Protect Yourself Lite

My trashed thread, revised.

I love art, good books and FREEDOM. I'm absolutely anti-censorship and incidentally, not into porn - so I don't watch it. My decision, made freely.

But I DO want the freedom to decide for myself what's art, what's good and what's crap. I'm a big girl and know how to juggle conflicting priorities - I've been walking and chewing gum at the same time for several years now.

I want to be my own gatekeeper.



...came on a while ago to post this, got distracted by schrodingersdog video. So good, almost forgot to post!

reply to post by soficrow


What is this about, all I have found out is that you’re not into porn and your anti-censorship

Please explain the point of this to me I am confused and the mediocre video didn’t help much.

reply to post by kevinunknown


Hmmm.

The point is - others should NOT control the information we can access, or tell us what to think, why to think it or how to think. Or tell us what decisions we should make.

We should be free to filter our own information, make our own decisions. To think for ourselves.

On the surface, it sometimes seems that censorship is a good idea, like with porn, but the fact is that once it starts, it doesn't stop. We have created a legal environment that supports book banning and burning, witch hunts and burning. Population control.

The moment we allow someone else to determine "what's good for us" or "acceptable" we have abdicated our own responsibilities and lost our freedom.

yeah, yeah....but what is wrong with porn?

I can somewhat proudly say that i was a connoisseur of the erotic arts long before the advent of the internet.

reply to post by soficrow



Well, that's rubbish.

We need some degree of censorship, take porn for example, the internet should be censored of child pornography whenever possible. That is censorship that is needed to maintain law and order and protect venerable people in society. There are loads of other examples of times where censorship is needed I am sure you don’t need me to give you any examples.

Sometimes censorship is needed for safety and sometimes to maintain a civil environment such as AST censorship. Society cannot function without censorship, there is something that we don’t need to know or see and it is important to accept that.

reply to post by kevinunknown

We need some degree of censorship, take porn for example, the internet should be censored of child pornography whenever possible. That is censorship that is needed to maintain law and order and protect venerable people in society.

Child pornography illustrates child abuse, which is illegal - removing it is not "censorship."

Censorship has to do with determining what is "inappropriate for moral, religious, or political reasons" - NOT clear illegalities.

Our RIGHTS, as defined by law, recognize our freedom to determine and decide for ourselves what we consider appropriate for moral, religious, political or any other reasons.

There are loads of other examples of times where censorship is needed ...

For population control, suppression, repression and the like.

I am sure you don’t need me to give you any examples.

Nope, I don't. I respect the law. All else is suspect. And I would argue.

Sometimes censorship is needed for safety and sometimes to maintain a civil environment such as AST censorship.

ATS does NOT "censor." The site provides a free service, asking only that we enter into a contract to respect their rules. Rules regarding nudity and swearing are in place to maximize exposure and expand the site's reach. In the event of uncertainty and gray areas, the site has the right to decide. It works - without resorting to moral, religious or political rationalizations for arbitrary censorship.

As far as censoring for "safety's sake" - doesn't wash with me. I grew up on a farm - as a child learned to shoot guns, use knifes and other sharp instruments, handle machinery, money and a-holes. Unlike many of my city friends who never learned anything particularly useful, because the knowledge was considered "dangerous."

imho - There is much, much more "safety" in knowledge than ignorance.

Society cannot function without censorship, there is something that we don’t need to know or see and it is important to accept that.

Society cannot be controlled without censorship. Not the same thing. I do not accept that "controlling society" is either necessary or desirable.

Ah saw the newer version, it was way to fast, I would have liked more of your thoughts and opinion, and your voice over too. I did like it and it will make a good addition to your channel. Your perspective made me think that there can be people out there that it is much safer to have get their kicks online in the privacy of their own home than to be censored and go out and act it out on other people in real life.

Keep up the work, it is all needed, can't wait for some of your wisdom on vaccines to be put into a video.

In South America they have heaps of titties on television - people are used to it. In Amsterdam they show real sex scenes and pregnancies in sex ed. Honestly, I don't really know what the point is in looking at naked people, and at people having sex, its really just flesh to me... I think that the increacing paranoia is really just a handful of "mother hens" that threatened television stations with lawsuits. If you ask me, the evil centers around the condom, yes, thats right, because we know it exists, we only seek pleasure, because we are so paranoid about exposing flesh, and because it is exposed less, then we become perverted. There would be no perverts if everyone was naked, now would there? When it comes to the children issue, in the olden days, people that did such things were usually killed, and if the true desire for reproduction is the motivator, then all children would be playing around with each other from a young age, and they would have sex when they are mature, with those that are mature. There is normally a very natural process of discovering sex, and by thier teens, children figure it out by themselves, and then they wonder what it was for, and then they have babies, and figure it all out and they become adults. However, we live in a perverted soceity, if you look carefully at the media, the "attractive" personalities are basically mimicking the behaviours of children in the first place. There simply aren't any real women around. Anyway, when it comes to "perverts" - it is the mind of the child that creates perversion, and usually children that are born to parents that are sexually oppressive or manipulative are the ones that usually become sex offenders.

Originally posted by SystemResistor
In South America they have heaps of titties on television - people are used to it.

yeah, and those brazilian chicks are REALLY hot...maybe some of the hottest women in the world.

www.youtube.com...

No joke man. Adriana Lima is like... wow.

Originally posted by MMPI2

Originally posted by SystemResistor
In South America they have heaps of titties on television - people are used to it.

yeah, and those brazilian chicks are REALLY hot...maybe some of the hottest women in the world.

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by soficrow


Anytime freedom of speech is restricted or the flow of information is restricted censorship has occurred. Most of the time said censorship is necessary for a number of different reasons including legal reasons such as removing child pornography.

It’s that simple.

Freedom of speech is a lie, if you weren’t such a liberal you would realise that.

reply to post by kevinunknown


You seemed to be arguing earlier that censorship is needed.

Do you believe it is?

Now you say that Freedom of Speech is a lie.

I don't dispute that totally - our "rights" seem to take 3 steps forward, 2 steps back - BUT - we do have them under law.

...Our RIGHTS, as defined by law, recognize our freedom to determine and decide for ourselves what we consider personally appropriate for moral, religious, political or any other reasons.

True, our Rights are under constant assault - but the fact that we need to keep defending our rights, every step and generation, does not mean we don't have them to defend.

reply to post by soficrow


Yes we need censorship and I support censorship to enforce public safety and national security.

If you disagree then fair enough but some censorship is necessary weather you like it or not.

reply to post by kevinunknown


Thanks for being straightforward.

Yes we need censorship and I support censorship to enforce public safety and national security.

Who decides the terms for such censorship? Is the public fully informed regarding criteria? Does the public have a voice in determining criteria, terms and conditions?

How do you see removing corporate interests from the decision-making process? ...Do you think they should be removed? If not, why not?

...Who watches the watchers?

If you disagree then fair enough but some censorship is necessary weather you like it or not.

I don't want to see people killed, and loose lips do sink ships. But.

The current state of affairs allows a lot of shenanigans - misrepresentation, disinformation, manipulation, population control - and supports corporate industrial partnering with government, while prohibiting transparent representation and accountability, and sabotaging the democratic process.

That's what I would like to see changed. In a nutshell.

reply to post by soficrow


Quis custodiet ipsos custodies?

That’s where you have to trust the safeguards in place, there has to be censorship and there has to trust in the safeguards put in place. I will be the first to admit that is hard and sometimes the watchers abuse their position but that is better than having full disclosure of everything. You have to accept that there is some stuff that you just can’t be allowed to have knowledge of.

reply to post by kevinunknown

That’s where you have to trust the safeguards in place, there has to be censorship and there has to trust in the safeguards put in place.

The "safeguards" have been removed, and relevant laws re-written.

The "safeguards" are gone - and the situation is NOT to be trusted.

...sometimes the watchers abuse their position

The watchers got hoodwinked, now "the watchers" are legally required to act the way they do.

but that is better than having full disclosure of everything.

Why? ...I don't buy it. Lives are NOT on the line, routinely - what's on the line is profit, the bottom line - and those being protected are transnationals who do NOT have any national loyalties, commitments or allegiance.

You have to accept that there is some stuff that you just can’t be allowed to have knowledge of.

I don't accept any such thing.

I am a big girl, I can walk and chew gum at the same time and everything. ...If TPTB are so bloody concerned that people are not equipped to handle special, technical information - then educate the people.

It's a circular argument:

The people need to be kept ignorant because they are ignorant.

!?!

reply to post by antar


Thanks for the crit antar.

...can you think of it as an "ad" (albeit for an idea / cause) - and then crit again?

Thanks, sofi

hi there soficrow! =o)
i for one loved opening illustrating of the woman in green shirt very artistic & sexy
also very impressed and inspired by your boldness and sharpness in gowing toe to toe whith the neysayer

just added you as a friend and hoping for more vids- stay vigilant
-jplaysguitar

reply to post by jplaysguitar


Thanks jplaysguitar.

...This is a bit of an experiment. Doesn't seem to be that successful, but will see. ...fyi - pulled all the images off the net ...