want to try to keep it under control. If evrything is free, this is anarchy
But they just can't do it. They will sometimes succeed to prevent you to do things but 10 more things will get out of their controls.
On topic, it's not a restrictive of freedom because you just can say : "opt in", "opt out". So no freedom is hurt threre
I am not sure if my writting is understandable so don't flame me
Problem is that you have to "opt in", instead of "opt out".
Why is it a problem ? i don't see the big deal.
In France for exemple when you pay tax, you have "I HAVE A TV" checked by default. You don't have one ? You uncheck.
By default it's : "NO PORN". So uncheck it.
Because suddenly the government has a list of everyone who watches porn, rather than having a list of people who don't want to watch porn.
If it's opt-in to get porn blocked, there will be many that wont opt-in because they are ignorant/lazy so the remainder of the population that hasn't opted-in isn't a definitive list of all the disgusting porn fiends who are out to harm children.
On July 24 2013 00:42 darkness wrote: Restricting a few porn websites to me is like "I'm going to try to restrict a small part to see if we can restrict the Internet even more in the future". They're just trying to see how people would react now.
Why oh why would you think that ? Governments are not out trying to get you. If they wanted to restricts some things you would never know and they would have done it WAYYYY sooner.
Also for the lulz Check out OP's name. It's just perfect
Considering how PRISM, Tempora (UK), SOPA, ACTA, etc were so recent, anything can be possible from retarded governments.
All those acts have a lot of people backing them - not backing the government, but backing the acts themselves - and purposefully voting for parties and people with political platforms to GET into the government so that they could make these things happen.
Hell, there's been more than a few people in this very thread that agreed with the proposed legislation, more than a few people who think fighting piracy is worth giving up the freedom of the internet for, and more than a few TL members who think Snowden is borderline terrorist and any surveillance is fine if it catches terrorists. Any number of them are going to actually vote for these things to happen.
If you want these things to not happen, you need to proactively change the opinions of people around you that support these things instead of "agreeing to disagree" and "respecting different opinions" all the time for the sake of avoiding confrontation. Blaming the governments when they hit the nail in the coffin on the back of popular support does nothing.
On July 24 2013 00:42 darkness wrote: Restricting a few porn websites to me is like "I'm going to try to restrict a small part to see if we can restrict the Internet even more in the future". They're just trying to see how people would react now.
Why oh why would you think that ? Governments are not out trying to get you. If they wanted to restricts some things you would never know and they would have done it WAYYYY sooner.
Also for the lulz Check out OP's name. It's just perfect
Considering how PRISM, Tempora (UK), SOPA, ACTA, etc were so recent, anything can be possible from retarded governments.
I don't think calling governement "retarded" is a way. Well... Some are not doing their job really well (or so it seems). But i think those people are really smart and that they are doing thing that we can't see or understand.
We are in an age of freedom, evrything is getting freeer. Of course governements want to try to keep it under control. If evrything is free, this is anarchy
But they just can't do it. They will sometimes succeed to prevent you to do things but 10 more things will get out of their controls.
On topic, it's not a restrictive of freedom because you just can say : "opt in", "opt out". So no freedom is hurt threre
I am not sure if my writting is understandable so don't flame me
Problem is that you have to "opt in", instead of "opt out".
Why is it a problem ? i don't see the big deal.
In France for exemple when you pay tax, you have "I HAVE A TV" checked by default. You don't have one ? You uncheck.
By default it's : "NO PORN". So uncheck it.
Because suddenly the government has a list of everyone who watches porn, rather than having a list of people who don't want to watch porn.
If it's opt-in to get porn blocked, there will be many that wont opt-in because they are ignorant/lazy so the remainder of the population that hasn't opted-in isn't a definitive list of all the disgusting porn fiends who are out to harm children.
The law doesn't require ISPs to track who opts out, only that the feature exist. Unless they start requiring the ISP to report that to them, there will be no list.
On July 24 2013 01:01 []Phase[] wrote: All I can ask is... Why?
porn is not 'unsafe'. As a matter of fact, and someone will have to back me up on this one, because I dont remember where I read it, research has shown that countries with pornography legally available do not increase the number of cases of rape / violence. Actually, it is quite the opposite!
(skimmed the internet for some evidence : seems it is indeed true that pornography does not increase sex crime rates)
Im not the kind of guy that'll immediatly say 'oh well then it MUST be so they can control our freedom', but if research shows that pornography does not negatively influences peoples behaviour, then I call this a bad move, and question the motivations behind it.
Now, I dont follow UK politics, but is it perhaps from a religious motivation? Or some desperate attempt to win voters (which this won't)?
Also, whats with the whole 'keep kids away from porn'-thing? Who cares if they watch porn? Sure, it's not a very accurate depiction of reality, but I dont see it leading to any delinquent behaviour. If you are concerned about kids' sexual education, perhaps the parents should be more open about it. Schools only teach you so much.
Because our government is ran by technological-illiterates who don't understand how the internet actually works and want to control it by putting in measures like these. There is a big drive in the UK just now to make porn seem like it is highly damaging to children and they must be aware of the dangers of porn.
The government is trying to have companies like google blacklist search terms that lead to childporn (despite the fact that you don't find child porn on google because they already delist that shit) or face penalties.
The UK economy is in a shambles and they need anything they can get to draw attention away from their own failings and onto other targets, be it immigrants, Muslims, pedophiles or by appearing to be doing whats right for our kids.
You're right in that it wont get votes but it doesn't matter because Britain is no different from the USA now in that it's a two party government where the two parties are almost identical.
On July 24 2013 00:42 darkness wrote: Restricting a few porn websites to me is like "I'm going to try to restrict a small part to see if we can restrict the Internet even more in the future". They're just trying to see how people would react now.
Why oh why would you think that ? Governments are not out trying to get you. If they wanted to restricts some things you would never know and they would have done it WAYYYY sooner.
Also for the lulz Check out OP's name. It's just perfect
Considering how PRISM, Tempora (UK), SOPA, ACTA, etc were so recent, anything can be possible from retarded governments.
I don't think calling governement "retarded" is a way. Well... Some are not doing their job really well (or so it seems). But i think those people are really smart and that they are doing thing that we can't see or understand.
We are in an age of freedom, evrything is getting freeer. Of course governements want to try to keep it under control. If evrything is free, this is anarchy
But they just can't do it. They will sometimes succeed to prevent you to do things but 10 more things will get out of their controls.
On topic, it's not a restrictive of freedom because you just can say : "opt in", "opt out". So no freedom is hurt threre
I am not sure if my writting is understandable so don't flame me
Problem is that you have to "opt in", instead of "opt out".
Why is it a problem ? i don't see the big deal.
In France for exemple when you pay tax, you have "I HAVE A TV" checked by default. You don't have one ? You uncheck.
By default it's : "NO PORN". So uncheck it.
Because suddenly the government has a list of everyone who watches porn, rather than having a list of people who don't want to watch porn.
If it's opt-in to get porn blocked, there will be many that wont opt-in because they are ignorant/lazy so the remainder of the population that hasn't opted-in isn't a definitive list of all the disgusting porn fiends who are out to harm children.
If you have a list of people that don't watch porn. Then you have a list of people that do....
No you don't. You have a list of people who may or may not watch porn but don't have it blacklisted.
On July 24 2013 00:42 darkness wrote: Restricting a few porn websites to me is like "I'm going to try to restrict a small part to see if we can restrict the Internet even more in the future". They're just trying to see how people would react now.
Why oh why would you think that ? Governments are not out trying to get you. If they wanted to restricts some things you would never know and they would have done it WAYYYY sooner.
Also for the lulz Check out OP's name. It's just perfect
Considering how PRISM, Tempora (UK), SOPA, ACTA, etc were so recent, anything can be possible from retarded governments.
I don't think calling governement "retarded" is a way. Well... Some are not doing their job really well (or so it seems). But i think those people are really smart and that they are doing thing that we can't see or understand.
We are in an age of freedom, evrything is getting freeer. Of course governements want to try to keep it under control. If evrything is free, this is anarchy
But they just can't do it. They will sometimes succeed to prevent you to do things but 10 more things will get out of their controls.
On topic, it's not a restrictive of freedom because you just can say : "opt in", "opt out". So no freedom is hurt threre
I am not sure if my writting is understandable so don't flame me
Problem is that you have to "opt in", instead of "opt out".
Why is it a problem ? i don't see the big deal.
In France for exemple when you pay tax, you have "I HAVE A TV" checked by default. You don't have one ? You uncheck.
By default it's : "NO PORN". So uncheck it.
Because suddenly the government has a list of everyone who watches porn, rather than having a list of people who don't want to watch porn.
If it's opt-in to get porn blocked, there will be many that wont opt-in because they are ignorant/lazy so the remainder of the population that hasn't opted-in isn't a definitive list of all the disgusting porn fiends who are out to harm children.
If you have a list of people that don't watch porn. Then you have a list of people that do....
As I said, you will have a list of people who do, but it isn't definitive as not everyone who doesn't want to watch porn is going to be aware of the fact that you can opt-in to a filter
On July 24 2013 00:42 darkness wrote: Restricting a few porn websites to me is like "I'm going to try to restrict a small part to see if we can restrict the Internet even more in the future". They're just trying to see how people would react now.
Why oh why would you think that ? Governments are not out trying to get you. If they wanted to restricts some things you would never know and they would have done it WAYYYY sooner.
Also for the lulz Check out OP's name. It's just perfect
Considering how PRISM, Tempora (UK), SOPA, ACTA, etc were so recent, anything can be possible from retarded governments.
I don't think calling governement "retarded" is a way. Well... Some are not doing their job really well (or so it seems). But i think those people are really smart and that they are doing thing that we can't see or understand.
We are in an age of freedom, evrything is getting freeer. Of course governements want to try to keep it under control. If evrything is free, this is anarchy
But they just can't do it. They will sometimes succeed to prevent you to do things but 10 more things will get out of their controls.
On topic, it's not a restrictive of freedom because you just can say : "opt in", "opt out". So no freedom is hurt threre
I am not sure if my writting is understandable so don't flame me
Problem is that you have to "opt in", instead of "opt out".
Why is it a problem ? i don't see the big deal.
In France for exemple when you pay tax, you have "I HAVE A TV" checked by default. You don't have one ? You uncheck.
By default it's : "NO PORN". So uncheck it.
Because suddenly the government has a list of everyone who watches porn, rather than having a list of people who don't want to watch porn.
If it's opt-in to get porn blocked, there will be many that wont opt-in because they are ignorant/lazy so the remainder of the population that hasn't opted-in isn't a definitive list of all the disgusting porn fiends who are out to harm children.
If you have a list of people that don't watch porn. Then you have a list of people that do....
No you don't. You have a list of people who may or may not watch porn but don't have it blacklisted.
Why would anyone specifically opt out of a porn filter if they're not going to watch it?
I mean sure, some people may do it out of principle, but overall the "porn watcher" list will still be pretty reliable.
On July 24 2013 00:42 darkness wrote: Restricting a few porn websites to me is like "I'm going to try to restrict a small part to see if we can restrict the Internet even more in the future". They're just trying to see how people would react now.
Why oh why would you think that ? Governments are not out trying to get you. If they wanted to restricts some things you would never know and they would have done it WAYYYY sooner.
Also for the lulz Check out OP's name. It's just perfect
Considering how PRISM, Tempora (UK), SOPA, ACTA, etc were so recent, anything can be possible from retarded governments.
I don't think calling governement "retarded" is a way. Well... Some are not doing their job really well (or so it seems). But i think those people are really smart and that they are doing thing that we can't see or understand.
We are in an age of freedom, evrything is getting freeer. Of course governements want to try to keep it under control. If evrything is free, this is anarchy
But they just can't do it. They will sometimes succeed to prevent you to do things but 10 more things will get out of their controls.
On topic, it's not a restrictive of freedom because you just can say : "opt in", "opt out". So no freedom is hurt threre
I am not sure if my writting is understandable so don't flame me
Problem is that you have to "opt in", instead of "opt out".
Why is it a problem ? i don't see the big deal.
In France for exemple when you pay tax, you have "I HAVE A TV" checked by default. You don't have one ? You uncheck.
By default it's : "NO PORN". So uncheck it.
Because suddenly the government has a list of everyone who watches porn, rather than having a list of people who don't want to watch porn.
If it's opt-in to get porn blocked, there will be many that wont opt-in because they are ignorant/lazy so the remainder of the population that hasn't opted-in isn't a definitive list of all the disgusting porn fiends who are out to harm children.
If you have a list of people that don't watch porn. Then you have a list of people that do....
No you don't. You have a list of people who may or may not watch porn but don't have it blacklisted.
Why would anyone specifically opt out of a porn filter if they're not going to watch it?
I mean sure, some people may do it out of principle, but overall the "porn watcher" list will still be pretty reliable.
Whoever doesn't give a damn about it. Like the majority of people. Why would they opt in ?
Why do these women groups always think that rape is the ultimate crime? I mean it always gets thrown in there with murder etc, which are actually much worse. So why is it ok to show fake murder, torture etc but showing rape is the ultimate evil?
On July 24 2013 00:42 darkness wrote: Restricting a few porn websites to me is like "I'm going to try to restrict a small part to see if we can restrict the Internet even more in the future". They're just trying to see how people would react now.
Why oh why would you think that ? Governments are not out trying to get you. If they wanted to restricts some things you would never know and they would have done it WAYYYY sooner.
Also for the lulz Check out OP's name. It's just perfect
Considering how PRISM, Tempora (UK), SOPA, ACTA, etc were so recent, anything can be possible from retarded governments.
I don't think calling governement "retarded" is a way. Well... Some are not doing their job really well (or so it seems). But i think those people are really smart and that they are doing thing that we can't see or understand.
We are in an age of freedom, evrything is getting freeer. Of course governements want to try to keep it under control. If evrything is free, this is anarchy
But they just can't do it. They will sometimes succeed to prevent you to do things but 10 more things will get out of their controls.
On topic, it's not a restrictive of freedom because you just can say : "opt in", "opt out". So no freedom is hurt threre
I am not sure if my writting is understandable so don't flame me
Problem is that you have to "opt in", instead of "opt out".
Why is it a problem ? i don't see the big deal.
In France for exemple when you pay tax, you have "I HAVE A TV" checked by default. You don't have one ? You uncheck.
By default it's : "NO PORN". So uncheck it.
Because suddenly the government has a list of everyone who watches porn, rather than having a list of people who don't want to watch porn.
If it's opt-in to get porn blocked, there will be many that wont opt-in because they are ignorant/lazy so the remainder of the population that hasn't opted-in isn't a definitive list of all the disgusting porn fiends who are out to harm children.
If you have a list of people that don't watch porn. Then you have a list of people that do....
As I said, you will have a list of people who do, but it isn't definitive as not everyone who doesn't want to watch porn is going to be aware of the fact that you can opt-in to a filter
Only if all the ISP's are required to provide the list or record and compile that information. Unless the law requires them to do that and report it, there isn't a lot of reason for them to do so and very good reasons for them not to.
This is absurd. how can you ban porn? I actually can not wrap my mind around the fact that in this day and age, a government in a first world country is trying to ban pornography. Even if you could somehow come up with a logical argument as to why it's a good idea - AREN'T THERE MORE IMPORTANT THINGS A GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE DOING?
On July 23 2013 23:02 Firebolt145 wrote: I don't know why anyone would take the Daily Mail seriously lol.
huge number of british working class people do.
i had one person practically shouting at me because she read in the daily mail that "everything can cause cancer" and "therefore theres no point in quitting smoking coz you can get it from anything". she smoked through her pregnancy and still does.
On July 24 2013 00:42 darkness wrote: Restricting a few porn websites to me is like "I'm going to try to restrict a small part to see if we can restrict the Internet even more in the future". They're just trying to see how people would react now.
Why oh why would you think that ? Governments are not out trying to get you. If they wanted to restricts some things you would never know and they would have done it WAYYYY sooner.
Also for the lulz Check out OP's name. It's just perfect
Considering how PRISM, Tempora (UK), SOPA, ACTA, etc were so recent, anything can be possible from retarded governments.
I don't think calling governement "retarded" is a way. Well... Some are not doing their job really well (or so it seems). But i think those people are really smart and that they are doing thing that we can't see or understand.
We are in an age of freedom, evrything is getting freeer. Of course governements want to try to keep it under control. If evrything is free, this is anarchy
But they just can't do it. They will sometimes succeed to prevent you to do things but 10 more things will get out of their controls.
On topic, it's not a restrictive of freedom because you just can say : "opt in", "opt out". So no freedom is hurt threre
I am not sure if my writting is understandable so don't flame me
Problem is that you have to "opt in", instead of "opt out".
Why is it a problem ? i don't see the big deal.
In France for exemple when you pay tax, you have "I HAVE A TV" checked by default. You don't have one ? You uncheck.
By default it's : "NO PORN". So uncheck it.
Because suddenly the government has a list of everyone who watches porn, rather than having a list of people who don't want to watch porn.
If it's opt-in to get porn blocked, there will be many that wont opt-in because they are ignorant/lazy so the remainder of the population that hasn't opted-in isn't a definitive list of all the disgusting porn fiends who are out to harm children.
If you have a list of people that don't watch porn. Then you have a list of people that do....
No you don't. You have a list of people who may or may not watch porn but don't have it blacklisted.
Why would anyone specifically opt out of a porn filter if they're not going to watch it?
I mean sure, some people may do it out of principle, but overall the "porn watcher" list will still be pretty reliable.
And that's a big part of the problem. You are by default suspicious if you want privacy, since people assume you want it to do something secret. This is also why mail should be encrypted by default (it isn't because google makes money of unencrypted mail unfortunately), and why we have non-transparent envelopes even for single-page non-secret letters (otherwise anyone who used an envelope would be suspicious).
Luckily being on a "suspected of viewing porn" list is not going to matter for most people, but there are people for which it will matter (public figures in particular). And another issue is that if they get away with doing it for porn, then who is to say they will stop at that point?
There is no good reason why the public should want this service to be opt-out. If it should exist at all (it probably shouldn't), then it should be opt-in.
On July 24 2013 00:42 darkness wrote: Restricting a few porn websites to me is like "I'm going to try to restrict a small part to see if we can restrict the Internet even more in the future". They're just trying to see how people would react now.
Why oh why would you think that ? Governments are not out trying to get you. If they wanted to restricts some things you would never know and they would have done it WAYYYY sooner.
Also for the lulz Check out OP's name. It's just perfect
Considering how PRISM, Tempora (UK), SOPA, ACTA, etc were so recent, anything can be possible from retarded governments.
I don't think calling governement "retarded" is a way. Well... Some are not doing their job really well (or so it seems). But i think those people are really smart and that they are doing thing that we can't see or understand.
We are in an age of freedom, evrything is getting freeer. Of course governements want to try to keep it under control. If evrything is free, this is anarchy
But they just can't do it. They will sometimes succeed to prevent you to do things but 10 more things will get out of their controls.
On topic, it's not a restrictive of freedom because you just can say : "opt in", "opt out". So no freedom is hurt threre
I am not sure if my writting is understandable so don't flame me
Problem is that you have to "opt in", instead of "opt out".
Why is it a problem ? i don't see the big deal.
In France for exemple when you pay tax, you have "I HAVE A TV" checked by default. You don't have one ? You uncheck.
By default it's : "NO PORN". So uncheck it.
Because suddenly the government has a list of everyone who watches porn, rather than having a list of people who don't want to watch porn.
If it's opt-in to get porn blocked, there will be many that wont opt-in because they are ignorant/lazy so the remainder of the population that hasn't opted-in isn't a definitive list of all the disgusting porn fiends who are out to harm children.
If you have a list of people that don't watch porn. Then you have a list of people that do....
As I said, you will have a list of people who do, but it isn't definitive as not everyone who doesn't want to watch porn is going to be aware of the fact that you can opt-in to a filter
Only if all the ISP's are required to provide the list or record and compile that information. Unless the law requires them to do that and report it, there isn't a lot of reason for them to do so and very good reasons for them not to.
I agree and I hope that in the unlikely situation that this goes through, ISPs don't compile it (though some british ISPs compile lists of people who they detect having P2P traffic) but if you're going to force a regulation like this why wouldn't you also require receiving a list of the people opting out of the filter.
It creates all sorts of problems from freedom of information requests on the recipients of porn. But then again the government isn't doing this out of a sense of morality
On July 24 2013 01:18 Penguinator wrote: This is absurd. how can you ban porn? I actually can not wrap my mind around the fact that in this day and age, a government in a first world country is trying to ban pornography. Even if you could somehow come up with a logical argument as to why it's a good idea - AREN'T THERE MORE IMPORTANT THINGS A GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE DOING?
The argument goes: 1) They are not banning porn, they are simply protecting our children from clearly harmful material. 2) A government can do more than one thing at once. Really this sort of block should technically be fairly simple (at least on a DNS server level) since there are already companies that maintain lists of pornographic websites. It really shouldn't interfere with other government operations unless they implement it in a grossly irresponsible way.
I do agree though that this is a terrible idea and that in no way should we want our government to censor this sort of stuff. Let companies offer such software to concerned parents.
Why oh why would you think that ? Governments are not out trying to get you. If they wanted to restricts some things you would never know and they would have done it WAYYYY sooner.
Also for the lulz Check out OP's name. It's just perfect
Considering how PRISM, Tempora (UK), SOPA, ACTA, etc were so recent, anything can be possible from retarded governments.
I don't think calling governement "retarded" is a way. Well... Some are not doing their job really well (or so it seems). But i think those people are really smart and that they are doing thing that we can't see or understand.
We are in an age of freedom, evrything is getting freeer. Of course governements want to try to keep it under control. If evrything is free, this is anarchy
But they just can't do it. They will sometimes succeed to prevent you to do things but 10 more things will get out of their controls.
On topic, it's not a restrictive of freedom because you just can say : "opt in", "opt out". So no freedom is hurt threre
I am not sure if my writting is understandable so don't flame me
Problem is that you have to "opt in", instead of "opt out".
Why is it a problem ? i don't see the big deal.
In France for exemple when you pay tax, you have "I HAVE A TV" checked by default. You don't have one ? You uncheck.
By default it's : "NO PORN". So uncheck it.
Because suddenly the government has a list of everyone who watches porn, rather than having a list of people who don't want to watch porn.
If it's opt-in to get porn blocked, there will be many that wont opt-in because they are ignorant/lazy so the remainder of the population that hasn't opted-in isn't a definitive list of all the disgusting porn fiends who are out to harm children.
If you have a list of people that don't watch porn. Then you have a list of people that do....
As I said, you will have a list of people who do, but it isn't definitive as not everyone who doesn't want to watch porn is going to be aware of the fact that you can opt-in to a filter
Only if all the ISP's are required to provide the list or record and compile that information. Unless the law requires them to do that and report it, there isn't a lot of reason for them to do so and very good reasons for them not to.
I agree and I hope that in the unlikely situation that this goes through, ISPs don't compile it (though some british ISPs compile lists of people who they detect having P2P traffic) but if you're going to force a regulation like this why wouldn't you also require receiving a list of the people opting out of the filter.
It creates all sorts of problems from freedom of information requests on the recipients of porn. But then again the government isn't doing this out of a sense of morality
Well the list seems like a bad idea and I think people would be upset that the list exists. There is a difference between the the government forcing a industry to make a tool for people to use(aka, the same way they regulate cars) and making a way to catch people looking at questionable things. A way to block sites at the ISP level lets parents deal with the issue, as long at it is opt in. Added the requirement for ISPs to report who does not opt in will make people upset.
This is effectively banning porn. Imagine yourself at Comcast with your wife signing up for internet. You are filling out the form, and then you get to the box where you can opt in for porn. Your wife is staring at you, and a bead of sweat rolls down your forehead. Do you check the box?
Why oh why would you think that ? Governments are not out trying to get you. If they wanted to restricts some things you would never know and they would have done it WAYYYY sooner.
Also for the lulz Check out OP's name. It's just perfect
Considering how PRISM, Tempora (UK), SOPA, ACTA, etc were so recent, anything can be possible from retarded governments.
I don't think calling governement "retarded" is a way. Well... Some are not doing their job really well (or so it seems). But i think those people are really smart and that they are doing thing that we can't see or understand.
We are in an age of freedom, evrything is getting freeer. Of course governements want to try to keep it under control. If evrything is free, this is anarchy
But they just can't do it. They will sometimes succeed to prevent you to do things but 10 more things will get out of their controls.
On topic, it's not a restrictive of freedom because you just can say : "opt in", "opt out". So no freedom is hurt threre
I am not sure if my writting is understandable so don't flame me
Problem is that you have to "opt in", instead of "opt out".
Why is it a problem ? i don't see the big deal.
In France for exemple when you pay tax, you have "I HAVE A TV" checked by default. You don't have one ? You uncheck.
By default it's : "NO PORN". So uncheck it.
Because suddenly the government has a list of everyone who watches porn, rather than having a list of people who don't want to watch porn.
If it's opt-in to get porn blocked, there will be many that wont opt-in because they are ignorant/lazy so the remainder of the population that hasn't opted-in isn't a definitive list of all the disgusting porn fiends who are out to harm children.
If you have a list of people that don't watch porn. Then you have a list of people that do....
No you don't. You have a list of people who may or may not watch porn but don't have it blacklisted.
Why would anyone specifically opt out of a porn filter if they're not going to watch it?
I mean sure, some people may do it out of principle, but overall the "porn watcher" list will still be pretty reliable.
Whoever doesn't give a damn about it. Like the majority of people. Why would they opt in ?
That's the thing. Nobody opts in - everybody IS in by default. They have to opt out if they don't want it, which one would conceivably only do for a specific reason that they actually DO want to watch porn.
It's basically equivalent to a statement "I watch / want to watch porn", whether it's true or not.
Considering how PRISM, Tempora (UK), SOPA, ACTA, etc were so recent, anything can be possible from retarded governments.
I don't think calling governement "retarded" is a way. Well... Some are not doing their job really well (or so it seems). But i think those people are really smart and that they are doing thing that we can't see or understand.
We are in an age of freedom, evrything is getting freeer. Of course governements want to try to keep it under control. If evrything is free, this is anarchy
But they just can't do it. They will sometimes succeed to prevent you to do things but 10 more things will get out of their controls.
On topic, it's not a restrictive of freedom because you just can say : "opt in", "opt out". So no freedom is hurt threre
I am not sure if my writting is understandable so don't flame me
Problem is that you have to "opt in", instead of "opt out".
Why is it a problem ? i don't see the big deal.
In France for exemple when you pay tax, you have "I HAVE A TV" checked by default. You don't have one ? You uncheck.
By default it's : "NO PORN". So uncheck it.
Because suddenly the government has a list of everyone who watches porn, rather than having a list of people who don't want to watch porn.
If it's opt-in to get porn blocked, there will be many that wont opt-in because they are ignorant/lazy so the remainder of the population that hasn't opted-in isn't a definitive list of all the disgusting porn fiends who are out to harm children.
If you have a list of people that don't watch porn. Then you have a list of people that do....
No you don't. You have a list of people who may or may not watch porn but don't have it blacklisted.
Why would anyone specifically opt out of a porn filter if they're not going to watch it?
I mean sure, some people may do it out of principle, but overall the "porn watcher" list will still be pretty reliable.
Whoever doesn't give a damn about it. Like the majority of people. Why would they opt in ?
That's the thing. Nobody opts in - everybody IS in by default. They have to opt out if they don't want to, which you would only do for a specific reason.
I might have understood wrongly the person i was quoting, as far i read, they were speaking about the system would be better if it was a opt in for blacklisting instead of opting out, and the person saying it was irrelevant. That's the point i was discussing about not how it is now right now.
Pretty smart move politically, appeases the moralistic imbeciles and the lazy parents at a stroke. I mean while most people disagree with the principle, good luck mobilising a campaign to 'keep porn'.
I don't like the Conservatives policies at the best of times, but the one thing I generally give them credit for is a respect for personal autonomy and they frequently decry the excesses of the 'nanny state' This is a serious step in the wrong direction and blatant appeasement of the hypocritical tabloid press.
If our culture is over-sexualised, the likes of the Daily Mail are neck-deep in terms of culpability. Disgusting paper
It should be opt-in instead of opt-out. But what am I saying, the government shouldn't be involved in this in the first place. The private sector has already come up with dozens of ways to filter tv and internet for parents or businesses, government regulation is not only unnecessary, but undesirable.
Lets ban things that show drinking, smoking, drugs and violence first Cameron. Because thats more corrupting of our youth than some nipples and vaginas.
making the internet a safer place for children and families.
That implies internet is not a safe place now. Because of porn.
It's beyond stupid.
Was there any politician ever who got the most basic things right? Like, that internet is not a safe place due to scams, troyans, viruses, possible evesdropping from provider and so on and so on? Not because of porn?
On July 24 2013 01:18 Penguinator wrote: This is absurd. how can you ban porn? I actually can not wrap my mind around the fact that in this day and age, a government in a first world country is trying to ban pornography. Even if you could somehow come up with a logical argument as to why it's a good idea - AREN'T THERE MORE IMPORTANT THINGS A GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE DOING?
The argument goes: 1) They are not banning porn, they are simply protecting our children from clearly harmful material. 2) A government can do more than one thing at once. Really this sort of block should technically be fairly simple (at least on a DNS server level) since there are already companies that maintain lists of pornographic websites. It really shouldn't interfere with other government operations unless they implement it in a grossly irresponsible way.
I do agree though that this is a terrible idea and that in no way should we want our government to censor this sort of stuff. Let companies offer such software to concerned parents.
If the government actually wanted to do something beneficial to society they could invest in making parents computer literate so they actually understand how to control their children's internet habits using the various pieces of software that are already out there, actually monitoring what their kids are doing etc.
The sad part is I don't think this would even cost much when you compare it to the loss of tax from severely damaging the porn industry.
Also this all stems from a study that showed that people who viewed child porn online were likely to abuse kids.
Who'd have thought that pedophiles were likely to be pedophiles????
On July 24 2013 01:35 Resilient wrote: Lets ban things that show drinking, smoking, drugs and violence first Cameron. Because thats more corrupting of our youth than some nipples and vaginas.
So you don't care about government swooping in and trying to regulate all personal behavior, you just want it done in the right order.
On July 23 2013 20:36 Foblos wrote: I don't see the problem. I wouldn't want my kids to have the chance to happen across porn when they aren't looking at it, and I've read numerous studies about how porn can sabotage relationships. The PM is indeed protecting families and youth. They aren't "censoring the internet" as some of you have said, because you can opt in to porn. If you want to do something, you shouldn't be ashamed about it and if you are perhaps that is an indication that you should reassess it.
so now it is the governments job to keep relations in tact? and btw... would you like it if you had to ask your government to buy cigarettes? no? they just want to protect you from smoking and if you do it you shouldn't be ashamed of it right? I mean you could do that for a lot of things if you start with it
On July 24 2013 00:42 darkness wrote: Restricting a few porn websites to me is like "I'm going to try to restrict a small part to see if we can restrict the Internet even more in the future". They're just trying to see how people would react now.
Why oh why would you think that ? Governments are not out trying to get you. If they wanted to restricts some things you would never know and they would have done it WAYYYY sooner.
Also for the lulz Check out OP's name. It's just perfect
Considering how PRISM, Tempora (UK), SOPA, ACTA, etc were so recent, anything can be possible from retarded governments.
I don't think calling governement "retarded" is a way. Well... Some are not doing their job really well (or so it seems). But i think those people are really smart and that they are doing thing that we can't see or understand.
We are in an age of freedom, evrything is getting freeer. Of course governements want to try to keep it under control. If evrything is free, this is anarchy
But they just can't do it. They will sometimes succeed to prevent you to do things but 10 more things will get out of their controls.
On topic, it's not a restrictive of freedom because you just can say : "opt in", "opt out". So no freedom is hurt threre
I am not sure if my writting is understandable so don't flame me
Problem is that you have to "opt in", instead of "opt out".
Why is it a problem ? i don't see the big deal.
In France for exemple when you pay tax, you have "I HAVE A TV" checked by default. You don't have one ? You uncheck.
On July 24 2013 00:55 MulletMurdoc wrote: The irony in all this is they are going to be blocking it from the kids most of which are more computer savvy that the people making the policies
there are 12 year olds making their own linux distributions... I doubt they will have much trouble getting past some simple blocks. Plus as soon as one of them figure it out you can be pretty sure he will tweet/facebook/google+ to everyone of his frieds who will just do the same. If anything this ban will be most effective against the older generation
LOL...
So your argument is : "Why making locks harder when people will invent lockpicks" ?
The question is what reason the British government has to put an ineffective but frustrating lock on something as common as dirt to solve a problem that hasn't been well-defined or demonstrated to exist. It depends whether you believe "let's try this and see what happens" is something you should hear from your government or from a stuntman.
This is a common method of political sophistry, where you take an idea everybody feels the same about for good reason, like child abuse, then conflate it with other ideas such that a stupid person in a hurry can't tell the difference. I don't mean that maliciously; the world is a huge place, not everyone has time to hash out and consider every issue that gets put in front of them. Just bear in mind this isn't an honest effort to address issues. It's not about helping children, it's about the PM's career. And hopefully the public response will be negative enough that he doesn't have one anymore.
I think at this point we can move towards restoring the legal rights minors have had to sexuality in the past while still protecting them from abuse. But even if you think (your) kids shouldn't watch porn, the solution is not to let the government block internet search terms at their discretion in a piece of legislation with other stuff attached (like criminalizing "extreme pornography," whoever came up with that line got a raise, why isn't Rambo an extreme film? because the family values elements have already lost the fight against violent media, so the only target now is sexuality).
Well, perhaps he means if they're going to swoop in, at least look at the big offenders first. Ideally you wouldn't have the government involved in most of these things.
Personally I feel if anything was to be banned alcohol would be my first casualty, rather than shitting on smokers and having the likes of cannabis banned.
On July 24 2013 01:35 Resilient wrote: Lets ban things that show drinking, smoking, drugs and violence first Cameron. Because thats more corrupting of our youth than some nipples and vaginas.
So you don't care about government swooping in and trying to regulate all personal behavior, you just want it done in the right order.
I don't think calling governement "retarded" is a way. Well... Some are not doing their job really well (or so it seems). But i think those people are really smart and that they are doing thing that we can't see or understand.
We are in an age of freedom, evrything is getting freeer. Of course governements want to try to keep it under control. If evrything is free, this is anarchy
But they just can't do it. They will sometimes succeed to prevent you to do things but 10 more things will get out of their controls.
On topic, it's not a restrictive of freedom because you just can say : "opt in", "opt out". So no freedom is hurt threre
I am not sure if my writting is understandable so don't flame me
Problem is that you have to "opt in", instead of "opt out".
Why is it a problem ? i don't see the big deal.
In France for exemple when you pay tax, you have "I HAVE A TV" checked by default. You don't have one ? You uncheck.
By default it's : "NO PORN". So uncheck it.
Because suddenly the government has a list of everyone who watches porn, rather than having a list of people who don't want to watch porn.
If it's opt-in to get porn blocked, there will be many that wont opt-in because they are ignorant/lazy so the remainder of the population that hasn't opted-in isn't a definitive list of all the disgusting porn fiends who are out to harm children.
If you have a list of people that don't watch porn. Then you have a list of people that do....
No you don't. You have a list of people who may or may not watch porn but don't have it blacklisted.
Why would anyone specifically opt out of a porn filter if they're not going to watch it?
I mean sure, some people may do it out of principle, but overall the "porn watcher" list will still be pretty reliable.
Whoever doesn't give a damn about it. Like the majority of people. Why would they opt in ?
That's the thing. Nobody opts in - everybody IS in by default. They have to opt out if they don't want to, which you would only do for a specific reason.
I might have understood wrongly the person i was quoting, as far i read, they were speaking about the system would be better if it was a opt in for blacklisting instead of opting out, and the person saying it was irrelevant. That's the point i was discussing about not how it is now right now.
My point was to agree with the guy saying opt-in would be better. That said, reading back through that thread of discussion, I'm not sure I can determine what your point/position on the issue is.
Whatever the case, my point in our discussion is that people who "don't give a damn" are less likely to give a damn about opting out as well, which isolates the people who opt out as those that actually do want porn. The list of people who opted out is a lot more reliable than the list you would have with the opt-in system.
On July 24 2013 01:35 Resilient wrote: Lets ban things that show drinking, smoking, drugs and violence first Cameron. Because thats more corrupting of our youth than some nipples and vaginas.
So you don't care about government swooping in and trying to regulate all personal behavior, you just want it done in the right order.
Scary...
No, I've accepted that Cameron is a fucking idiot who will make dumb changes to exercise his power. That entire comment was sardonic.
On July 24 2013 00:42 darkness wrote: Restricting a few porn websites to me is like "I'm going to try to restrict a small part to see if we can restrict the Internet even more in the future". They're just trying to see how people would react now.
Why oh why would you think that ? Governments are not out trying to get you. If they wanted to restricts some things you would never know and they would have done it WAYYYY sooner.
Also for the lulz Check out OP's name. It's just perfect
Considering how PRISM, Tempora (UK), SOPA, ACTA, etc were so recent, anything can be possible from retarded governments.
I don't think calling governement "retarded" is a way. Well... Some are not doing their job really well (or so it seems). But i think those people are really smart and that they are doing thing that we can't see or understand.
We are in an age of freedom, evrything is getting freeer. Of course governements want to try to keep it under control. If evrything is free, this is anarchy
But they just can't do it. They will sometimes succeed to prevent you to do things but 10 more things will get out of their controls.
On topic, it's not a restrictive of freedom because you just can say : "opt in", "opt out". So no freedom is hurt threre
I am not sure if my writting is understandable so don't flame me
Problem is that you have to "opt in", instead of "opt out".
Why is it a problem ? i don't see the big deal.
In France for exemple when you pay tax, you have "I HAVE A TV" checked by default. You don't have one ? You uncheck.
By default it's : "NO PORN". So uncheck it.
On July 24 2013 00:55 MulletMurdoc wrote: The irony in all this is they are going to be blocking it from the kids most of which are more computer savvy that the people making the policies
there are 12 year olds making their own linux distributions... I doubt they will have much trouble getting past some simple blocks. Plus as soon as one of them figure it out you can be pretty sure he will tweet/facebook/google+ to everyone of his frieds who will just do the same. If anything this ban will be most effective against the older generation
LOL...
So your argument is : "Why making locks harder when people will invent lockpicks" ?
The question is what reason the British government has to put an ineffective but frustrating lock on something as common as dirt to solve a problem that hasn't been well-defined or demonstrated to exist. It depends whether you believe "let's try this and see what happens" is something you should hear from your government or from a stuntman.
This is a common method of political sophistry, where you take an idea everybody feels the same about for good reason, like child abuse, then conflate it with other ideas such that a stupid person in a hurry can't tell the difference. I don't mean that maliciously; the world is a huge place, not everyone has time to hash out and consider every issue that gets put in front of them. Just bear in mind this isn't an honest effort to address issues. It's not about helping children, it's about the PM's career. And hopefully the public response will be negative enough that he doesn't have one anymore.
I think at this point we can move towards restoring the legal rights minors have had to sexuality in the past while still protecting them from abuse. But even if you think (your) kids shouldn't watch porn, the solution is not to let the government block internet search terms at their discretion in a piece of legislation with other stuff attached (like criminalizing "extreme pornography," whoever came up with that line got a raise, why isn't Rambo an extreme film? because the family values elements have already lost the fight against violent media, so the only target now is sexuality).
Good points. The media culture in this country has many problems imo, and they have put forward pornography as a smokescreen to avoid their own culpability being properly to task. Takes massive balls to pull that kind of thing off with a serious face, especially with the whole hacking scandal and the fallout appearing not to have altered the media's output one iota.
Incidentally, I feel a side-effect of this is potentially that less child abuse will be prevented, potentially. In terms of preventing potential abuse prior to it occurring with a real person, largely the only way that occurs is via paedophiles slipping up and getting caught accessing child pornography.
If there are all sorts of filters etc that prevent accessing and downloading such material, can people be prosecuted prior to carrying out offences vs real breathing people?
On July 24 2013 00:55 Grovbolle wrote: [quote] Problem is that you have to "opt in", instead of "opt out".
Why is it a problem ? i don't see the big deal.
In France for exemple when you pay tax, you have "I HAVE A TV" checked by default. You don't have one ? You uncheck.
By default it's : "NO PORN". So uncheck it.
Because suddenly the government has a list of everyone who watches porn, rather than having a list of people who don't want to watch porn.
If it's opt-in to get porn blocked, there will be many that wont opt-in because they are ignorant/lazy so the remainder of the population that hasn't opted-in isn't a definitive list of all the disgusting porn fiends who are out to harm children.
If you have a list of people that don't watch porn. Then you have a list of people that do....
No you don't. You have a list of people who may or may not watch porn but don't have it blacklisted.
Why would anyone specifically opt out of a porn filter if they're not going to watch it?
I mean sure, some people may do it out of principle, but overall the "porn watcher" list will still be pretty reliable.
Whoever doesn't give a damn about it. Like the majority of people. Why would they opt in ?
That's the thing. Nobody opts in - everybody IS in by default. They have to opt out if they don't want to, which you would only do for a specific reason.
I might have understood wrongly the person i was quoting, as far i read, they were speaking about the system would be better if it was a opt in for blacklisting instead of opting out, and the person saying it was irrelevant. That's the point i was discussing about not how it is now right now.
My point was to agree with the guy saying opt-in would be better. That said, reading back through that thread of discussion, I'm not sure I can determine what your point/position on the issue is.
Whatever the case, my point in our discussion is that people who "don't give a damn" are less likely to give a damn about opting out as well, which isolates the people who opt out as those that actually do want porn. The list of people who opted out is a lot more reliable than the list you would have with the opt-in system.
Opt-in is for the most part just a generally better way of going about things like this.
Those with a major issue with porn or whatever are probably massively outnumbered by those who don't care or are active consumers of it. Cuts down administrative costs as well
On July 24 2013 00:55 Grovbolle wrote: [quote] Problem is that you have to "opt in", instead of "opt out".
Why is it a problem ? i don't see the big deal.
In France for exemple when you pay tax, you have "I HAVE A TV" checked by default. You don't have one ? You uncheck.
By default it's : "NO PORN". So uncheck it.
Because suddenly the government has a list of everyone who watches porn, rather than having a list of people who don't want to watch porn.
If it's opt-in to get porn blocked, there will be many that wont opt-in because they are ignorant/lazy so the remainder of the population that hasn't opted-in isn't a definitive list of all the disgusting porn fiends who are out to harm children.
If you have a list of people that don't watch porn. Then you have a list of people that do....
No you don't. You have a list of people who may or may not watch porn but don't have it blacklisted.
Why would anyone specifically opt out of a porn filter if they're not going to watch it?
I mean sure, some people may do it out of principle, but overall the "porn watcher" list will still be pretty reliable.
Whoever doesn't give a damn about it. Like the majority of people. Why would they opt in ?
That's the thing. Nobody opts in - everybody IS in by default. They have to opt out if they don't want to, which you would only do for a specific reason.
I might have understood wrongly the person i was quoting, as far i read, they were speaking about the system would be better if it was a opt in for blacklisting instead of opting out, and the person saying it was irrelevant. That's the point i was discussing about not how it is now right now.
My point was to agree with the guy saying opt-in would be better. That said, reading back through that thread of discussion, I'm not sure I can determine what your point/position on the issue is. The list of people who opted out is a lot more reliable than the list you would have with the opt-in system.
Yep with the language barrier I screwed myself i think. This is basically what i am trying to say. (as opt in).
In France for exemple when you pay tax, you have "I HAVE A TV" checked by default. You don't have one ? You uncheck.
By default it's : "NO PORN". So uncheck it.
Because suddenly the government has a list of everyone who watches porn, rather than having a list of people who don't want to watch porn.
If it's opt-in to get porn blocked, there will be many that wont opt-in because they are ignorant/lazy so the remainder of the population that hasn't opted-in isn't a definitive list of all the disgusting porn fiends who are out to harm children.
If you have a list of people that don't watch porn. Then you have a list of people that do....
No you don't. You have a list of people who may or may not watch porn but don't have it blacklisted.
Why would anyone specifically opt out of a porn filter if they're not going to watch it?
I mean sure, some people may do it out of principle, but overall the "porn watcher" list will still be pretty reliable.
Whoever doesn't give a damn about it. Like the majority of people. Why would they opt in ?
That's the thing. Nobody opts in - everybody IS in by default. They have to opt out if they don't want to, which you would only do for a specific reason.
I might have understood wrongly the person i was quoting, as far i read, they were speaking about the system would be better if it was a opt in for blacklisting instead of opting out, and the person saying it was irrelevant. That's the point i was discussing about not how it is now right now.
My point was to agree with the guy saying opt-in would be better. That said, reading back through that thread of discussion, I'm not sure I can determine what your point/position on the issue is.
Whatever the case, my point in our discussion is that people who "don't give a damn" are less likely to give a damn about opting out as well, which isolates the people who opt out as those that actually do want porn. The list of people who opted out is a lot more reliable than the list you would have with the opt-in system.
Opt-in is for the most part just a generally better way of going about things like this.
Those with a major issue with porn or whatever are probably massively outnumbered by those who don't care or are active consumers of it. Cuts down administrative costs as well
But then you get a list of porn haters. Shaming those that dislike porn.
The same points holds for the opposite view. I don't see the point to an opt in/out thing at all. Either it is forbidden by general acclaim or there is no point to having it since it just costs money.
edit,
My personal opinion is that it is another case of politicians trying what is popular with what demographics. If the right ones like it they will go through with it since it scores points.
Good thing parents now have not to worry about ze internetz and all its evil stuff because the government protects you.
If parents let their childs surf without checking it, there will be porn. there will be snuff. there are really nasty things out there! It's not up to the government to protect the children. It's up to the parents! And if they don't have a clue about the technology their kids are using then how can they teach them to use it with care and in the right way?
I would ask them to exclude me from their stupid blockade. They are welcome to do it though, it's just pretty pointless and just another step into total surveillance
Because suddenly the government has a list of everyone who watches porn, rather than having a list of people who don't want to watch porn.
If it's opt-in to get porn blocked, there will be many that wont opt-in because they are ignorant/lazy so the remainder of the population that hasn't opted-in isn't a definitive list of all the disgusting porn fiends who are out to harm children.
If you have a list of people that don't watch porn. Then you have a list of people that do....
No you don't. You have a list of people who may or may not watch porn but don't have it blacklisted.
Why would anyone specifically opt out of a porn filter if they're not going to watch it?
I mean sure, some people may do it out of principle, but overall the "porn watcher" list will still be pretty reliable.
Whoever doesn't give a damn about it. Like the majority of people. Why would they opt in ?
That's the thing. Nobody opts in - everybody IS in by default. They have to opt out if they don't want to, which you would only do for a specific reason.
I might have understood wrongly the person i was quoting, as far i read, they were speaking about the system would be better if it was a opt in for blacklisting instead of opting out, and the person saying it was irrelevant. That's the point i was discussing about not how it is now right now.
My point was to agree with the guy saying opt-in would be better. That said, reading back through that thread of discussion, I'm not sure I can determine what your point/position on the issue is.
Whatever the case, my point in our discussion is that people who "don't give a damn" are less likely to give a damn about opting out as well, which isolates the people who opt out as those that actually do want porn. The list of people who opted out is a lot more reliable than the list you would have with the opt-in system.
Opt-in is for the most part just a generally better way of going about things like this.
Those with a major issue with porn or whatever are probably massively outnumbered by those who don't care or are active consumers of it. Cuts down administrative costs as well
But then you get a list of porn haters. Shaming those that dislike porn.
The same points holds for the opposite view. I don't see the point to an opt in/out thing at all. Either it is forbidden by general acclaim or there is no point to having it since it just costs money.
edit,
My personal opinion is that it is another case of politicians trying what is popular with what demographics. If the right ones like it they will go through with it since it scores points.
The difference is that porn is being scapegoated as being damaging to kids, no one makes a big deal out of not liking porn.
Because suddenly the government has a list of everyone who watches porn, rather than having a list of people who don't want to watch porn.
If it's opt-in to get porn blocked, there will be many that wont opt-in because they are ignorant/lazy so the remainder of the population that hasn't opted-in isn't a definitive list of all the disgusting porn fiends who are out to harm children.
If you have a list of people that don't watch porn. Then you have a list of people that do....
No you don't. You have a list of people who may or may not watch porn but don't have it blacklisted.
Why would anyone specifically opt out of a porn filter if they're not going to watch it?
I mean sure, some people may do it out of principle, but overall the "porn watcher" list will still be pretty reliable.
Whoever doesn't give a damn about it. Like the majority of people. Why would they opt in ?
That's the thing. Nobody opts in - everybody IS in by default. They have to opt out if they don't want to, which you would only do for a specific reason.
I might have understood wrongly the person i was quoting, as far i read, they were speaking about the system would be better if it was a opt in for blacklisting instead of opting out, and the person saying it was irrelevant. That's the point i was discussing about not how it is now right now.
My point was to agree with the guy saying opt-in would be better. That said, reading back through that thread of discussion, I'm not sure I can determine what your point/position on the issue is.
Whatever the case, my point in our discussion is that people who "don't give a damn" are less likely to give a damn about opting out as well, which isolates the people who opt out as those that actually do want porn. The list of people who opted out is a lot more reliable than the list you would have with the opt-in system.
Opt-in is for the most part just a generally better way of going about things like this.
Those with a major issue with porn or whatever are probably massively outnumbered by those who don't care or are active consumers of it. Cuts down administrative costs as well
But then you get a list of porn haters. Shaming those that dislike porn.
The same points holds for the opposite view. I don't see the point to an opt in/out thing at all. Either it is forbidden by general acclaim or there is no point to having it since it just costs money.
edit,
My personal opinion is that it is another case of politicians trying what is popular with what demographics. If the right ones like it they will go through with it since it scores points.
Where is the shame of blocking porn specially for parents ?
Government economic subsidies make it easier for fathers to not be fathers. Government bans and legislating morality make it easier for mothers not to be mothers. It should not be seen as a coincidence that illegitimacy and the breakdown of the family have been steadily rising during this period. The government is slowly but surely replacing the role of the parents and the nuclear family, just as Marx desired and predicted.
If you have a list of people that don't watch porn. Then you have a list of people that do....
No you don't. You have a list of people who may or may not watch porn but don't have it blacklisted.
Why would anyone specifically opt out of a porn filter if they're not going to watch it?
I mean sure, some people may do it out of principle, but overall the "porn watcher" list will still be pretty reliable.
Whoever doesn't give a damn about it. Like the majority of people. Why would they opt in ?
That's the thing. Nobody opts in - everybody IS in by default. They have to opt out if they don't want to, which you would only do for a specific reason.
I might have understood wrongly the person i was quoting, as far i read, they were speaking about the system would be better if it was a opt in for blacklisting instead of opting out, and the person saying it was irrelevant. That's the point i was discussing about not how it is now right now.
My point was to agree with the guy saying opt-in would be better. That said, reading back through that thread of discussion, I'm not sure I can determine what your point/position on the issue is.
Whatever the case, my point in our discussion is that people who "don't give a damn" are less likely to give a damn about opting out as well, which isolates the people who opt out as those that actually do want porn. The list of people who opted out is a lot more reliable than the list you would have with the opt-in system.
Opt-in is for the most part just a generally better way of going about things like this.
Those with a major issue with porn or whatever are probably massively outnumbered by those who don't care or are active consumers of it. Cuts down administrative costs as well
But then you get a list of porn haters. Shaming those that dislike porn.
The same points holds for the opposite view. I don't see the point to an opt in/out thing at all. Either it is forbidden by general acclaim or there is no point to having it since it just costs money.
edit,
My personal opinion is that it is another case of politicians trying what is popular with what demographics. If the right ones like it they will go through with it since it scores points.
Where is the shame of blocking porn specially for parents ?
I would look askance to anybody opting in to a block. I would still talk to them but come into a conversation with a negative initial impression. I am probably biased but I honestly would count it against them.
So what I've been thinking is, is Cameron & co that stupid? There are better local tools that can restrict porn material. Windows has parental ctrl tools, if that's insufficient, configure your firewall or w/e. Not that hard, right? All parents need is a firewall. So yes, f?ck you Cameron.
sometimes I think that censorship is a bad idea, but then I remember the days when I was on the internet as a kid around 11 years old and all the great things it provided me at the time. playing d2 and wc3 and browsing the web; I wouldn't ever not let a kid experience something like that because there's porn on the internet, but I do think there is proper time and placement for censorship.
for example: walking into a stag shop with I.D vs. verifying your age at an online website
further, and to conflict; walking past a censored sex toy store vs. scrolling down a webpage with half-naked anime characters telling you to play their game
there's gotta be a limit to some of the crap that finds its way to your browsers and websites. And when kids are brought up being around the internet all the time you have to understand that they will be exposed to all sorts of sexualizations of different objects and symbols from the content that's provided to it. I think censorship should be provided by the service provider as a means to crack down on internet porn.
I really think this is all show, no tell. I don't think he is actually going to go through with this or force to ISP to go through with these measures. Blocking porn? How is he going to do that exactly, one can go to youtube and watch something considered "adult." No one has to go to pornhub to get their porn fix lol.
On July 24 2013 02:49 Superouman wrote: Didn't the porn lobby do anything to stop this? It's not as if tobacco and alcohol lobbies would be fine to let their drugs be banned.
I have never heard of porn lobby. Does it even exist?
I don't think this responsibility should fall on a government, but I do think it's ultimately a good idea. I know if I were a parent I wouldn't want my kids to have such incredibly easy access to porn over the internet. The effects of getting hooked on porn when very young are almost certainly very negative.
I also think if this succeeds it will open the door for even more government censorship, whether public or secret. This is the main reason I think it shouldn't be left to a government to implement something like this.
No you don't. You have a list of people who may or may not watch porn but don't have it blacklisted.
Why would anyone specifically opt out of a porn filter if they're not going to watch it?
I mean sure, some people may do it out of principle, but overall the "porn watcher" list will still be pretty reliable.
Whoever doesn't give a damn about it. Like the majority of people. Why would they opt in ?
That's the thing. Nobody opts in - everybody IS in by default. They have to opt out if they don't want to, which you would only do for a specific reason.
I might have understood wrongly the person i was quoting, as far i read, they were speaking about the system would be better if it was a opt in for blacklisting instead of opting out, and the person saying it was irrelevant. That's the point i was discussing about not how it is now right now.
My point was to agree with the guy saying opt-in would be better. That said, reading back through that thread of discussion, I'm not sure I can determine what your point/position on the issue is.
Whatever the case, my point in our discussion is that people who "don't give a damn" are less likely to give a damn about opting out as well, which isolates the people who opt out as those that actually do want porn. The list of people who opted out is a lot more reliable than the list you would have with the opt-in system.
Opt-in is for the most part just a generally better way of going about things like this.
Those with a major issue with porn or whatever are probably massively outnumbered by those who don't care or are active consumers of it. Cuts down administrative costs as well
But then you get a list of porn haters. Shaming those that dislike porn.
The same points holds for the opposite view. I don't see the point to an opt in/out thing at all. Either it is forbidden by general acclaim or there is no point to having it since it just costs money.
edit,
My personal opinion is that it is another case of politicians trying what is popular with what demographics. If the right ones like it they will go through with it since it scores points.
Where is the shame of blocking porn specially for parents ?
I would look askance to anybody opting in to a block. I would still talk to them but come into a conversation with a negative initial impression. I am probably biased but I honestly would count it against them.
That's like holding it against someone if they put a password on the adult TV channels so that their six year-old doesn't flick by them...
The effects of getting hooked on porn when very young are almost certainly very negative.
Is there any real data on this? It's not like porn is cocaine, or that young kids (pre-pubescent) even care about porn.
On July 24 2013 02:55 AnomalySC2 wrote: I don't think this responsibility should fall on a government, but I do think it's ultimately a good idea. I know if I were a parent I wouldn't want my kids to have such incredibly easy access to porn over the internet. The effects of getting hooked on porn when very young are almost certainly very negative.
I also think if this succeeds it will open the door for even more government censorship, whether public or secret. This is the main reason I think it shouldn't be left to a government to implement something like this.
Teaching your children right from wrong is 99% of the battle.
Why would anyone specifically opt out of a porn filter if they're not going to watch it?
I mean sure, some people may do it out of principle, but overall the "porn watcher" list will still be pretty reliable.
Whoever doesn't give a damn about it. Like the majority of people. Why would they opt in ?
That's the thing. Nobody opts in - everybody IS in by default. They have to opt out if they don't want to, which you would only do for a specific reason.
I might have understood wrongly the person i was quoting, as far i read, they were speaking about the system would be better if it was a opt in for blacklisting instead of opting out, and the person saying it was irrelevant. That's the point i was discussing about not how it is now right now.
My point was to agree with the guy saying opt-in would be better. That said, reading back through that thread of discussion, I'm not sure I can determine what your point/position on the issue is.
Whatever the case, my point in our discussion is that people who "don't give a damn" are less likely to give a damn about opting out as well, which isolates the people who opt out as those that actually do want porn. The list of people who opted out is a lot more reliable than the list you would have with the opt-in system.
Opt-in is for the most part just a generally better way of going about things like this.
Those with a major issue with porn or whatever are probably massively outnumbered by those who don't care or are active consumers of it. Cuts down administrative costs as well
But then you get a list of porn haters. Shaming those that dislike porn.
The same points holds for the opposite view. I don't see the point to an opt in/out thing at all. Either it is forbidden by general acclaim or there is no point to having it since it just costs money.
edit,
My personal opinion is that it is another case of politicians trying what is popular with what demographics. If the right ones like it they will go through with it since it scores points.
Where is the shame of blocking porn specially for parents ?
I would look askance to anybody opting in to a block. I would still talk to them but come into a conversation with a negative initial impression. I am probably biased but I honestly would count it against them.
That's like holding it against someone if they put a password on the adult TV channels so that their six year-old doesn't flick by them...
On July 24 2013 02:44 Cheerio wrote: can't you opt out from porn already?
Yes, most ISP's have the option although most people were unaware of its existence. The difference is that the default for "porn censorship" will now be on instead of off.
So practically it doesn't change much unless you're 12-16 and you don't want to ask your parents for permission to watch porn. But it does raise some discussion about the government meddling with its populace for no real reason.
On July 24 2013 02:55 AnomalySC2 wrote: I don't think this responsibility should fall on a government, but I do think it's ultimately a good idea. I know if I were a parent I wouldn't want my kids to have such incredibly easy access to porn over the internet. The effects of getting hooked on porn when very young are almost certainly very negative.
I also think if this succeeds it will open the door for even more government censorship, whether public or secret. This is the main reason I think it shouldn't be left to a government to implement something like this.
As a parent there are plenty of tools to stop your children to have access from porn, no tools were added or removed by this action. It's just redundant.
On July 24 2013 02:55 AnomalySC2 wrote: I don't think this responsibility should fall on a government, but I do think it's ultimately a good idea. I know if I were a parent I wouldn't want my kids to have such incredibly easy access to porn over the internet. The effects of getting hooked on porn when very young are almost certainly very negative.
I also think if this succeeds it will open the door for even more government censorship, whether public or secret. This is the main reason I think it shouldn't be left to a government to implement something like this.
Teaching your children right from wrong is 99% of the battle.
And some things boys/young men will want to get into no matter what, if you know what I mean by that.
On July 24 2013 02:44 Cheerio wrote: can't you opt out from porn already?
Yes, most ISP's have the option although most people were unaware of its existence. The difference is that the default for "porn censorship" will now be on instead of off.
So practically it doesn't change much unless you're 12-16 and you don't want to ask your parents for permission to watch porn. But it does raise some discussion about the government meddling with its populace for no real reason.
On July 24 2013 02:55 AnomalySC2 wrote: I don't think this responsibility should fall on a government, but I do think it's ultimately a good idea. I know if I were a parent I wouldn't want my kids to have such incredibly easy access to porn over the internet. The effects of getting hooked on porn when very young are almost certainly very negative.
I also think if this succeeds it will open the door for even more government censorship, whether public or secret. This is the main reason I think it shouldn't be left to a government to implement something like this.
As a parent there are plenty of tools to stop your children to have access from porn, no tools were added or removed by this action. It's just redundant.
I didn't know that, maybe they should just increase awareness about it then.
On July 24 2013 02:55 AnomalySC2 wrote: I don't think this responsibility should fall on a government, but I do think it's ultimately a good idea. I know if I were a parent I wouldn't want my kids to have such incredibly easy access to porn over the internet. The effects of getting hooked on porn when very young are almost certainly very negative.
I also think if this succeeds it will open the door for even more government censorship, whether public or secret. This is the main reason I think it shouldn't be left to a government to implement something like this.
Teaching your children right from wrong is 99% of the battle.
And some things boys/young men will want to get into no matter what, if you know what I mean by that.
Really I think if parents are more open about sex and porn the topic wouldn't be such a huge taboo that lead to a lot of porn addiction + early erectile dysfunction.
Why would anyone specifically opt out of a porn filter if they're not going to watch it?
I mean sure, some people may do it out of principle, but overall the "porn watcher" list will still be pretty reliable.
Whoever doesn't give a damn about it. Like the majority of people. Why would they opt in ?
That's the thing. Nobody opts in - everybody IS in by default. They have to opt out if they don't want to, which you would only do for a specific reason.
I might have understood wrongly the person i was quoting, as far i read, they were speaking about the system would be better if it was a opt in for blacklisting instead of opting out, and the person saying it was irrelevant. That's the point i was discussing about not how it is now right now.
My point was to agree with the guy saying opt-in would be better. That said, reading back through that thread of discussion, I'm not sure I can determine what your point/position on the issue is.
Whatever the case, my point in our discussion is that people who "don't give a damn" are less likely to give a damn about opting out as well, which isolates the people who opt out as those that actually do want porn. The list of people who opted out is a lot more reliable than the list you would have with the opt-in system.
Opt-in is for the most part just a generally better way of going about things like this.
Those with a major issue with porn or whatever are probably massively outnumbered by those who don't care or are active consumers of it. Cuts down administrative costs as well
But then you get a list of porn haters. Shaming those that dislike porn.
The same points holds for the opposite view. I don't see the point to an opt in/out thing at all. Either it is forbidden by general acclaim or there is no point to having it since it just costs money.
edit,
My personal opinion is that it is another case of politicians trying what is popular with what demographics. If the right ones like it they will go through with it since it scores points.
Where is the shame of blocking porn specially for parents ?
I would look askance to anybody opting in to a block. I would still talk to them but come into a conversation with a negative initial impression. I am probably biased but I honestly would count it against them.
That's like holding it against someone if they put a password on the adult TV channels so that their six year-old doesn't flick by them...
The effects of getting hooked on porn when very young are almost certainly very negative.
Is there any real data on this? It's not like porn is cocaine, or that young kids (pre-pubescent) even care about porn.
There are a lot of reports of bdsm porn having a negative effect on some youth relationships and that it is warping the expectations of some teens. There are no studies at this point, but experts have said it that kids between ages 13-16 are very impressionable during that time. With Iphones, it has created ways for them to have unrestricted access and the parental controls on all smart phones are very limited.
These were radio reports on local public radio, so I don't have links, sadly.
Whoever doesn't give a damn about it. Like the majority of people. Why would they opt in ?
That's the thing. Nobody opts in - everybody IS in by default. They have to opt out if they don't want to, which you would only do for a specific reason.
I might have understood wrongly the person i was quoting, as far i read, they were speaking about the system would be better if it was a opt in for blacklisting instead of opting out, and the person saying it was irrelevant. That's the point i was discussing about not how it is now right now.
My point was to agree with the guy saying opt-in would be better. That said, reading back through that thread of discussion, I'm not sure I can determine what your point/position on the issue is.
Whatever the case, my point in our discussion is that people who "don't give a damn" are less likely to give a damn about opting out as well, which isolates the people who opt out as those that actually do want porn. The list of people who opted out is a lot more reliable than the list you would have with the opt-in system.
Opt-in is for the most part just a generally better way of going about things like this.
Those with a major issue with porn or whatever are probably massively outnumbered by those who don't care or are active consumers of it. Cuts down administrative costs as well
But then you get a list of porn haters. Shaming those that dislike porn.
The same points holds for the opposite view. I don't see the point to an opt in/out thing at all. Either it is forbidden by general acclaim or there is no point to having it since it just costs money.
edit,
My personal opinion is that it is another case of politicians trying what is popular with what demographics. If the right ones like it they will go through with it since it scores points.
Where is the shame of blocking porn specially for parents ?
I would look askance to anybody opting in to a block. I would still talk to them but come into a conversation with a negative initial impression. I am probably biased but I honestly would count it against them.
That's like holding it against someone if they put a password on the adult TV channels so that their six year-old doesn't flick by them...
The effects of getting hooked on porn when very young are almost certainly very negative.
Is there any real data on this? It's not like porn is cocaine, or that young kids (pre-pubescent) even care about porn.
There are a lot of reports of bdsm porn having a negative effect on some youth relationships and that it is warping the expectations of some teens. There are no studies at this point, but experts have said it that kids between ages 13-16 are very impressionable during that time. With Iphones, it has created ways for them to have unrestricted access and the parental controls on all smart phones are very limited.
These were radio reports on local public radio, so I don't have links, sadly.
Yeah. Adults know there's a huge difference between porn and real sex. If you've never had sex before and you don't understand that porn stars really are actors, I can see a teenager expecting things from sex that just don't happen.
Hell, when I first started having sex it was kinda a shock at how different it was than porn. But I managed to survive without abusing or murdering anyone and I'm not scarred so I don't think there's really a reason to be worried.
"Do not take the little bit that I enjoy away from me!"
Did the ancient Romans argue in the same way after Honrius banned the gladiator games? I think so.
In my opinion, the unleashed pop culture, including the violence in the media, the unlimited access to pornography is a serious problem. The internet is not that old that we can really measure how it afflicts kids, we can only tell that in a certain age, kids should not watch that bullshit the mainstream industry produces for us in masses, for the masses. Panem et circenses. When I was young we watched some movies that were not for our age, ok, but we did not have unlimited access to it.
This is a general problem. Enough people are not willing to limit themselves, even if it harms other people.
Also, you cannot say it is the parents' problem. People are different, you cannot expect from all parents to do the same. It is a shame if one approaches kids that have "bad parents" which such apathy.
It is just porn. It is not politics, not The Capital by Marx or the Holy Bible, or the Satanic Verses that are banned, or anything else. Do not compare this to China.
And yeah, I approve. I also like the parental filter in SC2.
That's the thing. Nobody opts in - everybody IS in by default. They have to opt out if they don't want to, which you would only do for a specific reason.
I might have understood wrongly the person i was quoting, as far i read, they were speaking about the system would be better if it was a opt in for blacklisting instead of opting out, and the person saying it was irrelevant. That's the point i was discussing about not how it is now right now.
My point was to agree with the guy saying opt-in would be better. That said, reading back through that thread of discussion, I'm not sure I can determine what your point/position on the issue is.
Whatever the case, my point in our discussion is that people who "don't give a damn" are less likely to give a damn about opting out as well, which isolates the people who opt out as those that actually do want porn. The list of people who opted out is a lot more reliable than the list you would have with the opt-in system.
Opt-in is for the most part just a generally better way of going about things like this.
Those with a major issue with porn or whatever are probably massively outnumbered by those who don't care or are active consumers of it. Cuts down administrative costs as well
But then you get a list of porn haters. Shaming those that dislike porn.
The same points holds for the opposite view. I don't see the point to an opt in/out thing at all. Either it is forbidden by general acclaim or there is no point to having it since it just costs money.
edit,
My personal opinion is that it is another case of politicians trying what is popular with what demographics. If the right ones like it they will go through with it since it scores points.
Where is the shame of blocking porn specially for parents ?
I would look askance to anybody opting in to a block. I would still talk to them but come into a conversation with a negative initial impression. I am probably biased but I honestly would count it against them.
That's like holding it against someone if they put a password on the adult TV channels so that their six year-old doesn't flick by them...
The effects of getting hooked on porn when very young are almost certainly very negative.
Is there any real data on this? It's not like porn is cocaine, or that young kids (pre-pubescent) even care about porn.
There are a lot of reports of bdsm porn having a negative effect on some youth relationships and that it is warping the expectations of some teens. There are no studies at this point, but experts have said it that kids between ages 13-16 are very impressionable during that time. With Iphones, it has created ways for them to have unrestricted access and the parental controls on all smart phones are very limited.
These were radio reports on local public radio, so I don't have links, sadly.
Yeah. Adults know there's a huge difference between porn and real sex. If you've never had sex before and you don't understand that porn stars really are actors, I can see a teenager expecting things from sex that just don't happen.
Hell, when I first started having sex it was kinda a shock at how different it was than porn. But I managed to survive without abusing or murdering anyone and I'm not scarred so I don't think there's really a reason to be worried.
Stil the lack of parental controls on smartphones and the fact that you have to block sites on a machine by machine basis is a bit silly. There should be a router or ISP level blocking service for parents. If the goverment wants to make a law to assure they have the option, I'm ok with that.
To be clear, with an opt in system, rather than opt out.
On July 24 2013 01:33 Godwrath wrote: [quote] I might have understood wrongly the person i was quoting, as far i read, they were speaking about the system would be better if it was a opt in for blacklisting instead of opting out, and the person saying it was irrelevant. That's the point i was discussing about not how it is now right now.
My point was to agree with the guy saying opt-in would be better. That said, reading back through that thread of discussion, I'm not sure I can determine what your point/position on the issue is.
Whatever the case, my point in our discussion is that people who "don't give a damn" are less likely to give a damn about opting out as well, which isolates the people who opt out as those that actually do want porn. The list of people who opted out is a lot more reliable than the list you would have with the opt-in system.
Opt-in is for the most part just a generally better way of going about things like this.
Those with a major issue with porn or whatever are probably massively outnumbered by those who don't care or are active consumers of it. Cuts down administrative costs as well
But then you get a list of porn haters. Shaming those that dislike porn.
The same points holds for the opposite view. I don't see the point to an opt in/out thing at all. Either it is forbidden by general acclaim or there is no point to having it since it just costs money.
edit,
My personal opinion is that it is another case of politicians trying what is popular with what demographics. If the right ones like it they will go through with it since it scores points.
Where is the shame of blocking porn specially for parents ?
I would look askance to anybody opting in to a block. I would still talk to them but come into a conversation with a negative initial impression. I am probably biased but I honestly would count it against them.
That's like holding it against someone if they put a password on the adult TV channels so that their six year-old doesn't flick by them...
The effects of getting hooked on porn when very young are almost certainly very negative.
Is there any real data on this? It's not like porn is cocaine, or that young kids (pre-pubescent) even care about porn.
There are a lot of reports of bdsm porn having a negative effect on some youth relationships and that it is warping the expectations of some teens. There are no studies at this point, but experts have said it that kids between ages 13-16 are very impressionable during that time. With Iphones, it has created ways for them to have unrestricted access and the parental controls on all smart phones are very limited.
These were radio reports on local public radio, so I don't have links, sadly.
Yeah. Adults know there's a huge difference between porn and real sex. If you've never had sex before and you don't understand that porn stars really are actors, I can see a teenager expecting things from sex that just don't happen.
Hell, when I first started having sex it was kinda a shock at how different it was than porn. But I managed to survive without abusing or murdering anyone and I'm not scarred so I don't think there's really a reason to be worried.
Stil the lack of parental controls on smartphones and the fact that you have to block sites on a machine by machine basis is a bit silly. There should be a router or ISP level blocking service for parents. If the goverment wants to make a law to assure they have the option, I'm ok with that.
To be clear, with an opt in system, rather than opt out.
This exists for most ISPs, all the government did was change it from opt out to opt in. The option itself however was (is) very obscure.
Used the internet hours almost every day since I was 11. I was never exposed to anything terrible...
I know things have changed a lot in the last 10 years, but I can't see how this would help except for stopping kids in class opening up porn on a school computer and showing it to all his friends. Which would be unlikely to happen in any school with a decent IT technician who should block all kinds of bad websites.
On July 24 2013 01:33 Godwrath wrote: [quote] I might have understood wrongly the person i was quoting, as far i read, they were speaking about the system would be better if it was a opt in for blacklisting instead of opting out, and the person saying it was irrelevant. That's the point i was discussing about not how it is now right now.
My point was to agree with the guy saying opt-in would be better. That said, reading back through that thread of discussion, I'm not sure I can determine what your point/position on the issue is.
Whatever the case, my point in our discussion is that people who "don't give a damn" are less likely to give a damn about opting out as well, which isolates the people who opt out as those that actually do want porn. The list of people who opted out is a lot more reliable than the list you would have with the opt-in system.
Opt-in is for the most part just a generally better way of going about things like this.
Those with a major issue with porn or whatever are probably massively outnumbered by those who don't care or are active consumers of it. Cuts down administrative costs as well
But then you get a list of porn haters. Shaming those that dislike porn.
The same points holds for the opposite view. I don't see the point to an opt in/out thing at all. Either it is forbidden by general acclaim or there is no point to having it since it just costs money.
edit,
My personal opinion is that it is another case of politicians trying what is popular with what demographics. If the right ones like it they will go through with it since it scores points.
Where is the shame of blocking porn specially for parents ?
I would look askance to anybody opting in to a block. I would still talk to them but come into a conversation with a negative initial impression. I am probably biased but I honestly would count it against them.
That's like holding it against someone if they put a password on the adult TV channels so that their six year-old doesn't flick by them...
The effects of getting hooked on porn when very young are almost certainly very negative.
Is there any real data on this? It's not like porn is cocaine, or that young kids (pre-pubescent) even care about porn.
There are a lot of reports of bdsm porn having a negative effect on some youth relationships and that it is warping the expectations of some teens. There are no studies at this point, but experts have said it that kids between ages 13-16 are very impressionable during that time. With Iphones, it has created ways for them to have unrestricted access and the parental controls on all smart phones are very limited.
These were radio reports on local public radio, so I don't have links, sadly.
Yeah. Adults know there's a huge difference between porn and real sex. If you've never had sex before and you don't understand that porn stars really are actors, I can see a teenager expecting things from sex that just don't happen.
Hell, when I first started having sex it was kinda a shock at how different it was than porn. But I managed to survive without abusing or murdering anyone and I'm not scarred so I don't think there's really a reason to be worried.
Stil the lack of parental controls on smartphones and the fact that you have to block sites on a machine by machine basis is a bit silly. There should be a router or ISP level blocking service for parents. If the goverment wants to make a law to assure they have the option, I'm ok with that.
To be clear, with an opt in system, rather than opt out.
You can block stuff at the router level. That's what schools do. And when you're talking about the average home...how many computers are there? One or two? Is a machine by machine basis that hard?
And I know all parents are different and all kids are different, but if you're kid is old enough to have their own computer (and smartphones are computers now) complete with internet access...then I think their old enough to look at porn. If parents haven't given them proper sex ed by that time, that's a problem.
My point was to agree with the guy saying opt-in would be better. That said, reading back through that thread of discussion, I'm not sure I can determine what your point/position on the issue is.
Whatever the case, my point in our discussion is that people who "don't give a damn" are less likely to give a damn about opting out as well, which isolates the people who opt out as those that actually do want porn. The list of people who opted out is a lot more reliable than the list you would have with the opt-in system.
Opt-in is for the most part just a generally better way of going about things like this.
Those with a major issue with porn or whatever are probably massively outnumbered by those who don't care or are active consumers of it. Cuts down administrative costs as well
But then you get a list of porn haters. Shaming those that dislike porn.
The same points holds for the opposite view. I don't see the point to an opt in/out thing at all. Either it is forbidden by general acclaim or there is no point to having it since it just costs money.
edit,
My personal opinion is that it is another case of politicians trying what is popular with what demographics. If the right ones like it they will go through with it since it scores points.
Where is the shame of blocking porn specially for parents ?
I would look askance to anybody opting in to a block. I would still talk to them but come into a conversation with a negative initial impression. I am probably biased but I honestly would count it against them.
That's like holding it against someone if they put a password on the adult TV channels so that their six year-old doesn't flick by them...
The effects of getting hooked on porn when very young are almost certainly very negative.
Is there any real data on this? It's not like porn is cocaine, or that young kids (pre-pubescent) even care about porn.
There are a lot of reports of bdsm porn having a negative effect on some youth relationships and that it is warping the expectations of some teens. There are no studies at this point, but experts have said it that kids between ages 13-16 are very impressionable during that time. With Iphones, it has created ways for them to have unrestricted access and the parental controls on all smart phones are very limited.
These were radio reports on local public radio, so I don't have links, sadly.
Yeah. Adults know there's a huge difference between porn and real sex. If you've never had sex before and you don't understand that porn stars really are actors, I can see a teenager expecting things from sex that just don't happen.
Hell, when I first started having sex it was kinda a shock at how different it was than porn. But I managed to survive without abusing or murdering anyone and I'm not scarred so I don't think there's really a reason to be worried.
Stil the lack of parental controls on smartphones and the fact that you have to block sites on a machine by machine basis is a bit silly. There should be a router or ISP level blocking service for parents. If the goverment wants to make a law to assure they have the option, I'm ok with that.
To be clear, with an opt in system, rather than opt out.
This exists for most ISPs, all the government did was change it from opt out to opt in. The option itself however was (is) very obscure.
Yeah, they should require them to surface that more and make it easier to use for all parts of the internet. And the law didn't pass yet, if I read correctly, its just in the works?
Don't really think the availability of porn is very harmful to children honestly. Children wont be scarred for life by accidentily seeing some people have sex, or scarred at all, really. Teenagers looking for porn will quickly learn how to circumvent the filter, and I wish them the best of luck with that.
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.
On July 23 2013 20:36 Foblos wrote: I don't see the problem. I wouldn't want my kids to have the chance to happen across porn when they aren't looking at it, and I've read numerous studies about how porn can sabotage relationships. The PM is indeed protecting families and youth. They aren't "censoring the internet" as some of you have said, because you can opt in to porn. If you want to do something, you shouldn't be ashamed about it and if you are perhaps that is an indication that you should reassess it.
obviously if your child finds out about porn you are clearly not paying enough attention to the child. not in any way stating that you are a wrong parent or anything and defintely not questioning you. but making a law like this is just bullshit. they are spending recourses that could better be spend on something else like the economy or better safety it is and always has been the parents job to watch what their child is doing. whether it be coming across porn or watching something with tons of curse words. the government shouldn't have to do that job for you.
My point was to agree with the guy saying opt-in would be better. That said, reading back through that thread of discussion, I'm not sure I can determine what your point/position on the issue is.
Whatever the case, my point in our discussion is that people who "don't give a damn" are less likely to give a damn about opting out as well, which isolates the people who opt out as those that actually do want porn. The list of people who opted out is a lot more reliable than the list you would have with the opt-in system.
Opt-in is for the most part just a generally better way of going about things like this.
Those with a major issue with porn or whatever are probably massively outnumbered by those who don't care or are active consumers of it. Cuts down administrative costs as well
But then you get a list of porn haters. Shaming those that dislike porn.
The same points holds for the opposite view. I don't see the point to an opt in/out thing at all. Either it is forbidden by general acclaim or there is no point to having it since it just costs money.
edit,
My personal opinion is that it is another case of politicians trying what is popular with what demographics. If the right ones like it they will go through with it since it scores points.
Where is the shame of blocking porn specially for parents ?
I would look askance to anybody opting in to a block. I would still talk to them but come into a conversation with a negative initial impression. I am probably biased but I honestly would count it against them.
That's like holding it against someone if they put a password on the adult TV channels so that their six year-old doesn't flick by them...
The effects of getting hooked on porn when very young are almost certainly very negative.
Is there any real data on this? It's not like porn is cocaine, or that young kids (pre-pubescent) even care about porn.
There are a lot of reports of bdsm porn having a negative effect on some youth relationships and that it is warping the expectations of some teens. There are no studies at this point, but experts have said it that kids between ages 13-16 are very impressionable during that time. With Iphones, it has created ways for them to have unrestricted access and the parental controls on all smart phones are very limited.
These were radio reports on local public radio, so I don't have links, sadly.
Yeah. Adults know there's a huge difference between porn and real sex. If you've never had sex before and you don't understand that porn stars really are actors, I can see a teenager expecting things from sex that just don't happen.
Hell, when I first started having sex it was kinda a shock at how different it was than porn. But I managed to survive without abusing or murdering anyone and I'm not scarred so I don't think there's really a reason to be worried.
Stil the lack of parental controls on smartphones and the fact that you have to block sites on a machine by machine basis is a bit silly. There should be a router or ISP level blocking service for parents. If the goverment wants to make a law to assure they have the option, I'm ok with that.
To be clear, with an opt in system, rather than opt out.
You can block stuff at the router level. That's what schools do. And when you're talking about the average home...how many computers are there? One or two? Is a machine by machine basis that hard?
And I know all parents are different and all kids are different, but if you're kid is old enough to have their own computer (and smartphones are computers now) complete with internet access...then I think their old enough to look at porn. If parents haven't given them proper sex ed by that time, that's a problem.
Its smartphones that have made it more of an issue, rather than just PCs. And parental controls at the router level are super hard to use.
Its in the governments best interest to protect people from the fiery eternal hell that surely awaits porn seekers. Not to mention exposing sexual beings to sex will surely damage them permanently. A ban should be inacted immediately.
I would have thought that David Cameron would be more concerned with the garbage available in public like the sun. But I guess he wouldn't want to offend Rupert Murdoch, so Internet pornography = bad, we must get rid of it, but pornography on public news stands = just turn the page.
On July 24 2013 01:45 Wombat_NI wrote: [quote] Opt-in is for the most part just a generally better way of going about things like this.
Those with a major issue with porn or whatever are probably massively outnumbered by those who don't care or are active consumers of it. Cuts down administrative costs as well
But then you get a list of porn haters. Shaming those that dislike porn.
The same points holds for the opposite view. I don't see the point to an opt in/out thing at all. Either it is forbidden by general acclaim or there is no point to having it since it just costs money.
edit,
My personal opinion is that it is another case of politicians trying what is popular with what demographics. If the right ones like it they will go through with it since it scores points.
Where is the shame of blocking porn specially for parents ?
I would look askance to anybody opting in to a block. I would still talk to them but come into a conversation with a negative initial impression. I am probably biased but I honestly would count it against them.
That's like holding it against someone if they put a password on the adult TV channels so that their six year-old doesn't flick by them...
The effects of getting hooked on porn when very young are almost certainly very negative.
Is there any real data on this? It's not like porn is cocaine, or that young kids (pre-pubescent) even care about porn.
There are a lot of reports of bdsm porn having a negative effect on some youth relationships and that it is warping the expectations of some teens. There are no studies at this point, but experts have said it that kids between ages 13-16 are very impressionable during that time. With Iphones, it has created ways for them to have unrestricted access and the parental controls on all smart phones are very limited.
These were radio reports on local public radio, so I don't have links, sadly.
Yeah. Adults know there's a huge difference between porn and real sex. If you've never had sex before and you don't understand that porn stars really are actors, I can see a teenager expecting things from sex that just don't happen.
Hell, when I first started having sex it was kinda a shock at how different it was than porn. But I managed to survive without abusing or murdering anyone and I'm not scarred so I don't think there's really a reason to be worried.
Stil the lack of parental controls on smartphones and the fact that you have to block sites on a machine by machine basis is a bit silly. There should be a router or ISP level blocking service for parents. If the goverment wants to make a law to assure they have the option, I'm ok with that.
To be clear, with an opt in system, rather than opt out.
You can block stuff at the router level. That's what schools do. And when you're talking about the average home...how many computers are there? One or two? Is a machine by machine basis that hard?
And I know all parents are different and all kids are different, but if you're kid is old enough to have their own computer (and smartphones are computers now) complete with internet access...then I think their old enough to look at porn. If parents haven't given them proper sex ed by that time, that's a problem.
Its smartphones that have made it more of an issue, rather than just PCs. And parental controls at the router level are super hard to use.
I don't think smartphones are an issue. They basically are computers. If you wouldn't trust your kid with their own computer, you shouldn't trust them with a smartphone.
Hell, you can get them a phone without a data plan.
On July 24 2013 03:14 papalion wrote: "Do not take the little bit that I enjoy away from me!"
Did the ancient Romans argue in the same way after Honrius banned the gladiator games? I think so.
In my opinion, the unleashed pop culture, including the violence in the media, the unlimited access to pornography is a serious problem. The internet is not that old that we can really measure how it afflicts kids, we can only tell that in a certain age, kids should not watch that bullshit the mainstream industry produces for us in masses, for the masses. Panem et circenses. When I was young we watched some movies that were not for our age, ok, but we did not have unlimited access to it.
This is a general problem. Enough people are not willing to limit themselves, even if it harms other people.
Also, you cannot say it is the parents' problem. People are different, you cannot expect from all parents to do the same. It is a shame if one approaches kids that have "bad parents" which such apathy.
It is just porn. It is not politics, not The Capital by Marx or the Holy Bible, or the Satanic Verses that are banned, or anything else. Do not compare this to China.
And yeah, I approve. I also like the parental filter in SC2.
It's pornography. Not Gladiator games. Being regulated is a huge problem because it sets a standard that can be used for future censoring. Automatic opt-in affects everybody. It's also a waste of money, time and administration.
The British anti-piracy measure lasted 11 minutes before Piratebay linked 40+ mirrors for people to use instead, all of which still work perfectly. You cannot regulate the internet because proxys, VPNs and the deep web all exist and youngsters these days are taught IT from a very young age. My 12 year old cousin is more computer literate than my entire family.
And it is the parents problem. Almost every British ISP has parental protection schemes, blocks and other measures the average family can request. If nobody is using them, then it's a case of apathy, bad parenting or trusting your child with the ability to see nipples and vaginas. For me, that's a lot less destructive and more "fun" than alcohol and other activities that are presented as standard and cool.
Yeah "it is just porn" but 10 years down the line it might be "it is just <something else>". And everyone knows this measure will fail if implemented, it simply just gives Cameron's old boys club the precedence to do other things and continue to use this excuse of, "we're saving the children!!!" and all that hogwash.
On July 24 2013 01:45 Wombat_NI wrote: [quote] Opt-in is for the most part just a generally better way of going about things like this.
Those with a major issue with porn or whatever are probably massively outnumbered by those who don't care or are active consumers of it. Cuts down administrative costs as well
But then you get a list of porn haters. Shaming those that dislike porn.
The same points holds for the opposite view. I don't see the point to an opt in/out thing at all. Either it is forbidden by general acclaim or there is no point to having it since it just costs money.
edit,
My personal opinion is that it is another case of politicians trying what is popular with what demographics. If the right ones like it they will go through with it since it scores points.
Where is the shame of blocking porn specially for parents ?
I would look askance to anybody opting in to a block. I would still talk to them but come into a conversation with a negative initial impression. I am probably biased but I honestly would count it against them.
That's like holding it against someone if they put a password on the adult TV channels so that their six year-old doesn't flick by them...
The effects of getting hooked on porn when very young are almost certainly very negative.
Is there any real data on this? It's not like porn is cocaine, or that young kids (pre-pubescent) even care about porn.
There are a lot of reports of bdsm porn having a negative effect on some youth relationships and that it is warping the expectations of some teens. There are no studies at this point, but experts have said it that kids between ages 13-16 are very impressionable during that time. With Iphones, it has created ways for them to have unrestricted access and the parental controls on all smart phones are very limited.
These were radio reports on local public radio, so I don't have links, sadly.
Yeah. Adults know there's a huge difference between porn and real sex. If you've never had sex before and you don't understand that porn stars really are actors, I can see a teenager expecting things from sex that just don't happen.
Hell, when I first started having sex it was kinda a shock at how different it was than porn. But I managed to survive without abusing or murdering anyone and I'm not scarred so I don't think there's really a reason to be worried.
Stil the lack of parental controls on smartphones and the fact that you have to block sites on a machine by machine basis is a bit silly. There should be a router or ISP level blocking service for parents. If the goverment wants to make a law to assure they have the option, I'm ok with that.
To be clear, with an opt in system, rather than opt out.
This exists for most ISPs, all the government did was change it from opt out to opt in. The option itself however was (is) very obscure.
Yeah, they should require them to surface that more and make it easier to use for all parts of the internet. And the law didn't pass yet, if I read correctly, its just in the works?
From what I understood it's already in effect? Earliest I heard about this at all was on reddit yesterday when suddenly all UK based users couldn't see the "porn part" of a picture.
I disagree that an option like that needs to be shoved into peoples faces. If you are a parent and you are worried about your child watching porn on the internet then you do your own research to see what you can do as a parent. You'll find a multitude of options that will work including phoning your ISP and disabling pornographic content.
Will all parents do that? Ofcourse not. Does that mean the government should intervene? I'm not sure. Not without at least some studies supporting the "reasoning" behind this.
Classic case of the government not trusting its people and therefore making redundant laws.
On July 24 2013 03:14 papalion wrote: Also, you cannot say it is the parents' problem. People are different, you cannot expect from all parents to do the same. It is a shame if one approaches kids that have "bad parents" which such apathy.
What makes parenting that is conceptually different from yours "bad"? One could easily make an argument that shielding children from the modern-day life can be more detrimental for their development than a hands-off guidance approach. I'm not making it because I don't know much about it, but I'm sure there are people who would make that argument.
The internet might not be old enough to measure how it affects kids, but sex is pretty damn old. Just because the internet offers a greater quantity of adult content doesn't mean the effect of the experience will be different. It also doesn't mean the kid will spend all his computer time watching porn (for obvious reasons) either.
The only thing that's different is that he has easier access whereas in the past he would have to figure out covert ways to obtain porn magazines or movies and find a place to watch them. The experience still happened anyway.
But then you get a list of porn haters. Shaming those that dislike porn.
The same points holds for the opposite view. I don't see the point to an opt in/out thing at all. Either it is forbidden by general acclaim or there is no point to having it since it just costs money.
edit,
My personal opinion is that it is another case of politicians trying what is popular with what demographics. If the right ones like it they will go through with it since it scores points.
Where is the shame of blocking porn specially for parents ?
I would look askance to anybody opting in to a block. I would still talk to them but come into a conversation with a negative initial impression. I am probably biased but I honestly would count it against them.
That's like holding it against someone if they put a password on the adult TV channels so that their six year-old doesn't flick by them...
The effects of getting hooked on porn when very young are almost certainly very negative.
Is there any real data on this? It's not like porn is cocaine, or that young kids (pre-pubescent) even care about porn.
There are a lot of reports of bdsm porn having a negative effect on some youth relationships and that it is warping the expectations of some teens. There are no studies at this point, but experts have said it that kids between ages 13-16 are very impressionable during that time. With Iphones, it has created ways for them to have unrestricted access and the parental controls on all smart phones are very limited.
These were radio reports on local public radio, so I don't have links, sadly.
Yeah. Adults know there's a huge difference between porn and real sex. If you've never had sex before and you don't understand that porn stars really are actors, I can see a teenager expecting things from sex that just don't happen.
Hell, when I first started having sex it was kinda a shock at how different it was than porn. But I managed to survive without abusing or murdering anyone and I'm not scarred so I don't think there's really a reason to be worried.
Stil the lack of parental controls on smartphones and the fact that you have to block sites on a machine by machine basis is a bit silly. There should be a router or ISP level blocking service for parents. If the goverment wants to make a law to assure they have the option, I'm ok with that.
To be clear, with an opt in system, rather than opt out.
This exists for most ISPs, all the government did was change it from opt out to opt in. The option itself however was (is) very obscure.
Yeah, they should require them to surface that more and make it easier to use for all parts of the internet. And the law didn't pass yet, if I read correctly, its just in the works?
From what I understood it's already in effect? Earliest I heard about this at all was on reddit yesterday when suddenly all UK based users couldn't see the "porn part" of a picture.
I disagree that an option like that needs to be shoved into peoples faces. If you are a parent and you are worried about your child watching porn on the internet then you do your own research to see what you can do as a parent. You'll find a multitude of options that will work including phoning your ISP and disabling pornographic content.
Will all parents do that? Ofcourse not. Does that mean the government should intervene? I'm not sure. Not without at least some studies supporting the "reasoning" behind this.
Classic case of the government not trusting its people and therefore making redundant laws.
There is a difference between put in people's faces and just surfaced. When I say surfaced, I mean that the option should be a check box or switch that parents can easily find and hit. It doesn't need to be in someones face every time they log in.
Where is the shame of blocking porn specially for parents ?
I would look askance to anybody opting in to a block. I would still talk to them but come into a conversation with a negative initial impression. I am probably biased but I honestly would count it against them.
That's like holding it against someone if they put a password on the adult TV channels so that their six year-old doesn't flick by them...
The effects of getting hooked on porn when very young are almost certainly very negative.
Is there any real data on this? It's not like porn is cocaine, or that young kids (pre-pubescent) even care about porn.
There are a lot of reports of bdsm porn having a negative effect on some youth relationships and that it is warping the expectations of some teens. There are no studies at this point, but experts have said it that kids between ages 13-16 are very impressionable during that time. With Iphones, it has created ways for them to have unrestricted access and the parental controls on all smart phones are very limited.
These were radio reports on local public radio, so I don't have links, sadly.
Yeah. Adults know there's a huge difference between porn and real sex. If you've never had sex before and you don't understand that porn stars really are actors, I can see a teenager expecting things from sex that just don't happen.
Hell, when I first started having sex it was kinda a shock at how different it was than porn. But I managed to survive without abusing or murdering anyone and I'm not scarred so I don't think there's really a reason to be worried.
Stil the lack of parental controls on smartphones and the fact that you have to block sites on a machine by machine basis is a bit silly. There should be a router or ISP level blocking service for parents. If the goverment wants to make a law to assure they have the option, I'm ok with that.
To be clear, with an opt in system, rather than opt out.
This exists for most ISPs, all the government did was change it from opt out to opt in. The option itself however was (is) very obscure.
Yeah, they should require them to surface that more and make it easier to use for all parts of the internet. And the law didn't pass yet, if I read correctly, its just in the works?
From what I understood it's already in effect? Earliest I heard about this at all was on reddit yesterday when suddenly all UK based users couldn't see the "porn part" of a picture.
I disagree that an option like that needs to be shoved into peoples faces. If you are a parent and you are worried about your child watching porn on the internet then you do your own research to see what you can do as a parent. You'll find a multitude of options that will work including phoning your ISP and disabling pornographic content.
Will all parents do that? Ofcourse not. Does that mean the government should intervene? I'm not sure. Not without at least some studies supporting the "reasoning" behind this.
Classic case of the government not trusting its people and therefore making redundant laws.
There is a difference between put in people's faces and just surfaced. When I say surfaced, I mean that the option should be a check box or switch that parents can easily find and hit. It doesn't need to be in someones face every time they log in.
I agree that the option should be more out in the open, but who should be blamed for that not being the case? I would argue the consumers themselves. If more parents were worried about pornographic content reaching their children then more would ask their ISPs and ISPs would go "oh I guess we need to make an obvious option to censor it". So since that isn't the case it means there's no demand for it, I find it hard to blame the ISP.
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.
Kids as young as 10 begin masturbating with or without porn, because their hormones start to kick in and they inevitably get let in on humankind's worst-kept secret. If anything it's seems like your logic would let parents send their masturbating children to juvenile hall if they didn't approve of it.
Porn can be addictive to people. Nobody is disputing that. But so can videogames, Pokemon cards, soda/pop, candy, and any number of other things. We don't decide to make everyone opt in to using these things just because some people are going to have their expectations let down the first time they have sex. Why does that matter at all? It's not like they're going to die or become murderers or anything else. No, just a few people may have a slightly higher chance of ED the first time they have sex. The horror. Nevermind that ED is one of the most common sexual dysfunctions across every single demographic, or that people get ED the first time they have sex for all kinds of more reasons than warped expectations (like anxiety).
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.
Sexual expectations? LOL. Might as well ban war movies so that kids don't get the wrong idea about the military, or cop movies for the police, or crime procedural shows for the lawyers. Innocent? What does that even mean? It's not like sex is some devilishly evil thing that tarnishes the pure mind of a child (setting aside that 13 year olds are in no way as pure as you think they are). Finally, the "brains of our youth"??? What does that even mean?
I grew up in Holland. Holland, in my opinion, is one of the most sexually enlightened countries on the planet. From the ages 12-18 I lived and learned there and grew into a pretty normal person. Any oddities I possess aren't due to internet pornography at least.
I remember a holiday with two friends from England when I was about 14, in Italy. Go down any high street in Italy and there's mostly naked women in adverts all over the place; their eyes were falling out of their heads, they were giggling, laughing, couldn't believe it and so sexually immature it was shocking. The weird part is if you gave them a sniff to look at something sexual they'd gawk over it. To me at that age it just seemed... there. In the city centre in Groningen, a pretty small city but one of the only ones in northern Holland, there's a sex shop next to a massive cinema complex. It's treated as normal, a part of life.
When you make porn and sex, something already a taboo, an even more forbidden fruit than it already is, you are not 'saving the children'. You're making them extremely curious, and the thrill when they do see it is going to be all the higher. In reference to the TED talk; do you think the dopamine hit is going to be stronger for someone looking to get their rocks off if they bypass a government-instituted wall to stare at tits (and they will, whether at a friends house or just through poorly implemented protection) or if they could do it any time of the day.
There's no moral easy win here; trying to ban pornography on the internet is hilarious when sex is such a driving force in modern media. You wind everyone up with pictures of people in bikinis and newspaper articles that skirt the fringes and then take away the release and suddenly people are looking all the harder for it.
In short, this legislation? It won't help anyone. It'll cost the taxpayer money. It'll lend to a culture in the UK of sexual taboo and pent up frustrations that is already rampant. It'll sensationalise sex all the more. It's censorship where none is needed at a national level.
It's a demonstration of a mindset I can't wait to try and vote out of government next election.
On July 24 2013 03:49 Shiori wrote: Porn can be addictive to people. Nobody is disputing that. But so can videogames, Pokemon cards, soda/pop, candy,
Not only are videogames, Pokemon, soda/pop, and candy deliberately addictive... they're also marketed towards children. If there is pornography marketed towards children, I'm not aware of it.
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.
while it is probably fact that extreme amount of pleasure at development stage can have the brains rewired, I am pretty sure different kinds of pleasure at normal levels are needed for the brain to get wired properly. And sexual pleasure is part of that too. And what about the other pleasures? Does the extreme amount of sweets cause brain rewiring? or of junk food in general? or of normal food that just tastes good (tree or more times every day)? Does too much parental love cause rewiring? What should be called extreme? What kind of rewiring is actually bad?
On July 24 2013 03:49 Shiori wrote: Porn can be addictive to people. Nobody is disputing that. But so can videogames, Pokemon cards, soda/pop, candy,
Not only are videogames, Pokemon, soda/pop, and candy deliberately addictive... they're also marketed towards children. If there is pornography marketed towards children, I'm not aware of it.
The UK really seems to have a unique way of looking at the internet. Things said on it are taken much more seriously than anywhere else in the western world, and now this.
Shit man, what do people have against porn? One of these days, parents are going to have to take responsibility for their children seeing shit on the internet that they might not be comfortable with. The internet is never going to be a 100% wholesome family environment, and you know what? I damn well like it like that.
Don't like it? Don't let little Timmy surf the internet so freely.
On July 24 2013 07:35 Karpfen wrote: I hate to be the one bringing it up but that's what happens when a country becomes a muslim one.
The Muslim population is only 5% and they're hardly massively pushing for parental controls on the Internet. They don't really act as a single group at all, in fact.
man, why can't it be like the old days where magazines were held as prizes and show-off objects, smuggled CD or even floppy disk with images being sold at a lunch's rate, vhs was the king. now its all done online and shit, it isnt the proper way!
rid of online porn so that kids can grow into it properly.
Have any reputable studies been done as to the impact of porn on the youth of the nation anyway?
I'd be quite intrigued to read any if they exist. From instinct, I'd hazard a guess that it's not as bad as the moralisers make out, but equally that it is not entirely without potential fostering of negatives onto people at an impressionable age.
I don't understand why porn is so vilified. Its not evil, its not going to destroy children's minds or lead to the total objectification of women. To be sure some objectification will happen, but that's natural (i.e. being sexually attractive) and shouldn't be suppressed. I think its natural and positive that kids explore their sexuality at whatever age they feel appropriate, rather than continue to suppress their feelings while adults act like that suppression is somehow going to lead to a well-balanced mental state later on. Its such a travesty that a modern society like Britain could make such a regressive decision, and more broadly why we still treat anything sex related as immoral, even though people do it every day and its one of the greatest joys in life.
On July 24 2013 08:00 radscorpion9 wrote: I don't understand why porn is so vilified. Its not evil, its not going to destroy children's minds or lead to the total objectification of women. To be sure some objectification will happen, but that's natural (i.e. being sexually attractive) and shouldn't be suppressed. I think its natural and positive that kids explore their sexuality at whatever age they feel appropriate, rather than continue to suppress their feelings while adults act like that suppression is somehow going to lead to a well-balanced mental state later on. Its such a travesty that a modern society like Britain could make such a regressive decision, and more broadly why we still treat anything sex related as immoral, even though people do it every day and its one of the greatest joys in life.
I feel the 'problem' is when on the one hand you have a quite juvenile/repressed cultural expression of sex, living alongside of things like free pornography.
I don't feel necessarily that porn is in itself a 'bad' thing, but when it coexists with quite an un-open sexual culture, the coming together of those two factors can potentially lead to issues.
If anything the young mind must find it difficult to wrap itself around a culture where celebrities are photographed in various states of undress, sex is usually only talked about euphemistically, and where restricting access to pornography is a cause celebre.
This is so dumb. People should be able to regulate themselves and parents should regulate their children. The government should have no part in deciding what people can and cannot do and should have no say in what they "should" be doing on their free time. I understand that this isn't an outright ban but it is a step in that direction.
Plus it's so retardedly useless since there are already tonnes of child filters out there. It just makes lots of awkward situations and inconveniences.
And this ladies and Gents is how we lose Freedom. We allow politicians to use phrases like "It's for the protection of Children" to justify laws that otherwise would be considered overreaching and utterly unacceptable.
Democracy is steadily being destroyed in the name of the children and people are too blind to see it.
On July 24 2013 08:13 shizaep wrote: This is so dumb. People should be able to regulate themselves and parents should regulate their children. The government should have no part in deciding what people can and cannot do and should have no say in what they "should" be doing on their free time. I understand that this isn't an outright ban but it is a step in that direction.
Plus it's so retardedly useless since there are already tonnes of child filters out there. It just makes lots of awkward situations and inconveniences.
Yeah totally, except for all of the different exceptions to this that already exist and you don't have an issue with and don't even consider when you make gigantic statements like this.
until you get shot for walking on someones lawn jk
i dont know, but all the children i know wouldnt even want to watch porn and if this is such an important issue for the people why doesnt an isp exist that already has this filter and totally overtaken the market through that but the funniest thing is that everybody knows the internet a little bit should know that this is not doing anything even in the slightest to prevent someone from watching porn
Young kids have ridiculously easy access to porn. It's disturbing to me, to think of adolescents being able to access some of these sites which are full of some hardcore imagery right on its front page. As others have mentioned, my generation never saw all this crazy hardcore porn that kids are seeing now. We had to use magazines, mostly. If someone had a VHS with any kind of sex, it would be kind of a big deal, and it probably wouldn't contain the type of all-out craziness that is put on the front-page of these websites.
There's been numerous studies about how even adults become desensitized to visual sexual stimulation, and how porn becomes addictive which drives the viewers to seek more and more provocative images. This effects people's sexual lives, which obviously is a big part of life in general.
Yes, it's the parents' job to monitor their kids, and monitor the family PC. But if UK, as a society, wants to place some extra laws and measures to keep kids away from internet porn, I'm all for that. People crying "Freedom!" are being a little sensational, I think. All this is doing is making parental-filters something the parents can actually control directly with their ISP, instead of just being a browser option that any kid can simply turn off -- parental filters are simply too easy. It isn't like a child-protection on a lighter or pill-bottle -- kid hands can handle the internet and parental controls, just as easily as adult hands. This isn't the prosecution of Larry Flynt, no one is banning porn. This just seems like a good idea to me, something ISPs should've probably been doing but had no incentive to do (not just because most of them act like monopolies).
But then you get a list of porn haters. Shaming those that dislike porn.
The same points holds for the opposite view. I don't see the point to an opt in/out thing at all. Either it is forbidden by general acclaim or there is no point to having it since it just costs money.
edit,
My personal opinion is that it is another case of politicians trying what is popular with what demographics. If the right ones like it they will go through with it since it scores points.
Where is the shame of blocking porn specially for parents ?
I would look askance to anybody opting in to a block. I would still talk to them but come into a conversation with a negative initial impression. I am probably biased but I honestly would count it against them.
That's like holding it against someone if they put a password on the adult TV channels so that their six year-old doesn't flick by them...
The effects of getting hooked on porn when very young are almost certainly very negative.
Is there any real data on this? It's not like porn is cocaine, or that young kids (pre-pubescent) even care about porn.
There are a lot of reports of bdsm porn having a negative effect on some youth relationships and that it is warping the expectations of some teens. There are no studies at this point, but experts have said it that kids between ages 13-16 are very impressionable during that time. With Iphones, it has created ways for them to have unrestricted access and the parental controls on all smart phones are very limited.
These were radio reports on local public radio, so I don't have links, sadly.
Yeah. Adults know there's a huge difference between porn and real sex. If you've never had sex before and you don't understand that porn stars really are actors, I can see a teenager expecting things from sex that just don't happen.
Hell, when I first started having sex it was kinda a shock at how different it was than porn. But I managed to survive without abusing or murdering anyone and I'm not scarred so I don't think there's really a reason to be worried.
Stil the lack of parental controls on smartphones and the fact that you have to block sites on a machine by machine basis is a bit silly. There should be a router or ISP level blocking service for parents. If the goverment wants to make a law to assure they have the option, I'm ok with that.
To be clear, with an opt in system, rather than opt out.
You can block stuff at the router level. That's what schools do. And when you're talking about the average home...how many computers are there? One or two? Is a machine by machine basis that hard?
And I know all parents are different and all kids are different, but if you're kid is old enough to have their own computer (and smartphones are computers now) complete with internet access...then I think their old enough to look at porn. If parents haven't given them proper sex ed by that time, that's a problem.
Its smartphones that have made it more of an issue, rather than just PCs. And parental controls at the router level are super hard to use.
I don't think smartphones are an issue. They basically are computers. If you wouldn't trust your kid with their own computer, you shouldn't trust them with a smartphone.
Hell, you can get them a phone without a data plan.
You can't get a phone without a data plan without paying ridiculous amounts of money.
Where is the shame of blocking porn specially for parents ?
I would look askance to anybody opting in to a block. I would still talk to them but come into a conversation with a negative initial impression. I am probably biased but I honestly would count it against them.
That's like holding it against someone if they put a password on the adult TV channels so that their six year-old doesn't flick by them...
The effects of getting hooked on porn when very young are almost certainly very negative.
Is there any real data on this? It's not like porn is cocaine, or that young kids (pre-pubescent) even care about porn.
There are a lot of reports of bdsm porn having a negative effect on some youth relationships and that it is warping the expectations of some teens. There are no studies at this point, but experts have said it that kids between ages 13-16 are very impressionable during that time. With Iphones, it has created ways for them to have unrestricted access and the parental controls on all smart phones are very limited.
These were radio reports on local public radio, so I don't have links, sadly.
Yeah. Adults know there's a huge difference between porn and real sex. If you've never had sex before and you don't understand that porn stars really are actors, I can see a teenager expecting things from sex that just don't happen.
Hell, when I first started having sex it was kinda a shock at how different it was than porn. But I managed to survive without abusing or murdering anyone and I'm not scarred so I don't think there's really a reason to be worried.
Stil the lack of parental controls on smartphones and the fact that you have to block sites on a machine by machine basis is a bit silly. There should be a router or ISP level blocking service for parents. If the goverment wants to make a law to assure they have the option, I'm ok with that.
To be clear, with an opt in system, rather than opt out.
You can block stuff at the router level. That's what schools do. And when you're talking about the average home...how many computers are there? One or two? Is a machine by machine basis that hard?
And I know all parents are different and all kids are different, but if you're kid is old enough to have their own computer (and smartphones are computers now) complete with internet access...then I think their old enough to look at porn. If parents haven't given them proper sex ed by that time, that's a problem.
Its smartphones that have made it more of an issue, rather than just PCs. And parental controls at the router level are super hard to use.
I don't think smartphones are an issue. They basically are computers. If you wouldn't trust your kid with their own computer, you shouldn't trust them with a smartphone.
Hell, you can get them a phone without a data plan.
You can't get a phone without a data plan without paying ridiculous amounts of money.
Where is the shame of blocking porn specially for parents ?
I would look askance to anybody opting in to a block. I would still talk to them but come into a conversation with a negative initial impression. I am probably biased but I honestly would count it against them.
That's like holding it against someone if they put a password on the adult TV channels so that their six year-old doesn't flick by them...
The effects of getting hooked on porn when very young are almost certainly very negative.
Is there any real data on this? It's not like porn is cocaine, or that young kids (pre-pubescent) even care about porn.
There are a lot of reports of bdsm porn having a negative effect on some youth relationships and that it is warping the expectations of some teens. There are no studies at this point, but experts have said it that kids between ages 13-16 are very impressionable during that time. With Iphones, it has created ways for them to have unrestricted access and the parental controls on all smart phones are very limited.
These were radio reports on local public radio, so I don't have links, sadly.
Yeah. Adults know there's a huge difference between porn and real sex. If you've never had sex before and you don't understand that porn stars really are actors, I can see a teenager expecting things from sex that just don't happen.
Hell, when I first started having sex it was kinda a shock at how different it was than porn. But I managed to survive without abusing or murdering anyone and I'm not scarred so I don't think there's really a reason to be worried.
Stil the lack of parental controls on smartphones and the fact that you have to block sites on a machine by machine basis is a bit silly. There should be a router or ISP level blocking service for parents. If the goverment wants to make a law to assure they have the option, I'm ok with that.
To be clear, with an opt in system, rather than opt out.
You can block stuff at the router level. That's what schools do. And when you're talking about the average home...how many computers are there? One or two? Is a machine by machine basis that hard?
And I know all parents are different and all kids are different, but if you're kid is old enough to have their own computer (and smartphones are computers now) complete with internet access...then I think their old enough to look at porn. If parents haven't given them proper sex ed by that time, that's a problem.
Its smartphones that have made it more of an issue, rather than just PCs. And parental controls at the router level are super hard to use.
I don't think smartphones are an issue. They basically are computers. If you wouldn't trust your kid with their own computer, you shouldn't trust them with a smartphone.
Hell, you can get them a phone without a data plan.
You can't get a phone without a data plan without paying ridiculous amounts of money.
And when you do get a data plan, you end up paying the same ridiculous amount of money hidden over the course of your contract.
On July 24 2013 00:14 xM(Z wrote: how would this work for downloaded files (torrents/p2p)?
It won't. It a nice thing for UK. But we all have been teenagers and we all find a way to watch some.
Borrowing from friends, asking the big brother, or outright downloading it. So it's just nothing. A political fuss that won't change the majority of things. Maybe you will get less spyware :p
Anyway i think this has nice intentions, but it's just useless.
On July 24 2013 00:28 archonOOid wrote: First they came for the porn, then they'll come for "piracy" and later they'll come for your freedom.
I love those statements... so completly theoritical. For me i think that's a paranoid statement. Also piracy is not something that can be put into quotes. It is what it is
Must be nice to live in that bubble of yours. You must have missed the Snowden leaks on NSA, PRISM, spying on allies and citizenry. And here in Asia we have political/news blogs filtered for "undesirable content".
Please come down from your magnificent ivory tower, your highness and mingle with the common people.
Such a terrible idea couched in the usual "Think of the children!" Trojan Horse. If Cameron really gave a rat's ass about protecting children, he'd set up a tax benefit for Net Nanny and similar companies. He's creating a heavy-handed solution to a problem that's already adequately solved by good parenting and the market. It's not hard to install a filter for your kids. What IS hard is getting the government to give up data and power, both of which it is conveniently adding to here, with the bonus that it's an in-road into a previously unregulatable area.
This seems like an attempt at regulating people who can't control either themselves or their children (nanny state anyone?). Coming from a conservative prime minister is kind of hypocritical, though definitely not unheard of.
But if UK, as a society, wants to place some extra laws and measures to keep kids away from internet porn, I'm all for that.
Why? You already said the parents should be the ones in charge, not someone else. If people want to ban things from their computer I'm sure there's a company or free software they can download. This is nothing but political pandering.
On July 24 2013 02:45 ref4 wrote: oh good another step towards fascism in the guise of "protecting the children"
because we all know people that play FPS all end up as serial shooters and gunmen!
Oh they will. As long as there's a clueless trusting population of followers, once they're with porn they'll find another social cause that mothers and fathers to worry about their little darlings.
On July 24 2013 12:23 Roe wrote: This seems like an attempt at regulating people who can't control either themselves or their children (nanny state anyone?). Coming from a conservative prime minister is kind of hypocritical, though definitely not unheard of.
But if UK, as a society, wants to place some extra laws and measures to keep kids away from internet porn, I'm all for that.
Why? You already said the parents should be the ones in charge, not someone else. If people want to ban things from their computer I'm sure there's a company or free software they can download. This is nothing but political pandering.
The intent seems pretty irrelevant since it's pretty transparent it will never succeed and will do nothing but drain money during a slumping economy.
This topic is actually good, the thing with internet is that porn is not only in the 50 main sites like redtubes or xvideo, if they were it would be damn easy to simply use the damn browser filters... You can find porn in like any site, in the daily mail site that this news was original posted you can find pictures of a lot of subcelebrities near naked The damage is so much done that you hear once or twice per month about kids on school sending erotic video to each other ... I think they are a little too late to start this law and it will be only a waste of taxes...
On July 24 2013 08:46 Leporello wrote: Young kids have ridiculously easy access to porn. It's disturbing to me, to think of adolescents being able to access some of these sites which are full of some hardcore imagery right on its front page. As others have mentioned, my generation never saw all this crazy hardcore porn that kids are seeing now. We had to use magazines, mostly. If someone had a VHS with any kind of sex, it would be kind of a big deal, and it probably wouldn't contain the type of all-out craziness that is put on the front-page of these websites.
There's been numerous studies about how even adults become desensitized to visual sexual stimulation, and how porn becomes addictive which drives the viewers to seek more and more provocative images. This effects people's sexual lives, which obviously is a big part of life in general.
Yes, it's the parents' job to monitor their kids, and monitor the family PC. But if UK, as a society, wants to place some extra laws and measures to keep kids away from internet porn, I'm all for that. People crying "Freedom!" are being a little sensational, I think. All this is doing is making parental-filters something the parents can actually control directly with their ISP, instead of just being a browser option that any kid can simply turn off -- parental filters are simply too easy. It isn't like a child-protection on a lighter or pill-bottle -- kid hands can handle the internet and parental controls, just as easily as adult hands. This isn't the prosecution of Larry Flynt, no one is banning porn. This just seems like a good idea to me, something ISPs should've probably been doing but had no incentive to do (not just because most of them act like monopolies).
So what's your opinion on pot? booze and cigars? Candy? mm.. Cars going over 100km/h on highways?
They are all more dangerous than porn. Next time you know, you will need a special permit to put your kids in your car, or will only be aloud to buy XXX/month amount of red meat or candy or wathever this nutjobs think "is bad for you"
People should opose this kind of bullshit on principle; more expenditure, more taxes, more taxes for our children (government debt). Not to mention less freedom.
Where is the shame of blocking porn specially for parents ?
I would look askance to anybody opting in to a block. I would still talk to them but come into a conversation with a negative initial impression. I am probably biased but I honestly would count it against them.
That's like holding it against someone if they put a password on the adult TV channels so that their six year-old doesn't flick by them...
The effects of getting hooked on porn when very young are almost certainly very negative.
Is there any real data on this? It's not like porn is cocaine, or that young kids (pre-pubescent) even care about porn.
There are a lot of reports of bdsm porn having a negative effect on some youth relationships and that it is warping the expectations of some teens. There are no studies at this point, but experts have said it that kids between ages 13-16 are very impressionable during that time. With Iphones, it has created ways for them to have unrestricted access and the parental controls on all smart phones are very limited.
These were radio reports on local public radio, so I don't have links, sadly.
Yeah. Adults know there's a huge difference between porn and real sex. If you've never had sex before and you don't understand that porn stars really are actors, I can see a teenager expecting things from sex that just don't happen.
Hell, when I first started having sex it was kinda a shock at how different it was than porn. But I managed to survive without abusing or murdering anyone and I'm not scarred so I don't think there's really a reason to be worried.
Stil the lack of parental controls on smartphones and the fact that you have to block sites on a machine by machine basis is a bit silly. There should be a router or ISP level blocking service for parents. If the goverment wants to make a law to assure they have the option, I'm ok with that.
To be clear, with an opt in system, rather than opt out.
You can block stuff at the router level. That's what schools do. And when you're talking about the average home...how many computers are there? One or two? Is a machine by machine basis that hard?
And I know all parents are different and all kids are different, but if you're kid is old enough to have their own computer (and smartphones are computers now) complete with internet access...then I think their old enough to look at porn. If parents haven't given them proper sex ed by that time, that's a problem.
Its smartphones that have made it more of an issue, rather than just PCs. And parental controls at the router level are super hard to use.
I don't think smartphones are an issue. They basically are computers. If you wouldn't trust your kid with their own computer, you shouldn't trust them with a smartphone.
Hell, you can get them a phone without a data plan.
You can't get a phone without a data plan without paying ridiculous amounts of money.
In the US you can get a plan with unlimited calls, texts, and data for $50/month, that's not a lot of money.
But as for the topic itself what are you doing David Cameron, seems a big privacy issue for there to be a record of people who tell their ISPs to let the porn come through. Also I thought the Victorian Era died when Queen Victoria did...
I would look askance to anybody opting in to a block. I would still talk to them but come into a conversation with a negative initial impression. I am probably biased but I honestly would count it against them.
That's like holding it against someone if they put a password on the adult TV channels so that their six year-old doesn't flick by them...
The effects of getting hooked on porn when very young are almost certainly very negative.
Is there any real data on this? It's not like porn is cocaine, or that young kids (pre-pubescent) even care about porn.
There are a lot of reports of bdsm porn having a negative effect on some youth relationships and that it is warping the expectations of some teens. There are no studies at this point, but experts have said it that kids between ages 13-16 are very impressionable during that time. With Iphones, it has created ways for them to have unrestricted access and the parental controls on all smart phones are very limited.
These were radio reports on local public radio, so I don't have links, sadly.
Yeah. Adults know there's a huge difference between porn and real sex. If you've never had sex before and you don't understand that porn stars really are actors, I can see a teenager expecting things from sex that just don't happen.
Hell, when I first started having sex it was kinda a shock at how different it was than porn. But I managed to survive without abusing or murdering anyone and I'm not scarred so I don't think there's really a reason to be worried.
Stil the lack of parental controls on smartphones and the fact that you have to block sites on a machine by machine basis is a bit silly. There should be a router or ISP level blocking service for parents. If the goverment wants to make a law to assure they have the option, I'm ok with that.
To be clear, with an opt in system, rather than opt out.
You can block stuff at the router level. That's what schools do. And when you're talking about the average home...how many computers are there? One or two? Is a machine by machine basis that hard?
And I know all parents are different and all kids are different, but if you're kid is old enough to have their own computer (and smartphones are computers now) complete with internet access...then I think their old enough to look at porn. If parents haven't given them proper sex ed by that time, that's a problem.
Its smartphones that have made it more of an issue, rather than just PCs. And parental controls at the router level are super hard to use.
I don't think smartphones are an issue. They basically are computers. If you wouldn't trust your kid with their own computer, you shouldn't trust them with a smartphone.
Hell, you can get them a phone without a data plan.
You can't get a phone without a data plan without paying ridiculous amounts of money.
In the US you can get a plan with unlimited calls, texts, and data for $50/month, that's not a lot of money.
But as for the topic itself what are you doing David Cameron, seems a big privacy issue for there to be a record of people who tell their ISPs to let the porn come through. Also I thought the Victorian Era died when Queen Victoria did...
200 mins, limited texting within Canada, 1GB data = $75 month with Telus
I do not even understand why people think Porn is "evil". Why is it something you should hide? Isn't that just another natural part of human and animals? Just teach the kids starting from Kindergarten and stop this "childish" approach.
I would look askance to anybody opting in to a block. I would still talk to them but come into a conversation with a negative initial impression. I am probably biased but I honestly would count it against them.
That's like holding it against someone if they put a password on the adult TV channels so that their six year-old doesn't flick by them...
The effects of getting hooked on porn when very young are almost certainly very negative.
Is there any real data on this? It's not like porn is cocaine, or that young kids (pre-pubescent) even care about porn.
There are a lot of reports of bdsm porn having a negative effect on some youth relationships and that it is warping the expectations of some teens. There are no studies at this point, but experts have said it that kids between ages 13-16 are very impressionable during that time. With Iphones, it has created ways for them to have unrestricted access and the parental controls on all smart phones are very limited.
These were radio reports on local public radio, so I don't have links, sadly.
Yeah. Adults know there's a huge difference between porn and real sex. If you've never had sex before and you don't understand that porn stars really are actors, I can see a teenager expecting things from sex that just don't happen.
Hell, when I first started having sex it was kinda a shock at how different it was than porn. But I managed to survive without abusing or murdering anyone and I'm not scarred so I don't think there's really a reason to be worried.
Stil the lack of parental controls on smartphones and the fact that you have to block sites on a machine by machine basis is a bit silly. There should be a router or ISP level blocking service for parents. If the goverment wants to make a law to assure they have the option, I'm ok with that.
To be clear, with an opt in system, rather than opt out.
You can block stuff at the router level. That's what schools do. And when you're talking about the average home...how many computers are there? One or two? Is a machine by machine basis that hard?
And I know all parents are different and all kids are different, but if you're kid is old enough to have their own computer (and smartphones are computers now) complete with internet access...then I think their old enough to look at porn. If parents haven't given them proper sex ed by that time, that's a problem.
Its smartphones that have made it more of an issue, rather than just PCs. And parental controls at the router level are super hard to use.
I don't think smartphones are an issue. They basically are computers. If you wouldn't trust your kid with their own computer, you shouldn't trust them with a smartphone.
Hell, you can get them a phone without a data plan.
You can't get a phone without a data plan without paying ridiculous amounts of money.
In the US you can get a plan with unlimited calls, texts, and data for $50/month, that's not a lot of money.
But as for the topic itself what are you doing David Cameron, seems a big privacy issue for there to be a record of people who tell their ISPs to let the porn come through. Also I thought the Victorian Era died when Queen Victoria did...
How about we all take a deep breathe and actually read what the others write before posting nonsense? He was referring to the prize you would have to pay for a phone without a plan which you would have to do if you wanted to give your kids a phone without data, as pretty much any plan includes data.
On July 24 2013 16:38 DarkwindHK wrote: I do not even understand why people think Porn is "evil". Why is it something you should hide? Isn't that just another natural part of human and animals? Just teach the kids starting from Kindergarten and stop this "childish" approach.
On July 24 2013 16:38 DarkwindHK wrote: I do not even understand why people think Porn is "evil". Why is it something you should hide? Isn't that just another natural part of human and animals? Just teach the kids starting from Kindergarten and stop this "childish" approach.
Kindergarten is a tad early...
I agree, sex is evil. Society would be much better off without sex....wait what?
On July 24 2013 13:53 GGTeMpLaR wrote: I hope he doesn't get re-elected.
Unfortunately we have only useless alternatives because the unions went completely against the candidate the public/everybody else wanted to lead the Labour party. The current government is also a coalition between our Conservative party and our "liberal" party who, as it turns out, are liberal in name only and have abandoned all their moral values since 2010. This government should have collapsed years ago but the Liberal Democrats didn't have the backbone to stand up for their own policies. 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.
On July 24 2013 16:38 DarkwindHK wrote: I do not even understand why people think Porn is "evil". Why is it something you should hide? Isn't that just another natural part of human and animals? Just teach the kids starting from Kindergarten and stop this "childish" approach.
Kindergarten is a tad early...
I agree, sex is evil. Society would be much better off without sex....wait what?
Thinking that it's too early for 4-6 year olds doesn't mean that I think it's evil, I think ~10 would be a better age (still earlier than when it's currently dealt with in school here).
On July 24 2013 02:57 Shiori wrote: [quote] That's like holding it against someone if they put a password on the adult TV channels so that their six year-old doesn't flick by them...
[quote]
Is there any real data on this? It's not like porn is cocaine, or that young kids (pre-pubescent) even care about porn.
There are a lot of reports of bdsm porn having a negative effect on some youth relationships and that it is warping the expectations of some teens. There are no studies at this point, but experts have said it that kids between ages 13-16 are very impressionable during that time. With Iphones, it has created ways for them to have unrestricted access and the parental controls on all smart phones are very limited.
These were radio reports on local public radio, so I don't have links, sadly.
Yeah. Adults know there's a huge difference between porn and real sex. If you've never had sex before and you don't understand that porn stars really are actors, I can see a teenager expecting things from sex that just don't happen.
Hell, when I first started having sex it was kinda a shock at how different it was than porn. But I managed to survive without abusing or murdering anyone and I'm not scarred so I don't think there's really a reason to be worried.
Stil the lack of parental controls on smartphones and the fact that you have to block sites on a machine by machine basis is a bit silly. There should be a router or ISP level blocking service for parents. If the goverment wants to make a law to assure they have the option, I'm ok with that.
To be clear, with an opt in system, rather than opt out.
You can block stuff at the router level. That's what schools do. And when you're talking about the average home...how many computers are there? One or two? Is a machine by machine basis that hard?
And I know all parents are different and all kids are different, but if you're kid is old enough to have their own computer (and smartphones are computers now) complete with internet access...then I think their old enough to look at porn. If parents haven't given them proper sex ed by that time, that's a problem.
Its smartphones that have made it more of an issue, rather than just PCs. And parental controls at the router level are super hard to use.
I don't think smartphones are an issue. They basically are computers. If you wouldn't trust your kid with their own computer, you shouldn't trust them with a smartphone.
Hell, you can get them a phone without a data plan.
You can't get a phone without a data plan without paying ridiculous amounts of money.
In the US you can get a plan with unlimited calls, texts, and data for $50/month, that's not a lot of money.
But as for the topic itself what are you doing David Cameron, seems a big privacy issue for there to be a record of people who tell their ISPs to let the porn come through. Also I thought the Victorian Era died when Queen Victoria did...
How about we all take a deep breathe and actually read what the others write before posting nonsense? He was referring to the prize you would have to pay for a phone without a plan which you would have to do if you wanted to give your kids a phone without data, as pretty much any plan includes data.
There's a gazillion of androids that doesn't cost a fortune without a plan.
On July 24 2013 16:38 DarkwindHK wrote: I do not even understand why people think Porn is "evil". Why is it something you should hide? Isn't that just another natural part of human and animals? Just teach the kids starting from Kindergarten and stop this "childish" approach.
Kindergarten is a tad early...
I agree, sex is evil. Society would be much better off without sex....wait what?
Thinking that it's too early for 4-6 year olds doesn't mean that I think it's evil, I think ~10 would be a better age (still earlier than when it's currently dealt with in school here).
I vividly remember there being a book in kindergarden that described sex, accompanied by drawn pictures of a naked adult man and woman. Nothing graphical or detailed about the intercourse itself except the base mechanics though.
Wasn't considered strange, especially not by us kids.
On July 24 2013 08:46 Leporello wrote: Young kids have ridiculously easy access to porn. It's disturbing to me, to think of adolescents being able to access some of these sites which are full of some hardcore imagery right on its front page. As others have mentioned, my generation never saw all this crazy hardcore porn that kids are seeing now. We had to use magazines, mostly. If someone had a VHS with any kind of sex, it would be kind of a big deal, and it probably wouldn't contain the type of all-out craziness that is put on the front-page of these websites.
There's been numerous studies about how even adults become desensitized to visual sexual stimulation, and how porn becomes addictive which drives the viewers to seek more and more provocative images. This effects people's sexual lives, which obviously is a big part of life in general.
Yes, it's the parents' job to monitor their kids, and monitor the family PC. But if UK, as a society, wants to place some extra laws and measures to keep kids away from internet porn, I'm all for that. People crying "Freedom!" are being a little sensational, I think. All this is doing is making parental-filters something the parents can actually control directly with their ISP, instead of just being a browser option that any kid can simply turn off -- parental filters are simply too easy. It isn't like a child-protection on a lighter or pill-bottle -- kid hands can handle the internet and parental controls, just as easily as adult hands. This isn't the prosecution of Larry Flynt, no one is banning porn. This just seems like a good idea to me, something ISPs should've probably been doing but had no incentive to do (not just because most of them act like monopolies).
The state shouldn't have to make sure the kids are raised properly, if it was an opt-out thing for parents of children to do then it would be fine rather than opt-in, however the majority of parents probably would preferably still prefer access to porn (though they would maybe not admit it to their other half). Add this to the fact that you will probably be placed on a list for opting in and it's a horrific idea. How about Parents making sure that their kids don't have access to the internet without supervision until they are in their early to mid teens at least..
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
On July 24 2013 16:38 DarkwindHK wrote: I do not even understand why people think Porn is "evil". Why is it something you should hide? Isn't that just another natural part of human and animals? Just teach the kids starting from Kindergarten and stop this "childish" approach.
Kindergarten is a tad early...
kindergarten is fine. i am absolutely sure you can teach children of any age anything as long as you do it in the right way. i highly doubt they will be scarred for life because they know what else their primary sex organs are for.
on a in my eyes somewhat related note: the netherlands are probably the country with the most open and proggressive approach to porn and sexuality. its just there and people dont seem to see it as something super evil that will bring down society. the netherlands are also the (western) country with the least teenage pregnancies of all and i do not believe those two things are unrelated and pure coincidence. especially when the country with the highest rate in (western) europe is the UK.
On July 23 2013 21:41 hzflank wrote: The thing that bothers me about this is that simulated rape porn will be illegal. Who decides what is simulated rape and what is not? If a guy handcuffs his wife and films it, is that simulated rape porn?
The other problem is that it is too easy to get around ISP filtering anyway. Things like child porn are already blocked by British ISPs. Pedophiles do not just start Chrome and watch child porn on Youtube, which is what the filtering would block.
*edited* if post is serious, then i don't know what to say.
Why? It is not about whether I like to watch that sort of thing (I don't). It;s about me not wanting to accidentally possess material that could lead to me becoming a convicted sex offender.
does watching "simulated rape porn" make you a sex offender in england if this law passes through?
We don't know yet. Possessing rape porn does. Who decides what is simulated and what is not?
With child porn it is easy. If the person is under the age of 18 then it is illegal. With rape it is more difficult. In professional porn shoots the models have to sign a contract, so that is fine. But what about people who film themselves and post the video online? That do not sign anything to say that they are not being raped.
i don't know what you think rape is, but rape looks nothing like "simulated" rape on video. i've never thought about this before, but now that i am, i can see why the government wants to remove access to "simulated" rape porn and child porn since it, apparently, does turn on a percentage of people.
it's just a thought, but really, if someone is turned on by rape and sex with children, aren't they *more likely* to become the ones who do this? i mean, that's just what i think, lol.
No. Every single male in history of mankind have atleast once in their life wanted to be some kind of brutal warrior or warlord, and alot of people still want to be that(go into a comic store if you don't belive me).
This does not mean we go around and kill eachother. Thats something psychopaths and very fundamental religious people do.
Imo, if you want to protect the kids and youth by banning "dangerous" things, then ban any form of religion, as that shizzle actully tries to make you do it's bidding.
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
I guess they can use tunneling software and proxies like people in china does with them internets.
But I can see that yes indeed internet has influenced children these days to be oh so liberal but these are fast times and I really think it is up to the parents to really instill understanding about these topics (sex and all).
Parents just need to adapt to these fast times and maybe the gov't could provide better tools or programs on how to tackle instilling knowledge to parents on how for them to properly educate or explain to their children. Maybe help them do better parenting with these topics.
On July 24 2013 13:53 GGTeMpLaR wrote: I hope he doesn't get re-elected.
Unfortunately we have only useless alternatives because the unions went completely against the candidate the public/everybody else wanted to lead the Labour party. The current government is also a coalition between our Conservative party and our "liberal" party who, as it turns out, are liberal in name only and have abandoned all their moral values since 2010. This government should have collapsed years ago but the Liberal Democrats didn't have the backbone to stand up for their own policies. 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.
Conservatives wont win next time. Liberal/Labour coalition in 2014 imo.
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
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
So no types of porn are being made illegal?
I'm sorry but i didn't understand what you meant
one part of the whole thing is that they just want to make something a crime where no victim is found.
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
So no types of porn are being made illegal?
I'm sorry but i didn't understand what you meant
one part of the whole thing is that they just want to make something a crime where no victim is found.
I might have not understood that part in the article Sorry about my stand then...
On July 24 2013 01:01 []Phase[] wrote: All I can ask is... Why?
porn is not 'unsafe'. As a matter of fact, and someone will have to back me up on this one, because I dont remember where I read it, research has shown that countries with pornography legally available do not increase the number of cases of rape / violence. Actually, it is quite the opposite!
(skimmed the internet for some evidence : seems it is indeed true that pornography does not increase sex crime rates)
Im not the kind of guy that'll immediatly say 'oh well then it MUST be so they can control our freedom', but if research shows that pornography does not negatively influences peoples behaviour, then I call this a bad move, and question the motivations behind it.
Now, I dont follow UK politics, but is it perhaps from a religious motivation? Or some desperate attempt to win voters (which this won't)?
Also, whats with the whole 'keep kids away from porn'-thing? Who cares if they watch porn? Sure, it's not a very accurate depiction of reality, but I dont see it leading to any delinquent behaviour. If you are concerned about kids' sexual education, perhaps the parents should be more open about it. Schools only teach you so much.
EDIT : TLDR : removing porn from the internet does not make the internet safer, because pornography is not unsafe, as is backed up by plenty of evidence. Thus removing it wont do any good whatsoever.
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.
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.
This is a new weapon for parents to use against their adult children who haven't moved out of the house yet.
There are so many husbands that will be caught out by this. 'Why would I want to watch porn? You're everything I need' just isn't going to fly any more when she finds out you've unblocked the porn filter.
There was a bbc article with a headline that was something like 'April killer watched legal porn before moving onto...' I can't remember what he was moving onto, presumably the violent stuff they found in his house. I guess legal porn is now viewed as a gateway to violent porn.
He said: 'It seems Bridger lived in a fantasy world which included looking at child abuse images online.
'For some time we have been concerned about the growing number of these obscene images which are becoming more easily available and can fuel the fantasies of offenders like Bridger.
'This case points to the ever-growing evidence that there is a worrying link between looking at this vile kind of material and committing other serious sexual assaults.
'April’s death will hopefully lead to effective measures to stamp out this vile trade.'
I wonder how far this goes. Will they ban terms like 'brutal' or maybe 'rough' or even 'hard'?
I'm pretty nervous about this because I once searched for 'full length anime movies videos' on a school pc and the next day I was called into the assistant head teacher's office to explain why terms such as 'incest', 'bestiality' and 'brutally raped by enormous octopus' had come up on my screen. The school filter had flagged the banned keywords in the search results.
The way this works is you can't criticize it, or they attack you as being a porn fan.
What's funny is that the Tories like to portray Labour as radical socialists who want to abolish civil liberties. In reality, it's the Tories that are by far the most radical. They didn't even win a majority, yet the changes they've made thus far have been almost revolutionary in their scope. Most of the changes you don't even hear about. How many of you know that the Health & Social Care Act removes the government's obligation to provide universal healthcare?
Wow. This would actually get me to leave the country, lol.
I hate how governments are always trying to play the blame game with whatever activity teenagers are doing. Porn, drugs, violent shows, rap music. It's like clockwork man. As soon as some psycho goes and shoots up a school its a scramble among grannies, soccer moms and conservative pundits to figure out which activity, popular among teens, is responsible. Because yknow, it couldnt possibly be the absentee parents or bullies or just some inherent flaw in the killer's brain.
I'm also pretty fed up with this intrusive, entitled attitude of government and its defenders. It's like the concept of individual rights is just incomprehensible to some people. You can't just enslave every single aspect of your life to some abstract notion of what's best for society. A line has to be drawn somewhere.
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.
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.
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.
This crops up all the time. Deregulation isn't, as a concept by itself, a bad thing. Too much regulation can and does hurt. Just because the Conservatives deregulated it to a certain level and Labour deregulated it much further doesn't really mean you can go "well, Labour just carried on what the Tories started." It seems pretty obvious that Labour deregulated it too far, and yet there's no real evidence that the Tories deregulated banking too far. Connecting the two just because they both involve deregulation seems to be an error in thinking that's prevalent on the issue.
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.
This crops up all the time. Deregulation isn't, as a concept by itself, a bad thing. Too much regulation can and does hurt. Just because the Conservatives deregulated it to a certain level and Labour deregulated it much further doesn't really mean you can go "well, Labour just carried on what the Tories started." It seems pretty obvious that Labour deregulated it too far, and yet there's no real evidence that the Tories deregulated banking too far. Connecting the two just because they both involve deregulation seems to be an error in thinking that's prevalent on the issue.
How is that obvious? Why blame Labour for deregulation which the Tories have always heartily supported and which they even pioneered under Thatcher, not just in banking?
It just seems that you're desperate to blame Labour for something. It's funny how the buck stops with Labour, but the Tories are free to blame whoever came before or after them.
I think it's a fair enough concern to want to limit porn from minors, I'm sure it can have a huge impact on a lot of people. Having said that I'd be just as concerned about the effects of tons of things you can find on the internet on young people, 4chan, r/gore, chatrooms, etc...
The issue is like people say in parenting, there's no point blocking porn and letting a young person sit around in their private room all day thinking that there's no mischief they can get up to. Clearly not everyone will get in to trouble, but I think it's the wrong impression to give to the average parent.
lol. Because it's so hard to find things Labour are culpable for, right?
You've basically just responded by saying the same thing that my post criticised. Well done.
As one example, Gordon Brown removed regulatory responsibilities from the Bank of England to the hands-off FSA, himself admitting later it was a big mistake: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13032013
I think it would be helpful to actually explain to the majority of people where this is coming from in England. For a while now, papers have been full of comments from a certain collection of people writing in, usually I believe referred to as 'middle englanders' who like things to be like they were 'back in the day', essentially conservatives and most of them parents. They are in general horrified by even the idea of pornography and especially the idea of it being uncensored and freely accessible for their children. At the same time, there is a general feeling from people who were not necessarily raised on the internet like us, that it can corrupt sex education development - that before youngsters are taught sex education classes (which are, here, extremely uninformative, disinteresting and very awkward) and before their parents give them 'the talk', they are showing each other japanese tentacle porn, gangbangs and bestiality videos.
I was in the Apple store about a year and a half ago and I distinctly remember a group of boys and girls that could have been no older than 12 next to me as I looked at the iPad. They were going through a pretty crazy porn website and loading up some extremely hardcore videos and laughing at them. That's harmless fun but if these same teenagers then, in a few years time, start imitating what they have seen, a la 'wrestling', I can understand why there might be some tension from parents.
The basic idea is that a certain, very vocal, section of the public over a certain age happens to absolute despise the idea of internet porn and the difficulty of cutting their children off from all sources without being overzealous and completely barring them from internet access. It just so happens that most 'middle englanders' vote Tory, and therefore most of the people who get angry about internet porn happen to be standard Tory voters. And seeing as Cameron has really risked support by backing gay rights, he needs to remind middle englanders that he still 'has their back'.
FWIW, I am not sure about whether banning simulated rape porn etc is a good idea (apparently rapes go down in areas which get access to the internet at least I remember that evidence from somewhere but it might have been Cracked). But I am sure that what we as a country NEED to do is approach sex education better, more openly, and explain the difference between pr0n and real life. Which is right now, woefully ignored.
On July 25 2013 00:35 marvellosity wrote: lol. Because it's so hard to find things Labour are culpable for, right?
You've basically just responded by saying the same thing that my post criticised. Well done.
As one example, Gordon Brown removed regulatory responsibilities from the Bank of England to the hands-off FSA, himself admitting later it was a big mistake: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13032013
Where the hell do you get off thinking the Tories have the high ground on deregulation at all?
This is the party that's fucking defined by deregulation. Deregulation is what they do. They want to lower taxes and allow free and open commerce and all that jazz.
So no, you don't have the high ground. Labour made a mistake and they have owned up to it. Nobody knew it would go the way it did, and the Tories certainly didn't know. Or let's face it: even if they did, they wouldn't have cared. It's led to the rich being made richer, which is exactly what they want and what their party is about.
On July 25 2013 00:35 marvellosity wrote: lol. Because it's so hard to find things Labour are culpable for, right?
You've basically just responded by saying the same thing that my post criticised. Well done.
As one example, Gordon Brown removed regulatory responsibilities from the Bank of England to the hands-off FSA, himself admitting later it was a big mistake: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13032013
Where the hell do you get off thinking the Tories have the high ground on deregulation at all?
This is the party that's fucking defined by deregulation. Deregulation is what they do. They want to lower taxes and allow free and open commerce and all that jazz.
So no, you don't have the high ground. Labour made a mistake and they have owned up to it. Nobody knew it would go the way it did, and the Tories certainly didn't know. Or let's face it: even if they did, they wouldn't have cared. It's led to the rich being made richer, which is exactly what they want and what their party is about.
I never said I had the high ground, in your maniacal ranting you're just putting words in my mouth.
I was simply pointing out the fallacy of saying "well the Tories did it" to what Labour did with deregulation.
Seriously, you need a drink/spliff/massage or something dude.
On July 25 2013 00:35 marvellosity wrote: lol. Because it's so hard to find things Labour are culpable for, right?
You've basically just responded by saying the same thing that my post criticised. Well done.
As one example, Gordon Brown removed regulatory responsibilities from the Bank of England to the hands-off FSA, himself admitting later it was a big mistake: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13032013
Where the hell do you get off thinking the Tories have the high ground on deregulation at all?
This is the party that's fucking defined by deregulation. Deregulation is what they do. They want to lower taxes and allow free and open commerce and all that jazz.
So no, you don't have the high ground. Labour made a mistake and they have owned up to it. Nobody knew it would go the way it did, and the Tories certainly didn't know. Or let's face it: even if they did, they wouldn't have cared. It's led to the rich being made richer, which is exactly what they want and what their party is about.
I never said I had the high ground, in your maniacal ranting you're just putting words in my mouth.
I was simply pointing out the fallacy of saying "well the Tories did it" to what Labour did with deregulation.
Seriously, you need a drink/spliff/massage or something dude.
But it's obviously not a fallacy because Cameron went to the EU and opposed regulation of the banking sector, Tories are defined by deregulation and privatization and Thatcher started that in her first year. Best case scenario for the Tories is that they're the pot calling the kettle black.
That's not to mention that you're not even factually accurate. Thatcher's changes toward deregulation are known by bankers as the "Big Bang". She abolished fixed commission charges, or in other words allowed bankers' bonuses to become arbitrarily high, directly leading to the Gordon Geckoite culture in the decades to come. It's subjective rubbish to say what you did about Brown's deregulation being the grand-daddy.
The only maniacs here are the ones who parrot Daily Mail talking points.
Ok dear, whatever you say. I can't carry on if you keep responding to things that I've not actually said, or contrary to what I've said (I understand Thatcher started deregulation, I basically said that in my first post, don't know why you're ranting about it)
How about going and getting that drink for yourself now?
You can't use the excuse of protecting children for everything. And to be fair, until I started hitting puberty I had no interest in porn. If I saw it I'd have been like, "well what's that? Why does my penis feel funny?" It doesn't hurt people. There's no point for this law to exist.
But if we look at the progress of similar bans on porn in other countries (child porn in Germany), we start to see that's it's just a test law to see how strong public opinion is against the idea. As soon as the government realizes that they're in no danger they start censoring everything else including any sites that speak out against them.
"In Finland, for instance, a man who runs a website arguing that the blacklist approach is ineffective was called in for questioning last year after publishing "a list of a few hundred censored sites." His own site was then placed on the blacklist, which means that visitors from Finland are greeted by a message saying that the site they are trying to reach contains illegal images."
Violence and sex are natural parts of human nature. You can't remove them entirely from the human psyche. Creating individuals who repress their emotions will only lead to mental problems and instability within the state when these mental problems come out.
On July 25 2013 00:42 sc4k wrote: I think it would be helpful to actually explain to the majority of people where this is coming from in England. For a while now, papers have been full of comments from a certain collection of people writing in, usually I believe referred to as 'middle englanders' who like things to be like they were 'back in the day', essentially conservatives and most of them parents. They are in general horrified by even the idea of pornography and especially the idea of it being uncensored and freely accessible for their children. At the same time, there is a general feeling from people who were not necessarily raised on the internet like us, that it can corrupt sex education development - that before youngsters are taught sex education classes (which are, here, extremely uninformative, disinteresting and very awkward) and before their parents give them 'the talk', they are showing each other japanese tentacle porn, gangbangs and bestiality videos.
I was in the Apple store about a year and a half ago and I distinctly remember a group of boys and girls that could have been no older than 12 next to me as I looked at the iPad. They were going through a pretty crazy porn website and loading up some extremely hardcore videos and laughing at them. That's harmless fun but if these same teenagers then, in a few years time, start imitating what they have seen, a la 'wrestling', I can understand why there might be some tension from parents.
The basic idea is that a certain, very vocal, section of the public over a certain age happens to absolute despise the idea of internet porn and the difficulty of cutting their children off from all sources without being overzealous and completely barring them from internet access. It just so happens that most 'middle englanders' vote Tory, and therefore most of the people who get angry about internet porn happen to be standard Tory voters. And seeing as Cameron has really risked support by backing gay rights, he needs to remind middle englanders that he still 'has their back'.
FWIW, I am not sure about whether banning simulated rape porn etc is a good idea (apparently rapes go down in areas which get access to the internet at least I remember that evidence from somewhere but it might have been Cracked). But I am sure that what we as a country NEED to do is approach sex education better, more openly, and explain the difference between pr0n and real life. Which is right now, woefully ignored.
You hit many a nail on the head there.
There's a rather lazy lack of self-reflection here. There are other more sexually open/mature cultures, including some of our neighbours in Europe that have lower rates of teen pregnancy for one, but yet pornograhpy is often listed as a contributory factor.
I mean this is entirely anecdotal, but one thing that has always stuck in my mind was something I read when I was pretty young, think it was the Guardian in which they were talking about the issue. There was some quote, akin to 'I'm 16, sex is fun and everyone should know it'. Now for me this was really illuminating, because despite my young age I was aware what sex was, but the pleasurable aspect of it was completely news to me.
There's such a woeful lack of open discussion about sex in our society. So much of public discourse is euphemistic or tongue-in-cheek, so is it any wonder that curious younger people turn to pornography to fill in the blanks?
On July 25 2013 00:42 sc4k wrote: I think it would be helpful to actually explain to the majority of people where this is coming from in England. For a while now, papers have been full of comments from a certain collection of people writing in, usually I believe referred to as 'middle englanders' who like things to be like they were 'back in the day', essentially conservatives and most of them parents. They are in general horrified by even the idea of pornography and especially the idea of it being uncensored and freely accessible for their children. At the same time, there is a general feeling from people who were not necessarily raised on the internet like us, that it can corrupt sex education development - that before youngsters are taught sex education classes (which are, here, extremely uninformative, disinteresting and very awkward) and before their parents give them 'the talk', they are showing each other japanese tentacle porn, gangbangs and bestiality videos.
I was in the Apple store about a year and a half ago and I distinctly remember a group of boys and girls that could have been no older than 12 next to me as I looked at the iPad. They were going through a pretty crazy porn website and loading up some extremely hardcore videos and laughing at them. That's harmless fun but if these same teenagers then, in a few years time, start imitating what they have seen, a la 'wrestling', I can understand why there might be some tension from parents.
The basic idea is that a certain, very vocal, section of the public over a certain age happens to absolute despise the idea of internet porn and the difficulty of cutting their children off from all sources without being overzealous and completely barring them from internet access. It just so happens that most 'middle englanders' vote Tory, and therefore most of the people who get angry about internet porn happen to be standard Tory voters. And seeing as Cameron has really risked support by backing gay rights, he needs to remind middle englanders that he still 'has their back'.
FWIW, I am not sure about whether banning simulated rape porn etc is a good idea (apparently rapes go down in areas which get access to the internet at least I remember that evidence from somewhere but it might have been Cracked). But I am sure that what we as a country NEED to do is approach sex education better, more openly, and explain the difference between pr0n and real life. Which is right now, woefully ignored.
You hit many a nail on the head there.
There's a rather lazy lack of self-reflection here. There are other more sexually open/mature cultures, including some of our neighbours in Europe that have lower rates of teen pregnancy for one, but yet pornograhpy is often listed as a contributory factor.
I mean this is entirely anecdotal, but one thing that has always stuck in my mind was something I read when I was pretty young, think it was the Guardian in which they were talking about the issue. There was some quote, akin to 'I'm 16, sex is fun and everyone should know it'. Now for me this was really illuminating, because despite my young age I was aware what sex was, but the pleasurable aspect of it was completely news to me.
There's such a woeful lack of open discussion about sex in our society. So much of public discourse is euphemistic or tongue-in-cheek, so is it any wonder that curious younger people turn to pornography to fill in the blanks?
Yeah, I agree totally, especially your last paragraph. It's too taboo and it shouldn't be. In many ways this move is going the wrong way, attitude-wise. Sensationalising/hush-hushing/hiding it is really the last thing we need.
Incidentally I don't think that there should necessarily be a porn free-for-all, some of what Claire Perry says is legitimate. However in a culture where women are frequently utilised as eyecandy in advertisements, or if they happen to be famous their every 'wardrobe malfunction' scrutinised, perhaps pick other battles.
People are saying this is just censoring sex. And sex is natural. That by itself is true. There is nothing really wrong with children seeing normal sex, depending on context of course. There is nothing wrong with sex, as in, a pair making love.
But porn is not merely sex. Porn is, in 99% of cases, a sort of sex that doesn't really happen in real life: a situation where the woman's role is to please the man, where the end of the scene is when the man ejaculates, because his pleasure is what matters; the woman's is inconsequential. But of course, in this male power fantasy the woman's senses are overloaded with pleasure simply from pleasuring him. If you can't see how damaging this is to the psychology and view of sex in young people, I don't know what to tell you.
There is no loss in censoring it. Good riddance, I say.
Not all porn reflects that sexual power dynamic, albeit quite a lot does.
I just don't see the point in censoring porn given how rampant sexism is in many other forms of media, notably the tabloid press that are cheerleaders for this. Notwithstanding the blatant overreach from a party that frequently decries the nanny state.
The Open Rights Group are reporting that they’ve had a nice little chat with some of the ISPs that will be expected to introduce Cameron’s porn filter. Unsurprisingly the list of websites and content to be blocked by default won’t stop at porn.
ORG speculate on categories of content that might be filtered in future, but for a clearer idea of where we stand today we can take a look at the system currently being operated by ISP TalkTalk. The HomeSafe system, which was singled out for praise by David Cameron earlier this week as leading the way in this field, currently covers several categories as detailed in the image below.
As previously noted, leave the third box ticked and not only will all file-sharing sites be wiped out, but TorrentFreak with them too. Leave the rest of them ticked (note: the government is promising “default on” for all filters) and it’s anyone’s guess what else will disappear. Just like when many novice (or even experienced users) install software, the chances of people simply clicking through, next after next, is extremely high.
Furthermore, in news that’s unlikely to win the PM or TalkTalk many fans, it’s now been revealed by the BBC that HomeSafe is being run by Huawei, a Chinese company founded by a former China People’s Liberation Army officer.
The UK government already knows about the connection, as an Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) report released last month expressed concern over the “alleged links between Huawei and the Chinese State” as they “generate suspicion as to whether Huawei’s intentions are strictly commercial or are more political.”
Whether Huawei is linked to the government or not (they insist not), it’s hardly encouraging to discover that even when TalkTalk subscribers turn filtering completely off, their traffic is still routed through Huawei’s system.
Haha, time for fearmongering!
Kind of scary that they're using the people who censor China's internet though.
I like the eating disorder and suicide website bans. Nobody goes online for information to get help right? And the list will of course grow, they never shrink. Russia is getting a law banning bad words now. Sites don't remove them in 24 hours, poof, no more access to you from there. Kind of like Cameron's uninformed demands of Google et al come to think of it. And this will be bad words as defined by the government of course. Nothing could go wrong in that scenario I'm sure. Similarly, "well I don't watch porn". Lol. You play games don't you, being here and all? Didn't you know those turn kids into mindless killing machines?
This is retarded and it's got nothing to do with the children, it's about pandering and control. But maybe, if the children are what the government is so worried about, it's time for them to man the fuck up and tell people to take some responsibility in raising those. But of course "we'll get rid of the things you don't like" will always have appeal somewhere.
As for the Huawei thing.. there's a point but eh, would you trust a US company more atm? Because you should probably pick up a paper, you know, in case your internet is rigged up to protect the young ones or something.
This is how a civilization dies, parents paying to lose their authority to the state to let the"experts" handle it. Then wonder why their children don't listen to them. Sad really.
On July 27 2013 06:27 schimmetje wrote: This is retarded and it's got nothing to do with the children, it's about pandering and control. But maybe, if the children are what the government is so worried about, it's time for them to man the fuck up and tell people to take some responsibility in raising those. But of course "we'll get rid of the things you don't like" will always have appeal somewhere.
So many of you use this argument in the thread. Don't you realize how disrespectful and ignorant you're being blaming the parents, basically telling them they're bad at parenting?
Lets face it. Not all parents are good parents. This will help the children of said parents (children of sucky parents are still children). Also, not all parents are very tech savy (to say nothing of grandparents etc that may take care of them). They may not know how to make a filter - this will support those parents.
Independent of any other (more controversial) benefits, I believe that this out ways any cons.
Next thing you know we'll have counselors talking to children who accidentally watched porn. Or a new illness called porn addiction.
Moral of my story is that it's up to children to explore the world, if porn was really that bad we would all be fucked up right now. If you keep protecting them they will grow with disillusions and not able to deal with the real world. If the government had anything to say about they would put rubber blocks all over your house, so that kids wouldn't be able to hurt themselves. When that same child goes out to friends who didn't have those rubber blocks they would freak and the first time they really got hurt be in so much pain that they get trauma's. Simply because the kid will have built op zero tolerance.
What people don't realize is that once the internet is censored it opens a new world to more censoring. This is not my prediction, this is fact, it's happened almost everywhere where government has the ability to censor, they abused it to censor anything that opposes government in the slightest way.
There are great free filters that parents can download (even better than the government ever could because it also blocks spyware), let the government create a campaign inform people on these filters and not force this garbage on the people, with opt-out. The government should be working for the people, not forcing us into stuff. This role has somehow been lost years ago, I pity the fact that still so many people don't understand the role of government.
On July 27 2013 06:27 schimmetje wrote: This is retarded and it's got nothing to do with the children, it's about pandering and control. But maybe, if the children are what the government is so worried about, it's time for them to man the fuck up and tell people to take some responsibility in raising those. But of course "we'll get rid of the things you don't like" will always have appeal somewhere.
So many of you use this argument in the thread. Don't you realize how disrespectful and ignorant you're being blaming the parents, basically telling them they're bad at parenting?
No?
Well you're sort of right, I do not have much respect for people who need to limit my rights to raise their kids.
On July 27 2013 20:10 LAN-f34r wrote: Lets face it. Not all parents are good parents. This will help the children of said parents (children of sucky parents are still children). Also, not all parents are very tech savy (to say nothing of grandparents etc that may take care of them). They may not know how to make a filter - this will support those parents.
Independent of any other (more controversial) benefits, I believe that this out ways any cons.
On July 27 2013 06:27 schimmetje wrote: This is retarded and it's got nothing to do with the children, it's about pandering and control. But maybe, if the children are what the government is so worried about, it's time for them to man the fuck up and tell people to take some responsibility in raising those. But of course "we'll get rid of the things you don't like" will always have appeal somewhere.
So many of you use this argument in the thread. Don't you realize how disrespectful and ignorant you're being blaming the parents, basically telling them they're bad at parenting?
No?
I think these parents are indeed terrible at parenting and do not deserve any respect.
On July 27 2013 04:49 Reggiegigas wrote: I think there's a fault in an argument here.
People are saying this is just censoring sex. And sex is natural. That by itself is true. There is nothing really wrong with children seeing normal sex, depending on context of course. There is nothing wrong with sex, as in, a pair making love.
But porn is not merely sex. Porn is, in 99% of cases, a sort of sex that doesn't really happen in real life: a situation where the woman's role is to please the man, where the end of the scene is when the man ejaculates, because his pleasure is what matters; the woman's is inconsequential. But of course, in this male power fantasy the woman's senses are overloaded with pleasure simply from pleasuring him. If you can't see how damaging this is to the psychology and view of sex in young people, I don't know what to tell you.
There is no loss in censoring it. Good riddance, I say.
On July 27 2013 20:24 peacenl wrote: Next thing you know we'll have counselors talking to children who accidentally watched porn. Or a new illness called porn addiction.
Moral of my story is that it's up to children to explore the world, if porn was really that bad we would all be fucked up right now. If you keep protecting them they will grow with disillusions and not able to deal with the real world. If the government had anything to say about they would put rubber blocks all over your house, so that kids wouldn't be able to hurt themselves. When that same child goes out to friends who didn't have those rubber blocks they would freak and the first time they really got hurt be in so much pain that they get trauma's. Simply because the kid will have built op zero tolerance.
Hardcore porn can actually have a negative impact on adolescents. I remember watching a documentary (not the ridiculous "we tell you what's true" type) about people who had kinda severe experiences that crippled them in their later love lives. Like 1st time in a threesome, ATM in 14+14yr relationships etc. Young people are dumb and a good plentiful of parents leave sex education up to the school system, so they end up mistaking sex for something entirely physical.
On July 27 2013 04:49 Reggiegigas wrote: If you can't see how damaging this is to the psychology and view of sex in young people, I don't know what to tell you.
I can't, please point it out for me. Because i have been pretty lucky with my sexual relationships. Talking about porn making you a mysonigist prick is the same as saying that watching violent movies will make your adolescent kid a mass murderer.
On July 27 2013 06:27 schimmetje wrote: This is retarded and it's got nothing to do with the children, it's about pandering and control. But maybe, if the children are what the government is so worried about, it's time for them to man the fuck up and tell people to take some responsibility in raising those. But of course "we'll get rid of the things you don't like" will always have appeal somewhere.
So many of you use this argument in the thread. Don't you realize how disrespectful and ignorant you're being blaming the parents, basically telling them they're bad at parenting?
No?
A lot of parents should not be parents, you seem a little bit naive....
As someone from the UK, what scares me is what they will do next. Looks like i'll be moving from here in the future. The internet should NEVER be in control of governments. Power hungry bastards.
On July 27 2013 20:24 peacenl wrote: Next thing you know we'll have counselors talking to children who accidentally watched porn. Or a new illness called porn addiction.
Moral of my story is that it's up to children to explore the world, if porn was really that bad we would all be fucked up right now. If you keep protecting them they will grow with disillusions and not able to deal with the real world. If the government had anything to say about they would put rubber blocks all over your house, so that kids wouldn't be able to hurt themselves. When that same child goes out to friends who didn't have those rubber blocks they would freak and the first time they really got hurt be in so much pain that they get trauma's. Simply because the kid will have built op zero tolerance.
Hardcore porn can actually have a negative impact on adolescents. I remember watching a documentary (not the ridiculous "we tell you what's true" type) about people who had kinda severe experiences that crippled them in their later love lives. Like 1st time in a threesome, ATM in 14+14yr relationships etc. Young people are dumb and a good plentiful of parents leave sex education up to the school system, so they end up mistaking sex for something entirely physical.
That's why I take documentaries with a grain of salt every time I see one. They can dramatize one subject so much so that it becomes a new social issue, even though it's only affecting a very minute percentage of the population.
It's simply a matter of how many young persons are affected by trauma. Honestly, these type of ideas scare me to death, because its implementation affects millions of people and I didn't find any scientific base to back these claims on Google Scholar and Citeseer.
On July 27 2013 20:10 LAN-f34r wrote: Lets face it. Not all parents are good parents. This will help the children of said parents (children of sucky parents are still children). Also, not all parents are very tech savy (to say nothing of grandparents etc that may take care of them). They may not know how to make a filter - this will support those parents.
Independent of any other (more controversial) benefits, I believe that this out ways any cons.
I agree that there are good parents and bad parents, I just don't think that quality of parenting is determined by the degree of obsessiveness over children coming across porn.
I'm all down with government measures that counteract some of the aspects of actual bad parenting, but there's no evidence to suggest that this one does that at all. It's very much based in the obsolete "everything about sex is dirty and/or immoral" premise, that itself stems mainly from religious beliefs and traditions.
On July 27 2013 20:10 LAN-f34r wrote: Lets face it. Not all parents are good parents. This will help the children of said parents (children of sucky parents are still children). Also, not all parents are very tech savy (to say nothing of grandparents etc that may take care of them). They may not know how to make a filter - this will support those parents.
Independent of any other (more controversial) benefits, I believe that this out ways any cons.
I agree that there are good parents and bad parents, I just don't think that quality of parenting is determined by the degree of obsessiveness over children coming across porn.
I'm all down with government measures that counteract some of the aspects of actual bad parenting, but there's no evidence to suggest that this one does that at all. It's very much based in the obsolete "everything about sex is dirty and/or immoral" premise, that itself stems mainly from religious beliefs and traditions.
It's not the governments' role to interfere with our lives, it should be kept to a minimum at least to ensure our freedoms. However, this idea is completely twisted it seems as they want to take every opportunity to impose things on us, just because something affects a small amount of the population. Government laws, measures should be a last resort because it doesn't fix the problem from its root (such as bad parenting and parents not using internet filters), but takes away the symptoms of a problem, while at the same time the true problem doesn't disappear. I haven't found the logic thus far other than misuse of power because of inability to solve problems.
On July 27 2013 20:10 LAN-f34r wrote: Lets face it. Not all parents are good parents. This will help the children of said parents (children of sucky parents are still children). Also, not all parents are very tech savy (to say nothing of grandparents etc that may take care of them). They may not know how to make a filter - this will support those parents.
Independent of any other (more controversial) benefits, I believe that this out ways any cons.
I agree that there are good parents and bad parents, I just don't think that quality of parenting is determined by the degree of obsessiveness over children coming across porn.
I'm all down with government measures that counteract some of the aspects of actual bad parenting, but there's no evidence to suggest that this one does that at all. It's very much based in the obsolete "everything about sex is dirty and/or immoral" premise, that itself stems mainly from religious beliefs and traditions.
It's not the governments' role to interfere with our lives, it should be kept to a minimum at least to ensure our freedoms. However, this idea is completely twisted it seems as they want to take every opportunity to impose things on us, just because something affects a small amount of the population. Government laws, measures should be a last resort because it doesn't fix the problem from its root (such as bad parenting and parents not using internet filters), but takes away the symptoms of a problem, while at the same time the true problem doesn't disappear. I haven't found the logic thus far other than abuse of power.
You said : «It's not the governments' role to interfere with our lives, it should be kept to a minimum»
You realize that it's a subjective opinion? The political spectrum has 2 sides, right and left... You are clearly on the right side, but some people are on the left side you know... consider that.
i heard on the radio earlier today that microsoft (and other companies) has implemented a "popup" that will "warn" you if you search for "child pornography" using their search engine (bing)
ahh nice, i searched for kiddie porn and it works. not much of a popup tho, they could have used that 4chan YOUR IP HAS BEEN LOGGED AND FORWARDED TO THE FBI image lol
or maybe a popup image of "Have a seat over there..." (and paedobear in the corner). like the microsoft paperclip except pedobear
On July 27 2013 20:10 LAN-f34r wrote: Lets face it. Not all parents are good parents. This will help the children of said parents (children of sucky parents are still children). Also, not all parents are very tech savy (to say nothing of grandparents etc that may take care of them). They may not know how to make a filter - this will support those parents.
Independent of any other (more controversial) benefits, I believe that this out ways any cons.
I agree that there are good parents and bad parents, I just don't think that quality of parenting is determined by the degree of obsessiveness over children coming across porn.
I'm all down with government measures that counteract some of the aspects of actual bad parenting, but there's no evidence to suggest that this one does that at all. It's very much based in the obsolete "everything about sex is dirty and/or immoral" premise, that itself stems mainly from religious beliefs and traditions.
It's not the governments' role to interfere with our lives, it should be kept to a minimum at least to ensure our freedoms. However, this idea is completely twisted it seems as they want to take every opportunity to impose things on us, just because something affects a small amount of the population. Government laws, measures should be a last resort because it doesn't fix the problem from its root (such as bad parenting and parents not using internet filters), but takes away the symptoms of a problem, while at the same time the true problem doesn't disappear. I haven't found the logic thus far other than abuse of power.
You said : «It's not the governments' role to interfere with our lives, it should be kept to a minimum»
You realize that it's a subjective opinion? The political spectrum has 2 sides, right and left... You are clearly on the right side, but some people are on the left side you know... consider that.
That's bullshit, I am something you would consider left, because I hate the whole financial sector and think it should be banned. But what people do in their private should be their business as long as they do not really harm others. Instead of banning porn they should emphasize on educating parents more and creating a system where parents have more time for their children instead of having to work themselves to death and come home exhausted and unwilling to spend time with their children because of that. I mean parents themselves should look what their children are doing and prepare them for the world. I mean there is porn and lots of fetishes and things people like and what not and just not showing them doesn't make it going away. If children or young teens want to see sex, porn or stuff they will find their way, we have, and so will they.
The only thing we should ban and get rid of is our society our politicians and the whole financial sector and every rich guy. Perhaps it would also be a good idea to ban political stuff because it might influence people in a bad way or drive them towards making wrong decisions, who knows.
On July 27 2013 20:10 LAN-f34r wrote: Lets face it. Not all parents are good parents. This will help the children of said parents (children of sucky parents are still children). Also, not all parents are very tech savy (to say nothing of grandparents etc that may take care of them). They may not know how to make a filter - this will support those parents.
Independent of any other (more controversial) benefits, I believe that this out ways any cons.
I agree that there are good parents and bad parents, I just don't think that quality of parenting is determined by the degree of obsessiveness over children coming across porn.
I'm all down with government measures that counteract some of the aspects of actual bad parenting, but there's no evidence to suggest that this one does that at all. It's very much based in the obsolete "everything about sex is dirty and/or immoral" premise, that itself stems mainly from religious beliefs and traditions.
It's not the governments' role to interfere with our lives, it should be kept to a minimum at least to ensure our freedoms. However, this idea is completely twisted it seems as they want to take every opportunity to impose things on us, just because something affects a small amount of the population. Government laws, measures should be a last resort because it doesn't fix the problem from its root (such as bad parenting and parents not using internet filters), but takes away the symptoms of a problem, while at the same time the true problem doesn't disappear. I haven't found the logic thus far other than abuse of power.
You said : «It's not the governments' role to interfere with our lives, it should be kept to a minimum»
You realize that it's a subjective opinion? The political spectrum has 2 sides, right and left... You are clearly on the right side, but some people are on the left side you know... consider that.
That's a weird assessment, as there's plenty of people who'd argue the opposite about their respective parties and their opponents. Which is of course why just seeing the whole spectrum as having only two sides is about as dumb as this plan.
For your reference, Cameron is considered a conservative.
On July 27 2013 20:10 LAN-f34r wrote: Lets face it. Not all parents are good parents. This will help the children of said parents (children of sucky parents are still children). Also, not all parents are very tech savy (to say nothing of grandparents etc that may take care of them). They may not know how to make a filter - this will support those parents.
Independent of any other (more controversial) benefits, I believe that this out ways any cons.
I agree that there are good parents and bad parents, I just don't think that quality of parenting is determined by the degree of obsessiveness over children coming across porn.
I'm all down with government measures that counteract some of the aspects of actual bad parenting, but there's no evidence to suggest that this one does that at all. It's very much based in the obsolete "everything about sex is dirty and/or immoral" premise, that itself stems mainly from religious beliefs and traditions.
It's not the governments' role to interfere with our lives, it should be kept to a minimum at least to ensure our freedoms. However, this idea is completely twisted it seems as they want to take every opportunity to impose things on us, just because something affects a small amount of the population. Government laws, measures should be a last resort because it doesn't fix the problem from its root (such as bad parenting and parents not using internet filters), but takes away the symptoms of a problem, while at the same time the true problem doesn't disappear. I haven't found the logic thus far other than abuse of power.
You said : «It's not the governments' role to interfere with our lives, it should be kept to a minimum»
You realize that it's a subjective opinion? The political spectrum has 2 sides, right and left... You are clearly on the right side, but some people are on the left side you know... consider that.
There are actually people who think the government controlling what information is available to us is a good thing? o_O
If this was just porn, I wouldn't feel strongly about it because as the OP said, you can opt out of this quite readily, however I highly doubt the government would stop at censoring porn.
On July 27 2013 20:10 LAN-f34r wrote: Lets face it. Not all parents are good parents. This will help the children of said parents (children of sucky parents are still children). Also, not all parents are very tech savy (to say nothing of grandparents etc that may take care of them). They may not know how to make a filter - this will support those parents.
Independent of any other (more controversial) benefits, I believe that this out ways any cons.
I agree that there are good parents and bad parents, I just don't think that quality of parenting is determined by the degree of obsessiveness over children coming across porn.
I'm all down with government measures that counteract some of the aspects of actual bad parenting, but there's no evidence to suggest that this one does that at all. It's very much based in the obsolete "everything about sex is dirty and/or immoral" premise, that itself stems mainly from religious beliefs and traditions.
It's not the governments' role to interfere with our lives, it should be kept to a minimum at least to ensure our freedoms. However, this idea is completely twisted it seems as they want to take every opportunity to impose things on us, just because something affects a small amount of the population. Government laws, measures should be a last resort because it doesn't fix the problem from its root (such as bad parenting and parents not using internet filters), but takes away the symptoms of a problem, while at the same time the true problem doesn't disappear. I haven't found the logic thus far other than abuse of power.
You said : «It's not the governments' role to interfere with our lives, it should be kept to a minimum»
You realize that it's a subjective opinion? The political spectrum has 2 sides, right and left... You are clearly on the right side, but some people are on the left side you know... consider that.
There are actually people who think the government controlling what information is available to us is a good thing? o_O
If this was just porn, I wouldn't feel strongly about it because as the OP said, you can opt out of this quite readily, however I highly doubt the government would stop at censoring porn.
With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.
On July 27 2013 20:10 LAN-f34r wrote: Lets face it. Not all parents are good parents. This will help the children of said parents (children of sucky parents are still children). Also, not all parents are very tech savy (to say nothing of grandparents etc that may take care of them). They may not know how to make a filter - this will support those parents.
Independent of any other (more controversial) benefits, I believe that this out ways any cons.
I agree that there are good parents and bad parents, I just don't think that quality of parenting is determined by the degree of obsessiveness over children coming across porn.
I'm all down with government measures that counteract some of the aspects of actual bad parenting, but there's no evidence to suggest that this one does that at all. It's very much based in the obsolete "everything about sex is dirty and/or immoral" premise, that itself stems mainly from religious beliefs and traditions.
It's not the governments' role to interfere with our lives, it should be kept to a minimum at least to ensure our freedoms. However, this idea is completely twisted it seems as they want to take every opportunity to impose things on us, just because something affects a small amount of the population. Government laws, measures should be a last resort because it doesn't fix the problem from its root (such as bad parenting and parents not using internet filters), but takes away the symptoms of a problem, while at the same time the true problem doesn't disappear. I haven't found the logic thus far other than misuse of power because of inability to solve problems.
When it comes to raising children, the parents' "freedoms" often undermine the child's development and ultimately affect their whole lives in a negative way. You have some parents objecting to the government infringing on their freedoms, but they themselves have no similar ideological qualms when it comes to putting themselves in a position of absolute power and authority over the lives of their children.
Children watching porn is probably not even in the top 100 elements of bad parenting, which is the real reason why this law is just pandering bullshit. However, there are other parenting issues that are very, very real - and the only hope a child has is to be lucky enough not to be born to such parents. And I don't think leaving it down to the luck of the draw is an acceptable way for the society to deal with those problems.
Fixing the problem at its root is mostly impossible, or at the very least sub-optimal. Those "roots" run very deep, and at the root level, there are no isolated social problems you can solve - they're all intertwined. In order to solve one, you usually need to solve most of them, if not all.
On July 27 2013 20:10 LAN-f34r wrote: Lets face it. Not all parents are good parents. This will help the children of said parents (children of sucky parents are still children). Also, not all parents are very tech savy (to say nothing of grandparents etc that may take care of them). They may not know how to make a filter - this will support those parents.
Independent of any other (more controversial) benefits, I believe that this out ways any cons.
I agree that there are good parents and bad parents, I just don't think that quality of parenting is determined by the degree of obsessiveness over children coming across porn.
I'm all down with government measures that counteract some of the aspects of actual bad parenting, but there's no evidence to suggest that this one does that at all. It's very much based in the obsolete "everything about sex is dirty and/or immoral" premise, that itself stems mainly from religious beliefs and traditions.
It's not the governments' role to interfere with our lives, it should be kept to a minimum at least to ensure our freedoms. However, this idea is completely twisted it seems as they want to take every opportunity to impose things on us, just because something affects a small amount of the population. Government laws, measures should be a last resort because it doesn't fix the problem from its root (such as bad parenting and parents not using internet filters), but takes away the symptoms of a problem, while at the same time the true problem doesn't disappear. I haven't found the logic thus far other than abuse of power.
You said : «It's not the governments' role to interfere with our lives, it should be kept to a minimum»
You realize that it's a subjective opinion? The political spectrum has 2 sides, right and left... You are clearly on the right side, but some people are on the left side you know... consider that.
Why deal with these what if's anyway, when the gov. acts like a corporatist government instead of a socialist one. Also look into the historic idea behind the formation of a government.
I don't see any point in dealing with other types governments, than the one that is serving today. The current government decides what happens not the people or their subjective opinions. If read Obama's/Cameron's website, you'd see that they explicitly state that they want to keep government interference with human lives to a minimum.
But let's not get ahead of ourselves, this goes beyond left or right wing, because almost any political party wants to gov. influence on humans kept at a minimum. There's only a difference in what each party identify as measures that are absolutely required to be carried out by the government. If you can find any party that is explicitly out to increase the control on humans without an ideal behind it, let me know.
On July 27 2013 20:10 LAN-f34r wrote: Lets face it. Not all parents are good parents. This will help the children of said parents (children of sucky parents are still children). Also, not all parents are very tech savy (to say nothing of grandparents etc that may take care of them). They may not know how to make a filter - this will support those parents.
Independent of any other (more controversial) benefits, I believe that this out ways any cons.
I agree that there are good parents and bad parents, I just don't think that quality of parenting is determined by the degree of obsessiveness over children coming across porn.
I'm all down with government measures that counteract some of the aspects of actual bad parenting, but there's no evidence to suggest that this one does that at all. It's very much based in the obsolete "everything about sex is dirty and/or immoral" premise, that itself stems mainly from religious beliefs and traditions.
It's not the governments' role to interfere with our lives, it should be kept to a minimum at least to ensure our freedoms. However, this idea is completely twisted it seems as they want to take every opportunity to impose things on us, just because something affects a small amount of the population. Government laws, measures should be a last resort because it doesn't fix the problem from its root (such as bad parenting and parents not using internet filters), but takes away the symptoms of a problem, while at the same time the true problem doesn't disappear. I haven't found the logic thus far other than abuse of power.
You said : «It's not the governments' role to interfere with our lives, it should be kept to a minimum»
You realize that it's a subjective opinion? The political spectrum has 2 sides, right and left... You are clearly on the right side, but some people are on the left side you know... consider that.
There are actually people who think the government controlling what information is available to us is a good thing? o_O
If this was just porn, I wouldn't feel strongly about it because as the OP said, you can opt out of this quite readily, however I highly doubt the government would stop at censoring porn.
Not many. LOL @ it being a left vs right thing. Both the left and right are very opposed to this in general. The political spectrum cannot be likened to two sides of a coin.
Porn is not for children, but keeping porn away from them is the parents job.
I can see good reasons for providing the tools to help concerned parents, but forcing it down peoples throats is not the way to do it.
I think this law falls well inside the realm of moral regulating, but it is also opening up further regulation at ISP-level, so it is also a slippery legal decission in terms of internet regulation. His aversion against filtering on any other media tends to confirm that this is a first step towards a far heavier regulation of the internet.
In the end, the guy, more or less needs a miracle to keep his job after 2014. I am not sure that trying to feast on UKIP voters in a fight of far right ideological policies (anti-EU, moral regulation, austerity/government without influence on economic matters etc.) is gonna help him catch labour.
They're banning rape porn ostensibly to keep it out of the hands of children. Ridiculous. Why is rape porn apparently so damaging to children, and not anal or lesbian? Why is there a supposed crisis of rape porn adled children in the UK? In reality its just a populist authoritarian attempt to get rid of something most people dont particularly like, and hes using "but what of the children??" as his goto excuse.
Lets face it, if you cant stop your children from consuming copious amounts of rape porn, you probably cant stop them from doing much.
Don't ever take away from me my pornography We obviously don't agree on what's obscene I have the right to choose what I Want to see and read
Don't try to take away from me My right to privacy cause what I Do is no one's business but me
So stay in your missionary position I hope that you get bored to death There's no way I'm going through life Having vanilla sex
The government's trying to get into Your bedroom you better lock your Door and close your shades because There could be someone watching you today
Why do you try to make things illegal Why do we have to be 21 Are you afraid that people are having Too much fun Why do you care what I do in my bedroom Why do you want to know how I screw It seems to me you've got nothing better to do
On July 27 2013 20:10 LAN-f34r wrote: Lets face it. Not all parents are good parents. This will help the children of said parents (children of sucky parents are still children). Also, not all parents are very tech savy (to say nothing of grandparents etc that may take care of them). They may not know how to make a filter - this will support those parents.
Independent of any other (more controversial) benefits, I believe that this out ways any cons.
I agree that there are good parents and bad parents, I just don't think that quality of parenting is determined by the degree of obsessiveness over children coming across porn.
I'm all down with government measures that counteract some of the aspects of actual bad parenting, but there's no evidence to suggest that this one does that at all. It's very much based in the obsolete "everything about sex is dirty and/or immoral" premise, that itself stems mainly from religious beliefs and traditions.
It's not the governments' role to interfere with our lives, it should be kept to a minimum at least to ensure our freedoms. However, this idea is completely twisted it seems as they want to take every opportunity to impose things on us, just because something affects a small amount of the population. Government laws, measures should be a last resort because it doesn't fix the problem from its root (such as bad parenting and parents not using internet filters), but takes away the symptoms of a problem, while at the same time the true problem doesn't disappear. I haven't found the logic thus far other than misuse of power because of inability to solve problems.
When it comes to raising children, the parents' "freedoms" often undermine the child's development and ultimately affect their whole lives in a negative way. You have some parents objecting to the government infringing on their freedoms, but they themselves have no similar ideological qualms when it comes to putting themselves in a position of absolute power and authority over the lives of their children.
Children watching porn is probably not even in the top 100 elements of bad parenting, which is the real reason why this law is just pandering bullshit. However, there are other parenting issues that are very, very real - and the only hope a child has is to be lucky enough not to be born to such parents. And I don't think leaving it down to the luck of the draw is an acceptable way for the society to deal with those problems.
Fixing the problem at its root is mostly impossible, or at the very least sub-optimal. Those "roots" run very deep, and at the root level, there are no isolated social problems you can solve - they're all intertwined. In order to solve one, you usually need to solve most of them, if not all.
It's only gaining traction because, somehow in this day and age people still continue to be wilfully obstinate in learning to be at least vaguely tech-literate. It's a pathetic mentality, my grandad is in his 80s now and only really started using a PC in his mid 70s, and he knows his way around a little.
Parents of really overweight kids are far better candidates for intervention than parents who don't know how to block porn, or any number of other 'problems'.
That said, just out of principle I want as little interjection as possible about these kind of things, but hell if you're dealing with problems at least deal with things that ARE problems
They should ban violent video games next because children might get their hands on them. Why do they allow violent movies in the UK in this day and age either? Can someone from the UK help me out and explain why these things aren't banned? Its for the children right?
On July 27 2013 20:10 LAN-f34r wrote: Lets face it. Not all parents are good parents. This will help the children of said parents (children of sucky parents are still children). Also, not all parents are very tech savy (to say nothing of grandparents etc that may take care of them). They may not know how to make a filter - this will support those parents.
Independent of any other (more controversial) benefits, I believe that this out ways any cons.
I agree that there are good parents and bad parents, I just don't think that quality of parenting is determined by the degree of obsessiveness over children coming across porn.
I'm all down with government measures that counteract some of the aspects of actual bad parenting, but there's no evidence to suggest that this one does that at all. It's very much based in the obsolete "everything about sex is dirty and/or immoral" premise, that itself stems mainly from religious beliefs and traditions.
It's not the governments' role to interfere with our lives, it should be kept to a minimum at least to ensure our freedoms. However, this idea is completely twisted it seems as they want to take every opportunity to impose things on us, just because something affects a small amount of the population. Government laws, measures should be a last resort because it doesn't fix the problem from its root (such as bad parenting and parents not using internet filters), but takes away the symptoms of a problem, while at the same time the true problem doesn't disappear. I haven't found the logic thus far other than abuse of power.
You said : «It's not the governments' role to interfere with our lives, it should be kept to a minimum»
You realize that it's a subjective opinion? The political spectrum has 2 sides, right and left... You are clearly on the right side, but some people are on the left side you know... consider that.
That's a weird assessment, as there's plenty of people who'd argue the opposite about their respective parties and their opponents. Which is of course why just seeing the whole spectrum as having only two sides is about as dumb as this plan.
For your reference, Cameron is considered a conservative.
I have not related the opinions of the parties to their respective political ideology(left/right). I was just pointing the fact that this guy was on the right side of the political spectrum because he thinks that the governement should have minimum impacts on society. Of course the information issue cannot be necessarily related to your political ideology...
And of course the the political spectrum cannot be likened to two sides of a coin, it's a line, you can be anywhere on that 100 000 000m line.
On July 28 2013 05:17 Smat wrote: They should ban violent video games next because children might get their hands on them. Why do they allow violent movies in the UK in this day and age either? Can someone from the UK help me out and explain why these things aren't banned? Its for the children right?
This isn't at all about banning porn.
Violent movies, if you want to use the comparison, are already government-regulated. A kid wants to see an adult-rated movie, he needs an adult with him to go to a theater, or to rent/purchase the movie from a store. But now a kid with internet access can watch things much more horrific than even what you see in the movies, in terms of violence, without anyone to personally verify the kid's age.
It's an internet issue, it's not banning any actual material. We've long regulated kid's from watching adult material in other venues, but in the internet there is nothing of any substance actually preventing kids from witnessing material and imagery that is truly more sensational, shocking and provocative than it has ever been before.
On July 27 2013 20:10 LAN-f34r wrote: Lets face it. Not all parents are good parents. This will help the children of said parents (children of sucky parents are still children). Also, not all parents are very tech savy (to say nothing of grandparents etc that may take care of them). They may not know how to make a filter - this will support those parents.
Independent of any other (more controversial) benefits, I believe that this out ways any cons.
I agree that there are good parents and bad parents, I just don't think that quality of parenting is determined by the degree of obsessiveness over children coming across porn.
I'm all down with government measures that counteract some of the aspects of actual bad parenting, but there's no evidence to suggest that this one does that at all. It's very much based in the obsolete "everything about sex is dirty and/or immoral" premise, that itself stems mainly from religious beliefs and traditions.
It's not the governments' role to interfere with our lives, it should be kept to a minimum at least to ensure our freedoms. However, this idea is completely twisted it seems as they want to take every opportunity to impose things on us, just because something affects a small amount of the population. Government laws, measures should be a last resort because it doesn't fix the problem from its root (such as bad parenting and parents not using internet filters), but takes away the symptoms of a problem, while at the same time the true problem doesn't disappear. I haven't found the logic thus far other than misuse of power because of inability to solve problems.
When it comes to raising children, the parents' "freedoms" often undermine the child's development and ultimately affect their whole lives in a negative way. You have some parents objecting to the government infringing on their freedoms, but they themselves have no similar ideological qualms when it comes to putting themselves in a position of absolute power and authority over the lives of their children.
Children watching porn is probably not even in the top 100 elements of bad parenting, which is the real reason why this law is just pandering bullshit. However, there are other parenting issues that are very, very real - and the only hope a child has is to be lucky enough not to be born to such parents. And I don't think leaving it down to the luck of the draw is an acceptable way for the society to deal with those problems.
Fixing the problem at its root is mostly impossible, or at the very least sub-optimal. Those "roots" run very deep, and at the root level, there are no isolated social problems you can solve - they're all intertwined. In order to solve one, you usually need to solve most of them, if not all.
Of those 100 other elements of bad parenting, I think you'll find there often are laws to prevent those elements from ruining the kids' lives. Sadly, those laws aren't going to offer anyone absolute protection, and they're of course never going to solve the "roots" of the problems. But they can still be beneficial.
We allow regulations in other venues all the time, we never questioned big-government laws that banned kids from buying porn at the local quik-e-mart. But someone wants to do to ISPs what we essentially do with every other porn-outlet, and people act like their freedom is being taken away. If you aren't of minor age, or are incapable of telling your ISP that you want access to adult-material, you aren't losing anything at all from this law.
The "slippery slope" argument is a BS, malleable, all-purpose argument that could be applied to anything the government does. Our ISPs should offer the same child-protection that we've long demanded from all other purveyors of adult material.
Since this thread is full of platitudes and outrage, I have to say I can't help but think a lot of the moral outrage at this is over the thought that some people might have to actually interact with another human being at some point in order to get to their porn... I can imagine some poor husband not being comfortable telling his Victorian wife he turned off the ISP protection, and then she asks why. Luckily for that guy, porn stores and DVDs still exist. He'll survive as his father and father's father did.
When it comes to raising children, the parents' "freedoms" often undermine the child's development and ultimately affect their whole lives in a negative way.
Well Talin the standard by which that should be judged is the child's ability to function in society. And obviously a large number of parents fail at that to a disgusting degree. All parents fail to some degree there. And it is not the parental "freedoms" that cause harm, it is bad exercise of them. It's very doubtful that contracting such authority out would make things better; the governmental agencies that already can and do assume authority over children when necessary usually do just as badly at preparing the children to be functional adults. As you say, it's a problem with no full solution.
but they themselves have no similar ideological qualms when it comes to putting themselves in a position of absolute power and authority over the lives of their children.
It's not really an ideological question. It's biology and evolution. Parents do not generally have a formed ideology of why they should have near-absolute power over their children other than "it's my child." That's biology talking right there. Biology > ideology unless there is a very very strong case against it, which in the situation of parental "freedoms" there is not. In the examples we have of ideology trumping "it's my child," the children on the whole do not seem to be much better off. Physical sexual or severe emotional abuse excepted of course.
On July 27 2013 20:10 LAN-f34r wrote: Lets face it. Not all parents are good parents. This will help the children of said parents (children of sucky parents are still children). Also, not all parents are very tech savy (to say nothing of grandparents etc that may take care of them). They may not know how to make a filter - this will support those parents.
Independent of any other (more controversial) benefits, I believe that this out ways any cons.
I agree that there are good parents and bad parents, I just don't think that quality of parenting is determined by the degree of obsessiveness over children coming across porn.
I'm all down with government measures that counteract some of the aspects of actual bad parenting, but there's no evidence to suggest that this one does that at all. It's very much based in the obsolete "everything about sex is dirty and/or immoral" premise, that itself stems mainly from religious beliefs and traditions.
It's not the governments' role to interfere with our lives, it should be kept to a minimum at least to ensure our freedoms. However, this idea is completely twisted it seems as they want to take every opportunity to impose things on us, just because something affects a small amount of the population. Government laws, measures should be a last resort because it doesn't fix the problem from its root (such as bad parenting and parents not using internet filters), but takes away the symptoms of a problem, while at the same time the true problem doesn't disappear. I haven't found the logic thus far other than abuse of power.
You said : «It's not the governments' role to interfere with our lives, it should be kept to a minimum»
You realize that it's a subjective opinion? The political spectrum has 2 sides, right and left... You are clearly on the right side, but some people are on the left side you know... consider that.
That's a weird assessment, as there's plenty of people who'd argue the opposite about their respective parties and their opponents. Which is of course why just seeing the whole spectrum as having only two sides is about as dumb as this plan.
For your reference, Cameron is considered a conservative.
I have not related the opinions of the parties to their respective political ideology(left/right). I was just pointing the fact that this guy was on the right side of the political spectrum because he thinks that the governement should have minimum impacts on society. Of course the information issue cannot be necessarily related to your political ideology...
And of course the the political spectrum cannot be likened to two sides of a coin, it's a line, you can be anywhere on that 100 000 000m line.
No no no wanting government intrusion into private life at a minimum and government presence/impact in society at a minimum are two very different things. Private life and society are not the same thing.
Who is being protected from pornography? It's pointless to regulate it in such a manner considering how sex-obsessed and vacuous so much of mass culture is. It's like removing a fingernail from a gangreous limb and looking around smugly as if you've made a dent on the issue at hand.
It's noting more than a bullshit morality campaign run by the tabloid press in this country to make people forget the industry-wide illegality and dubious editorial content they have pursued for as long as I can remember.
What I want to know is, if you opt out in for porn (or w/e) will the isps still ban some of the really messed up stuff etc. anyway, i.e., is there a blanket level of censorship for all people (even those who 'opt in' for porn)? That could indicate government censorship even when it isn't wanted.
The people who say our culture is oversexualised, children are being exposed to porn too early etc. may have a point, but then why does the Government have to put in measures under the guise of 'protecting against child porn'. Why can't the government acknowledge what their propositions will actually entail, that's the least I would expect from them. It seems that there's policy put in place too often which effects people 'unintentionally' given what the government has said the policy is for. (In reality this is probably not unintentionally but the government should at least acknowledge that).
In this specific example, surely making parents aware of what their kids may be viewing on the internet and the steps they can take to prevent it would be the first step.
That said this is one of the first steps in western world to a censored internet and to prepare, slowly but surely, to form of a police state. Now this won´t affect most people in Britain.
We´ll see if internet news, reporters and political groups will get shut down because of "terrorists" acts and or crime versus the governing power relations or even just because of the children issue(just using unreal arguments, don´t even try to respond you fool) in let´s say 20 years. The problem they are addressing with this specific law/rule/whatever is society related and not a problem of the free internet.
On July 28 2013 10:00 iKlutz wrote: What I want to know is, if you opt out in for porn (or w/e) will the isps still ban some of the really messed up stuff etc. anyway, i.e., is there a blanket level of censorship for all people (even those who 'opt in' for porn)? That could indicate government censorship even when it isn't wanted.
The people who say our culture is oversexualised, children are being exposed to porn too early etc. may have a point, but then why does the Government have to put in measures under the guise of 'protecting against child porn'. Why can't the government acknowledge what their propositions will actually entail, that's the least I would expect from them. It seems that there's policy put in place too often which effects people 'unintentionally' given what the government has said the policy is for. (In reality this is probably not unintentionally but the government should at least acknowledge that).
In this specific example, surely making parents aware of what their kids may be viewing on the internet and the steps they can take to prevent it would be the first step.
That's kind of my point. In terms of a sexualised culture, introducing a porn filter of this kind is just trimming the outermost branches of a much bigger tree.
where's the people who previously defended this? what do you say now, people? why am i even caring... noone is ever gonna learn. so sad. every bit of our energy wasted.
Lol, welcome to the People's Republic of Britain This shit can't possibly go live, right ? I can't imagine that someone sane will vote "yes'' in the parliament(or whatever its called in UK)
On July 23 2013 20:27 Alabasern wrote: What a waste of time...censoring the internet. Keep children off the internet.
Yeah this pretty much.
Agreed. The internet can be an incredible source of information but it's not healthy at all for children. Particularly when it comes to internet related addictions.
On July 23 2013 20:27 Alabasern wrote: What a waste of time...censoring the internet. Keep children off the internet.
Yeah this pretty much.
Agreed. The internet can be an incredible source of information but it's not healthy at all for children. Particularly when it comes to internet related addictions.
Yep. People should stop looking to the government to do their job (parenting).
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jHm9jME.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/RFTBD3e.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/UM3T7xk.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/juLm4zD.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/UFKhn9m.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BPxzvNUCEAAK5kf.jpg:large)
![[image loading]](http://torrentfreak.com/images/talktalk.png)
