• 130 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#101 Posted by Cybrilious4 (1766 posts) - - Show Bio

@maccyd: what does NSA have to do with Porn?

#102 Edited by MaccyD (5184 posts) - - Show Bio

@cybrilious4: U saying US has much more free speech than UK.

#103 Edited by Cybrilious4 (1766 posts) - - Show Bio

@maccyd: All NSA does is spy on everyone on a global level, but yet they knew the Boston Bomber's scheme a month prior and let it happen. I call freedom right there.

#104 Posted by OmgOmgWtfWtf (7045 posts) - - Show Bio

A simple tor browser would solve the situation lawl.

Welcome to the dark side of the internet boys.

#105 Posted by MaccyD (5184 posts) - - Show Bio

@cybrilious4: They may spy on me but they can't legally do anything.

Plus didn't they arrest a kid for saying something stupid on League of Legends?

#106 Edited by OmgOmgWtfWtf (7045 posts) - - Show Bio

@maccyd said:

@cybrilious4: They may spy on me but they can't legally do anything.

Plus didn't they arrest a kid for saying something stupid on League of Legends?

They didn't arrest the kid because they were spying on him....

He was on facebook going on a tirade about how he was "f*cked up in the head" and made terrorist threats.

I say that he got what was coming to him for making such stupid remarks on a social media site.

To quote what he said on facebook: "I'm f***ed in the head, alright. I think I'm going to shoot up a kindergarten and watch the blood of the innocent rain down and eat the beating heart of one of them."

#107 Posted by MaccyD (5184 posts) - - Show Bio

@omgomgwtfwtf: That was social media, the government shouldn't have been able to find that out. Plus, wasn't the big deal about that over the US tracking social media sites etc.?

#108 Posted by OmgOmgWtfWtf (7045 posts) - - Show Bio

@maccyd said:

@omgomgwtfwtf: That was social media, the government shouldn't have been able to find that out. Plus, wasn't the big deal about that over the US tracking social media sites etc.?

Social medias are open to everyone. Also he was posting that on someone else's wall. Someone could have called the cops or something. There is no evidence to suggest that the government was watching their conversation or anything. He blatantly stated he was going to shoot up a kindergarten on a social media website. Clearly the guy was stupid beyond belief if he thought no one was going to take offense to that. It's like shouting fire in a crowded building. It's actually illegal to do so and is extremely stupid.

The kid got what he deserved and hopefully the beating he got while in prison shows him not to be a douche after losing a League of Legend game.

#109 Posted by MaccyD (5184 posts) - - Show Bio

@omgomgwtfwtf: Why would he say that after losing a League of Legend game?

#110 Posted by OmgOmgWtfWtf (7045 posts) - - Show Bio

@maccyd said:

@omgomgwtfwtf: Why would he say that after losing a League of Legend game?

Who knows....people are crazy lol.

#111 Edited by lykopis (10746 posts) - - Show Bio

@dondave said:

@lykopis said:

I don't see the problem -- everyone is reacting to a censorship that is not there. You have the option to enact the filter, or not.

Lots of noise about nothing. I think it's a great idea. Everyone complains that porn is easy for young kids to get their hands on, something is being attempted to address that and people scream censorship? Read the article -- do your own research -- it's pretty obvious.

Some people may not have that choice if there parents don't allow it

I think that's the point.

@mrdecepticonleader said:

Well I have researched into this more and the entire thing just seems pointless. Not sure how the filter will be implemented either.

Not to mention the fact that this filter will become default and it will actually filter things out that aren't pornographic such as medical stuff and websites and research regarding sexuality. Cameron even admitted this will cause problems. And yeah I am concerned about this snowballing too.

That is up to the person who pays for the internet, I suppose. As for medical websites and research on sexuality, there is always the good old library. The thing is -- to me this is a no-brainer because its on the person who pays for the internet. If your parents or guardian wants the filter on, so be it. It's kind of hard to feel sorry for underage kids who want access to porn.

This is just a filter -- either you want it or you don't. It's not forced. I am genuinely confused.

#112 Posted by Edamame (28518 posts) - - Show Bio

Too bad for the U.K.

Maybe the Puritanical movement is making a comeback.

HEH :)

Does that mean the world would then have less wankers?

Yes!

#113 Edited by SC (13687 posts) - - Show Bio

This is worrying for a few reasons. Conservative politicians often play this card to appeal to a certain type of conservative who would rather protect and shelter their children from nasty things like sex, and homosexuality and breasts and bottoms. Its ironic because using the United States as an example, some of the biggest opponents against pornography and states where its a political issue slanted towards censorship, usually end up as the places where pornography (especially the taboo stuff) is most viewed and consumed and where the skeletons in the closets of the proponents of the censorship are the kinkiest. I would not be surprised if similar patterns existed in other countries with politics and views around and on sexuality.

There are some big problems with the porn industry and how young adults and teenagers think and perceive when exposed to pornography and this is something that should be dealt with, but automatic filters isn't the answer, its a band aid solution to make certain types of voters who don't know any better feel better. What would be better than filters is better and more transparent education from parents to children, teenagers regarding sexuality and pornography so its introduced to them in a controlled way, and an open way where risks are explained and presented, and the titillation of watching taboo material is removed. Unfortunately sex and sexual matters tend to be tricky subjects for even very mature parents to discuss with children, hence sex education taught by schools, but this needs to be improved as well. Its just that technology advances so rapidly, adults can be a bit ignorant about how easy it can be to access anything. The response shouldn't be fear or censorship though, and the idea of conservative politicians deciding what should be banned or the ones to distinguish what is rape pornography or role play pornography - tricky slope although obviously some types of pornography should for various reasons be banned. It just needs to be an open, honest and educated discussion, past the hypocrisy that can usually come with such topics. Where's the line? Maybe people in England have to ring up their internet provider to let them view gay content as well? Internet should come with an automatic gay filter? Who are the people who are going to define what is pornography or not? Some people will be confident enough to just tell their provider that they want pornography, but awkwardness and insecurity around pornography is also common and normal for humans, what about the types of adults who are a bit more shy and private? Think about the stigma that attaches woman who like sex? Now they have to speak to some random guy on a phone to tell them they want to watch porn because some parents are too lazy or inadequate to actively check filters on computers they buy their children? Will people have to register dildos now too and have them microchipped?

Things like this should be optional. Addicts will get around it anyway, its a band aid solution to a problem that only works in theory not practice, and it just adds more stigma to normal sexuality that ironically tends to end up manifesting itself in extreme ways when its repressed and censored. It distracts from actual solutions like better sex and health education and teaching healthier behavior and attitudes towards external sexual stimuli (aka porn) and it would be a nightmare to actually implement as far as who watches the Watchman. Many who aggressively want censorship of such things politically tend to be huge hypocrites tapping on peoples feet in stall rooms. People need to relax a bit more and chill when it comes to snikting the single flesh claw, and talking about it openly and honestly with themselves, with each other, when it comes to talking to teenagers so they don't abuse technology by their ignorance on the matter. Thats way more problematic as far as I understand. Its not entirely similar to places where sex education is banned or reduced to abstinence only programs, such places also ironically tending to have high unwanted pregnancy rates too. When filters take precedence over self control and informed awareness/education thats when you end up with unhealthy addicts.

Ultimately I am okay, since not my country and I am shameless enough to ask my internet provider for German grade pornography, but its always unsettling seeing censorship on human sexuality to appease a majority of a group of people that grew up in a different area and are scared of new technology and &^%^ in the %$^$^% with three ^%^$ all over that ^$^$*, but then when he ^%$**& and she did the @ *&$* with the *&&*&)! you could totally see that %^%$# &%*&# and just wow, bravo.

Moderator
#114 Edited by Reignmaker (2235 posts) - - Show Bio

So it's blocked "by default"? Does that mean any 12-year old boy with half a brain can just go into the settings and unblock it? Assuming of course that his parents don't password protect it.

#115 Posted by mrdecepticonleader (18875 posts) - - Show Bio

@lykopis said:

@dondave said:

@lykopis said:

I don't see the problem -- everyone is reacting to a censorship that is not there. You have the option to enact the filter, or not.

Lots of noise about nothing. I think it's a great idea. Everyone complains that porn is easy for young kids to get their hands on, something is being attempted to address that and people scream censorship? Read the article -- do your own research -- it's pretty obvious.

Some people may not have that choice if there parents don't allow it

I think that's the point.

@mrdecepticonleader said:

Well I have researched into this more and the entire thing just seems pointless. Not sure how the filter will be implemented either.

Not to mention the fact that this filter will become default and it will actually filter things out that aren't pornographic such as medical stuff and websites and research regarding sexuality. Cameron even admitted this will cause problems. And yeah I am concerned about this snowballing too.

That is up to the person who pays for the internet, I suppose. As for medical websites and research on sexuality, there is always the good old library. The thing is -- to me this is a no-brainer because its on the person who pays for the internet. If your parents or guardian wants the filter on, so be it. It's kind of hard to feel sorry for underage kids who want access to porn.

This is just a filter -- either you want it or you don't. It's not forced. I am genuinely confused.

I am not feeling sorry for underage kids who want there porn lol that is the least of my concern here. Its how they are going about this, it seems like they are doing this in an attempt to stop pedophiles but then to try and stop people from watching porn or other material, since its not just porn they are wanting to block. It seems like this is being done because he simply doesn't like porn as opposed to actually tackling the issue regarding pedophilia.

In a way it is forced because it will be made default and if you want your internet uncensored you will have to "opt out".

@sc said:

This is worrying for a few reasons. Conservative politicians often play this card to appeal to a certain type of conservative who would rather protect and shelter their children from nasty things like sex, and homosexuality and breasts and bottoms. Its ironic because using the United States as an example, some of the biggest opponents against pornography and states where its a political issue slanted towards censorship, usually end up as the places where pornography (especially the taboo stuff) is most viewed and consumed and where the skeletons in the closets of the proponents of the censorship are the kinkiest. I would not be surprised if similar patterns existed in other countries with politics and views around and on sexuality.

There are some big problems with the porn industry and how young adults and teenagers think and perceive when exposed to pornography and this is something that should be dealt with, but automatic filters isn't the answer, its a band aid solution to make certain types of voters who don't know any better feel better. What would be better than filters is better and more transparent education from parents to children, teenagers regarding sexuality and pornography so its introduced to them in a controlled way, and an open way where risks are explained and presented, and the titillation of watching taboo material is removed. Unfortunately sex and sexual matters tend to be tricky subjects for even very mature parents to discuss with children, hence sex education taught by schools, but this needs to be improved as well. Its just that technology advances so rapidly, adults can be a bit ignorant about how easy it can be to access anything. The response shouldn't be fear or censorship though, and the idea of conservative politicians deciding what should be banned or the ones to distinguish what is rape pornography or role play pornography - tricky slope although obviously some types of pornography should for various reasons be banned. It just needs to be an open, honest and educated discussion, past the hypocrisy that can usually come with such topics. Where's the line? Maybe people in England have to ring up their internet provider to let them view gay content as well? Internet should come with an automatic gay filter? Who are the people who are going to define what is pornography or not? Some people will be confident enough to just tell their provider that they want pornography, but awkwardness and insecurity around pornography is also common and normal for humans, what about the types of adults who are a bit more shy and private? Think about the stigma that attaches woman who like sex? Now they have to speak to some random guy on a phone to tell them they want to watch porn because some parents are too lazy or inadequate to actively check filters on computers they buy their children? Will people have to register dildos now too and have them microchipped?

Things like this should be optional. Addicts will get around it anyway, its a band aid solution to a problem that only works in theory not practice, and it just adds more stigma to normal sexuality that ironically tends to end up manifesting itself in extreme ways when its repressed and censored. It distracts from actual solutions like better sex and health education and teaching healthier behavior and attitudes towards external sexual stimuli (aka porn) and it would be a nightmare to actually implement as far as who watches the Watchman. Many who aggressively want censorship of such things politically tend to be huge hypocrites tapping on peoples feet in stall rooms. People need to relax a bit more and chill when it comes to snikting the single flesh claw, and talking about it openly and honestly with themselves, with each other, when it comes to talking to teenagers so they don't abuse technology by their ignorance on the matter. Thats way more problematic as far as I understand. Its not entirely similar to places where sex education is banned or reduced to abstinence only programs, such places also ironically tending to have high unwanted pregnancy rates too. When filters take precedence over self control and informed awareness/education thats when you end up with unhealthy addicts.

Ultimately I am okay, since not my country and I am shameless enough to ask my internet provider for German grade pornography, but its always unsettling seeing censorship on human sexuality to appease a majority of a group of people that grew up in a different area and are scared of new technology and &^%^ in the %$^$^% with three ^%^$ all over that ^$^$*, but then when he ^%$**& and she did the @ *&$* with the *&&*&)! you could totally see that %^%$# &%*&# and just wow, bravo.

I agree that more education and understanding is key. But then of course its so much easier to censor things and keep people ignorant as opposed to actually enlightening them.

#116 Posted by Backflip (2239 posts) - - Show Bio

So it's blocked "by default"? Does that mean any 12-year old boy with half a brain can just go into the settings and unblock it? Assuming of course that his parents don't password protect it.

Nope. The bill payer will have to contact their Internet provider directly (Likely over the phone) and express their desire to be allowed access.

#117 Edited by mrdecepticonleader (18875 posts) - - Show Bio
#118 Posted by Vortex13 (12264 posts) - - Show Bio

If you like porn then move to Bangkok! There you can live the most depraved kind of porn yourself! =D

#119 Posted by Chaos Prime (10895 posts) - - Show Bio
Hellfire Club Eton.

Top left 2nd row is Torie leader David Cameron. I wonder if he would like to mention a few things he got up too while being a member there?

If anyone wants to make an argument about banning Porn its not him.

#120 Posted by X_Titans (144 posts) - - Show Bio

@cybrilious4: Firstly, you can't be convicted for criticising the Royal Family. Freedom of speech is one the tenants of democratic society, UK included. Secondly, although I agree that the wedding shouldn't have cost so much, it did bring in a lot of revenue. The same sentiment could be expressed for the Royal Family - yes a hereditary monarchy is unfair and costs the taxpayer money, but they do perform a lot of charity work, help maintain diplomatic relations between nations and are a major source of income for the UK by way of tourism.

#121 Posted by frogdog (3636 posts) - - Show Bio

Hellfire Club Eton.

Top left 2nd row is Torie leader David Cameron. I wonder if he would like to mention a few things he got up too while being a member there?

If anyone wants to make an argument about banning Porn its not him.

Always had a feeling that Cameron is a dirty wanker

@vortex13 said:

If you like porn then move to Bangkok! There you can live the most depraved kind of porn yourself! =D

#124 Posted by ThanoStomp (804 posts) - - Show Bio

I may get flamed for this, but oh well. Take the time to watch this TED presentation - The Great Porn Experiment. A lot of interesting information in there - some of it fact, some anecdotal evidence.

Cliff notes of the video: Excessive porn use changes your brain the same way addictive drugs do. It tunes you into the need for instant gratification, and tunes you OUT from the real world stimuli that can lead to real relationships, sex, etc.

#125 Posted by Chaos Prime (10895 posts) - - Show Bio

@frogdog I agree not just a Dirty Wan*er but a shite father too.

Wot normal parent forgets his 8 year old down the pub?

#126 Edited by Strider92 (16901 posts) - - Show Bio

@chaos_prime: I remember that. Apparently they actually got in the car and started to drive home before realizing they didn't have the kid with the rofl!

#127 Posted by Chaos Prime (10895 posts) - - Show Bio

@chaos_prime: I remember that. Apparently they actually got in the car and started to drive home before realizing they didn't have the kid with the rofl!

& hes our Prime Minister LOL

#128 Posted by Strider92 (16901 posts) - - Show Bio
#129 Posted by Chaos Prime (10895 posts) - - Show Bio
#130 Posted by frogdog (3636 posts) - - Show Bio

@chaos_prime: And he has the nerve to criticize single parents...

#131 Posted by Chaos Prime (10895 posts) - - Show Bio

@frogdog said:

@chaos_prime: And he has the nerve to criticize single parents...

Thats y imo hes a clown, Buffoon out of touch with the common folk.

#132 Posted by mrdecepticonleader (18875 posts) - - Show Bio