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.

 Medium of Death wrote:

Spoiler:

Seems relevant.

*For our oversees friends this program is obviously a piss take, but the "celebreties" in it are morons and happily read the lines given to them. Hilarity.

You may want to spoiler those videos as some of the stuff in there is pretty brutal, and may not be fit for Dakka's PG13 demographic.

We have them flogged.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
We have them flogged.

Just so long as they don't film it and put it on the internet...

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
We have them flogged.

Just so long as they don't film it and put it on the internet...

The old ways really are the best, aren't they?

 purplefood wrote:

 Goliath wrote:

Eldercaveman wrote:
I reckon either Cameron or one of his kids has a porn tape about to be leaked, and he is now taking emergencies measures.

His children are 9, 7 and 3 respectively.

That's some pretty sick stuff man...

That was my implication. "His children are 9, 7 and 3, to imply they have a sex tape on the way is repulsive."

 Goliath wrote:

 purplefood wrote:

 Goliath wrote:

Eldercaveman wrote:
I reckon either Cameron or one of his kids has a porn tape about to be leaked, and he is now taking emergencies measures.

His children are 9, 7 and 3 respectively.

That's some pretty sick stuff man...

That was my implication. "His children are 9, 7 and 3, to imply they have a sex tape on the way is repulsive."

it is yes but that wasn't the intention of my statement as I later pointed out.

Christian bashing aside.....

If adults living at home with parents want porn they can Still get it with this proposed system.
It's not like they are blocked from getting their own 4G Internet provider.
GG

No on's been bashing Christians. The bashing's been aimed at fundamentalists, not Christians as a whole.

Can we not start a Religious debate in a thread about what is essentially Internet Censorship?

Please? This one time?

Was there any christian bashing?

 purplefood wrote:
Was there any christian bashing?

Certainly not if it was filmed and put on the internet. That would offend the moral police who are attempting to seize control of the big scary internet.

 purplefood wrote:
Was there any christian bashing?

At some point in time, somewhere, yes there was.

Here in this thread, there was one side comment. That is soon to be dragged out of hand, and take the thread off-topic and get it locked. So can we all, please, get back to the porn?

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
We have them flogged.

Just so long as they don't film it and put it on the internet...

Nope, fine to film it and put it on the Internet, just as long as no one is turned on by it. Such is the perverse nature of the rules (pun 100% intended).

Its all fine with a little Bishop bashing....its a male thing....

 SilverMK2 wrote:
From what I have seen the "request" will essentially be a popup when you either register as a new user (ie are first connected), or a popup that appears for existing users when (or rather if) this comes into force asking you "do you want to have access to XYZ", rather than it being automatically blocked and you having to actively going to the ISP and requesting access.

IOW it will be like those "are you 18 years old yes/no" pages. I'm sure this will be a 100% effective solution and nobody will ever lie and unblock the porn.

Relapse wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Pornography involving stimulated rape will also be banned

Stimulated rape?


Also: I wonder who gets to determine what is and is not pornography in England.

That's what I was wondering. I'll say first that I despise porn because of the marraiges I have seen break up over it, the degradation of the people involved, and the fact there are people that get forced into doing it. I also hate the fact that some of the sites are like land mines in that they can inadvertantly be accessed. A good example is the time I was helping my 10 year old daughter with her homework and we typed in an address from a map book she had. It had apparently been picked up by some porn producers because some pretty vile stuff appeared.
I was fairly pissed, to say the least, and if this is what is prevented, I'm all for it as a family man who doesn't want his kids subjected to that filth.
However, all that being said, is the baby being thrown out with the bath water here?

I despise *some* porn because, well... yuck. However, that's a mostly matter of taste, and barring a few things (underage, rape, snuff, etc) I'm not so arrogant as to make the claim that another person should not be allowed their own tastes.

As a side note, I can really only suggest that if porn has broken up your* marriage, then your marriage was probably not that great to begin with, IMO. I'm not intending to pass judgement; just suggesting that if there's something in porn you like that your partner won't do, then maybe that isn't the one and only person you want in the foxhole with you.

Also, I have to ask: exactly where were these maps to?


*use of infinitive; no implication of your specific marriage.

 purplefood wrote:
Was there any christian bashing?

I guess this statement a page or two back attacking Gog and his beliefs qualifies, but it's nowhere near as bad as some I've seen on other threads.


"Don't bother, GG is a Christian Fundamentalist, stuff like freedom of speech are concepts that are completely alien to him because they weren't written on a tablet by his invisible friend a couple of thousand of years ago. "

Other than that, the thread been pretty mellow considering how it could have gone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Pornography involving stimulated rape will also be banned

Stimulated rape?


Also: I wonder who gets to determine what is and is not pornography in England.

That's what I was wondering. I'll say first that I despise porn because of the marraiges I have seen break up over it, the degradation of the people involved, and the fact there are people that get forced into doing it. I also hate the fact that some of the sites are like land mines in that they can inadvertantly be accessed. A good example is the time I was helping my 10 year old daughter with her homework and we typed in an address from a map book she had. It had apparently been picked up by some porn producers because some pretty vile stuff appeared.
I was fairly pissed, to say the least, and if this is what is prevented, I'm all for it as a family man who doesn't want his kids subjected to that filth.
However, all that being said, is the baby being thrown out with the bath water here?

I despise *some* porn because, well... yuck. However, that's a mostly matter of taste, and barring a few things (underage, rape, snuff, etc) I'm not so arrogant as to make the claim that another person should not be allowed their own tastes.

As a side note, I can really only suggest that if porn has broken up your* marriage, then your marriage was probably not that great to begin with, IMO. I'm not intending to pass judgement; just suggesting that if there's something in porn you like that your partner won't do, then maybe that isn't the one and only person you want in the foxhole with you.

Also, I have to ask: exactly where were these maps to?


*use of infinitive; no implication of your specific marriage.

A few good examples are some women I know whose husbands got into porn in a big way and over time wanted to start doing things that from the movies they watched that were repellant to the women. Another example is a guy I know who got into porn as a kid and developed some pretty warped notions that he brought into adulthood. He had his wife take pictures of herself which he put onto his computer and he would masturbate to them along with all the other porn he viewed because it was the only way he could get off anymore. Needless to say at that point his marrige fell apart within a couple of years. A friend I work with went through a divorce and in a pretty frank conversation with me about it blamed what he called a porn addiction on his part for the troubles.


The parts of this article talking about online addiction pretty much match the stories all four people told me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porn_addiction


The maps were in an Rand Mcnally book, although it might better have been named Randy Mcnally considering the site I ended up on after typing in the address they had listed.

I can think of a couple of reasons why this is a bad idea.

1) Anyone remember SOPA from last year? The whole "net neutrality" thing we all fought so hard to keep? Well, this is a much more focused version of that. The bottom line is, centralised bodies with political aspirations and agendas should NEVER have any say over what is and isn't held on the Internet. While some things obviously shouldn't be available on grounds of thorough indecency or illegality, politicians have shown time and again that they either can't be trusted to be fair with these decisions, or simply have no idea what the hell they're going on about anyway.

2) Anyone who's ever worked IT - and probably quite a few who haven't besides - will know that on corporate IT systems, it's all too easy for the filtering software to mistakenly block out websites that are, in fact, legitimate. Sometimes this is down to classification not being thought through carefully enough, sometimes it's false positives, sometimes it's someone with an agenda reporting a site and the filterers erring too far on the side of caution and blocking it for all before actually going to check it out.
Bear in mind that such filtering software is *created by developers whose livelihoods depend on that system's usefulness*. It's in their best interests for it to be as accurate with classifications as possible... ISPs would be under less obligation to make corrections and would also likely be very severe in their judgement with the threat of possible fines or government sanctions if they're found wanting.

I can only think of one good thing that may come out of this - more and more people may yet realise how moronic David Cameron is if he truly thinks these measures will do *anything* to stop the march of porn. Look at what's been levelled at piracy over the years, and how that's still going...

 Super Ready wrote:
I can think of a couple of reasons why this is a bad idea.

1) Anyone remember SOPA from last year? The whole "net neutrality" thing we all fought so hard to keep? Well, this is a much more focused version of that. The bottom line is, centralised bodies with political aspirations and agendas should NEVER have any say over what is and isn't held on the Internet. While some things obviously shouldn't be available on grounds of thorough indecency or illegality, politicians have shown time and again that they either can't be trusted to be fair with these decisions, or simply have no idea what the hell they're going on about anyway.

2) Anyone who's ever worked IT - and probably quite a few who haven't besides - will know that on corporate IT systems, it's all too easy for the filtering software to mistakenly block out websites that are, in fact, legitimate. Sometimes this is down to classification not being thought through carefully enough, sometimes it's false positives, sometimes it's someone with an agenda reporting a site and the filterers erring too far on the side of caution and blocking it for all before actually going to check it out.
Bear in mind that such filtering software is *created by developers whose livelihoods depend on that system's usefulness*. It's in their best interests for it to be as accurate with classifications as possible... ISPs would be under less obligation to make corrections and would also likely be very severe in their judgement with the threat of possible fines or government sanctions if they're found wanting.

I can only think of one good thing that may come out of this - more and more people may yet realise how moronic David Cameron is if he truly thinks these measures will do *anything* to stop the march of porn. Look at what's been levelled at piracy over the years, and how that's still going...

You have pretty well stated my thoughts except for Cammeron since I don't know a lot about him except he doesn't seem popular with a lot of posters from Britain.

My name? I'm confused. Worth noting that, despite the spelling, it's pronounced "Reedy" and not "Reddy" in this case, since it's to do with my real name. But I still don't get it.
Anyhow, it isn't just Cameron. The world's moved forward a LOT in the last 30 years, particularly with technology, and our highest-ranking politicians by contrast are old fuddy-duddies who just don't understand how modern society works. There are some MPs with their heads screwed on straight but by and large they get shouted down by the old boys club.

I've got to say, this is genuinely the first really time I have been properly, actually ashamed of my country.

I've always thought the UK was supposed to be the 'yay rationality' country compared to... pretty must all of the others. It looks like we're handing that over to say, Canada.

I'm now (quite scarily) at the age where a lot of my peers are starting to have kids, going forward the law is supposed to help these new parents. They've grown up with the internet and don't need this daft law.

 Super Ready wrote:
My name? I'm confused. Worth noting that, despite the spelling, it's pronounced "Reedy" and not "Reddy" in this case, since it's to do with my real name. But I still don't get it.
Anyhow, it isn't just Cameron. The world's moved forward a LOT in the last 30 years, particularly with technology, and our highest-ranking politicians by contrast are old fuddy-duddies who just don't understand how modern society works. There are some MPs with their heads screwed on straight but by and large they get shouted down by the old boys club.

My bad, at a glance I saw "Super Randy".

 Compel wrote:

I've always thought the UK was supposed to be the 'yay rationality' country compared to... pretty must all of the others. It looks like we're handing that over to say, Canada.

Have you seen our Prime Minister? He's got all the pleasantness of Dick Cheney with all of the foresight of George W Bush.

Simulated rape, banned. Simulated murder, an exciting evening's entertainment.
Remember, sex is bad, kids!

....and bad sex is fun.

feeder wrote:
Simulated rape, banned. Simulated murder, an exciting evening's entertainment.
Remember, sex is bad, kids!

Don't forget that said evening entertainment allows for pretend rape to have occurred, as long as naughty bits aren't shown! L&O: SVU is proof of that. It is, of course, a good show, but that's because of the characters, their growth and their struggles.

What if it is patriotic? Is that ok?

I'd frame that.

I'd frame that.

No comment.......fish hook or no fish hook attach...

Relapse wrote:
A few good examples are some women I know whose husbands got into porn in a big way and over time wanted to start doing things that from the movies they watched that were repellant to the women. Another example is a guy I know who got into porn as a kid and developed some pretty warped notions that he brought into adulthood. He had his wife take pictures of herself which he put onto his computer and he would masturbate to them along with all the other porn he viewed because it was the only way he could get off anymore. Needless to say at that point his marrige fell apart within a couple of years. A friend I work with went through a divorce and in a pretty frank conversation with me about it blamed what he called a porn addiction on his part for the troubles.

TBH that's more of a confirmation bias thing. You only really hear about porn in a relationship when it causes problems, the couples that just enjoy their porn without any conflict are a lot less likely to ever talk about it.