Australia plans to introduce web filters

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Albatross**

@Rubiksnoob - You talk about rights as if they actually exist. The government decides which rights you have, and which you don't. No human being has the inherent 'right' to property - it's an abstract concept, as are all 'rights' - even 'the right to life'.

**avantgarde**

If they casually mention they use 4chan, then obviously not.

**Orkeosaurus**

I don't think it matters whether the majority rules through direct voting on policy or through electing representatives. In either case simply being the majority doesn't justify telling the minority what they can do.

**Emperors Faithful**

Orkeosaurus wrote:I don't think it matters whether the majority rules through direct voting on policy or through electing representatives. In either case simply being the majority doesn't justify telling the minority what they can do.

Why's that?

**Orkeosaurus**

Albatross wrote:@Rubiksnoob - You talk about rights as if they actually exist. The government decides which rights you have, and which you don't. No human being has the inherent 'right' to property - it's an abstract concept, as are all 'rights' - even 'the right to life'.

Being an abstract concept doesn't mean something is nonexistent.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:
Orkeosaurus wrote:I don't think it matters whether the majority rules through direct voting on policy or through electing representatives. In either case simply being the majority doesn't justify telling the minority what they can do.

Why's that?

Because it's immoral.

**Teh_K42**

Was she hot?

BAD ORKEOSAURUS! VERY BAD!

Rubiksnoob the problem with letting people do whatever they wan't as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else is that it DOES hurt others inderectly. That heroin junkie could be out of work, perhaps resorting to crime to fund the addiction all the while neglecting his/her children. A drain on society and a tragic waste of life.

**Orkeosaurus**

Child neglect and theft are already illegal.

**tblock1984**

**Albatross**

Orkeosaurus wrote:
Teh_K42 wrote:About a year ago I met a 14 year old girl who casually mentioned that she uses 4chan.

Was she hot?

Oh, you!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Being an abstract concept doesn't mean something is nonexistent.

True, but it's existence is only determined by consensus.

**Emperors Faithful**

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:
Orkeosaurus wrote:I don't think it matters whether the majority rules through direct voting on policy or through electing representatives. In either case simply being the majority doesn't justify telling the minority what they can do.

Why's that?
Because it's immoral.

And why is that?

**Orkeosaurus**

Albatross wrote:True, but it's existence is only determined by consensus.

I disagree. Why should my perception of reality hinge on what I perceive other people think, based on their own perceptions, instead of my own immediate perceptions?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:
Orkeosaurus wrote:
Because it's immoral.

And why is that?

Because I think so.

**sebster**

Emperors Faithful wrote:And why is that?

Because democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner.
Because the truth remains the truth, whether it is believed by one person or a million.
Because populations freak out over random stuff and support doing horrible things to minority populations in their own country.
Because a right that exists only as long the majority permits me to have it is not a right.

**Emperors Faithful**

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:
Orkeosaurus wrote:
Because it's immoral.

And why is that?
Because I think so.

Ah, but you're the minority. So you don't get to decide what's immoral.

**Asherian Command**

GOD DAMN IT AUSTRILIA!
i'm from there. why? whY?
NO well what guys do when they have spare time. -.- ahhh the great outdoors of austrilia. where you can wear a hat whereever you go.

**Emperors Faithful**

Surf?

**Asherian Command**

Good answer.

**Orkeosaurus**

Emperors Faithful wrote:
Orkeosaurus wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:
Orkeosaurus wrote:
Because it's immoral.

And why is that?
Because I think so.

Ah, but you're the minority. So you don't get to decide what's immoral.

2+2=4

**Albatross**

I disagree. Why should my perception of reality hinge on what I perceive other people think, based on their own perceptions, instead of my own immediate perceptions?

Because you can percieve your rights to exist, but that has no meaning unless the rest of society is in agreement - your belief in a 'right to life' is meaningless if the wider society has no concept of it. Your right to exist is not as fundamental as the ability to respire. Animals have no 'right to life' between themselves, although pack mentality could be considered to be roughly analogous perhaps...

**Orkeosaurus**

Society is as much an abstract concept as rights are, if not more so.

It seems like what you really must mean to say is that rights come from power; it doesn't matter what the majority thinks if the minority has all the guns. The government has many guns, of course, but the government can't be everywhere, and locked in a room with a murderer your rights are whatever he thinks they are. But, of course, now morality only refers to whatever you are physically able to do.

**JohnHwangDD**

Kilkrazy wrote:I think it's great that Australia is developing a powerful censorship tool. There are several markets around the world which will pay big money for it, like China, Burma and Saudi Arabia.

Australia needn't waste time developing any censorship tool - they can simply outsource to China and use that tool. It's pretty darn effective from what I understand.
____

Orkeosaurus wrote:2 + 2 = 4

You are wrong.

2 + 2 = 5

Report for reeducation.

**Orkeosaurus**

You'll never find me in an attic above an antique shop!

**chromedog**

K.Rudd just wants us to be more like his friends on the 'other' mainland.

He already speaks mandarin (and is a tool to boot), and has had it legislated that all school children learn an 'asian' language at school. He's the only PM we've had MORE boring than John Howard.

Like learning Bahasa helps any of them when they holiday in Bali (locals will generally speak Javanese).

**Emperors Faithful**

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:2 + 2 = 4

You are wrong.

2 + 2 = 5

Report for reeducation.

Damn.

Beat me to it.

**Khornholio**

Japan already has this type of unversial blocking. Any streaming site from China is blocked a la Youko or tudou for example. It's all a waste of cash as someone will develop some uber IP hider that goes around it...probably the same company.

**dogma**

Orkeosaurus wrote:I disagree. Why should my perception of reality hinge on what I perceive other people think, based on their own perceptions, instead of my own immediate perceptions?

It shouldn't but morality isn't real in any sense that isn't defined by strict physicalism. It certainly exists, but existence is not the same thing as reality.

**Orkeosaurus**

What's the difference?

**dogma**

Existence has a looser meaning that includes ephemeral things like ideas, emotions, or souls. Reality generally denotes only objects which can be physically observed, or referenced.

For example, categories exist, but they are not real. The universe exists, but it isn't real (only the objects that it is composed of are).

Another way to look at it: reality does not include things which can only be observed in theory, or through extensive artifice.

**Orkeosaurus**

Hmm. Alright, I'll remember to make the distinction in philosophical discussions.

**IvanTih**

I break internet filters in school.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:rubiksnoob: So you're saying that we SHOULD have Child Porn on the evening news?

"And right after the weather, we'll have some bestiality mixed up with three-year-old girls. We should warn you that some, maybe all of our viewers will find this offensive, if so please change the channel."

Child porn is disgusting and bad,but legal porn.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Aye, save the little ones...

It's too late for me anyway...

Then I'm half damned,right guy is pedobear,but who is the left guy in black templar armor,I have seen him before,but I haven't learned about his name.

**Emperors Faithful**

"How about you take a seat over here sir..."