David Cameron wants to take your porn away

Post Reply New Topic

It seems to me like this is a coalition policy i.e. a Tory policy the Lib Dems can't afford to oppose.

At last, some Tory Puritism. I think its about time too that some light has been shed here on this very subject, because for too long has the will to remain silent forced back the hand of fate and tempted the reaper.
Extremist behavioural examples I have seen and will now set are those of

aka 1) Torture of Baby P (I participated in the campaign to rid Britain of social and moral injustice via domesticated issue) Disgusting abnormal malpractice of staff witnesses and failure to comply to British authorities about baby p and his care, of which there was none.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... e-bid.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/p ... 732125.stm

2) The James Forrest dilemma of forcing a young pupil away with him via 'coaxing' methods and inappropriate acts of conduct

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/british-teache ... 42369.html

3) and the one that has got my back up of late the Adam Barker royalty sham

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebri ... llion.html

Ridiculous.

Glow you point to examples of real child abusers but fail to explain how this new legislation would stop that happening again. I think it probably won't.

Worst British government since the Potato Famine...

I thought it was a deliberate genocide now?

At least that's what the Provo lovers would have you believe.

It is the worst government since then... I think it's the most gleefully destructive and ideological in its pursuit of destruction. Sure, the governments responsible for Geddes' Axe and some of the idiocies of the interwar period, as well as Thatcher's, had bad points, this one is just unending awfulness.

The Potato Famine was deliberate, it was ideological, it was an attempt to use Free Market Fundamentalism on the wayward Irish. The Blight had begun under Peel and the fallout was kept under control, but then when Russell took over so did the ideology and that's when the bodies began to pile up. All in the name of ideological dogma.

Reminds me of gun control in this side of the pond!

And liberals aren't the only knee jerk jackals! There's also anti knee jerk liberals.

And Britain is now trying to ban assault images...

What exactly is an "assault image"?
I googled it but nothing came up.
Whatever it is it sounds like another step in the direction of thought crimes.

^^^Maybe images of very frightening people?Say like Joan Rivers,or Snooky.I agree with a ban on these assault images.

I think he means videos of extreme violence e.g. decapitations.

Thought crimes will only be possible if they invent mind reading devices.

They can take it from my sticky, cramped hands!

Seriously though, they aren't taking it away, just putting up a pointless bit of bureaucracy that won't have the effect it intends to have (stopping children from accessing porn.) I think it might stop some kids seeing it by accident, though, so I don't see the policy as totally useless, as controversial as that is for me to say.

You, by your own accusation, are knowingly feeding a troll by replying to me.
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp5517181.html




Read Orwell’s 1984

Most users don't exist in a state of perpetual trolldom.

On the troll scale you're probably a 7 or 8 out of 10, you often like to make outrageous right wing comments in order to provoke a reaction and I think you often exaggerate your true opinions (though I cannot be certain of course), but sometimes you seem to be reasonably genuine, and on those occasions you deserve to be treated with all the respect and courtesy that anyone else deserves.

In 1984, Miniluv can only get you if you say something. For most of his life, Winston has quietly despised Big Brother, but he's only caught out when he reads the book and has an affair with Julia and starts to say heretical things. Contrastingly, one of the workers at Minitrue has never had a thought against Big Brother or the party, but his children supposedly catch him shouting "down with Big Brother" in his sleep. He's imprisoned for what he said, not what he thought.

I've got to be honest, I don't see the relevance of 1984 (or Animal Farm or Wool or The Handmaid's Tale or any other dystopia you want to start name dropping) to making internet users have to opt in to see images of extreme violent. YouTube already removes such videos, for example. The slippery slope is a logical fallacy unless you can show conclusively that one thing necessarily leads to another.

Interesting to read that The Guardian and the Daily Mail have pretty much the same line on this. The Guardian has become increasingly illiberal and prudish in recent years, regarding porn, prostitution and other issues like that.

Having said that, I actually think that banning this sort of stuff - like banning, erm, 'questionable' cartoons is a thought crime.

If you read around on the Internet, there is a huge interest by people in roleplay forced sex/rape scenarios, and the women seem to be more enthusiastic about it and into it than the guys are. I imagine that a lot of that kind of porn plays into that kind of fetish. (Particularly interesting is that a lot of the women who have this fetish have actually suffered horrendous assaults, yet have these fetishes for a variety of different reasons. Sometimes they always have had these fantasies, sometimes they grew because of their abuse experience, other times they get into it as a healing mechanism. It's a complex subject.)

I'm heavily against banning this sort of stuff, and I'd like to see more of it and it discussed openly. Be good if some good, reputable BDSM websites were able to run with this fetish too, rather than this stuff being produced in dodgy countries where standards do not really exist.