|
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.
|
Im sure for the super desperate, they'll find another way to get some porn.
|
On July 23 2013 22:17 i zig zag around you wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2013 22:11 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On July 23 2013 21:57 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 23 2013 21:54 hzflank 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? 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 22:23 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2013 22:17 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 23 2013 22:11 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On July 23 2013 21:57 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 23 2013 21:54 hzflank 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? 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 22:23 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2013 22:17 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 23 2013 22:11 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On July 23 2013 21:57 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 23 2013 21:54 hzflank 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? 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 22:27 i zig zag around you wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2013 22:23 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On July 23 2013 22:17 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 23 2013 22:11 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On July 23 2013 21:57 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 23 2013 21:54 hzflank 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? 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. Show nested quote +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 22:29 Green_25 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2013 22:23 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On July 23 2013 22:17 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 23 2013 22:11 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On July 23 2013 21:57 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 23 2013 21:54 hzflank 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? 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 22:27 i zig zag around you wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2013 22:23 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On July 23 2013 22:17 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 23 2013 22:11 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On July 23 2013 21:57 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 23 2013 21:54 hzflank 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? 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 22:30 MasterOfPuppets wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2013 22:27 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 23 2013 22:23 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On July 23 2013 22:17 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 23 2013 22:11 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On July 23 2013 21:57 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 23 2013 21:54 hzflank 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? 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.
|
On July 23 2013 22:33 i zig zag around you wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2013 22:30 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On July 23 2013 22:27 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 23 2013 22:23 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On July 23 2013 22:17 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 23 2013 22:11 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On July 23 2013 21:57 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 23 2013 21:54 hzflank 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? 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 22:27 i zig zag around you wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2013 22:23 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On July 23 2013 22:17 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 23 2013 22:11 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On July 23 2013 21:57 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 23 2013 21:54 hzflank 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? 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 20:33 sc4k wrote:Show nested quote +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 22:34 MasterOfPuppets wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2013 22:33 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 23 2013 22:30 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On July 23 2013 22:27 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 23 2013 22:23 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On July 23 2013 22:17 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 23 2013 22:11 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On July 23 2013 21:57 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 23 2013 21:54 hzflank 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? 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?
|
done posting here.
too many users are defending rape and child abuse and apparently you can't have an opinion against that on teamliquid.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On July 23 2013 22:35 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2013 22:34 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On July 23 2013 22:33 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 23 2013 22:30 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On July 23 2013 22:27 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 23 2013 22:23 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On July 23 2013 22:17 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 23 2013 22:11 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On July 23 2013 21:57 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 23 2013 21:54 hzflank wrote:
[quote]
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...
|
On July 23 2013 22:35 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2013 22:34 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On July 23 2013 22:33 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 23 2013 22:30 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On July 23 2013 22:27 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 23 2013 22:23 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On July 23 2013 22:17 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 23 2013 22:11 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On July 23 2013 21:57 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 23 2013 21:54 hzflank wrote:
[quote]
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?
|
On July 23 2013 22:36 i zig zag around you wrote:
done posting here.
too many users are defending rape and child abuse and apparently you can't have an opinion against that on teamliquid.
Please let this be a joke...
|
On July 23 2013 22:35 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2013 22:34 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On July 23 2013 22:33 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 23 2013 22:30 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On July 23 2013 22:27 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 23 2013 22:23 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On July 23 2013 22:17 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 23 2013 22:11 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On July 23 2013 21:57 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 23 2013 21:54 hzflank wrote:
[quote]
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?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
