-
mistermack
- Posts: 15093
- Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
- About me: Never rong.
-
Contact:
Post
by mistermack » Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:38 pm
Beatsong wrote:That might make sense in terms of left-right generalisations, but it doesn't apply properly to the parties you're trying to apply it to.
UKIP are generally (opposition to same-sex marriage being the noted exception) highly socially libertarian. In fact they're probably the closest thing we have in the UK to a libertarian party. They have generally always supported things like decriminalising drugs, and have opposed monitoring of the internet and extension of centralised control over it. So it doesn't make any sense to say that the tories are doing this to appeal to UKIP voters.
It's not a simple left-right-far right issue.
It's not a question of the issue, it's a question of who it will encourage to vote for the Tories.
And it's definitely a measure that will appeal to the older and more right-wing voters.
And the polls say that these are the people attracted to UKIP.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.
-
Beatsong
- Posts: 444
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:33 am
-
Contact:
Post
by Beatsong » Mon Jul 22, 2013 2:15 pm
mistermack wrote:Beatsong wrote:That might make sense in terms of left-right generalisations, but it doesn't apply properly to the parties you're trying to apply it to.
UKIP are generally (opposition to same-sex marriage being the noted exception) highly socially libertarian. In fact they're probably the closest thing we have in the UK to a libertarian party. They have generally always supported things like decriminalising drugs, and have opposed monitoring of the internet and extension of centralised control over it. So it doesn't make any sense to say that the tories are doing this to appeal to UKIP voters.
It's not a simple left-right-far right issue.
It's not a question of the issue, it's a question of who it will encourage to vote for the Tories.
And it's definitely a measure that will appeal to the older and more right-wing voters.
Depends what you mean by "older". I would think the most likely people to support this policy would be parents, not grandparents.
And the polls say that these are the people attracted to UKIP.
Well, then they'd be attracted to UKIP despite the fact that UKIP's policies on this issue say the opposite of what you're claiming they're attracted to. (Mind you, it wouldn't be the first time some people formed their political allegiance that way.)
But one could make just as good an argument that the measure is designed to appeal to 30- and 40-something mothers who grew up with radical feminism (feminists being a stronger voice in anti-porn rhetoric than the aged) and would otherwise be likely to vote Labour.
-
Rum
- Absent Minded Processor
- Posts: 37285
- Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:25 pm
- Location: South of the border..though not down Mexico way..
-
Contact:
Post
by Rum » Mon Jul 22, 2013 2:47 pm
Home filtering software is only partially successful. I have read a couple of reviews which indicate this and in any case many parents don't bother as they have no real idea how easily porn can be accessed on-line. . It also is pretty ineffective with slightly older kids who find ways around it pretty easily.
Given this are the cynics and same old song anti anything and everything people willing to put up with hard core porn available to our kids as easily as it is?
-
pErvinalia
- On the good stuff
- Posts: 60981
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
- About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
- Location: dystopia
-
Contact:
Post
by pErvinalia » Mon Jul 22, 2013 2:52 pm
It should be an opt-in thing. If it actually would work (which I'm dubious of), then I'd have no problem with the gov providing that service. But inflicting their conservative morals on the whole of society without making it easy to opt-out of is ridiculous.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.
-
mistermack
- Posts: 15093
- Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
- About me: Never rong.
-
Contact:
Post
by mistermack » Mon Jul 22, 2013 2:57 pm
I've personally got no objection to a bit of restriction. Although I can't see it being effective.
Will you have to PROVE your age, before opting in? Or PROVE that you are the account holder? That might not be practical to enforce.
Anyway, all I'm saying is that Cameron doesn't personally give a damn. He's just cynically seen it as a vote winner.
He can portray himself as someone with hight moral standards, and use it to repeat the mantra that HE is a parent, and right-thinking family man.
It's all about image and electoral advantage.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.
-
pErvinalia
- On the good stuff
- Posts: 60981
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
- About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
- Location: dystopia
-
Contact:
Post
by pErvinalia » Mon Jul 22, 2013 3:00 pm
It's the whole "won't someone think of the childrens!1!". There's virtually no chance of opposing such ideas. You either end up looking like a full blown libertarian nutter, or a paedophile. But then again, the Australian version got shelved and there was calm and reasonable debate about it. In fact, now that I think of it, I'm not entirely sure how that happened in this country. Maybe we aren't quite as fucked as I thought we were.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.
-
Coito ergo sum
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
-
Contact:
Post
by Coito ergo sum » Mon Jul 22, 2013 3:01 pm
Arse wrote:"Every householder connected to the internet will have their access to online porn blocked.
Subscribers will have to opt out if they want obscene material
Online videos will now be subject to the same rules as those sold in sex shops.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... users.html
What is it with the Tories and sex?
--------EDIT -- This must clearly be good for the people -- we have regulations for videos in sex shops, why shouldn't the online stuff be subject to the same rules? Freedom is not unlimited, so this is just a reasonable restriction, and you can always opt in... and, this is being done in Yerup, so by definition it is a sound and logical step that is a perfect balance between freedom and responsibility.
EDIT -- lol -- thread read fail....
Last edited by
Coito ergo sum on Mon Jul 22, 2013 3:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
pErvinalia
- On the good stuff
- Posts: 60981
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
- About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
- Location: dystopia
-
Contact:
Post
by pErvinalia » Mon Jul 22, 2013 3:04 pm
Coito ergo sum wrote:Arse wrote:"Every householder connected to the internet will have their access to online porn blocked.
Subscribers will have to opt out if they want obscene material
Online videos will now be subject to the same rules as those sold in sex shops.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... users.html
What is it with the Tories and sex?
Where is mistermack and the rest?
He's two posts above you, C.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.
-
mistermack
- Posts: 15093
- Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
- About me: Never rong.
-
Contact:
Post
by mistermack » Mon Jul 22, 2013 3:06 pm
Beatsong wrote:Well, then they'd be attracted to UKIP despite the fact that UKIP's policies on this issue say the opposite of what you're claiming they're attracted to. (Mind you, it wouldn't be the first time some people formed their political allegiance that way.)
But one could make just as good an argument that the measure is designed to appeal to 30- and 40-something mothers who grew up with radical feminism (feminists being a stronger voice in anti-porn rhetoric than the aged) and would otherwise be likely to vote Labour.
I don't think Cameron would care who it attracts. The reality is that people from both sides are likely to fall for it. I'm guessing that he's aiming it mainly at the older right-wing, but he's not going to object to it influencing others when they vote.
Cameron knows that it's likely to be a waste of time, but nobody will know that, till after the election.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.
-
Hermit
- Posts: 25806
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
- About me: Cantankerous grump
- Location: Ignore lithpt
-
Contact:
Post
by Hermit » Mon Jul 22, 2013 3:50 pm
Rum wrote:Home filtering software is only partially successful. I have read a couple of reviews which indicate this and in any case many parents don't bother as they have no real idea how easily porn can be accessed on-line. . It also is pretty ineffective with slightly older kids who find ways around it pretty easily.
Given this are the cynics and same old song anti anything and everything people willing to put up with hard core porn available to our kids as easily as it is?
So, are you in favour of Cameron's government run filtering proposal?
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
-
Rum
- Absent Minded Processor
- Posts: 37285
- Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:25 pm
- Location: South of the border..though not down Mexico way..
-
Contact:
Post
by Rum » Mon Jul 22, 2013 4:51 pm
No. I don't know who has actually read the proposal - not many here from the posts above.
Basically your ISP will ask you if you want your account to opt in or opt out of the ability to access porn categorised sites. It will be up to you. If you have kids or for that matter have no desire to watch people fucking and generally diddling each others genitals then you can opt out. The same content will be out there.
-
Xamonas Chegwé
- Bouncer

- Posts: 50939
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:23 pm
- About me: I have prehensile eyebrows.
I speak 9 languages fluently, one of which other people can also speak.
When backed into a corner, I fit perfectly - having a right-angled arse.
- Location: Nottingham UK
-
Contact:
Post
by Xamonas Chegwé » Mon Jul 22, 2013 4:57 pm
Rum wrote:No. I don't know who has actually read the proposal - not many here from the posts above.
Basically your ISP will ask you if you want your account to opt in or opt out of the ability to access porn categorised sites. It will be up to you. If you have kids or for that matter have no desire to watch people fucking and generally diddling each others genitals then you can opt out. The same content will be out there.
A spokesperson on the radio said that the initial approach will be to ask ISPs to voluntarily block results for a selected list of search terms - but that legislation would be introduced if they refused. I can't see that being a huge obstacle - As we all know, there are many innocuous phrases that can return piles of pr0n!!!
There was also a ton of bullshit about "slippery slopes" from "normal" pr0n to hardcore, pædo shit. Apparently, several recent, high-profile child-murderers weren't pædos but became so by being lured into more and more salacious sites online. Complete fucking bollocks!

A book is a version of the world. If you do not like it, ignore it; or offer your own version in return.
Salman Rushdie
You talk to God, you're religious. God talks to you, you're psychotic.
House MD
Who needs a meaning anyway, I'd settle anyday for a very fine view.
Sandy Denny
This is the wrong forum for bluffing 
Paco
Yes, yes. But first I need to show you this venomous fish!
Calilasseia
I think we should do whatever Pawiz wants.
Twoflower
Bella squats momentarily then waddles on still peeing, like a horse
Millefleur
-
DaveD
- Posts: 667
- Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 1:59 pm
-
Contact:
Post
by DaveD » Mon Jul 22, 2013 5:36 pm
Xamonas Chegwé wrote:there are many innocuous phrases that can return piles of pr0n!!!
There are also innocuous, non-porn websites that get filtered out, by all the filters I've seen used. Ornithologists in particular will have problems.
-
Gawdzilla Sama
- Stabsobermaschinist
- Posts: 151265
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
- About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
- Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
-
Contact:
Post
by Gawdzilla Sama » Mon Jul 22, 2013 6:21 pm
You'll get your dirty pictures back, and then all Brits will be ...
PORN AGAIN!
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”
-
Beatsong
- Posts: 444
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:33 am
-
Contact:
Post
by Beatsong » Mon Jul 22, 2013 9:27 pm
rEvolutionist wrote:It should be an opt-in thing. If it actually would work (which I'm dubious of), then I'd have no problem with the gov providing that service. But inflicting their conservative morals on the whole of society without making it easy to opt-out of is ridiculous.
But it is easy to opt out of. You just have to tick a box.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests