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.
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.
😂
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.
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
😂
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.
😱😱😱
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.
😂😂😂
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.
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.
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.