Online pornography to be blocked by default, PM to announce

I just think
all you wankers
have forgotten what
it is like to be a virgin.

And just like loosing virginity,
the PM's plan, is a question of implementation.


Mike

Ok, at first I was going to take back what I said because I thought this was only affecting public networks. But now that I read the article, this looks to be fairly widespread in its scope. This is the UK government slamming down on porn and basically being very hostile. Don't like. Scary.

I feel that sexual thoughts - as long as real people aren't involved or real people aren't below the consenting age and nobody is forcibly involved - are part of our liberty. The more we seek to control these sorts of things, the more orwellian it gets and the more like a religion it becomes.

It's authoritarian. Creepy.

Originally posted by jonnywhite

You wnat to stop it? Start giving teenagers medication that reduces sexual desire.

edit on 22-7-2013 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)

Don't give them ideas!

Prime Minister David Cameron considering a plan to block porn sites [color=gold] in public places such as cafes, airports and train stations.

.. and

“Government officials are trying to work out how widely the ban should be applied and how to implement it,” reported James Lyons for the paper. “Internet companies could automatically restrict access or it could become the responsibility of individual stores, shopping centers or coffee shops to police it.”

PM David Cameron may block porn from Britans [color=gold] Public WiFi

I think,
some of you
are just mad that
he's taking input and
not letting you claim that he
overpowered and dishonored.


Mike

So the government will now be able to know which the fee-paying ISP customers are perverts.

And why not an opt-in instead of opt-out? Opt out is forcing everyone to be identified as "perverts" when they opt-in, I guess that's the point.

reply to post by mikegrouchy


www.independent.co.uk...

Every home in the UK is to have pornography blocked by their internet provider unless the householder choose to receive it, David Cameron has announced.

Originally posted by igor_ats
So the government will now be able to know which the fee-paying ISP customers are perverts.

And why not an opt-in instead of opt-out? Opt out is forcing everyone to be identified as "perverts" when they opt-in, I guess that's the point.

So now the argument changes,

for the past 11 pages it has been pretty much
omg-what-if-the-wife-finds-out, and now that it's
the coffee shop that will find out it's omg-the-coffee-
it-person-is-gonna-rat-me-out-to-the-bobbies.

PM Cameron is taking input.
Why not tell him how you want it done.


Mike

Originally posted by Swizzy
reply to post by mikegrouchy

 

www.independent.co.uk...

Every home in the UK is to have pornography blocked by their internet provider unless the householder choose to receive it, David Cameron has announced.

Right,
it's your house,
it's your choice. Problem?

Or are you worried that the PM
will find out that you are not still a virgin at your age?


Mike

Originally posted by igor_ats

And why not an opt-in instead of opt-out? Opt out is forcing everyone to be identified as "perverts" when they opt-in, I guess that's the point.

This is why...
I thought that was clear
on page one of this thread.


Mike

Porn paints women in a bad light like romance novels paint men in a bad light. Sexual fantasy is just that: fantasy. Porn is directed toward male audiences for the most part and many of the women are in no way realistic. So what? It's not your fantasy so mind your own business. Romance novels target women and have hordes of anti-hero rapists that have been shed in a good light. To me that is a far more dangerous thing than meaningless sex between some guy with a giant ding dong and a woman with boobs that look like they're about to bust. I could make the argument that romance novels are more damaging than the majority of pornography for that very reason; it makes women think bad boys can be changed into nice guys.

What it comes down to is this is just nonsense so the government can shut down more websites and control the freedom of it's people. It has nothing to do with parenting or some 15 year old male fapping it to a busty 27 year old in a porn video. We're all just frogs sitting in that pot of water and this is just one more thing to increase the temperature.

reply to post by mikegrouchy


You clearly haven't read the thread.

Originally posted by LadyofGlass

What it comes down to is this is just nonsense so the government can shut down more websites and control the freedom of it's people. [color=gold] It has nothing to do with parenting or some 15 year old male fapping it to a busty 27 year old in a porn video. We're all just frogs sitting in that pot of water and this is just one more thing to increase the temperature.

Well that's really the problem isn't it.

There aren't any busty 27 year olds doing straight porn any more.
In fact, it's just not very good.
The pr0n is all weaponized and super extreme now.
And there always seems to be one or more participants who look unhappy.


Mike

Originally posted by mikegrouchy

Originally posted by igor_ats

And why not an opt-in instead of opt-out? Opt out is forcing everyone to be identified as "perverts" when they opt-in, I guess that's the point.

This is why...
I thought that was clear
on page one of this thread.

Mike

Sorry but because someone might see something offensive (to them) online doesn't mean the government should ban it for everyone else and set up "opt-in" requirements so they can no doubt filter them as persons of interest and what they're downloading.

Originally posted by Swizzy
reply to post by mikegrouchy

 

You clearly haven't read the thread.

Yes,
it got sickening about page 4.

I had to back out and reflect.

Just because the room is full of confirmed wankers
and I have returned to argue in favor of preserving virginity,
does not give you the right to use my lack of experience against me.


Mike

reply to post by LadyofGlass

It's called rape fantasy. Google it. Apparently, it was more common 30 years ago. It's mostly equally spread between the genders, although some studies suggest more woman have it. Please note this is a fantasy and precisely because it's fantasy the fantasizer is in control. One of the hypothesized reasons that this fantasy exists is BECAUSE the fantasizer can choose to end the fantasy at any time. The aim of the fantasizer is not for the fantasy to be real - they would lose the control.

There're lots of rapes in movies and in stories. Of course, you can choose to not watch or read it - is why we have a rating system. You're not forced to watch them and they're not real.

If I understand this, Cameron wants to make rape in porn illegal or something. Does that mean any movie or story with rape is illegal? Or is it only illegal if it's sold or referenced as porn?

Ban Porn, no chance!

Maybe we should ban halfwit government sponsored bullcrap ideas like this!

Know what In a way I hope this crap does happen because it just puts us one step closer to the revolution that's in the post!

reply to post by boymonkey74

I guess nude paintings will be banned next.

The proper approach would be to close beaches first and then swimming pools.

This is of coarse if a ban on certain clothing hasn't already happened, actually it already has in places.

Yeah for a free man kind, free to not do anything unless told.

reply to post by mikegrouchy


If you read the thread you'd realize it's about more than 'not being able to watch my porn'.

I'm not going to summarize something for you because you yourself admitted to being too lazy to read.

By the way people are agreeing with cameron, Its almost like no one ever thought to invent child block/parental controls on computers to ensure that kids aren't accessing such things.

Oh wait, All standard computers have parental controls upon start up, takes about 5 mins to implement. Think this is just the government moving to try and control ISP's and internet users. This wont get through parliament, MP's are the dirtiest of dirt bags when it comes to porn

Originally posted by igor_ats
Sorry but because someone [color=gold] might see something offensive (to them) online doesn't mean the government should ban it for everyone else and set up "opt-in" requirements so they can no doubt filter them as persons of interest and what they're downloading.

I too am sorry,
as forgetting what it was like
to be virgin, explains why the quote above
assumes that everyone already has an "offensive (to them)" threshold.

Default safe mode
does not
equal tyranny.

Really think something here is being preserved
when all that is happening is virginity is being thrown under the train.


Mike

And for what.
Fear of this?