• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

UK wants to restrict access to online porn

American said:
We're the only animal with the mental capacity to take something and pervert it. Have you ever seen an animal videotape their sex? :roll: Your example is as stupid as it gets. Is sex normal, of course.
Click to expand...

What is actually wrong with videotaping sex? I am not talking about using it to cause harm to someone, but the actual act of videotaping it, and i guess you could go on to tell us what is actually wrong with consensual marketing of that recording.
 
Peter Grimm said:
Why is it pathetic? The world would be a better place without rampant pornography. I read somewhere the average age of first exposure to porn nowadays is ELEVEN.

In no way is that healthy, normal, or good.
Click to expand...

Peter Grimm said:
So you want to be like the animals? Good for you, have fun running around naked and sniffing your own poop.

Most humans aspire to something higher than that. We do a lot of things animals don't - invent complex tools, further our understanding of the world, and aspire to help others.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that we aspire to be more than animals but we can't handle the human form and be exposed to natural human acts at a young age? Isn't that actually saying we are less than other animals considering the young of every species except ours are exposed to the naked form of their parents and natural acts from the beginning? So basically our children are weak minded and must be sheltered or else they won't be healthy, but every other species can do what they naturally would do and their young are as healthy as they would otherwise be. Isn't that a really weird argument? If we are so much better than any other animals why is it that our young can't handle the natural form or natural acts?
 
I didn't say sex wasn't healthy, normal or good. Your entire post is a ****ing strawman.

What I did say is porn isn't healthy, normal, or good. It leads to unrealistic expectations and strained relationships.

Porn is not sex, it's a substitute for the real thing... And a poor one at that. Not that you would know.

tererun said:
You still have not told us why having sex is not normal, healthy, or good. You can try to make up fallicious arguments, but the reality is that sex is very normal, in fact your parents even had it once that we know of. Pretty much most people here today are here because of sex. It is a perfectly healthy biological function of the human body. It is actually something our bodies do and it serves a purpose for us. As for being a bad thing i guess your parents having you is something you consider bad because you consider the act that got you here bad. Your argument makes no sense at all because you cannot tell us how the act of sex or even nudity is bad, unhealthy, or even abnormal. You aspire to be above an animal, but in this case the animals are above you. They can do these things without mental hangups and other psychological problems due to what is basically brainwashing. They do not freak out over the natural state of nakedness. They do not have a breakdown because some of them mate, yet for some reason with all this advancement in the human race we have members who cannot seem to deal with a perfectly natural biological function without losing their minds.
Click to expand...
 
Henrin said:
Are you saying that we aspire to be more than animals but we can't handle the human form and be exposed to natural human acts at a young age? Isn't that actually saying we are less than other animals considering the young of every species except ours are exposed to the naked form of their parents and natural acts from the beginning? So basically our children are weak minded and must be sheltered or else they won't be healthy, but every other species can do what they naturally would do and their young are as healthy as they would otherwise be. Isn't that a really weird argument? If we are so much better than any other animals why is it that our young can't handle the natural form or natural acts?
Click to expand...

Your logic, we might as well **** and piss in public too. Hang around any good fire hydrants lately?
 
Asinine. Now we need a government database as to whether or not you want to look at porn.

I want to say I'm shocked it seems some conservatives/republicans are coming out supportive of this kind of thing, but sadly I'm not.

I'd still not like it, but I'd at least be less bothered by it if the Government didn't have the ability to run a check on everyone who has "opted out", but that's just not going to be the case with software like this.
 
aseidner said:
Read more: UK wants to restrict access to online porn - CNN.com

In my opinion, this is pretty pathetic.
Click to expand...

Also a tad misleading.. Yes the Prime Minister wants to have a filter in place by the end of next year but he's about the only person calling for this. Others have recognised that the problem and solution lies elsewhere.

Family filters won't block 'soft' porn: David Cameron retreats in war on internet porn, admitting there will be 'problems down the line' - UK Politics - UK - The Independent

There's also a strong feeling that Cameron has pushed this story so much to distract everyone from the recent Lynton Crosby affair. Yesterday's Royal Birth should also see Cameron quiet on such matters for a while.

Everyone's attention is elsewhere - not on complex porn filters which won't affect the paedophiles here anyway.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Also a tad misleading.. Yes the Prime Minister wants to have a filter in place by the end of next year but he's about the only person calling for this. Others have recognised that the problem and solution lies elsewhere.

Family filters won't block 'soft' porn: David Cameron retreats in war on internet porn, admitting there will be 'problems down the line' - UK Politics - UK - The Independent

There's also a strong feeling that Cameron has pushed this story so much to distract everyone from the recent Lynton Crosby affair. Yesterday's Royal Birth should also see Cameron quiet on such matters for a while.

Everyone's attention is elsewhere - not on complex porn filters which won't affect the paedophiles here anyway.
Click to expand...

Yep, this kinda popped up out of no where suddenly, right after the lobbying scandal broke, but now it is not needed since everyone is on baby watch.
 
Thankfully Crosby is stupidly trying to prove there's no conflict of interest and thus keeping the story warm. It's an uphill battle against a Royal baby though.
 
This - And it's truth, too, not just an argument because I write erotica and watch porn:
Critics say that automated filtering technology inevitably allows offensive material through accidentally as well as creating "false positives" that block inoffensive content. Others, such as BBC technology correspondent Rory Cellan-Jones, say default-on filters can create a false sense of security among parents, who could become more lax in monitoring their children's online behavior.
Click to expand...

And pointless if the person giving access IS an adult. No 5-year old accidentally keys in 'anal fisting' :roll: . . . their later example in the article wouldn't matter because both convicted killers WERE adults. The filters would have meant nothing:

Two recent British murder trials in which the defendants were each said to have viewed images of child sexual abuse online have heightened public concern over the issue.
One case was that of April Jones, a 5-year-old girl whose disappearance last year in a remote part of Wales sparked a huge search. Mark Bridger was found guilty of her murder in May, but her body has still not been found. The other was the murder of a 12-year-old girl, Tia Sharp, by her grandmother's partner.
Click to expand...

I'm wondering about this:

By the end of the year, the filters will become the default setting for anyone setting up broadband Internet service at home, Cameron said.
All of those filters could be deactivated by those who can "prove" they are 18 or older, Cameron said.
Click to expand...

Exactly what else, other than paying for internet usage, makes it possible to prove you're 18? Right now in the US any methods to prove your age are just faith-based. Answer some questions, they have faith you're being honest. I'm curious as to what they've devised that a savvy 15 year old teen can't alter if they want to.

It makes me laugh, though - when I think of all the times people in the UK call Americans prudes because we don't want to see flabby tits on the street.
 
Peter Grimm said:
Your logic, we might as well **** and piss in public too. Hang around any good fire hydrants lately?
Click to expand...

:lamo We were debating if the human form and human interaction are damaging to children, which has nothing to do with ****ting and pissing in public. Can we please stay on topic? Thanks.
 
aseidner said:
Read more: UK wants to restrict access to online porn - CNN.com

In my opinion, this is pretty pathetic. Is it really too much to ask that parents take responsibility for keeping their children out of things that they should not be getting into? With a little effort, access to porn sites can be restricted by the computer administrator (which should be the parent). If they are not tech savvy, many programs and services that prevent access to certain types of websites are readily available.
Click to expand...

The UK government believes they're the parents of the child - not the actual parents...

The UK is pretty authoritarian.

However, this is what you get when you allow government to just do whatever they want.

The US won't try this because people here say "no" with their guns, guns are banned in the UK hence the people are powerless. Not that it matters anymore anyways considering 75% of the population there has been brainwashed with the notion that the government is always right (much like Russia), China, North Korea etc...
 
This whole tread puzzles me.
If they install "filters", the term implies a fixed list.
Are they limiting name lookup, or IP addresses, ect.
I suspect most who are interested could bypass a fixed filter in minuets.
Once they set a filter, the targets will ether move, or rename to something that
is not on the list.
Or go strictly by IP address, and publish access via indirect methods.
It is very difficult to limit say video, without limiting all video.
 
longview said:
This whole tread puzzles me.
If they install "filters", the term implies a fixed list.
Are they limiting name lookup, or IP addresses, ect.
I suspect most who are interested could bypass a fixed filter in minuets.
Once they set a filter, the targets will ether move, or rename to something that
is not on the list.
Or go strictly by IP address, and publish access via indirect methods.
It is very difficult to limit say video, without limiting all video.
Click to expand...

They shouldn't be doing any of that because only fascist/authoritarian governments filter or dictate the internet...
 
It's not only completely unworkable but harmful as well.

The state of the art in filtering quite honestly sucks. But assume a 1% failure - which is giving the filters much more credit than they deserve - and you still have millions of pages of porn that get passed the filters and worse, millions of pages of content that shouldn't be stopped that will be and a lot of that is probably stuff that school students actually need for their school work.

Dumb. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
 
Peter Grimm said:
Why is it pathetic? The world would be a better place without rampant pornography. I read somewhere the average age of first exposure to porn nowadays is ELEVEN.

In no way is that healthy, normal, or good.
Click to expand...

Get the source of that 'statistic' and then we can talk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom