S E X Kills UK League of Legends Updates Thanks To Porn Filter
- Thread starter Karloff
- Start date
This is a waste of time and money.
If you can and want to access porn, you probably have the know how to 1) download add ons and 2) Get round the filter. The only thing this stops does is waste peoples time. They tried a similar tactic with the pirate bay a few years back. The pirate bay's main site is blocked but proxies still work. This thing is ridiculous and a waste of tax payer money.
If you can and want to access porn, you probably have the know how to 1) download add ons and 2) Get round the filter. The only thing this stops does is waste peoples time. They tried a similar tactic with the pirate bay a few years back. The pirate bay's main site is blocked but proxies still work. This thing is ridiculous and a waste of tax payer money.
Fucking willfully ignorant, reactionary, childlike, unrealistic pricks...
"Who cares about all the violence and death our children are exposed to, just don't let them see a tit. It would probably destroy their pure innocent minds."
Bah, the biggest strength of democracy is also its biggest drawback; the fact that anyone has the right to let his or her voice be heard. Bring back despotism, please. (Not really)
"Who cares about all the violence and death our children are exposed to, just don't let them see a tit. It would probably destroy their pure innocent minds."
Bah, the biggest strength of democracy is also its biggest drawback; the fact that anyone has the right to let his or her voice be heard. Bring back despotism, please. (Not really)
Here in the UK, one of our daily newspapers features a topless woman on page three, something which would cause a meltdown if any american newspaper tried it. We're so much more uptight, aren't we?Vareoth said:
I doubt that anybody in power did.JoJo said:
It was just a cynical measure used to win over the parent vote for next years elections. By making it seem as though they are "protecting the children" they will get a lot of parents (mostly ones who know nothing about the internet) think the government cares about such things.
A little like the Gay Marriage law really. I completely support Gay Marriage, but the fact the Conservatives of all groups came up with it and a lot of them were extremely angry about it, I sincerely doubt it was put through for any other reason than to win votes.
I wasn't talking about any country in particular. Don't feel offended. I was raging on the people who believe the human body is more vile than anything else.Windknight said:
Also, I live in the Netherlands. From my point of view every country in the world is more uptight than us (except maybe the northern European countries).
I see people have already mentioned Scunthorpe, but did you know that it's already lent its name to exactly this kind of situation? It's called the Scunthorpe problem [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scunthorpe_problem].
The funniest part about this is the fact that two days ago (20/1/14) a former chief-examiner came into our college(sixth form) and was hosting a talk about essay writing.
In one of the example questions that he walked us through, he listed pornography as a disadvantage of the internet, because he is paranoid that if his children mess about on his pc they will stumble upon a porn site/pornographic content.
It's people like him who caused the filter to happen, because the people that support this are too inept to use the already available (as in, native to windows platforms) parental filters.
Besides, kids will stumble upon it sooner or later, and it isn't good when kids are exposed to sex, but the block is still ridiculous, no, fuck putting in an initiative to make parents more responsible, or even just making a website as to how parents can "protect"(or rather guide through)their children from the internet.
No, they will try to regulate it, which does not stop them from banning even more things.
Like introducing a PG-13 filter...
Oh God, those would be the end times.
But, at the very least, thank god that it is semi-optional(you can just call your ISP and ask them to remove it).
However, the filter still doesn't deal with the the larger social problem at hand: those parents who suggest/support this filter are likely people who are not involved in their kids lives, instead of guiding them as they grow up, telling them, yes these things exist, but also telling them how they are not representative of real life, etc. you know talking with them, they will instead want to dodge responsibility by introducing filters such as these.
Kids will discover sex at some point in their lives, but it will not be as early as those parents think they will: those kinds of ads are not rampant, and if you just find sites that you approve of for your kids to explore, work up a rapport, set up guidelines, etc. you know, act like a parent then you won't have problems with your kids discovering sex at an early age.
In one of the example questions that he walked us through, he listed pornography as a disadvantage of the internet, because he is paranoid that if his children mess about on his pc they will stumble upon a porn site/pornographic content.
It's people like him who caused the filter to happen, because the people that support this are too inept to use the already available (as in, native to windows platforms) parental filters.
Besides, kids will stumble upon it sooner or later, and it isn't good when kids are exposed to sex, but the block is still ridiculous, no, fuck putting in an initiative to make parents more responsible, or even just making a website as to how parents can "protect"(or rather guide through)their children from the internet.
No, they will try to regulate it, which does not stop them from banning even more things.
Like introducing a PG-13 filter...
Oh God, those would be the end times.
But, at the very least, thank god that it is semi-optional(you can just call your ISP and ask them to remove it).
However, the filter still doesn't deal with the the larger social problem at hand: those parents who suggest/support this filter are likely people who are not involved in their kids lives, instead of guiding them as they grow up, telling them, yes these things exist, but also telling them how they are not representative of real life, etc. you know talking with them, they will instead want to dodge responsibility by introducing filters such as these.
Kids will discover sex at some point in their lives, but it will not be as early as those parents think they will: those kinds of ads are not rampant, and if you just find sites that you approve of for your kids to explore, work up a rapport, set up guidelines, etc. you know, act like a parent then you won't have problems with your kids discovering sex at an early age.
Yes, of course I mean that his support of such an irrational and illiberal law was a betrayal - I don't see how I could think otherwise.elvor0 said:
Its not parents - its the government censoring internet.Fat_Hippo said:
welcome to dumb parent thinking 101.loa said:
The problem is, majority of parents arent actually fit to be parents, but we need to keep raising that population dont we?
i guess you never looked at the advertisement for the more shady websites, did you?Kmadden2004 said:
and thats why parents dont just drop them and leave. instead they explain the world and tell them how to make informed decisions. they have 18 years to teach their children that. Hiding the world from the children however does nothing to further the progress of them being able to understand it and react to it properly.Emanuele Ciriachi said:
Checks linkBuzz Killington said:
Yep, already a mention of this issue with the "Great Pornwall of Britain."
Here's hoping that you elect a party with than half a brain to share between them next time UK.
Cant tell if troll or being sarcastic or serious... *grimace*, fuck it I'll bite if it's the 3rd option.Emanuele Ciriachi said:
Allowing gay marriage ain't Ill-liberal. You may not /agree/ with it but to call it Ill-liberal...well I'd check what liberal means. Cos it don't mean depriving people of personal freedoms.
Of course I will do that. I do, however, reserve the right to choose how gradual their exposition to the world is going to be.Strazdas said:
You guessed right, it's the third option.elvor0 said:
It is illiberal, because you are giving additional rights (some of which of economic nature) to two citizens simply (I guess) out of their mutual affection, but you are denying the same rights to more than two people in the same situation.
Or to blood relatives.
If two men can marry, despite having no biological ability to reproduce (which some argue is the government's stake in heterosexual marriage) and without having both genders represented as role models in the household (which others argue is the government's stake in heterosexual marriage), then certainly two men and a woman can marry.
If you truly are egalitarian, you must allow the same privileges to all citizens at the same condition - homosexual "marriage" is discriminatory toward polygamist unions, polyandrous unions, and yes, even relationships between close relatives.
On top of that you are considering such unions on the same level of those that benefit society with their children: the (potential) contribution of new individuals that traditional marriage can provide is the practical reason of those rights, rights that individual citizens that pay their taxes and are otherwise valued members of society don't enjoy.
Finally, if you allow me a tint of (constructive) sarcasm, I didn't see the tidal wave of raging flames that you had foreseen in your first post; it seems that other posters are not particularly shocked at the sight of an independent thought.
That is an...unexpected counter argument. I was expecting your point to be purely anti gay, if you'll extend me some curtsey, is understandable? Thus I retract my earlier disdainful attitude; what we have here is actually a point of discussion which I feel needs more coverage.Emanuele Ciriachi said:
On the last point first, eh it's a pretty small thread to be honest. Maybe I could only be the one bothered to answer to attempt to discuss it.
Ignoring the fact that polygamist/androus unions arn't allowed in almost every western country(for the moment), the blood relative point just sounds like the slippery slope argument of "What's to stop me marrying my son for tax reasons?" argument. Obviously two men can't reproduce, but the incest laws are there for a reason, and you have to draw the line somewhere. It's way too much of a cluster fuck to start allowing incest marriage, but only to gay couples, and making sure Mother and Son don't start breeding.
It's not discriminating against the poly relationships, because they're not allowed in the first place. Can't discriminate against something that doesn't exist. Not that I actually disagree with Poly relationships myself, I think if 3 or more people get on and are happy to do so, fucking go for it. Obviously there should be some sort of limit, but otherwise I don't mind the idea. I mean heck, the guy who invented Wonder Woman was him and 2 women, who all loved each other. I'm not even entirely opposed to the idea of incest relationships, if people really want to swing that way, not for me, but as long as they don't breed, do what you want.
Furthermore, one could argue(myself included) that gay people not being able to reproduce isn't actually a bad thing. There are far more people on the planet than is necessary or sustainable, and if gay people can marry each other, along with the western world being far more relaxed and accepting of their lifestyle, they don't feel pressured to marry into a Hetro relationship and put out kids for the sake of cover or acceptance. On that note, if gay people shouldn't be allowed the same rights because they can't reproduce, do you start cutting rights from hetro couples if they don't have children after X amount of years? There are /far/ too many of us, anything that cuts down the population growth is golden in my books.
Thanks for your comment, I appreciate your attitude. While indeed there are fanatical people with irrational arguments among those that share my sentiment, that doesn't mean that there aren't also good reasons grounded in equality to oppose SSM.elvor0 said:
Polygamic union are disallowed for cultural reasons and, to a degree, to promote the equal role of both genders in a union, while still maintaing the potential to procreate (not to mention, divorce laws would be a nightmare if you allow n-way marriage). I have no objections to extend marriage benefits to such unions willing to start a family, as long as it's consensual.
But this is beside the point. The main point is:
"For which practical reasons you allow some citizens to get additional benefits?"
Certainly, just because you love someone and that person returns the feeling, you shouldn't be entitled to any taxpayers' dough. Because if you did, then yeah, I would totally marry my son just to relieve him of any heritage shenanigans.
But what about the marriage that we already have then? Because obviously, the reason marriage enjoys its benefits it's because those are a counterweight to the hardships and cost to raise children. This is the rationale behind providing a married coupled with residence permit if one is a foreigner, so that they can live together; and in some case also with reversibility of the pension in case one dies prematurely, so that the family can at least benefit from the welfare of the missing parent.
This is a perfectly logical reason to allow additional rights, one grounded in practicality.
Now, consider that just one generation ago people didn't have access to contraceptives, thus pretty much every married couple had children, unless they were sterile. Today you can decide freely when and if having them, hence I believe that the notion of automatic rights simply for living together should be rethinked, in the interest of fairness.
And of course, for the above reasons, extending those rights to same-sex unions, but ONLY if they are comprised of two individuals is a pretty silly idea in my book.
There is more, but I don't want to lengthen my core argument unnecessarily.
That is a very compelling argument. The point about it being for the sake of offsetting the cost of child raising has never occurred to me before now, (I'm 22 and neither me or my girlfriend want children, so y'know, never really considered /why/ things are that way, they just were, as far as I was concerned, don't know why, but yeah seems bloody obvious now that you mention it) I agree with almost your entire post. You'd never get people to agree to it though, people'd be up in arms about losing their tax breaks, a change that massive'd never get through the House of Commons ><Emanuele Ciriachi said:
I feel like I need to think of some ridiculous straw man now. This is the internet. People don't change their views on the internet.
However with the system being the way it is at the moment, it's fair for SSM marriages to enjoy the same benefits as Hetro ones, just because there's nothing forcing them to have kids either. But you are right in saying that the system maybe is in need of a change up. You'd have to set it to only allow tax breaks once they /have/ children, whether that be naturally, IVF, or adoption, the latter 2 still allowing SSM couples to take advantage.
I'm sure eventually Poly-relationships will eventually be legal and we can work out a whole new utopian society. I mean Stephen Fry says it's cool. Just get him to be the spokesperson for it, no one's going to agree with Stephen Fry. (Skip to 1:19 because I can't get the damn time thingy to work)