It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The UK State Goes Full On Authoritarian

page: 12
31
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2019 @ 02:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: SerenTheUniverse
a reply to: Tartuffe

You support censorship of naked children So why not censorship of children with clothes on who are being tortured and murdered?
You badly contradict yourself and it is hilarious.
So some censorship is okay but only if it supports what you think should be censored?

Your debating skills are childlike !e at best, but you amuse me in the same way my cat toys with a half dead mouse.
😂



See? back to the same old fallacious argument, which appears to be your only one. Luckily human rights group in the UK are picking up the slack where the lazy and self-concerned are still sleeping.




posted on Apr, 11 2019 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Tartuffe

How is that fallacious?
It is a absolutely pertinent to the principle of govt censorship which you already have regarding naked children, but you think it is okay to not censor clothed children being tortured and murdered?
If so then you are one confused individual.



posted on Apr, 11 2019 @ 02:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: SerenTheUniverse
a reply to: Tartuffe

How is that fallacious?
It is a absolutely pertinent to the principle of govt censorship which you already have regarding naked children, but you think it is okay to not censor clothed children being tortured and murdered?
If so then you are one confused individual.


It's a red herring. It's irrelevant to anything I've said, and is used as a ploy to distract from the topic.

You keep bringing up naked children. You keep bringing up rape. All to defend a proposal by a weak minority right wing government.



posted on Apr, 11 2019 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Tartuffe

No, it is absolutely relevant because you stated you are against ALL censorship including torture and genocide videos, but you support censorship of naked children. See the contradiction or is that concept to difficult for you to understand.

Carry on wetting your panties about a proposal which hasn't even made it to committee stage in Parliament yet.
Lmao at your lack of understanding while you rant about British politics
😂



posted on Apr, 11 2019 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: SerenTheUniverse
a reply to: Tartuffe

No, it is absolutely relevant because you stated you are against ALL censorship including torture and genocide videos, but you support censorship of naked children. See the contradiction or is that concept to difficult for you to understand.

Carry on wetting your panties about a proposal which hasn't even made it to committee stage in Parliament yet.
Lmao at your lack of understanding while you rant about British politics
😂


That's another lie on your part. You said I want the right to watch real rape and murder videos long before I said anything about being against "ALL censorship". More lies. You're drowning in them at this point.

These are the only "reasoned argument" you can muster. Straw man. Red Herring. Lies. All in support of a right-wing white paper. Hilarious.

Your fallacies worked on your fellow statists, but not much else.

edit on 11-4-2019 by Tartuffe because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2019 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Tartuffe

Dude I quoted you earlier, stop being like a child because anyone can read the thread and see it.
You stated specifically that you object to government removing your choice to watch torture and genocide videos.
You stated you object to ALL censorship.

I challenged that and said no, you are already in support of some govt censorship in principle because you agree with banning images of naked children, as I do. The principle of some govt censorship is therefore accepted by you or you contradict yourself stating you are against ALL censorship.

The craziest part about your position is that images of children being tortured and murdered should not be banned if they are wearing clothes, but if the children are naked then you agree with government censorship in some circumstances.

I'd extend the law on images of naked children to images of real rape, torture, and genocide, but your position is you should have the choice to view such things so long as the children victims are wearing clothes.

We're going around in circles now though, I happily stand by all my words and shall leave you to watch videos of torture and genocide safe in the knowledge that your govt is not about to take that choice away from you.
Why is it okay in your head to censor naked children, but.not okay to censor children being tortured if they are wearing clothes?
You can't answer that I know and you won't answer it either, but your words in this thread have made you look an absolute fool...and rather strange with such outrage if you were denied the choice to watch torture and genocide videos.
😱😱😱



posted on Apr, 11 2019 @ 05:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: SerenTheUniverse
a reply to: Tartuffe

Dude I quoted you earlier, stop being like a child because anyone can read the thread and see it.
You stated specifically that you object to government removing your choice to watch torture and genocide videos.
You stated you object to ALL censorship.

I challenged that and said no, you are already in support of some govt censorship in principle because you agree with banning images of naked children, as I do. The principle of some govt censorship is therefore accepted by you or you contradict yourself stating you are against ALL censorship.

The craziest part about your position is that images of children being tortured and murdered should not be banned if they are wearing clothes, but if the children are naked then you agree with government censorship in some circumstances.

I'd extend the law on images of naked children to images of real rape, torture, and genocide, but your position is you should have the choice to view such things so long as the children victims are wearing clothes.

We're going around in circles now though, I happily stand by all my words and shall leave you to watch videos of torture and genocide safe in the knowledge that your govt is not about to take that choice away from you.
Why is it okay in your head to censor naked children, but.not okay to censor children being tortured if they are wearing clothes?
You can't answer that I know and you won't answer it either, but your words in this thread have made you look an absolute fool...and rather strange with such outrage if you were denied the choice to watch torture and genocide videos.
😱😱😱






You said I wanted a right to view rape and murder videos long before I said anything about censorship. Anyone can go read it.

Worse, you were unable to come up with a better argument, so you made worse ones. "It doesn't affect you!" "Worry about your own country"!

I wouldn't stand by your words if I were you. But I guess you have no choice.



posted on Apr, 11 2019 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: SerenTheUniverse

LOL at this discussion, this is the kind of conversation where i usually split as soon as possible before it turns into this...





In the end the conversation is so far away from the original topic that nothing ever gets solved



posted on Apr, 11 2019 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Tartuffe

Yes, and I was correct, you stated you object to govt denying you the choice to view such images.
I made a few different arguments of course because your comments are so contradictory and easy to pick apart.
Yes, I stand by my words...but you still haven't explained why you want the choice to view videos of children being tortured and murdered, but if the children are naked while being tortured then you agree with the current censorship.

You need to square that circle of supporting some censorship by government while declaring you are against all censorship. You can't do it, and it makes you look like a fool.
An uneducated fool, ranting against ALL censorship while actually agreeing with it in certain circumstances such as child indecency.

The principle of govt censorship has no halfway house, either you agree with some circumstances where it is appropriate, or you oppose ALL censorship.
I don't expect you to understand that though so I'll leave you to your drama queen thread about state tyranny lol
It is a waste of both of our time just repeating ourselves.

...oh and high school kids here in philosophy and applied ethics class can hold a more reasoned debate than you do, so I hope you are not an example of what the US education system produces.
😂😂😂



posted on Apr, 11 2019 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Malisa

Haha yes 😂
I've just been entertaining myself to be honest, it has been a good distraction.
You actually caught me just as I was leaving the thread exit door lol, gonna see who is bitching in a Brexit thread or something, the member here can have the last word,,,it has been amusing though but all good things can come to an end.



posted on Apr, 11 2019 @ 05:57 PM
link   
The next step would be to Censer ALL information from every thing!
Only the propaganda controlled news !

all phone calls to be monitored and controlled.
make it illegal to bring in to UK any new not sanctioned.



posted on Apr, 11 2019 @ 06:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: SerenTheUniverse
a reply to: Tartuffe

Yes, and I was correct, you stated you object to govt denying you the choice to view such images.
I made a few different arguments of course because your comments are so contradictory and easy to pick apart.
Yes, I stand by my words...but you still haven't explained why you want the choice to view videos of children being tortured and murdered, but if the children are naked while being tortured then you agree with the current censorship.

You need to square that circle of supporting some censorship by government while declaring you are against all censorship. You can't do it, and it makes you look like a fool.
An uneducated fool, ranting against ALL censorship while actually agreeing with it in certain circumstances such as child indecency.

The principle of govt censorship has no halfway house, either you agree with some circumstances where it is appropriate, or you oppose ALL censorship.
I don't expect you to understand that though so I'll leave you to your drama queen thread about state tyranny lol
It is a waste of both of our time just repeating ourselves.

...oh and high school kids here in philosophy and applied ethics class can hold a more reasoned debate than you do, so I hope you are not an example of what the US education system produces.
😂😂😂


Yes, stand by your fallacious arguments. That's all you have. It's a shame you were unable to muster a better one.

Let's tally the score:

You made fallacious arguments in support of a right-wing white paper regarding the proposed censorship of the internet and you couldn't even find a valid reason why. Not only that but you said you'd leave many times—and here you are.

Thanks for bumping my thread.


(post by Tartuffe removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Apr, 11 2019 @ 06:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: buddha
The next step would be to Censer ALL information from every thing!
Only the propaganda controlled news !

all phone calls to be monitored and controlled.
make it illegal to bring in to UK any new not sanctioned.


That's one of the most troubling aspects of the proposal. The government gets to decide what is or isn't disinformation. As a corollary, the government gets to decide what is or isn't true. That means state-sanctioned truth.



posted on Apr, 12 2019 @ 02:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tartuffe
That's one of the most troubling aspects of the proposal. The government gets to decide what is or isn't disinformation. As a corollary, the government gets to decide what is or isn't true. That means state-sanctioned truth.


That's not actually the case if you read the White Paper, which you posted a link to in the OP.

Illegal and harmful content is described in law, and the law determines the tolerances. Besides, this proposal - if it became law - would be overseen by an independent regulator and not the government as you erroneously contineously assert. There is a public appetite to implement controls such as this. The only people impacted are those who peddle illegal content, and the consumers of such. Most people don't care for the consumers of child or animal abuse, or content designed to exploit of children and the vulnerable.

Furthermore, the crux of this proposal is to make the content providers more responsible for the content on their systems, and to have a duty of care. You may not like that idea, but most people think that companies like Facebook do have a duty of care to their consumers, and should abide by the law and what is socially acceptable in the UK where they operate.
edit on 12/4/2019 by paraphi because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2019 @ 04:37 AM
link   
This is a bad situation, I'm hearing that American Based forums that host esoteric and conspiracy type content are already considering banning UK IP's if this goes through because they are worried about being fined. Looks like we are all going to have to start using VPN's just to discuss things the government doesn't want us to.



posted on Apr, 12 2019 @ 06:36 AM
link   
a reply to: SerenTheUniverse

I understand your points and Agree that even people who are critical of censorship are often banded in with "fascists" or "beasts" simply because they dont want an overbearing government imposing laws on our private lives, that is intrinsic to the way of American life ! always this mantra as well " You want privacy then you obviously have something to hide ! "
People have been sold the ideology of security at the hands of government as its been branded as " we want you to be secure from terror , from criminals so we need to see all of your data"

It is written into your constitution that you have privacy !
on one hand yes this is important but on the other it also allows a safe haven for criminals !

I wasnt complaining about your lack of activism , what I was referring to was the apparent lack of care or compassion for other humans in foreign lands , I am obviously wrong and you do care for others as most normal humans do! I think I misunderstood your lack of attention to other political systems / financial systems etc for lack of compassion for fellow humans
Not caring about what happens elsewhere is really short sighted as we are all on this planet together and everything so linked together now , what happens in America affects the world just as what happens in the EU or China or Russia , the world isnt as big as it once used to be!

What I am doing is irrelevant , as I was only stating my opinion , I'm not here to have a pissing contest over who has the bigger activist cock !
What I am doing is waking up to this democratic illusion , the realisation that we have no democracy and we are at the will of politicians and powerful corporate bodies and banks , the best we can do is to not support these systems of corruption

The tories are on their way out , nothing they propose now will be supported by the rest of government !
if they cant secure a brexit deal they wont secure this legislative change!



posted on Apr, 12 2019 @ 09:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: Tartuffe
That's one of the most troubling aspects of the proposal. The government gets to decide what is or isn't disinformation. As a corollary, the government gets to decide what is or isn't true. That means state-sanctioned truth.


That's not actually the case if you read the White Paper, which you posted a link to in the OP.

Illegal and harmful content is described in law, and the law determines the tolerances. Besides, this proposal - if it became law - would be overseen by an independent regulator and not the government as you erroneously contineously assert. There is a public appetite to implement controls such as this. The only people impacted are those who peddle illegal content, and the consumers of such. Most people don't care for the consumers of child or animal abuse, or content designed to exploit of children and the vulnerable.

Furthermore, the crux of this proposal is to make the content providers more responsible for the content on their systems, and to have a duty of care. You may not like that idea, but most people think that companies like Facebook do have a duty of care to their consumers, and should abide by the law and what is socially acceptable in the UK where they operate.


Good point, but the duty of care is prescribed by the government. The regulator, appointed by the government, enforces compliance with powers given by the government. I don’t care if the pope oversees compliance.

Everyone in the UK is affected. One man’s extremism or disinformation is another’s sincerely held belief.

We’re talking about the internet, free services, and the free flow of information. These companies have zero obligation to the people of the UK. If you don’t like the content you don’t watch it. If you don’t like Facebook you don’t use it. You may not like that idea, but it’s the grown up thing to do. No amount of weasel-like hair-splitting makes this better for internet freedom.



posted on Apr, 12 2019 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: DarkFruit

The UK government already tried to ban Esoteric or Occult things online for UK citizens I think it was immediately shot down by the public !


david cameron the wee traitor bastard!
sad to say he is a scotsman! absolute Wank!
when the UK gov tried to ban esoteric and occult sites



posted on Apr, 14 2019 @ 09:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Tartuffe

Until today I haven't logged on here in a while, fed up of politics on both sides of the pond. When you first authored this my initial thought on the matter surprised myself. It occurred to me that this may actually be about Brexit. Think about it, one of the things I've seen parroted around sites where Brexit is discussed is that, now the EU is enforcing new internet censorship laws, people are happy to be leaving the EU. And right on cue Darth May and her inept cabal come along and create even more draconian laws to censor the internet, is this an attempt to make the EU seem less scary?




top topics



 
31
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join